Category Archives: What’s New in Basic Writing

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

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

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

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

Call for Papers: BWe Special Issue

2014 BWe Special Issue: Call for Submissions

Basic Writing, Community Engagement, and Interdisciplinarity

Guest Editor: Tom Peele, Long Island University, Brooklyn

Click here for the on-line version of the CFP:  http://bwe.ccny.cuny.edu/cfp_bw_community_engagement.html

Click here for the PDF of the CFP: CFP Basic Writing and Community Engagement

Leave a comment

Filed under Basic Writing e-Journal, Calls to Action, What's New in Basic Writing

Check Out the Beautifully Redesigned BWe!

BWe has moved! And, there’s a brand new double issue of BWe, Multimodal Composing: Opportunities and Challenges in Basic Writing Contexts, now available. Kudos to BWe editor Barbara Gleason for such fantastic work! You’ll enjoy the fascinating articles in this issue.

Also, you’ll love the new site design. CBW executive board member, the amazing  Lynn Reid (who also served as associate editor on this issue) has redesigned the website for BWe and it is gorgeous!

Barbara also asked us to post thanks to CCNY staff member Beth Schneiderman who worked with Lynn to upload the web site onto the City College of New York server this past Spring 2013 semester. Additional thanks to Wynne Ferdinand for help  with editing and creating PDFs for the special issue.

Check it out!

http://bwe.ccny.cuny.edu/index.html

Leave a comment

Filed under Basic Writing e-Journal, Digital Literacy, Tech, What's New in Basic Writing

K.02: Revising the WPA Outcomes Statement for a Multimodal, Digitally Composed World

Although this session is not explicitly about basic writing, I think it’s important to add to the conversation. As we think about basic writing, its many forms, and its many different curricular definitions & iterations across the country, the WPA Outcomes for First Year Writing have become a national touchstone for what first year comp “should” do. Campuses often rely on this as a way to shape local conversations and the outcomes provide an important baseline for national conversations about writing curriculum.

There is no correlation for basic writing. In fact, as many of us regularly discuss at CCCC and CBW, there is not even a common definition of basic writing other than “not ready for college level writing.”

As the WPA takes  next step in thinking about the impact of technology on multimodal composition, it seems like this is a crucial consideration for the basic writing community.

Should we work communally to try to develop an outcomes statement, in collaboration with other groups, like TYCA? If so, what role would technology play in this statement?

Notes from this session are offered in the spirit of thinking about a future basic writing outcomes statement.

Chair: Beth Brunk-Chavez, University of Texas at El Paso

Respondent: Kathleen Blake Yancey, Florida State University
Speaker: Joe Bizup, Boston University
Speaker: Darsie Bowden, DePaul University
Speaker: Dylan Dryer, University of Maine
Speaker: Susanmarie Harrington, University of Vermont

The panel began with Susanmarie Harrington offering a history of the WPA Outcomes statement and its origin in 1996 with a post to WPA-L that resulted in more than 120 suggestions to an individual writing program director about a local outcomes statement. This kicked off a lengthy process in developing a statement that would be useful to campuses. The outcomes statement was made by hundreds of people to be used. The collective work created a policy document that was used to create change. It provided a scaffold for local programs that used the statement and adapted it to get local work done. It provided a frame for what writers do, what works for students, and what works for faculty and programs.

Darsie Bowden, chair of the task force, provided an overview of the task force’s work.

Task force members include: Darsie Bowden, Susanmarie Harrington, Kathleen Blake Yancey, Beth Brunk-Chavez, Lisa Mahle-Grisez, Doug Downs, Doug Hesse, Joe Bizup, Dylan Dryer, Bump Halbritter, and J. Elizabeth Clark.

Bowden next presented the results of a survey: 195 respondents from a four-year college, 21 respondents from two-year colleges, 3 from high schools, and 7 others.

61% of the respondents were very familiar with the WPA Outcomes Statement and an additional 27% were somewhat familiar.

The response to “What does ‘digital literacies’ mean” was very varied. 65% of respondents preferred that any revisions including digital literacy be added to the current WPA statement.

Bowden shared a rich set of written comments provided by respondents including suggestions for additional items (like basic writing and translingualism!) to be added to the WPA Outcomes Statement.

Dylan Dryer gave an overview of what the WPA statement does today and made a case for revising the current statement. He explored the differences between composing and writing. He argued that the WPA statement describes the common knowledge, skills, and attitudes sought by first year composition programs in U.S. post-secondary institutions. Today, that should include digital literacies.

Joe Bizup provided 3 concerns about revising the statement: teaching digital literacies are not central to teaching writing (a central concern), we lack a definition of digital literacies (a definitional concern), digital literacies are best addressed after first year composition (a not yet concern). Bizup enumerated and complicated each of these concerns as a way of thinking about how to deepen the work of the committee and the revision.

The session then moved to small group discussion and critique of the statement and the proposed revisions as a way to garner additional input from the CCCC community.

In the small group report out, people raised the following concerns/issues:

  • Issues of access: where will students do this work? What does it mean to bring technology into first year writing but not into the classroom (if you don’t have a computer lab/iPad program/etc.) ?
  • How can this document speak to people who teach in a program where there is only 1 required comp course? (versus 2)
  • What is the definition of digital literacy?
  • What is the difference between this and the “Composing in Electronic Environments” document?
  • Could this be more of a framework that part of the outcomes?
  • Modality, digital, on-line: what are we talking about? Are they the same? What are the boundaries of composition as a field? What do we acknowledge is not ours as a field? For example, what about audio included in a composition? Who here is an expert in speech and audio production?
  • The introduction to the original statement says that the WPA Outcomes Statement is NOT a required set of outcomes. They were meant to be adapted.
  • Could this document embody the multiple purposes and audiences more fluidly? What would happen if this document embodied multi-modal composition?
  • How can we make this document embody recursive practice?
  • The original document talks about “habits of mind” and “skills” that students should have. Why? Why do we want them to have this? The answer to this question leads us to why digital literacies are important in our curriculum.
  • If we’re going to teach them to be good critical consumers and good writers in the spaces they (students) inhabit, then we need to move into digital spaces.
  • Are our students writing and reading in digital spaces? Are we preparing our students for the workforce? We need to make sure that we have empirical numbers. Isn’t some of this happening off-line?
  • Digital technologies can already be included in many of the current outcomes as a form of writing. We don’t need to specifically address digital technologies.

The session ended with Kathleen Blake Yancey, offering a response to the session, the task force’s work, and the small group discussion.

1. Yancey argues that the document needs some kind of updating.

2. The current WPA Outcomes Statement was meant to be a boundary document (setting out definitions and constructs). We do not want to lose that utility.

3. The 6 areas we need to examine are:

  • Representativeness (the other areas that have been identified like reading & translingualism) & consensus about the national landscape of first year writing
  • The idea of cross talk between this document and other documents (should that be an implicit or explicit part of the process?)
  • The construct of writing: what is the difference between writing and composing?
  • The distinction between digital literacy and visual rhetoric is odd: they are not synonyms; what about digital rhetoric? Visual literacy? Now we have 4 terms, not 2.
  • Can outcomes sponsor conversations? Yes.  (see Pamela Moss’ work) Can outcomes support students? These are both useful and important components of a flexible articulation of writing.
  • There are other issues that need to be addressed such as how students who are enrolled and supported in first year writing programs are successful in college.

4. The WPA Outcomes Statement is a living document. It will be revised.

 

 

 

 

Session Materials:

https://bu.digication.com/CCCC13K/Home

Leave a comment

Filed under CCCC 2013, Digital Literacy, Relationship to First Year Comp, Social Media, Tech, What's New in Basic Writing

Materials From A17, There’s Nothing Basic About Basic Writing:

Hi Folks,

Here’s the presentation for those of you who were asking.

A17 Nothing Basic About Basic Writing 2013

It should be downloadable as a PDF file.

Leave a comment

Filed under CBW 2013, CCCC 2013, Politics of Remediation, Resources, Social Media, What's New in Basic Writing, Who is Basic Writing?