The WIDE World Web
Imagining a High-Value Writing Program
September 22, 2009 - by Jeff Grabill, from the blogs Jeff's Blog, WIDE World Web
In this second installment of WIDE’s idea documents that take up challenges to and opportunities for writing programs, Jeff Grabill addresses a range of issues that writing programs might consider as they adjust to the new economies of higher education. Grabill attempts to work back and forth between the general and the specific, but as with Julie Lindquist’s document on possible relationships between writing programs and English Education, this piece is situated within the case of the writing program at Michigan State.
We hope that you will interact with these ideas. At the end of this piece, you will have an opportunity to push comments via Facebook Connect. If you are logged in to Facebook, your comments will show up in Facebook and here on our website (you can login below). You can also Tweet thoughts as well. Want to do this old-school? Please email Jeff Grabill at grabill@msu.edu and this feedback will be aggregated and made available at a later date.
by Jeff Grabill
Given that the political economy of universities has been changing for some time and has, most recently, changed in a visibly dramatic way, new models for writing programs are now required. The first year writing course is fundamental to the general education requirements of nearly every US university, and so any significant restructuring of the university will almost certainly entail changes in writing instruction. But more importantly, writing is fundamental to engaged learning and essential for work and citizenship, and so the need for writing instruction is growing. The current moment is an opportunity for understanding the value of writing programs in new institutional forms.
I begin with one assumption: that given the new economy, writing programs can no longer do everything that we have done in the past in the way that we have done them because the significant decline in public resources for education has put real boundaries on what is possible. The most common impulse in this situation is to begin thinking in terms of scarcity. We are working within boundaries, but there is very little scarcity with respect to need or opportunity. I also begin with one claim, and that claim is that it is difficult to speak in the abstract about “writing programs,” although that is the mode for many disciplinary discussions. To counter that, I will situate as much of my thinking as possible within the context of how I understand the scene at Michigan State University as an instance of one type of US institution and one writing program.
Given that, let me begin by questioning the basic function and focus of most writing programs as a (nearly) exclusive focus—first year writing. In doing so, I am not suggesting an abandonment of first year writing or a lessening of its importance. Quite the opposite. High quality first year writing instruction is essential to high quality undergraduate education. But first year writing is not the only function of a writing program. Furthermore, given the constraints we face, perhaps it is no longer possible or desirable for a given university to attempt to meet the first year writing needs of each and every one of its students and so concentrate its attention in this way. The impetus for such a claim is clearly financial, but I will endeavor to make an intellectual case that I believe to be more important.
We think of our writing programs much as we think of our universities—as islands unto themselves. This is particularly true at research-intensive and “flagship” institutions, which operate, from the viewpoint of faculty at least, as self-contained universes. But each university is situated within a system of post secondary education, even if we don’t see this or understand it very well. Students and parents do see the system, however. They see it as a set of options for meeting their educational goals, and they make choices according to a set of variables. The two variables that I want to focus on here are cost and value. Students have to make cost and value decisions all the time with respect to education. What can they afford? What is the value of a degree, institution, or class? With respect to first year writing, most students see it as a low value class, something that they must take and that they would much rather manage at the lowest cost possible—testing out, using AP credit, and so on. We make this cost-driven option possible through the articulation agreements that enable students take a lower cost course at another institution for credit at our institution.
It is reasonable to assume that a number of MSU students, for example, will continue to choose a lower cost option and take their first year writing course at another location in the system of higher education. For a writing program at an institution like Michigan State University, this becomes a significant issue given the economic conditions that are likely to persist. MSU is not a low cost institution. It is probably structurally impossible to be cheap, and even if cheap were possible at MSU, the outcomes of cheap are likely to be poor. For programs at institutions like MSU to be viable in the future, they must compete on value (every writing program in the country will likely need to decide--explicitly--if they will compete on cost or value—or more accurately in terms of some cost-value ratio).
Given these cost and resource constraints, a writing program must make decisions about where best to invest limited resources—where we can deliver the highest value, make the biggest impact with respect to writing improvement? If we consider the fact that some of our value is to be found in functions additional to first year writing, we might nudge students inclined to make a low-cost decision by limiting their ability to take first year writing at MSU. We simply don’t attempt to meet demand understood as the total number of incoming MSU students who still need to meet the first year writing requirement. The first year course becomes more of a scarce resource (certainly during the regular academic year; MSU needs to utilize summer and online instruction more effectively--we are inefficient). This approach only makes sense, however, if we have a compelling answer to the question of value. We must be able to show convincingly what we do better than anyone else, particularly our lower cost competitors and partners, and how we enhance education on our own campus.
This is why the question of value is the single most important question that a writing program must answer.
Having said all this, let me make another claim: the value proposition for the writing program at institution like MSU is not—and should not be—limited to first year writing. That is, significant value to the core mission of writing improvement exists in other forms and functions, and it is to these issues that I turn next.
Research
A writing program at a research institution should be a research program. The primary value that we provide to the institution, to the discipline, and to the world at large is research. The history of composition studies has been marked by the tension between service and teaching, with most writing programs resisting the perception that they are fundamentally service units for the university. At some institutions, the writing program should be valued for such service; at others the value might reside in pedagogical excellence. At a research institution, a writing program should produce knowledge that transforms how we understand writing, the teaching of writing, and the ways that individuals and groups develop into more effective writers.
I understand this claim to be radical because it entails a shift in how those who work in a writing program understand themselves and their work. We become not a teaching program that does some research but a research program that helps students develop as writers. It means that the program must identify some strategic goals for research, support certain research programs over time, and collaborate and coordinate work among and across faculty and students.
A shift like this is essential, I believe, to the value of a writing program in a research university that wishes to be excellent and to deliver clear value to its stakeholders. Let me make a stronger claim: we have an obligation to research because we have an obligation to provide evidence-based instruction. We should be better teachers. Our students should become more effective writers.
Writing Across the Curriculum and in the Disciplines
For those of us in rhetoric and composition and associated with writing programs, writing across the curriculum (WAC) and writing in the disciplines (WID) are powerful concepts and vexed programs. At MSU, we have a writing in the major requirement known as Tier II, and it is notoriously weak. We might call it “random” in how it is understood and implemented. The promises and problems of these initiatives are well-understood, and I have no desire to rehearse them here. Instead, I want to discuss a model that we have developed at the WIDE (Writing in Digital Environments) Research Center that brings together some of the issues raised in this document and that presents some interesting possibilities.
In collaboration with The Eli Broad College of Business, the WIDE Research Center developed, implemented, and evaluated experimental business communication courses during the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 academic years. The central idea of this initiative was to improve business communication by
• Focusing on how teams write (and how individuals write as part of teams)
• Focusing on key communication tasks: proposing, reporting, and relationship building (both within teams and with external audiences)
We sought to solve two problems. The first is an intellectual problem of how to understand business communication. Our decision to focus on three rhetorical tasks is, we believe, powerful and transformative, in part because it is rather obvious. The second problem is a curricular and institutional problem. At most US universities, the business writing course often fulfills the business school’s WAC/WID requirement and suffers from typical problems: it is a required course and so has a significant footprint in the curriculum with meaningful resource implications; it is a course that demands expertise outside of the core expertise of the school; it is not highly valued because it falls outside the core expertise of the school. These three problems can be found across departments, colleges, and schools attempting to implement effective vertical writing instruction.
Our response was to develop modular, case-based short courses built around the three rhetorical tasks. These courses were delivered as 1 credit experiences (lasting 5 weeks each). Just as importantly, the total number of instructional hours were such that we could easily offer these modules as part of a weekend program or similar package to meet the needs of lifelong learners (see below). It is significant as well that this project was designed as a research project with instructional deliverables. As a part of that research project, we designed and tested supporting instructional technology. We also developed and tested assessment metrics and tools to provide both formative and summative assessment of communication ability, and our results show that these courses were successful. Students became better writers.
This is a model worth thinking about, particularly in the context of a reflection on the value of a writing program to any given university. If we consider the possibility that fewer resources be spent on the first year course, we consider that possibility because it is of value to dedicate some of those resources to providing focused, high impact writing instruction later in a student’s experience on campus. As every writing professional understands, it is absurd to think that 15-30 weeks of writing instruction is sufficient, but it is not necessarily an issue of the amount of instruction that is the problem but rather when it happens, how learning is reinforced, and how complex skills are refined over time.
What this model suggests is the possibility for a new partnership between the writing program and departments, programs, and colleges that wish to collaborate on designing, implementing, and assessing writing instruction for their students. The model we developed for Broad is intellectually flexible, and so it can be redesigned for other implementations. The assessment practices are similarly flexible. But most importantly, because the writing program is a research program, the problems associated with new collaborations become research problems to be solved and shared.
Lifelong Learning
Writing is difficult, as is learning to write. Learning to write is a lifelong learning activity, yet few writing programs see supporting lifelong learning in writing as core to their mission. It is true that within the system of post-secondary education, there are a number of institutions that see this as their core market. This is a business opportunity for them. And given my statements about systems and markets, I do not think that every writing program needs to understand itself as serving the needs of lifelong learners. However, it is a powerful idea to understand the writing program at an institution like MSU as a partner in lifelong learning in writing. It creates a new relationship between the university and the people it serves.
For instance, thinking about this opportunity has led WIDE to reconsider what constitutes a writing class, where it can happen, and who the participants might be. If we only think of 15 week writing classes taught in schools, then we miss these opportunities. But a writing program can offer a suite of services, both face to face and online, to meet the writing needs of learners. We can make our writing centers available in new ways. Currently there are for-profit providers of online writing labs in the marketplace, and they make money. There is a market for this service. We can provide writing courses based on the 5 week (10 instructional hours) model that we developed with the Broad College of Business. We can leverage social software to support informal learning arrangements of people and groups interested in improving their writing. We can add value to informal learning by providing software platforms, evaluation tools, and learning support. We can do these and any number of other things as a writing program if we value engagement with lifelong learners and can articulate our value to these learners.
Values and New Models
The new economy of higher education means that writing programs and their departments cannot nickel and dime their way to solvency, let alone excellence. Viewing the economic problems that face us in terms of scarcity and focusing on “cuts” as the only solution is a sure way to do lasting damage to a writing program. In a worst case scenario, such tactics lead to programs, departments, and universities “eating their seed corn” and inflicting permanent harm. The more common result of such an approach is damage that takes a generation to repair.
This is intolerable, but it is also unnecessary.
At Michigan State University, I am arguing, the solution is in developing a new model for how we understand ourselves, for how we deliver writing instruction, and for how we understand our relationship with our college and university. That model must be based on values: what we understand our values to be as researchers and teachers, and based on that, what value we add to the student experience and to the university community.
Toward a fuller articulation of those values and that model, I have offered here the following possibilities:
• That the value of the writing program is located in the fact that it is a research program that produces research and forms of intellectual property that have market value
• That the value of the writing program is located in its ability to provide evidence-based instruction in writing
• That the value of the writing program is a function of the fact that it can be flexibly deployed to meet the needs of learners and programs when and where they need it, both in the curriculum and across the lifespan
• And that, finally, a writing program must think about where it can best impact the learning of writing on any given campus and focus its talent and resources on those key moments and places
Of course, the writing program that I have described here is not the writing program at Michigan State University, but it certainly could be. Quickly. More generally, I wonder how these pressures and possibilities reflect both local conditions and disciplinary concerns. That is, given how dramatically rhetoric and composition has changed in the last twenty years, what will rhetoric and composition become in the next twenty?
A Vision for English Education
September 17, 2009 - by Jeff Grabill, from the blogs Jeff's Blog, WIDE World Web
WIDE recently announced that we were interested in generating and sharing a set of idea documents that proposed innovative approaches to a set of writing program issues that took into consideration the severe economic conditions that higher education must navigate over the next many years and our best thinking for how to structure compelling, world-class programs given these economic conditions. These idea documents are intended to raise issues of general concern by exploring the particulars of our own scene here at MSU. This is a tall order, and we will do our best to avoid the purely local but rather use our context as a heuristic for thinking about issues that we believe that many of us face.
In this first paper, WIDE has asked Julie Lindquist to think aloud about the problem of English Education in relation to rhetoric and composition. In this idea document, she takes up the problem of how best to prepare English teachers for the challenges of teaching in a world shaped at the same time by narrow conceptions of literacy (via high stakes testing) and open notions of literacy (e.g., new literacies and multi-modality).
We hope that you will interact with these ideas. At the end of this piece, you will have an opportunity to push comments via Facebook Connect. If you are logged in to Facebook, your comments will show up in Facebook and here on our website (you can login below). You can also Tweet thoughts as well. Want to do this old-school? Please email Jeff Grabill at grabill@msu.edu and this feedback will be aggregated and made available at a later date.
By Julie Lindquist
Introduction
What follows is a vision statement for English Education at MSU that is motivated by two things: 1) an understanding (grounded in current research) that that the demands for language and literacy instruction are changing and that the education of teachers charged with delivering that instruction must change accordingly; and 2) the conviction that MSU is well positioned to create a model of what English Education for the new century should look like. This vision statement is shaped both by constraint and opportunity. As is detailed below, the education of English teachers, both undergraduate and returning professionals, must change to meet the needs of a new era. This is the opportunity. The constraint is how to do this at a time of resource limits and within an institution (the university) where changing established practices is difficult, even when those practices are no longer optimal (or even viable). We see great promise for rhetoric and composition’s ability to help transform English and language arts instruction in US schools.
We know that a twenty-first century English Education program must be responsive to various contexts in which teaching and learning take place and where the outcomes of education are high-stakes. As the needs of learners in these contexts make clear, the communication imperatives of new century make instruction in English more important than ever, yet the teaching of English and the training of English teachers has not changed significantly for some time. A new approach to English Education therefore needs to be calibrated to the professional needs of its target audience, responsive to changing student demographics, and attentive to community needs.
Over the past few years, a good deal of work has been done at MSU to imagine what such a program might look like—for example, by faculty from English, Writing and Rhetoric, and teacher Education working as part of the Literacy Team on behalf of the Teachers for a New Era (TNE) Initiative. Recommendations from that work were the result of six years of careful study of current practice, current research and scholarship, and data from existing programs, courses, and the experiences of Language Arts and English Education majors at (and graduates from) MSU. To quote from the Preface to the redesigned language arts/English Education curricula proposed by Literacy Team for the TNE Initiative, the program was revised to
re-conceptualize the language arts to reflect current theory and research on language and literacy and offer a richer experience for students than the previous requirements did. These requirements focus on both how pre-service teachers know the subject and how they experience learning in the subject. For example, these requirements focus not only on how pre-service teachers understand concepts of writing and writing instruction but also on how they understand themselves as writers and their experiences with writing.
Our proposed vision for English Education at MSU is informed by this work. Such a program would
• Reflect and deploy wider disciplinary knowledge beyond traditional English Studies, focusing in particular on research on writing and writing instruction and knowledge about discourse, rhetoric, and compositional practices.
• Respond to and engage digital literacies
• Educate teachers in pedagogically viable uses of technology
• Develop students’ understandings of literacy as something that is culturally situated and culturally variable.
• Include a robust education in writing and rhetoric, including opportunities to practice and develop writing
• Offer alternative instructional models and delivery systems for working teachers.
• Be vertically integrated with graduate programs in Critical Studies in Literacy and Pedagogy.
Each of these points is elaborated below.
English Education at MSU should reflect and deploy wider disciplinary knowledge beyond traditional English Studies, focusing in particular on research on writing and writing instruction and knowledge about discourse, rhetoric, and compositional practices.
Preparing students to be effective teachers of language and literacy for the 21st century entails working from a substantial body of disciplinary knowledge in order to inquire into the subject matter of “English” and to inform practice. The TNE recommendations include “expanded notions of literacy across modes and cultural contexts” and “more direct experience as writers and designers.” Traditionally, disciplinary ‘content’ for Eng Education majors has aligned closely with courses in literary study, criticism, and some creative writing. However, there is a vital and expanding body of knowledge about writing and learning generated by researchers and scholars in writing and rhetoric studies. English Education students should have access to this knowledge and should be introduced to writing and rhetoric studies as a site where knowledge relevant to their work as teachers is generated. .
English Education at MSU should respond to and engage multimodal, digital, and networked literacies.
Teachers need to know how to work with students whose literacies are already deeply implicated in digital environments, and for whom mediated communications define everyday practice. An English Education program for the 21st century must not ignore the kinds of reading and writing and composing that students not only are already doing, but will continue to do in multiple capacities throughout their lifetimes. It should recognize that composing occurs in multiple modes and contexts. It should include courses that invite learning about design, digital rhetoric, and visual media, as well as those that focus on the analysis and production of traditional print-based texts.
English Education at MSU should educate teachers in pedagogically viable uses of technology.
In addition to having well-developed theoretical understandings of emerging literacy practices in increasingly technologically mediated environments, teachers must also be equipped with repertoires of strategies for teaching with technology. They must also be able to assess and respond to new learning environments and the needs of learners. A viable English Education program should prepare teachers to understand the uses and affordances of various technological resources for literacy instruction. To be effective, such preparation must be both implicit and explicit in students’ experiences of the program.
English Education at MSU should encourage teachers to understand literacy as something that is culturally situated and culturally variable.
Given the widely diverse cultural and technological environments in which language and literacy practices happen, an English Education program should educate prospective teachers not only to understand that literacy is socially motivated and culturally variable, but should also encourage them to inquire into the terms and meanings of particular varieties. This entails educating teachers in the understanding that literacy travels—that it has uses, forms, and applications outside of school. Coursework should include instruction in literacy practices across communities, language structures and functions, language and cultural diversity, and language processes and contexts. It should, ideally, include opportunities to work one-on-one with diverse learners.
English Education at MSU should offer a robust education in writing and rhetoric, including opportunities to practice and develop writing
Content in rhetoric and writing theory and research must be part of the education prospective teachers of language and literacy. Moreover, this education must include literacy practices relevant to the work of teaching in addition to “content knowledge” per se. The TNE Initiative reconceived the English Education requirements to focus not only on how pre-service teachers understand concepts of writing and writing instruction but also on how they understand themselves as writers and their experiences with writing. A program that integrates theories of rhetoric and writing with rhetorical practice and experiential learning could, as an additional means of effecting such an integration, create opportunities for pre-service teachers to mentor beginning college writers.
English Education at MSU should be vertically integrated with the graduate programs in Critical Studies in Literacy and Pedagogy.
The MA program in CSLP has been recently revised to reflect the goals and values articulated here for the English Ed program. The new CSLP MA is designed for teachers who will become leaders in their professions, bringing current research and disciplinary knowledge in language, literacy, and composing to their schools and communities. It assumes that their work as professional teachers will include communications with various audiences and stakeholders (peers and colleagues, parents, school boards, administrators, and legislators), and that their work will also entail curricular design, teacher research, textbook authoring, participation in professional conferences, administration, and making decisions about policy. Those who graduate from the CSLP program will bring MSU’s vision of 21st-century English Education to schools and communities across Michigan where that vision can have immediate impact; those who graduate with PhDs in Rhetoric and Writing/CSLP Concentration will export it to programs and communities across the nation.
English Education at MSU should offer alternative instructional models and delivery systems for working teachers.
A successful English Education program will be responsive to the professional needs, contexts of practice, and work routines of teachers in order to offer learning experiences appropriate for in-service teachers. This entails offering courses at times and in formats accessible to this constituency. It should work in tandem with the professional needs not only of pre-service, but also in-service teachers (offering, for example, in summer workshops for area teachers). It should work from, through, and in response to the working lives of in-service teachers and the needs of area schools.
ATTW 2010 Call for Papers
September 8, 2009 - by Bill Hart-Davidson, from the blogs Billblog IV, WIDE World Web
ATTW 2010
Synergies: The Intersections of Research and Teaching
13th Annual Conference
March 17, 2010
Louisville, KY
The Association of Teachers of Technical Writing (ATTW) invites proposals for papers, poster presentations, and workshops to be given at its annual conference immediately preceding the CCCC. The thirteenth annual conference will be held in Louisville, KY, on Wednesday, March 17, 2010. The full-day event includes concurrent sessions, poster presentations, workshops, book exhibits, and opportunities for exchanging ideas, working on projects, and networking in a supportive and challenging academic environment.
This year's conference will highlight ways that research informs teaching and teaching informs research. It will challenge researchers, teachers, and practitioners of technical and professional communication to push beyond the generic "implications for teaching" section appended to research articles to explore the synergies and questions available when we place research and teaching into conversation.
Submissions on all topics are welcome, but we especially encourage proposals that examine topics such as the following:
* the effectiveness of established or innovative pedagogies,
* a research question sparked by an observation in the classroom,
* pedagogical experiments sparked by research findings,
* the needs of the workplace, the university, the field, or the community and ways to meet or challenge these needs in service, major, or graduate courses,
* the roles, challenges, and benefits of instructional technologies,
* the implications of existing research for the design of programs and curriculum,
* pedagogies that can be used to teach research in the university and in the workplace,
* research methods that can be used to examine pedagogies,
* the relationships between teaching and research as they play out in different contexts within our discipline,
* directions for future research on pedagogy or questions raised by classroom experiences.
Proposals, limited to 300 words, are due October 5, 2009. All proposals will be peer reviewed. We offer three formats:
1. Regular Sessions: Individuals may submit proposals for 15-minute talks that will be placed on panels by conference organizers. Groups may submit proposals for 45-minute panel presentations. To submit proposals, follow the conference links at www.attw.org after September 21, 2009.
2. Poster Presentations: Posters will be on display throughout the day with special times dedicated for conversations about this work. Follow the same process for submission as for a regular session.
3. Workshop Sessions: The conference will include two 90-minute workshops overlapping with the regular sessions. Workshops that would help newcomers integrate into our field are especially encouraged. Please submit workshop proposals directly to Summer Taylor (slsmith@clemson.edu).
For additional information, contact the conference chair, Summer Taylor at Clemson University (slsmith@clemson.edu). New teachers of technical and professional communication are particularly invited to attend the conference, as are graduate students and CCCC attendees interested in technical and professional communication.
Dr. Summer Taylor
Director, Masters in Professional Communication Program
Director, Advanced Writing Program
Associate Professor
English Department
610 Strode Tower
Clemson University
Clemson, SC 29634
864-656-6689
Archive 2.0 Project Wraps Startup Phase, Whitepaper Published
September 4, 2009 - by Bill Hart-Davidson, from the blogs The Samaritan Archive Blog, WIDE World Web
With the submission and publication of a whitepaper entitled "Archive 2.0: Imagining The Michigan State UniversityIsraelite Samaritan Scroll Collection as the Foundation for a Thriving Social Network," the Archive 2.0 project team officially wrapped up the startup phase of their efforts today. Jim Ridolfo, graduate of Michigan State University's Rhetoric & Writing program and Assistant Professor at the University of Cincinnati is the lead author of the report. Mike McLeod and Bill Hart-Davidson from WIDE are also authors on the report. 
The whitepaper is one of the deliverables required by the National Endowment for the Humanities Office of Digital Humanities, the agency that provided funding for the initial phase of work on the project. The whitepaper reports on the project's origins and the history of both the Samaritan people and the collection of texts at the center of the project as well as the activities that took place over the nine month period of funding in 2008-09.
The paper notes that the title of the project - Archive 2.0 - is "more than simply adding the technological affordances of Web 2.0 to atraditional archive" it is also an opportunity for "reconsidering the very nature of anarchive, both what it is and what it does." Ridolfo, McLeod, & Hart-Davidson lay out recommendations for what Archive 2.0 projects should aspire to, including
- consent from cultural stakeholder communities
- engagement with cultural stakeholder communities (when applicable)
- community-centered design in addition to user-centered design
- broad interdisciplinary collaboration with area specialists,special collections, university archivists, and usability/designexperts
- active use of the archive as a communications tool to establish new extra-institutional relationships
- a Sustainable Metadata Ecology