While exploring applications for Voyant, I wanted to try out how visualization could function as a composition revision tool.

For this series of visualizations, I worked with three versions of my teaching philosophy in preparation for my GI application documents. The goal for this visualization was to map how much I am using the terms that ground my teaching philosophy: Literature, Writing/Composition, Experience, and Pedagogy.

For each version, I have provided the visualization maps of Literature + Writing (+ later Composition) + Pedagogy + Experience.

Version 1 of Teaching Philosophy
Frequency of Literature, Writing, and Pedagogy

Analysis:

This compiled visualization shows us that while there are inter-weaving waves, there are “flat” spots where word frequencies drop completely or remain stagnant. My goal for this text is to showcase my pedagogy and knowledge in a form that reflects its complete connectivity and fluidity. I want “literature” and “writing” to show up together both in frequency, which shows my balanced dedication to both, and also in location with one another, as I am a firm advocate of the reading-writing connection.)

The goal for this correlation is to have each term applied in the same relative frequency as well as have waves intersect and overlap in order to showcase how the three of these terms function within my pedagogy.

Here, we see that my discussion of writing has a greater space in my philosophy. Literature does not reach the same frequency, but increases near the end of the essay, apart from writing.

Pedagogy also flatlines between 5 and 8, when I am discussing writing and literature within the essay.

Based on my goals for this philosophy, the waves between 3-6 should therefore be the target pattern for the entire essay. Each term is interconnected, balanced in frequency, and overlapping.

Teaching Philosophy Version 2
Frequency of Literature, Writing, Composition, Pedagogy, and Experience

Analysis:

Composition + Experience have been added to the frequency mapping. A major part of my pedagogy is the learning experience as a whole, and I wanted to showcase that visually in this chart as well as in my statement. Composition is used interchangeably with Writing. I did not use “Composition” in my first version and have added it to this frequency map, instead.

While areas 2-4 have points of intersection between writing/composition and literature, it still does not reflect their connection within my pedagogy.

Instead of inter-weaving waves with relatively equal frequencies, I have three large and separated waves: Composition, Experience, Literature. With this revision, I have improved their frequency and fluidity between one another, but there is obvious space that needs connected.

From 1-2, pedagogy and experience overlap. This is the goal that I would like to accomplish with each of these key terms throughout the essay. Additionally, from 5-6 before pedagogy stabilizes, there is a positive and similar correlation between pedagogy and experience–one builds the other. This is what I am looking for the graph to more fully represent with the next version.

Teaching Philosophy Version 3
Frequency of Literature, Composition, Writing, Pedagogy, and Experience

Analysis:
Voila! I did it.

This visualization displays how fluid each of these key terms of my philosophy have been integrated with statement content. Since the crux of my personal pedagogy is balanced and recursive (as in reflective-reactive), it only makes sense that the visualization reflects that in terms of frequency patterns (the waves) and intersections of the key terms of my philosophy. This visualization of those terms is visibly more balanced, as terms weave between each other, repeat correlations, continually layer on top of one another, and create a variety of frequency waves with multiple term pairings.

Points of Reflection:

1. It is important to know the writing that is being revised. For example, my rationale for why I did not pair pedagogy with my student + classroom mapping would have altered the frequency patterns in a way that does not complement the content of the statement.

2. With this revision process, I would correlate the word frequency with content. It is important to recognize that just because there is a high frequency doesn’t mean the writing is really “saying” anything. It is necessary to work recursively with the visualization, the numbers, and the work, itself. (i.e., if students were to use this tool, a general “find and replace” would change the frequencies, but not the pattern of ideas/narrative.)

3. For this analysis, the frequency count between the three versions does not hold value for this revision. An additional revision goal was to truncate this essay into one page. As a result, the word counts for each of the versions will decrease, which does not reflect a loss of focus, as it possibly would if I were to have kept the same page limit as version 1.