Author Archives: J. Elizabeth Clark

About J. Elizabeth Clark

Thanks to Rakka at http://www.flickr.com/photos/rakka/123380632 for my gravatar image, "Binary Easter Egg." Awesome photo!

Basic Writing at CCCC 2017

Screenshot 2017-03-10 10.23.38

Here’s the 2017 quick guide to CCCC sessions on basic writing, developmental writing, and ALP. The following sessions are full panels devoted to these topics  or have a presentation on a panel.

Wednesday, 15 March 2017

W.07 Implementing Long-Term Changes to Basic Writing Programs in Local Contexts

All day pre-conference workshop hosted by the Council on Basic Writing 

Thursday, 16 March 2017

A.04 Emerging Voices in Basic Writing Studies (10:30-11:45 a.m. / Portland Ballroom 255)

A.26 Accelerating Developmental English at Atlantic Cape: The Triad Model (10:30-11:45 a.m. / D-135)

A.37 Cultivating Accessibility & Inclusion through Disability Pedagogy & Universal Design

 (10:30-11:45 a.m. / C-126)

B Poster Session: Taking It to the Streets: Developing Activist Teacher Responses to Basic Writing Placement Processes
 (12:15-1:30 p.m. / Portland Ballroom Lobby)

B.12 “Between Belongingness & Otherness”: Identity, Writing Workshops & the New Demographic (12:15-1:30 p.m. / D-131)

B.19 Reading, Writing & the Identities of Basic Writers (12:15-1:30 p.m. / A-109)

B.35 Implementing Directed Self-Placement (DSP) at Different Contexts: The Struggles & Successes
 (12:15-1:30 p.m. / D-133)

B.37 Re-Placing Literacy: Cultivating Spaces for Alternative Literacies in the Writing Classroom
 (12:15-1:30 p.m. / A-107)

C.11 Cultivating Continuity Across Community College Writing Contexts: A Threshold Concept at the Intersection of ALP, ESL, FYC & Literature (1:45-3:00 p.m. / D-131)

 C.44 Basic Writing Gone, Placement Broken: Reinventing Assessment & Instruction in the Anti-Remediation Era (1:45-3:00 p.m. / A-105)

D.09 Alternative Connections to Basic Writers (3:15-4:30 p.m. / A-109)

D.48 Cultivating Change from the Ground Up: Models for Grassroots Curricular Assessment
 (3:15-4:30 p.m. / E-144)

D.51 Cultivating Writing Students’ States of Mind (3:15-4:30 p.m. / E-125)

D.54 The Politics of Belief in Student Capacity: How Three California Community Colleges Initiated the California Model of Corequisite Composition

 (3:15-4:30 p.m. / D-131)

E.41 Stretching Against the Grain: Blended Stretch in the 21st Century (4:45-6:00 p.m. / B-118)

TSIG.01 Council of Basic Writing SIG: Collaboration, Community, Caucusing (6:30-7:30 p.m. / B-111) 

Friday, 17 March 2017

 F.28 ALP at Ten: A Decade Retrospective of the Accelerated Learning Program at the Community College of Baltimore County

 (8:00-9:15 a.m. / D-136)

F.40 Placement & Assessment in Basic Writing: ALP, L2 & WAC (8:00-9:15 a.m. / A-109)

G.16 Sponsoring Civic Engagement & Activism at the Two-Year College (9:30-10:45 a.m. / E-144)

G.20 Basic Writing Redesign: Cultivating Student Growth & Faculty Collaboration (9:30-10:45 a.m. / C-124)

H Poster Session: Researching Basic Writing: Cultivating Multiple Measures Placement (11:00-12:15 p.m. / Portland Ballroom Lobby)

H.29 Composition as Place-Making: Critically Cultivating Place (11:00-12:15 p.m. / D-133)

H.31 Haunted by (Linguistic) Difference: Perceptions of Authority in the Classroom & Writing Center
 (11:00-12:15 p.m. / C-124)

H.44 Hearing Them Out: Understanding Student Self- Placement in California & Beyond
 (11:00-12:15 p.m. / C-123)

I.16 Research-Based Practices for Teaching Underprepared Readers in Writing Courses (12:30-1:45 p.m. / C-121)

J Poster Session: Pedagogical Influence on Writer Self-Efficacy: A Case Study of Basic Writing Classes
 (2:00-3:15 p.m. / Portland Ballroom Lobby)

J.14 Cultivating Promise: Marginalization, Advocacy &Transformative Practice in the FYC Classroom 
 (2:00-3:15 p.m. / B-114)

J.19 Cultivating Engagement through Open-Mindedness, Hospitality & Intercultural Dialogue in Basic Writing Classrooms

 (2:00-3:15 p.m. / D-139)

J.52 K–16 Partnerships & Initiatives: Benefiting Basic Writers (2:00-3:15 p.m. / A-109)

K.06 Self-Perception, Reflexivity & Cultivation in ESL/EFL Student Learning  (3:30-4:45 p.m. / B-117)

K.28 “But We’ve Always Done It This Way”: Changing Developmental Curriculum & Faculty Perceptions
 (3:30-4:45 p.m. / D-137)

K.33 More of the Message: Extending Multimodality Across Composition Stages (3:30-4:45 p.m. / A-107)

Saturday, 18 March 2017

 L.07 Local Research Initiatives in Basic Writing  (10:45-12:00 p.m. / A-109)

M.09 Writing, Humanizing & Recognizing the Role of Emotion in First-Year Composition
 (12:15-1:30 p.m. / A-104)

M.28 The Inver Hills Model: When Change Begins with Student Needs (12:15-1:30 p.m. / E-146)

PDF Version of this Quick Guide (available for download):

Basic Writing Sessions CCCC17

Stay connected with the #cbw community after CCCC 2017!

We have an active FaceBook community.

Look for Council on Basic Writing. We also have a listserv: CBW-L (CBW-L is a listserv focused on basic writing and related issues.) To subscribe to this listserv, send an e-mail message to: listserv@umn.edu. The content of the message should read subscribe CBW-L firstname lastname. For example, write subscribe cbw-l jane doe. You should leave the subject line blank and remove your signature for this message.  In response, you will receive e-mail confirmation of your subscription and instructions for sending future mail.

And follow the CBW Blog:

https://cbwblog.wordpress.com

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under CBW 2017, CCCC, CCCC 2017, What's New in Basic Writing, Who is Basic Writing?

TSIG Updates

We had a rowdy TSIG meeting discussing basic writing!

The TSIG began with a celebration of the University of New Mexico, who won this year’s INNY award for their Stretch and Studio program!

Then, we moved into small groups to explore possible areas for policy areas that CBW should explore. Small groups brainstormed some of the following policy & focus or inquiry areas:

  • A statement on ethical textbook selection: instructor-generated, no workbooks, costs, peer reviewed, derived from BW and comp Rhet pedagogy, ethical selection,
    themes like: education, freedom, community-building, social justice, non-cognitive;
  • How do we talk with instructors about how and why they use different texts?
  • A survey on student access to technology (what do our students actually have access to?)
  • Faculty preparation & qualifications necessary to teach basic writing (maybe a certification as an add on to an MA or PH.D. program).
  • State and Federal mandates on curriculum without research;
  • Transferring courses from one college to another;
  • Different ALP models;
  • Recommendations on effective preparation for teachers of basic writing (this would put the onus on programs and not serve as a mandate);
  • A sense of the house motion (or other legislation before CCCC) on M.A. and Ph.D. programs including basic writing as course that graduate students teach (there are a lot of issues here: mandating versus an elective– we need to explore this in more depth);
  • A sense of the house motion (or other legislation before CCCC) that M.A. and Ph.D. programs include a course on the teaching of basic writing  (The teaching of basic writing. See notes above about exploring this in more depth);
  • If graduate students don’t get a chance to put theory and practice together, this perpetuates ideas about basic writing that doesn’t really match the reality of the basic writing classroom;
  • We should look at the C’s statement on preparing faculty for college-level writing;
  • Could we think about asking people to integrate basic writing into different classes (upside: doesn’t segregate basic writing from the rest of comp; downside: doesn’t allow you to dig into basic writing);

We wrapped up after sharing from our brainstorm. The group was really excited about these issues!

Are you interested in working on these issues? If so, please reach out via the CBW-listserv to continue the discussion! We look forward to hearing from you!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under CBW 2016, CCCC 2016, Professional Developmwnt, Scholarship of Basic Writing, Sense of the House Motion, Teaching

2016 INNY Award

Congratulations to the University of New Mexico for winning this year’s CBW Innovation Award!

 

image

Leave a comment

Filed under CBW 2016, CBW Innovations Award, CCCC 2016, Uncategorized

Open Business Meeting

Michael Hill, CBW Co-Chair, opened the business meeting by welcoming everyone! The open business meeting is focused on making sure that we get lots of input from our basic writing community!

Agenda: 

1. WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS

We had the opportunity to hear from colleagues around the country and hear some of the exciting research and scholarship faculty are working on!

Also in introductions, we heard about basic writing issues concerning faculty across the country such as placement, second language learners in basic writing, syllabi, etc. We discussed the importance of networking and the basic writing community coalition building.

2. MEMBER SURVEY:

Michael Hill and Lynn Reid, Co-Chairs, summarized the results of a member survey conducted by Marisa Klages-Bombich.

**********

CBW Membership Survey Responses

(for a Word Version, click here: SURVEYCBW2015)

Institutions with participants in survey:

2 year schools:  28

4-year schools: 26

Community College of Baltimore County
Helena College University of Montana
Bronx Community College, CUNY
Bishop State Community College
University of Wisconsin Madison
Kingsborough CC, CUNY
University of Wisconsin Colleges
Nassau Community College, Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, Lehman College
Johnson
McMurry University
Shawnee State University
University of Massachusetts Amherst
Hawkeye Community College
North Shore Community College
Central Virginia Community College
Prairie State College
City College at MSUB
Arizona State University
LaGuardia CC (2)
College of Lake County
Southwestern Illinois College
College of Southern Idaho
Housatonic Community College
Heartland Community College (Normal IL)
Boise State University
Community College of Allegheny County
University of Colorado, Colorado Springs
Lincoln University
Ivy Tech Central Indiana
West Chester University of PA
Texas Woman’s University
Bergen Community College
Bristol Community College, Quinsigamond Community College, Roger Williams University
The Art Institute of New York City
Ivy Tech Community College
Northeastern Illinois University
Frostburg State University
Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University
California Lutheran University
Bishop State Community College (2)
Metropolitan Community College, Omaha Nebraska
Green River College
Westchester Community College
Salina Area Technical College
University of Dubuque
Whatcom Community College
Joliet Junior College
Heartland Community College
UMass Lowell
Lake Michigan College
The City College of New York
Kingsborough Community College

Titles  of respondents:

Assistant Professor: 11

Associate Professor: 11

Professor: 11

Part-time Faculty: 2

Instructor: 12

Lecturer: 1

Graduate Teaching Assistant: 1

Senior Lead Instructor: 1

Developmental Program Coordinator: 1

WPA only: 2

WPA in addition to above title:  5

Do you consider yourself a member of  CBW?

N= 52

Nearly 63% of respondents consider themselves members of CBW.

(Yes: 34, No:  5, Don’t Know: 11, No answer: :2)

The Council on Basic Writing participates in or produces a number of different resources for its members and for the world of Basic Writing. Which of the following do you use?

A majority of respondents use a combination of CBW resources. Six respondents used only the listserv (3) or facebook (3).  The other 52 repondents used some combination of all the tools:

Screenshot 2016-04-07 14.12.22

How should people become members?

We offered three pathways to membership:

  • Participation at C’s or on listserve (n=29)
  • Online Sign-up or at a CBW function (n=30)
  • Recruiting members through social media (n=30)

Nearly everyone believed that all three pathways to membership are acceptable and no one method was strides ahead of the other, most people voted for all three pathways.

What should the duties of membership include?

We asked what the duties of membership should include and offered the following options, respondents could choose more than one option:

Participation at C’s and on the listserv  (n=47)

Voting on organization policy and board membership (n=37)

Voting on public policy and pedagogy statements (n=36)

Participation on CBW committees (n=30)

Commitment to regional action on Basic Writing issues (n=38)

Overwhelmingly, respondents found that participation at C’s and on the listserv should constitute member responsibilities.

However, a number of people also believed that voting on organization issues or public policy issues are also important, as is a commitment to regional basic writing issues. The lowest number of people selected participating in CBW committees.

Which of the following information would you be interested in?

 We asked members what information they’d be interested in having related to CBW. (n=52)

Screenshot 2016-04-07 14.12.37

Most people are interested in Official CBW literature and an Official Website.

On which of the following committees would you be interested in serving?

We asked people which committees they would be interested in serving on. People could select more than one committee.  There is interest in serving on CBW committees, though the interest is not entirely robust.

Professional Development (29)

Affiliations and Outreach (18)

Awards (9)

Social Media (17)

Conference (17)

Elections to Executive Board/Steering Committee (6)

Executive Board/Steering Committee (16)

Policy Task Force (17)

Would you be willing to pay CBW membership dues to help the organization grow? If so what would be reasonable? (people could select more than one option)

Screenshot 2016-04-07 14.19.03

 

The majority of respondents favor a sliding scale dues schedule; however, $15-$25.00 was the most popular dollar amount.  If we consider the 24 respondents who consider themselves members and set a $20.00 membership fee, that would have given us an annual operating budget of $680.00.

Other comments-see below.

Any other comments, questions or suggestions/and or concerns regarding the CBW?

  • All of this is a fantastic idea, and I can’t wait to see what you guys do!
  • I would really love to see CBW grow as an organization and offer a rich set of professional resources and policy statements. There is a tremendous need for national leadership to ensure that teaching, program administration, and state policies draw from scholarship and evidence-based disciplinary practices.
  • I’m extremely busy and just like to have access to the listserv–it gives me a quick and informal idea of what is of interest and/or concern to others involved in basic writing.
  • Although I indicated above that I consider myself a “member” of the CBW, I’ve never really felt like it’s been like a traditional academic organization. I am pleased to see this survey because I am hoping to become more involved (since before I wasn’t sure how to even go about doing that!).
  • I’m relatively new to my position and Basic Writing, but I have learned a great deal from the listserv and online resources. I appreciate the materials and all the work that has gone into creating them. Thank you!
  • I think this is a great idea! We need to develop a CBW presence in a variety of ways, and I am more than happy to be a part of the growth of this organization!
  • The question about dues is a challenging one, but to develop and maintain a more robust presence, it does seem like CBW will need resources. I nonetheless do think that part-time faculty should be asked to commit less than full-time faculty. Another option might be to suggest a donation, but to also offer prospective members the opportunity to “opt out” of a financial commitment without penalty. Even the high end of your suggested dues–$30 to $40–is significantly less than what I see some other professional organizations, including some of those involved with developmental education, charge their membership.
  • I am new to the listserv and greatly appreciate its existence. My professional obligations and limited funds usually prohibit my attending major conferences, but I would be willing to work behind the scenes as the organization grows. Thank you for doing this survey (along with everything else).
  • MAIN CONCERN: Opportunities for active participation throughout the year would offer more meaningful visibility than paid membership.

    Since most of the people that would benefit from a more active CBW are probably NOT tenure-track faculty, charging for membership at this time seems inappropriate. Once we build a more visible and more participatory organization that works THROUGHOUT THE YEAR on Basic Writing issues, then paid membership could be reconsidered.

    Indeed, participation seems more crucial than “membership.” Building committees and other opportunities for participation could be crucial for helping to create the main issue that CBW has now: participation outside of CCCC. Committees that stay active throughout the year would help to increase CBW visibility. Membership– especially PAID membership– with not much to offer in return other than CCCC-related pursuits — would not have as much impact.

  • This survey is a great idea! 🙂
  • I would love to see a CBW presence at regional TYCAs. Some of us cannot afford to get to CCCCs or will not choose to leave our classrooms in order to attend it, but we’re able to attend TYCA more easily. I would be willing to serve as a CBW representative at my TYCA region. I only attend CCCCs when it coincides with Spring Break so I miss out on many CBW opportunities.

    Please plug BWe more. I intend to check it out but forget. Including TOC in an email instead of attachment is recommended because then I see why I need to leave email-land right now and check out X article.

    P.S. I’d also like to help with the pedagogy statement that was started at CCCCs, and, um, while I’m suggesting things…what are the possibilities the CBW workshop could be a half day instead of the marathon 9 to 5 session? I sort of get burned out 2 days into CCCCs when I start it with such a lengthy day right after traveling and then try to hit the SIGs and otherwise do all the things. This might just be me though.

  • Thank you for the work you have done and continue doing to create and sustain the CBW community.

    I might consider serving on a committee, but it would depend on the time commitment involved as my role on campus and my system-wide committee work leaves me with limited time for meaningful work serving my professional organizations.

  • Collecting dues, maintaining records, establishing a bank account, cashing checks in a timely manner, etc.–all can be a huge challenge. When I was Chair in the early 80s, we did have a low membership fee of $5 or $10 or so. Members were to receive mailed newsletters for the fee. It was extremely difficult to keep track of and handle money and get the newsletter out in a timely fashion to the right addresses. Often the newsletter was done just days before the CCCC, and of course, some people’s addresses had changed. Sometimes people complained if they had not received a newsletter and naturally enough wanted their money back. So I would proceed with caution where money comes into play. If you go this route, I recommend getting someone else to handle it–would the CCCC handle money for CBW maybe?
  • Thanks for this!! Let me know what else I can do. We need more presence between other groups such as NAADE, etc. they are so elitist and get so bogged down in local issues, not realizing we all need to work together.
  • I am a basic writing specialist and would love to be better connected to people, conversations, research, etc. I feel like I’m having a hard time finding that community and hope that changes!
  • Establish standards for faculty who teach Basic Writing.
  • This is a great group, and I loved the workshop. I wonder how we can encourage more two-year college faculty to join the group and find it relevant to the work they do.
  • I think the list serve does qualify me as a member, but I’m really not sure. But I think making the membership and organization of CBW more parallel to CCCC/NCTE would legitimize it more. Thanks for the survey–good idea!
  • I’m not quite sure on the CBW relationship to other organizations: CCCC, NCTE, etc. I know TYCA has an unusual relationship; CBW?
  • Don’t make it complicated or exclusive. Invite and include everyone who may be interested. Emphasize what we do in terms of social justice.
  • Thank you for this thoughtful survey. I agree that more systematically reaching into the BW community for CBW is a good idea. Regarding the drafting of policy statements, I’m concerned that making the participation too far-reaching too soon, things might become unwieldy. Perhaps there could be policy forums online and the voting/ crafting of policies could find its major shaping influence at CBW or within its committees.

Notes:

The survey was created from the desire to learn more about how CBW could serve the Basic Writing Community. This survey was released on March 21, 2015, shortly after CCCC 2015. It was open for over 1 month and the link was posted in multiple online venues.  We received 54 responses. Forty-eight responses were NOT from current executive board membership. Most questions had 52-53 respondents.

**********

3. Discussion of the Survey: 

There was general agreement that the survey was very useful! This is a summary of the group discussion in response to the member survey:

How do we adapt to changing notions of basic writers? How do we support them? How do we support the work of supporting those students?

How many people do we have in the CBW?

Susan Naomi Bernstein raised the issue that categorizing students as “basic writers” essentializes the students.

How might we identify the populations that we serve? How might we identify the work we are doing in the world? The work our students are doing?

We need to make sure that people know what resources are out there (and to provide a central place for those resources–like an expanded resource share). Because of language: “basic” writers, “developmental” writing, “remedial” writing, etc. it’s hard to know where to start.

It would also be helpful to have a library of resource and position statements (e.g. course caps, budgets, etc.).

How do we talk about our work so that other people can find it without being reductive? (again, how do we talk about our work)?

We need keywords in Basic Writing (and something like an Amazon recommendation: if you like this… you’ll like this…).

We need more ways for people to participate actively and feel an important part of the CBW. We would like to create opportunities for people to consider themselves members of CBW by doing.

We also discussed ideas for next year’s workshop.

4. What is the work of CBW when we are not at CCCC?

How might we think about committee work and the work of CCCC?

We recently lost funding for our travel award. This was one way that we were able to help participants.

We discussed ways to support the scholarship of graduate students; contingent faculty, etc.

 

Should we find ways to connect to NADE? How do we participate in NADE discussions about basic writing? A connection point might be some of the larger politics around developmental education.

Also, we need to continue the TYCA connections. These were useful to promote the work of CBW and a gathering of figuring out who is interested & who wants to be connected to this work. If we are strategic about it, it’s a starting point to build panels together and to take  concerns and translate them into action in a particular geographic area.

Also, we discussed how we are defining ourselves and how we represent ourselves in our outreach.

There was a discussion about funding and how to get funding (to be continued).

We discussed several new possible committees to continue the work of CBW outside of CCCC:

  • A committee to support the work of scholars in the form of an annual award for the best graduate student work in basic writing.
  • An issues committee to work on policy issues.
  • A promotion committee/outreach for people who don’t get to come to CCCC to make our work more visible.

We’ll continue this discussion in the SIG tonight at 6:30 p.m. Looking forward to seeing you all there!

Many thanks to everyone who attended!

We look forward to seeing you at the other CBW events at CCCC this week!

  • Thursday, 4/7  4:45-6:00 
    • E.06  CBW Sponsored Session  Hilton Ballroom of the Americas, Salon E, Level 2
  • Thursday, 4/7  6:30-7:30
    • TSIG.02  CBW Sig  GRB Room 351C, Level 3

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Basic Writing Projects & Initiatives, CBW 2016, CCCC 2016, Politics of Remediation, Scholarship of Basic Writing, What's New in Basic Writing, Who is Basic Writing?

New Resources for a Fresh Start to Your New Semester!

Check out the ever evolving CBW Resource Share Site for new ideas for a new semester! Thanks Elizabeth Baldridge!

Leave a comment

Filed under CBW Resource Share Site, Resources, Teaching, What's New in Basic Writing

Submitted to CCCC 2015? We want your info!

Happy Labor Day Colleagues,

The Council on Basic Writing would like to start to get a handle on how BW will be represented at CCCC in 2015. If you had a paper, panel, or roundtable accepted at CCCC that will have a primary focus on BW, can you please send me an email? In your email, please include your session title and any relevant abstracts.

Our purposes in collecting this information is two-fold. First, we would like to start thinking about how we might promote BW panels ahead of CCCC in order to encourage robust participation both by CBW members and by the larger CCCC community. Second, we would like to start considering how and why BW panels are accepted by the larger CCC organization in order to consider how we might foster more BW scholarship at CCCC.

Please send me your acceptance information by September 15. You can get my email address on the listserv or on the CBW blog (see “Board” info) or you can IM me on FB. At this time, please send this information to just me so that we do not burden the list with these announcements. In the future, we will send out another email asking you if you’d like to be included in the BW session pamphlet that we create for CCCC. As CCCC approaches, we will also encourage you to advertise your sessions on the email list and on our FB page.

In solidarity,
Mike, Co-Chair of the CBW Executive Board

Leave a comment

Filed under CBW 2015, CCCC 2015, Scholarship of Basic Writing

CBW 2014, Complete Schedule

Please join us for the CBW 2014 Pre-Conference Workshop 

19 March 2014 at the CCCC National Convention!

Open Futures? Basic Writing, Access, and Technology

Council on Basic Writing Pre-Conference Workshop 2014

So often, technology is touted as the promise and answer to everything. We are told that technology makes everything easier, simpler, and more accessible. But when we consider technology and Basic Writing, is that true? Does technology provide open access for our students to achieve their educational goals, moving from developmental writing courses through graduation? What is the impact of technology on basic writing classrooms today? What are the political consequences of eschewing digital pedagogies? Of adopting them? Who controls these technologies? What are the implications of who creates and controls them? What does responsible basic writing pedagogy look like in a digital age? This pre-conference workshop will work to explore the possibilities, realities, and restrictions of technology and basic writing pedagogies.

9:00 a.m. Welcome

Session Chair: Sugie Goen-Salter, San Francisco State University

9:15-10:00 a.m. The 2013 Innovation Award for Teaching of Basic Writing

Session Chair: Sugie Goen-Salter, San Francisco State University

Presenters: Anne-Marie Hall, University of Arizona; Aimee C. Mapes, University of Arizona; and Christopher Minnix, University of Alabama at Birmingham

The University of Arizona Writing Program will discuss the “Adapted Studio Model” for basic writing (BW) in a two-part presentation. First, we will define our curricular innovation as an adaptation of a variety of successful approaches in the field. Our reinterpretation blends strategies from a studio model, an intensive model, and the accelerated learning program with an emphasis on increasing student and instructor interaction. Importantly, adapted studio model contributes to two major goals: fostering expansive student learning and improving retention of students at higher risk of dropping out. The presentation will overview institutional exigencies for improving BW instruction in our program and then outline the success and portability of the adapted studio model. Workshop participants will learn about:

•     intricacies of course enrollment and scheduling, including credits and implications for students and instructors,

•     professional development for instructors in a weekly teacher collaborative,

•     scope and sequence of the composition course,

•     integration of the studio into the composition course,

•     and student retention.

At The University of Arizona, this model has been successful at increasing retention of underprepared writers from 46% under the traditional “extra remedial course” model to 81%. We contend that the combination of the composition course with the studio accomplishes a “slowing down” of the pace of the curriculum in a way that draws out the metacognitive aspects of writing for students. The additional face-to-face time with instructors and extra instructional support effectively closes the gap between academically underprepared students and students whose high school experiences have geared them toward success in college.

The second part of the session will focus on studio curriculum, emphasizing the workshop as a space where instructors can teach to their strengths related to writing and where students can address what they feel are weaknesses. Typically, studio workshop offers opportunities for stronger personal engagement. We will demonstrate how creating a more flexible environment for reflection through the studio model also sustains more enriching interactions between students and faculty. In studio, students participate in a range of craft lessons. We will feature three exemplary studio lessons on invention, the intersection of sound and meaning in language, and a thesis workshop.

10:00-12:00 noon: Basic Writing, Literacy Narratives, and the Collective Power of 2.0 Projects 

Keynote Address by Cynthia Selfe, The Ohio State University

Session Chair: Lynn Reid, Fairleigh Dickinson University

In this session, Selfe explores ways in which Basic Writing teachers/scholars can multiply and amplify their individual efforts by undertaking 2.0 projects (Anderson, 2007; O’Reilly, 2005) that leverage the power of collaboration and digital expression.  Even as Basic Writing faculty struggle with heavy work loads, minimal staff, and a lack of material resources, they can help build 2.0 projects and, perhaps more importantly, make these projects pay off in their own institutions, colleges, and/or departments.

As part of her talk, Selfe will show autobiographical literacy stories that undergraduate students have contributed to the Digital Archives of Literacy Narratives (DALN) and explore what kinds of work these accounts can accomplish for both teachers and coaches. She will also preview a new project of “digital curated exhibits,” Stories That Speak to Us, that she is undertaking with colleagues Scott L. DeWitt and H. Lewis Ulman and fellow teacher/scholars from across the U.S.

12:00-1:30 p.m. Technology Café and Interactive, Digital Poster Session (and Lunch)

Session Chair: Lynn Reid, Fairleigh Dickinson University

This technology café asks basic writing educators to share local models for successful integration of technology into the Basic Writing classroom. Basic Writing faculty from two- and four-year institutions will showcase technologies and how they are used in practical lessons. Participants will have the opportunity to hear about the practical application of a new technology in the classroom and then try out the technology with the assistance of an experienced practitioner.

1:30-2:30 p.m. MOOCs and Basic Writing

Session Chair: Sara Webb-Sunderhaus, Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne

Discussants: Jeff Grabill, Michigan State University; Steven Krause, Eastern Michigan University; Ben McCorkle, The Ohio State University at Marion; Leigh Jonaitis, Bergen Community College.

This afternoon roundtable discussion will focus on MOOCs and their potential–and potential issues–for basic writing instruction. Our roundtable discussants represent a range of institutions and have a variety of histories with, and attitudes towards, MOOCs. Some have created and taught MOOC writing courses, while others have enrolled in these courses to understand as much as possible what a MOOC student’s experience is like.

2:30-4:00 p.m. CBW Talks Back

Session Chair: Michael D. Hill, Henry Ford Community College

Discussants: Susan Naomi Bernstein, Arizona State University; Wendy Olson, Washington State University Vancouver; Michelle Stevier-Johanson, Dickinson State University; Michael Hill, Henry Ford Community College

So often our courses in BW are constructed and/or dominated by our teaching tools: our textbooks, our exams, our writing-based computer programs.  The use of these tools is marketed by large companies; demanded by administrators and bookstores; and, at times, mandated by departments.  The unfortunate reality is that these tools tend to define the terms, the activities, and the pedagogies of our classes and they often do so poorly.  As the professionals in the BW classroom, BW teachers, along with our students, should be the ones who define the field.  In this session, the participants of the workshop will determine in what ways the CBW might speak back to the producers, the administrators and to our colleagues about the efficacy of these tools.  We will start with short presentations by practicing teachers critiquing the effects of specific products at their institutions and in their classrooms.  We will then break out into small groups, each examining and discussing separate products.  The goal in these groups will be to empower the individual teacher who must attempt to instruct salespeople, editors, bookstores, deans, and perhaps even WPAs about what basic writers needs.  The entire workshop will then reconvene to determine what type of work the CBW should be doing as an authoritative organization to combat the domination of BW products in the teaching of BW.

4:00-5:00 p.m. Basic Writing Town Hall Meeting

And don’t forget to join us for the CBW SIG on Thursday night to congratulate Bill Riley of Penn State University for receiving the 2014 CBW Travel Award and Our Lady of the Lake University’s QUEST First-Year Writing Program, winner of the 2014 Innovations in Basic Writing Award.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized