Category Archives: CCCC 2011

2012 CBW Innovations Award

The Council on Basic Writing’s Award for Innovation recognizes writing programs for innovations that improve educational processes for basic writers through creative approaches. Please note that only innovations that have been implemented will be considered for the award.

CBW wants to recognize those college and university programs that are implementing new or unique ways to improve the success of their basic writing students. Is your program doing something especially useful and effective in terms of assessment, placement, pedagogy, curriculum, community outreach, etc.? If so, please nominate yourself for the 2012 CBW Award for Innovation.

SELECTION PROCESS

Recipients of the Council on Basic Writing’s Award for Innovation Award will be determined by a review committee. Awards will be given to approaches that clearly benefit students at the winning institution, and that may be extended to other institutions.

AWARD CRITERIA

  • Originality – the creativity and uniqueness of the innovation
  • Portability – the extent to which the innovation lends itself to application in other institutions or contexts
  • Results and Benefits – specific details, data, and observations derived from the innovation, focusing on specific educational benefits to students
  • APPLICATION MATERIALS

    The following will be considered a complete application packet. ALL application materials must be submitted in electronic form, and all applications will be acknowledged. Please send:

    1. A descriptive title of the innovation, along with the name, address, phone number, and email of the contact person.

    2. An explanation of how the course/program in which the innovation is centered includes students labeled “basic writers” by the institution and, if applicable, a brief (1 paragraph maximum) explanation of how students are labeled as such.

    3. A complete description of the innovation including:


  • justification of the creativity and uniqueness of the innovation compared to traditional methods

  • evidence or examples of portability to other basic writing programs
  • the measurements and monitoring used; results indicating a significant benefit in achievement in educational goals or outcomes.
  • Please note that Innovation documentation is limited to five (5) pages or less (excess pages will not be read!); single spaced; 11 font or larger; graphs and charts are accepted as part of the page limitation.


    IMPORTANT DATES:

    December 5, 2011: Nominations due

    January 2012: Award recipient notified

    March 2012: The Winner will be honored with the presentation of a plaque at the CBW Special Interest Group (SIG) at CCCC in St. Louis. The winner will be invited to give a brief presentation about the winning program to the SIG attendees.

    SEND APPLICATIONS / DIRECT QUESTIONS TO:

    Greg Glau Northern Arizona University gregory.glau@nau.edu

    Advertisements

    Leave a comment

    Filed under CBW 2012, CBW Innovations Award, CCCC 2011

    Michelle L. Stevier on Her Experiences at CCCC 2011

    Michelle L. Stevier, the recipient of this year’s CBW Travel Grant to CCCC wrote to the CBW Executive Board to express her thanks. We were so blown away by Michelle’s eloquence about her experiences attending CBW and CCCC and the ways she represented the conversations and community around Basic Writing that we asked her for her permission to post her letter. Our thanks to Michelle for letting us see CBW and CCCC through her eyes!

    ___________________________________________________

    I write to express my appreciation for the Council on Basic Writing Travel Grant. Thanks to you and the other members of the CBW, I was able to attend the 2011 CBW pre-conference workshop and the CCCC. Your generosity allowed me to renew my connection with CCC and enjoy in-person, professional conversations with my Basic Writing colleagues. These are opportunities I have not had since the mid-1990s.

    Both the pre-conference workshop and the conference itself were extremely valuable experiences. In the CBW workshop, I had the opportunity to learn (first-hand and from some of the best, no less) about new Basic Writing scholarship and pedagogy. I appreciated Mary Soliday’s comments about “standards anxiety” and Basic Writing’s increasing distance from composition studies, an important topic that recurred in Wendy Olson’s presentation. While Melissa Ianetta and Joseph Turner talked about the University of Delaware’s “strategy instruction,” I began to consider how my institution might usefully connect Basic Writing with one of our most popular first-year history courses. The professor for this particular course has already expressed interest in incorporating writing pedagogy into his content course; he seems like an ideal candidate to help me develop this kind of program. Michael Hill’s presentation infused the room with a fantastic sense of collegiality as well as the kind of good energy that leads to productive activism. I also enjoyed the time we spent on a Basic Writing mission statement. This work helped me think through the mission of Basic Writing at my institution. Hearing what others believe BW can and should do was illuminating and inspiring.

    I’m bolstered by the fact that my BW work seems well in line with others’ ideas about best BW educational practices; most importantly, though, I’ve been challenged to reconsider aspects of my teaching and our overall program in productive ways. Among other things, I need to consider and build upon Basic Writing’s connections to other programs at Dickinson State University. At DSU, as at so many institutions across the country, Basic Writing has become “somewhat distanced from composition studies” (Soliday) and connections and networks need to be rebuilt. Basic Writing isn’t separate from composition writ large; it has to be one step within a student-oriented composition program.

    Once the CBW workshop was over, I began attending CCCC panels and individual presentations, so many of which were pertinent to my work as a Basic Writing instructor and Writing Center coordinator. The Council on Basic Writing special interest group meeting was useful and energizing, not just in terms of knowledge garnered, but in terms of contacts made and friendships begun. Another particularly valuable session was the panel on the public university (“Screaming in Silence: Accessibility, the Public University, and Existential Despair”). Here, I had the opportunity to listen to and talk with scholar-teachers whose Basic Writing programs are being downsized as the result of state budget cuts. Roused by panelists Susan Bernstein and Aaron Barlow (and by the paper of Rachel Rigolino, who was unable to attend), audience members couldn’t stop talking about the importance of Basic Writing programs and ways to keep these programs available to students who need them. Come fall, I look forward to sharing these panelists’ ideas at a brown-bag luncheon with my DSU colleagues. Their work seems like an exceptionally good starting point for our institutional discussions.

    On Saturday, April 9, I joined my CBW colleagues at the CCC annual business meeting, and almost had the pleasure of speaking on behalf of Basic Writing and students’ and the profession’s needs. When two lines formed behind the floor microphones, CCC chair Dr. Gwendolyn Pough asked whether any of us were rising in objection to the BW State of the House resolution. No one was, so she requested a “so ordered” call.

    After the CCC town meeting concluded, I started attending sessions again, and I rounded out my CCCC experience with these: “Instructor Feedback in ESL Writing Courses,” “Underdogs and Underprepareds: Issues in Teaching Basic Writing,” “Contesting Identities in Writing Centers: Theorizing Subject Positions, Practices, and Political Contexts,” and “Pedagogies of Passion: Exploring Enthusiasm in Teaching and Writing.”

    All in all, my experiences at the CBW and CCCC were incredibly enriching. Although I’ve attended many conferences over the years, I have never before been able to say that I learned something of value in every session I attended. What’s more, my conference involvement has enabled me to get to know Basic Writing and Writing Center colleagues, and I believe their mentoring will prove invaluable in the days ahead. The CBW’s greatest gift to me may well be the colleagues I met, through whom I can stay connected to the profession and maintain the all-important “support group” of which Michael Hill spoke during his pre-conference presentation. It helps so much, as he noted, to have “a group to which [one] can point and say, ‘I’m NOT the outlier. THIS is the field.’” In the CBW workshop, I was reminded that I am not alone in my BW efforts; I realized that I have a wealth of talented, energetic, activist colleagues as a support system. As tired as I am as my institution ends its academic year, I find myself excited about the summer ahead, which will be a summer of planning and preparation. This fall, in addition to developing a series of brown bag luncheons and other gatherings, all based in discussions related to Basic Writing and so-called Basic Writers, I intend to launch a program that actively recruits former Basic Writing students as Writing Center tutors. At the center of all these activities will be the inspiration, energy, and wisdom I gained from my experiences at the Atlanta CCCC.

    Thank you for helping to make my conference attendance a possibility. Thank you, all.

    Sincerely,

    Michelle L. Stevier

    Adjunct Instructor in Basic Writing
    Coordinator, Tutoring and Writing Centers & Supplemental Instruction

    Leave a comment

    Filed under CBW 2011, CBW Fellowship, CCCC 2011

    Sense of the House Motion, CCCC 2011

    The Resolution:

    The Executive Board of the Council on Basic Writing put together a Sense of the House resolution, which was presented and passed at the 2011 CCCC business meeting on 9 April 2011. This resolution came out of a sense of the increasing invisibility of Basic Writing at CCCC.

    The Resolution: “Be it resolved that Basic Writing is a vital field and its students and teacher scholars a productive force within composition; is under attack by exclusionary public policies; and therefore must be recognized publicly and supported by CCCC as a conference cluster and with featured sessions.”

    The Signatories:

    Bill Lalicker
    Westchester University

    Shannon Carter
    Texas A&M–Commerce

    Sugie Goen-Salter
    San Francisco State University

    Peter Adams
    Community College Baltimore County

    Hannah Ashley
    Westchester University

    J. Elizabeth Clark
    LaGuardia Community College, CUNY

    Karen S. Uehling
    Boise State University

    Greg Glau
    Northern Arizona University

    Alan Meyers
    Truman College Chicago

    Kathleen Baca
    Dona Ana Community College

    Susan Naomi Bernstein
    Independent Scholar

    Barbara Gleason
    City College, CUNY

    Tom Peele
    Long Island University

    Deborah Mutnick
    Long Island University

    Rebecca Mlynarczyk
    City University of New York

    Kelly Ritter
    University of North Carolina Greensboro

    Michael D. Hill
    Henry Ford Community College

    Marisa A. Klages
    LaGuardia Community College, CUNY

    Sarah Kirk
    University of Alaska, Anchorage

    Bruce Horner
    University of Louisville

    David Bartholomae
    University of Pittsburgh

    Michelle Stevier
    Dickinson State University

    Elizabeth McLemore
    Minneapolis Community & Technical College

    Christina Montgomery
    Saginaw Valley State University

    Elaine Hunyadi
    Saginaw Valley State University

    Hope Parisi
    Kingsborough Community College, CUNY

    Chitralekha Duttagupta
    Utah Valley University

    Ann Shivers McNair
    University of Southern Mississippi

    Heidi Johnsen
    LaGuardia Community College, CUNY

    Linda Chandler
    LaGuardia Community College, CUNY

    Chuck Jordan
    Lake Michigan College

    Lee Torda
    Bridgewater State University

    Liz Bryant
    Purdue University

    Michelle Zollars
    Patrick Henry Community College

    Reid Sunahara
    Kapiolani Community College

    Lynn Reid
    Brookdale Community College/City College of New York

    Alexandra Reihing
    Nassau Community College

    Kathryn Douglas
    Fairleigh Dickinson University

    Sara Webb-Sunderhaus
    Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne

    Kelly Keane
    Bergen Community College

    Leigh Jonaitis
    Bergen Community College

    Mark Sutton
    Kean University

    Dan Beugnet

    Laura McCartan
    Metropolitan State University

    Jennifer Cost
    San Diego Mesa College

    Elizabeth Modarelli
    Stark State College

    Joanne Gabel
    Reading Area Community College

    Rachel Rigolino
    SUNY New Paltz

    Joanne Howard
    Montgomery College, Rockville Campus

    Ana Marie Lopez

    Jennifer Swartout
    Heartland Community College

    Pamela VanHaitsma
    University of Pittsburgh

    Jason Evans
    Prairie State College

    Elizabeth Cone
    Suffolk Community College

    Thomas Reynolds
    University of Minnesota

    Linda Stine

    Judy Hansen
    College of Southern Idaho

    Beth Gulley
    Johnson County Community College

    Sue Henderson
    East Central College

    Robert Miller
    Community College of Baltimore County

    Sheila Otto
    Middle Tennessee State University

    Nicole P. Greene
    Xavier University of Louisiana

    Carla Maroudas
    Mt. San Jacinto Community College

    Melinda Veller
    Rend Lake College

    Julie M. Thompson, Ph.D.
    Hamline University

    Gail Stygall
    University of Washington

    M. Lani T. Montreal
    Malcolm X College

    Jim Cody
    Brookdale Community College

    Bonne August
    New York City College of Technology, CUNY

    Wendy Smith
    San Diego Mesa College

    Jessica Schreyer
    University of Dubuque

    Marsha Millikin
    Saginaw Valley State University

    Deborah M. Sanchez
    North Carolina Central University

    Kim Ballard
    Western Michigan University

    Wendy Olson
    Washington State University Vancouver

    Cheryl Hogue Smith
    Kingsborough CC, CUNY

    Lynn Quitman Troyka
    Queensborough CC, CUNY

    Cheryl Smith
    Baruch College, CUNY

    Amy Edwards Patterson
    Moraine Park Technical College

    Statements of Support

    I fully support a conference cluster and featured sessions devoted to issues represented by the term “basic writing.” This commitment will insure that the organization continues to pay appropriate attention to questions of diversity and language difference.

    David Bartholomae
    Professor and Charles Crow Chair
    Department of English
    University of Pittsburgh
    Pittsburgh, PA 15260

    ***
    The teaching of basic writing occupies a paradoxical position in composition. It is the specialty of some of the leading figures in composition studies and, simultaneously, the province of teachers and students placed at the bottom of the academic institutional hierarchy. The emergence of basic writing as an academic field in the early 1970s has frequently been cited as crucial in the development of composition, producing “[m]any of the teaching and research projects we now take for granted and “a number of remarkable innovations in the study and teaching of writing” (Trimbur, “Cultural Studies” 14). Basic writing represents a writing movement that has consistently addressed “broad questions about the aims of education and the shape of various educational institutions” and that contributes significantly to the “revitalizing of the teaching of writing” (12). By working with students institutionally designated as at the bottom, basic writing has explicitly called into question the social and political role of educational institutions and the politics of representing students, or prospective students, and their writing in particular ways, as either “literate” or “illiterate,” “college material” or “remedial,” “skilled” or “unskilled.”

    Yet the lessons and insights of basic writing are at risk of being lost or forgotten. John Trimbur has written that we need to “relearn” the insights of open admissions (“Cultural Studies” 14-15). James Slevin has expressed concern that the training of writing teachers typically does not include investigation of the role writing instruction has played in socializing those new student populations historically called “remedial” (14).

    I support the statement to sustain the continuing insights of basic writing and its project of responsibility to those most commonly identified as outsiders to the academy. I do so both in order that we meet our responsibilities to these students, but also to ensure that we meet our responsibilities as a field and organization committed to rethinking the meaning of literacy, the teaching of writing, and their potential contributions to projects of democracy and justice.

    References:

    John Trimbur’s “Cultural Studies and Teaching Writing,” Focuses 1.2 (1988): 5-18.
    James Slevin’s “Depoliticizing and Politicizing Composition Studies,” The Politics of Writing Instruction: Postsecondary, ed. Richard Bullock and John Trimbur (Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1991): 1-21.

    Bruce Horner
    Endowed Chair in Rhetoric and Composition
    315 Bingham Humanities Bldg.
    University of Louisville
    Louisville, KY 40292

    ***
    Basic Writing is an important sub-set of composition studies with a significant student population and with a long and distinguished history and scholarship. We feel it is important that Basic Writing be acknowledged explicitly by CCC in a time of waning public support for this important endeavor.

    Rebecca Mlynarczyk
    Kingsborough Community College, CUNY
    CUNY Graduate Center
    Co-Editor of Journal of Basic Writing

    ***

    We need to support and sustain programs, courses, and scholarship in Basic Writing. Our students must have to access to resources that allow them to learn and to grow as writers– and as full participants in democracy.

    Susan Naomi Bernstein
    Independent Scholar
    Queens, NY

    ***

    Reports from the floor of the business meeting, 4/9/2011:

    I’ve never been prouder of CBW. The way so many people came together to work on getting the resolution urging CCCC to give BW more visibility at the conference was simply amazing. Yesterday, so many people emailed their support that we “crashed” the server. And this morning the resolution passed without opposition. Chris Anson added that he supported our suggestion and would work to find ways to accomplish it for the 2012 conference, even though that process is already underway.

    I just want to thank and congratulate everyone CBW who contributed to this impressive achievement in the space of about 48 hours.

    Peter Adams
    Community College of Baltimore County

    ***

    Hello All,
    The resolution we developed and passed in the CBW workshop and SIG of CCCC was entered into the CCCC business meeting as a sense-of-the-house motion this morning. That resolution is:
    “Be it resolved that Basic Writing, a vital field and its students and teacher scholars aproductive force within composition; is under attack
 by exclusionary public policies; and therefore must be recognized publicly and supported by CCCC as a conference cluster and with featured sessions.”

    After a careful explanation and reading of the motion by William Lalicker and words of support by Lynn Troyka, Kelly Ritter and Shannon Carter (Kelly read a statement by David Bartholomae and Shannon read a statement by Bruce Horner), the motion was unanimously passed by the body of CCCC. We received a promise of support by Chris Anson, next year’s CCCC chair, who believed we would be able to cull and highlight BW presentations during next year’s conference.

    Yay, us!

    It’s worth noting that this motion and the movement it has spurred is just the start. Now, we need to inundate the review committees with proposals that show the vibrancy and validity of BW as a field of study within CCCC and as a vital social concern for all compositionists. We also need to start to take a much more vocal presence in journals, in the media, and on the social front. To that end, look for an article on Insidehighered.com on Monday morning regarding the motion and (hopefully) the current movement within CBW.

    Please join the CBW in moving our issues and our ideas to the forefront of composition studies and to the larger higher education world.

    Great conference all. Great movement all. See you back in the classroom.

    Mike Hill
    Henry Ford Community College

    Inside Higher Education Article

    Basic, But Vital

    Previous versions of this post appear here, here, and here.

    1 Comment

    Filed under Calls to Action, CBW 2011, CCCC 2011, Sense of the House Motion, Who is Basic Writing?

    Inside Higher Education Article on CCCC

    Serena Golden of Inside Higher Education wrote this article, “Basic But Vital,” detailing CBW’s work around the Sense of the House motion at CCCC 2011.

    Leave a comment

    Filed under CBW 2011, CCCC 2011, Sense of the House Motion

    Mike Hill’s Summary of the Sense of the House Motion/CCCC Business Meeting

    Hello All,
    The resolution we developed and passed in the CBW workshop and SIG of CCCC was entered into the CCCC business meeting as a sense-of-the-house motion this morning. That resolution is:
    “Be it resolved that Basic Writing, a vital field and its students and teacher scholars aproductive force within composition; is under attack
 by exclusionary public policies; and therefore must be recognized publicly and supported by CCCC as a conference cluster and with featured sessions.”

    After a careful explanation and reading of the motion by William Lalicker and words of support by Lynn Troyka, Kelly Ritter and Shannon Carter (Kelly read a statement by David Bartholomae and Shannon read a statement by Bruce Horner), the motion was unanimously passed by the body of CCCC. We received a promise of support by Chris Anson, next year’s CCCC chair, who believed we would be able to cull and highlight BW presentations during next year’s conference.

    Yay, us!

    It’s worth noting that this motion and the movement it has spurred is just the start. Now, we need to inundate the review committees with proposals that show the vibrancy and validity of BW as a field of study within CCCC and as a vital social concern for all compositionists. We also need to start to take a much more vocal presence in journals, in the media, and on the social front. To that end, look for an article on insidehighered.com on Monday morning regarding the motion and (hopefully) the current movement within CBW.

    Please join the CBW in moving our issues and our ideas to the forefront of composition studies and to the larger higher education world.

    Great conference all. Great movement all. See you back in the classroom.

    (Note: I posted this email to the listserv, but I think the listserv is still crashed from our many, many messages that signed onto the motion. If you get this message in your email, sorry for the duplication.)

     

    Mike Hill

     

    2 Comments

    Filed under Calls to Action, CBW 2011, CCCC 2011, Sense of the House Motion

    Update on the Sense of the House Resolution

    I know that many of you have been following the Sense of the House Resolution at CCCC over the past two days. We will send a full update later this weekend, but Peter Adams sent this word from the floor of the house.

    “The resolution just passed unanimously at business meeting and that Chris Anson, the program chair for CCCC 2012 indicated his support for improving the visibility of BW.”

    I cannot thank you enough for all of your support both at CCCC and virtually. It has been amazing to watch this unfold over the last 3 days. I think we are all feeling a collective sense of immediacy in our work around Basic Writing right now and this spoke to our shared concerns.

    Again, a full report will follow later, but many folks were involved in seeing this through: William Lalicker, Shannon Carter, Peter Adams, Mike Hill, and Sugie Goen-Salter worked tirelessly behind the scenes collecting signatures, making copies, gathering statements so that those who could not be in attendance were well-represented. Many others came to the business meeting this morning to speak in support of the resolution and to read statements from those who could not attend. (Full list to follow later). We also released a press release to Inside Higher Education (Thanks Mike!). I’m hoping we’ll see that in IHE later today. Also, many, many thanks to William Lalicker, who proposed the idea in our preconference workshop on Wednesday. And, thanks to all of you who took time from your very busy lives to send statements of support!!! I also thought that you would be interested to know that David Bartholomae, Bruce Horner, and Rebecca Mlynarczyk sent in very eloquent statements about the importance of Basic Writing to be read on the floor in support of our motion.

    I think this marks an excellent moment in Basic Writing. We need to seize the moment and run with it.

    In the coming weeks, we will be posting more information on the listserv about a concerted effort to get BW into CCCC 2012. Please stay posted for this and be thinking of sessions you would like to propose!

    Many folks are traveling from CCCC today, but once everyone has arrived home and rested, we will post a full account of the meeting here and on CBW-L. We will also compile a complete list of signatories on the motion. Right now those signatures are in digital and handwritten form.

    Finally, I cannot thank you enough for all of your support and your work for our community of Basic Writing faculty, staff, and students!

    (J. Elizabeth Clark, posting on behalf of the CBW Executive Board)

    4 Comments

    Filed under Calls to Action, CBW 2011, CCCC, CCCC 2011