This article describes how teaching in a second-year undergraduate stylistics workshop was transformed in my attempt to increase student attendance and engagement, and the strategies that were put in place to achieve this outcome. The personal account describes how I changed my teaching pedagogy to facilitate learning through collaborative strategies and how I evaluated the impact this had on student learning using action research (Bradbury, 2015 (ed) The SAGE Handbook of Action Research. London: SAGE) as the investigative approach. Using the model of Plan-Act-Observe-Reflect process (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988 The Action Research Planner. 3rd edn. Geelong: Deakin University Press) and with data from a short questionnaire given to students, I was able to gain a deeper understanding of the value of the activities as perceived by students. The flipped classroom, where materials were given to students in advance to prepare, became critical for participation in the workshop and allowed for classroom time to be optimised for discussion and feedback. This article also presents photographs of the stylistic analysis produced on whiteboards as part of the collaborative activities with a summary of responses by students to the questionnaire which evaluated the impact that this approach to teaching had on their learning, confidence and preparation for the assessment.
The question of whether it is possible to 'tell the same story twice' has been explored in work on conversational narratives, which has set out to understand the existence of some kind of 'underlying semantic structure ' and 'script' (Polanyi, 1981). In conversational narratives, 'local occasioning' and 'recipient design' (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson, 1974) are factors that determine the form and function of the story. Here, ongoing talk frames the narrative while other participants provide a ready made audience, all of which, form part of the storytelling process. What happens, however, when a survivor of 7/7* whose personal narrative was reported globally on the day of the event, is again interviewed two and a half years later for their experience of that morning? Is the 'same story' retold? Specifically, how far does the latest story replicate the experience and events of the first and which of the prototypical features of a personal narrative -at the level of both the macrostructure and microstructure -remain constant? By comparing both interviews and using Labov and Waletzky's (1967) narrative framework as the central model for analysis, it is possible to see whether events within the complicating action or features of evaluation remain the most memorable, that is, they are recalled in the second telling as important aspects of the experience, and may be seen to be core narrative categories. While findings show that both narratives are comparable in form, a closer investigation finds compelling differences as well as unexpected linguistic choices. Not only has the second narrative become informed by other, external narratives to become part of a broader, mediated narrative but various discourse strategies of 'dissociation' in both interviews have resulted in a retelling of a traumatic experience that appears to be closer to an eye witness report than a personal narrative. Moreover, this blurring of two distinct genres of storytelling provides a true insight of how the narrator positions himself inside this terrible experience.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.