Category Archives: Who is 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

 

 

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?

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?

F.28: The Work of Scholarship: Hermeneutics in Public and Institutional Arguments on Basic Writing

This session, chaired by Hannah Ashley, focused on public and institutional discourses about Basic Writing and Basic Writers. The emphasis was on rewriting the narrative of Basic Writing as part of shaping the public and institutional policies that affect Basic Writing programs, Basic Writers, and faculty and staff.

Karen Uehling presented on “Assessment, Placement, and Access: Framing Arguments from Local and National Histories.” She provided a very comprehensive overview of the history of Basic Writing by examining the trends and history in Basic Writing. I’m going to ask if she’ll share her bibliography for her paper because it’s a treasure trove of the history of trends in Basic Writing and because it was hard for me to keep up with all of the references. [Update: the bibliography appears at the end of this post AND is a separate post on the blog].

Uehling outlined the current language of a “literacy crisis” in our society. She posited that we do not have a literacy crisis. “There was never a golden age when students could write better than they can now,” she asserted.

She then moved to discussing the strand in Basic Writing scholarship of looking at the human costs of the decisions that we (and policy makers and administrators) make about basic writing. “Story is one way that we make sense of the world,” she said, emphasizing the importance of returning to the practice of  including student stories and human narratives into the discussion of Basic Writing. Focusing on numbers and data alone do not paint the picture of what’s at stake, for whom, and why.  As a side note, this has been a trend at CCCC 2013: looking at a return to the importance of narrative & story. I think much of this was influenced by Malea Powell’s address to CCCC 2012 where she dramatically demonstrated the power and importance of story.

William Lalicker explored “Agency through Assessment: Developing a Basic Writing Program Strength Quotient.” He was focused on the question of “How is our work as basic writing professors interpreted, understood and valued?” He suggested that programs engage in a 12 point program strength quotient analysis. It includes questions such as:

  • Does your program use a fair, accurate, and ultimately student-empowering placement system?
  • Does your program employ qualified, theory-savvy instructors who are committed to the value of Basic Writing and its students, and who have the institutional credibility to advocate for their pedagogy and student?
  • Do your Basic Writing courses teach students through research-validated approaches linked to rhetorical principles? That is, are your students encouraged to take a rhetorical stance, have a thesis, write whole essays, develop multiple drafts, make errors and fix errors in their own writing (rather than doing busywork fill-in-the-blank workbook exercises or writing isolated sentences or formulaic paragraphs)?
  • Do your Basic Writing courses get credit as legitimate college courses?
  • Does your Basic Writing program have a viable outcomes assessment regimen?

Each of these questions had a set criteria linked to a point system. For example, question #2 looks at who is teaching Basic Writing. The first criteria is “If your Basic Writing sections, or other learning situations for basic writers, are taught completely by unwilling non-tenure-track instructors assigned due to minimal seniority in the course-choice hierarchy, or by student peers alone, or by lit professors who couldn’t get jobs teaching Chaucer, or other uninspired or unempowered placeholders, assign 0 points.” There are multiple criteria for each question.

Lalicker’s point is that if you assess your writing program, you are able to talk about how you are serving Basic Writers with administrators and stakeholders.

Michael Hill addressed “The Work of Philosophical Argument in an Age of Mechanical Assessment.” Hill began by observing that mechanical grading software is something that perhaps all of us have wished for when facing a stack of papers. An administrator suggested that the college adopt e-Write software because it would solve all of the college’s issues with placement.

Hill focused on the importance of Basic Writing faculty authority. “I am Basic Writing,” he said. As a teacher of basic writing, he understands that it is important to . The data that e-Write is effective, something that influences administrators and politicians, is corporate-funded research. That matters. And, it’s a critical piece of the conversation.

As we think about writing, writing to an audience, and writing for expression, Hill argues that it’s important to remember that writing as an expressive act is transactional: between writer and reader. What happens when that transaction is removed?

Hill suggests that we need to explore and engage in a philosophical argument. Although it’s difficult to get people to listen to ideas, it’s also important to be more persuasive, using our authority and experience as Basic Writing faculty.

e-Write software  changes the communicative paradigm. One cannot be persuasive, one must follow standards that can be quantified in the software. There are also questions about student authorship and authority: who owns the writing, what does it look like?

e-Write and dialectical materialism: Hill invoked Walter Benjamin and the age of mechanical reproduction. e-Write turns Benjamin’s “glee” in mechanical reproduction into something darker. The only power left in the exchange is a voiceless exchange. Writing becomes simply functional. Why are we promoting the deauthorization of writing? e-Write takes authorship and authority away from students. Student writing is voiced into nothing. It becomes a simple number for placement.

e-Write software can also be analyzed through a lens of : it is a failure of a democratic ethic. Robert Dowell claims that democratic society is based on “intrinsic equality.” In e-Write, individual voices are not equal. Instead, they are assessed by a mechanical arbiter of standardization. e-Write fails to participate in democratic education, preparing students to engage in citizenship. e-Write is a tool that is a failure of democracy by erasing a writer’s voice before she is even done writing.

e-Write is a tool for prescription and correction, not for building and guiding student development of voice. This is not the philosophy of Basic Writing, the pedagogical approach to Basic Writing, nor the best practice in the field.

Hill urges us to consider: what are the ramifications of this kind of software? What is the ramification of ANY product that enters the classroom to affect instruction? 

If we do not engage in these discussions and create the scholarship, debate, and policies, then we allow corporations to define Basic Writing, our field, and our philosophy.

Abby Nance presented on “A Tale of Two Classrooms: Practicing Trauma-Sensitive Placement.” Nance began by referencing a previous session (A17) at CCCC when Carla Maroudas asked “How many of your departments use Accuplacer or a similar program for placement?” Most of the room raised their hands. To the second question, “How many of you believe these softwares are accurate?” no hands went up.

Nance focused on a study she did (IRB approved!) about the role of trauma and Basic Writing placement. She was interested in the question of trauma and whether that affected student performance.

She next referenced an ACE Study by the CDC, the work of Jeffery Duncan-Andrade, the work of James Pennebaker, and a 2005 study entitled “Helping Traumatized Children Learn: Supportive School Environments for Children Traumatized by Family Violence” by S. Cole, J.G. O’Brien, G. Gadd, J. Ristuccia, and L. Wallace.  These studies suggest that early childhood trauma leads to serious health problems and a shortened life span.

Nance was interested in exploring if there is a relationship between students’ traumatic experiences prior to enrolling in college and their placement in a college writing classroom and is there a relationship between the acknowledgement and expression of traumatic experiences?

She defined traumatic experiences by: traumatic deaths, family upheaval, traumatic sexual experiences, physical violence, illness/injuries, and other.

She asked students “Prior to this semester, did you experience a death of a very close friend or family member? If yes, how old were you? If yes, how traumatic was this experience?” Students were asked to use a numerical scale.

As she looked at trauma as a whole, there seemed to be very little correlation between trauma and placement.

So, Nance examined the kind of trauma. There are “secret traumas” that are not discussed or publicly acknowledged (e.g. sexual violence in a household versus a death or illness which might be more public).

This data suggests that if there is a relationship between trauma and placement, it’s a complex relationship.

Nance suggested a moderate response to trauma-sensitive placement: by developing sensitivity to these issues.

She also suggested a more radical response: to write and talk about these experiences with students. We know about the healing properties of pomegranates. The healing properties of writing as therapy have been documented and explored. So, how do we engage this and document this and create evidence for this?

Hannah Ashley noted a thread of “seize the discourse” across each of these narratives because it’s critical to establishing our authority, the field all in the service of students and student success.

Resources for this post:

Karen S. Uehling provided this incredibly useful bibliography for her talk on “Assessment, Placement, and Access: Framing Arguments from Local and National Histories” as part of her CCCC presentation March 15, 2013.

Assessment, Placement, and Access: Framing Arguments from Local and National Histories

A Bibliography by Karen S. Uehling

Adams, Peter, Sarah Gearhart, Robert Miller, and Anne Roberts. “The Accelerated Learning Program: Throwing Open the Gates.” Journal of Basic Writing 28.2 (2009): 50–69. Print.

Adler-Kassner, Linda, and Susanmarie Harrington. Basic Writing as a Political Act: Public Conversations about Writing and Literacies. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton P, 2002. Print. [See Chapter 5, “Looking Outward: Basic Writing and Basic Writers in the Mainstream Media,” for information on newspaper coverage of the General College of the University of Minnesota at Minneapolis in 1996 and City University of New York in New York City in 1999.]

Bartholomae, David. “The Tidy House: Basic Writing in the American Curriculum.” Journal of Basic Writing 12.1 (1993): 4–21. Print.

Buber, Martin. I and Thou. 2nd ed. NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1958. Print.

Collins, Terence G. “Basic Writing Programs and Access Allies: Finding and Maintaining Your Support Network.” CBW Newsletter 13.3 (1998): 1–6. Print. [Available as a PDF through the CBW archives.]

———. “A Response to Ira Shor’s ‘Our Apartheid: Writing Instruction and Inequality.'” Journal of Basic Writing 16.2 (1997): 95–100. Print.

Glau, Gregory R., and Chitralekha Duttagupta, Eds. The Bedford Bibliography for Teachers of Basic Writing. 3rd. ed. NY: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010. Print.

Gleason, Barbara. “Evaluating Writing Programs in Real Time: The Politics of Remediation.” College Composition and Communication 51.4 (2000): 560–88. Print.

Greenberg, Karen L. “A Response to Ira Shor’s ‘Our Apartheid: Writing Instruction and Inequality.'” Journal of Basic Writing 16.2 (1997): 90–94. Print.

McNenny, Gerri, Ed. Mainstreaming Basic Writers: Politics and Pedagogies of Access. Mahwah: Erlbaum, 2001. Print.

Otte, George, and Rebecca Williams Mlynarczyk. Basic Writing. West Lafayette, Indiana: Parlor P, 2010. Print. [Also available as open access book on the WAC Clearinghouse: http://wac.colostate.edu/books/basicwriting%5D

Ritter, Kelly. Before Shaughnessy: Basic Writing at Yale and Harvard, 1920–1960. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP, 2009. Print.

Rose, Mike. Back to School: Why Everyone Deserves A Second Chance at Education.
NY: New Press, 2012. Print.

—. Lives on the Boundary: The Struggles and Achievements of America’s Underprepared. New York: Free, 1989. Print.

—. Possible Lives: The Promise of Public Education in America. Houghton Mifflin: 1995. Print.

—. The Mind at Work: Valuing the Intelligence of the American Worker. NY: Penguin, 2004.

Shor, Ira. “Our Apartheid: Writing Instruction and Inequality.” Journal of Basic Writing 16.1 (1997): 91–104. Print.

Soliday, Mary, and Barbara Gleason. “From Remediation to Enrichment: Evaluating a Mainstreaming Project.” Journal of Basic Writing 16.1 (1997): 64–78. Print.

Soliday, Mary. The Politics of Remediation: Institutional and Student Needs in Higher Education. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburg P, 2002. Print.

Sternglass, Marilyn S. Time to Know Them: A Longitudinal Study of Writing and Learning at the College Level. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1997. Print.

Traub, James. City on a Hill: Testing the American Dream at City College. Reading, Mass.: A William Patrick Book/Addison-Wesley, 1994.

Uehling, Karen S. “The Conference on Basic Writing: 1980-2005.” The Bedford Bibliography for Teachers of Basic Writing. Ed. Gregory R. Glau and Chitralekha Duttagupta. 3rd ed. NY: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2005. 8-22. Print.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under CCCC 2013, History of Basic Writing, Politics of Remediation, Who is Basic Writing?

Check Out the Blog Cause!

Check out the blog, Cause by Thomas Henry. He’s blogging CCCC and CBW too!

http://basiccomposition.com/blog/

Leave a comment

Filed under CBW 2013, Social Media, What's New in Basic Writing, Who is Basic Writing?

There’s Nothing About Basic Writing Session Tomorrow, 3/14 at 10:30 a.m. Pacific Time: Log In Details!

Hi Everyone.

We apologize again for those of you who tried to follow the live stream today.

For tomorrow’s session, we will be using Adobe Connect, which we’ve tested on site this afternoon & is working (fingers crossed for tomorrow!!!!). That session, “There’s Nothing Basic About Basic Writing” will be Thursday, 14 March 2013 @ 10:30 am Pacific Time.

You’ll be logging in, you’ll be able to hear us, and you’ll be able to participate via the Live Chat option. We will not, after this morning’s technology glitch, be video streaming it.

The session will be on-line tomorrow at 10:30 am Pacific Time:

https://connect.odu.edu/cccc13/

You’ll log into room cccc13 as a guest.

Meanwhile, we continue to blog and tweet basic writing at C’s! So, you can follow session posts & reflections by our bloggers here at cbwblog.wordpress.com.

You can follow basic writing & CCCC on twitter: #cbw, #4C13.

Thanks to our tweeters: Sara Webb-Sunderhaus, Marisa Klages, Leigh Jonaitis, Abby Nance, & Trent Kays.

Thanks to our bloggers: Sheri Rysdam, Anthony Warnke & Sara Webb-Sunderhaus.

Leave a comment

Filed under CCCC 2013, Social Media, Who is Basic Writing?

Wendy Olson, Beatrice Mendez-Newman, Scott Lyons, Min-Zhan Lu, Shirley Faulkner-Springfield, and Steve Lamos,

20130313-141439.jpg

Leave a comment

by | 03/13/2013 · 9:17 pm