Writing Program Annual Report – 2015 Appendicesisuwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Writing... · Flyer!for!theWriting!Program!Internship! ... •...

Writing Program Annual Report – 2015

Appendices

List of Appendices:

• Appendix A: Semester Reports from Writing Program Staff Members (Spring 2015)

• Appendix B: Writing Program Summit Program (Spring 2015)

• Appendix C: Evaluation Survey summary for the Spring 2015 Summit

• Appendix D: Overview of the 101.10 Course

• Appendix E: Flyer for the Spring 2015 Writing Research Colloquium

• Appendix F: Flyer for the Writing Program Internship

• Appendix G: Flyer and rough draft proposal for the Undergraduate Mentor program

• Appendix H: Semester Reports for Writing Program Staff Members (Fall 2015)

• Appendix I: Sample of Training Materials for ENG 101.10

• Appendix J: Evaluations for the Fall 2015 Orientation

• Appendix K: Fall Summit 2015 schedule

• Appendix L: Fall Summit 2015 Evaluations

• Appendix M: 2016 Plan for Milner Library Collaboration

• Appendix N: Self-‐Assessment Overview document

• Appendix O: Longitudinal Study Award Application

• Appendix P: College of Business 145.13 discussion plan

• Appendix Q: Survey for the ISU writing intensive faculty study

Appendix A: Semester Reports for Spring 2015 End of Semester Report Spring 2015 Grassroots Writing Research Journal Associate Editor Julie Bates

Overview Each semester, Grassroots Writing Research Journal builds off of the progress of previous semesters and continues to serve its primary audience of first-year writing students at Illinois State University with unique examples of writing research. This semester is no exception. The articles in production this semester exemplify thoughtful writing research and include some innovative submissions from undergraduate students plus well-developed submissions from graduate students. In addition, we have a talented team of assistant editors as well as a large group of Guest Reviewers (all of whom are previous Grassroots editors and/or writers) to assist in providing quality feedback on new submissions and to help us move closer to a system similar to what is used by most traditional academic journals. Because previous editors have worked hard to develop a thoughtful and thorough system for each step of the editorial process, this semester the staff has been able to focus less on implementing processes and more on refining what is already in place, while also looking ahead toward future improvements. One key area of emphasis during Spring 2015 was on refining our review process because undergraduate submissions have increased considerably in recent semesters and because we now have enough submissions going through the review process that we have more articles than can fit in upcoming issues of the journal, so we can begin to be more selective of the work we accept for publication. In addition, we have been working on refining our copy editing process to ensure each issue is as error-free as possible. The editorial team for the 6.1 issue of the journal includes the following individuals:

1. Joyce Walker, Editor 2. Julie Bates, Associate Editor 3. Meghann Meeusen, Assistant Editor 4. Laura Skokan, Assistant Editor 5. Sarah Warren-Riley, Assistant Editor 6. Krista Roberts, Assistance Editor 7. Brandi Wells, Assistant Editor 8. Galen Kelly, Assistant Editor 9. Meagan Gaddis, Copyeditor 10. Steve Halle, Copyeditor 11. Danielle Duvick, Copyeditor

The editorial team for the 6.2 issue of the journal includes the following individuals:

1. Joyce Walker, Editor 2. Julie Bates, Associate Editor 3. Sara Warren-Riley, Assistant Editor 4. Meghann Meeusen, Assistant Editor 5. Laura Skokan, Assistant Editor 6. Brandi Wells, Assistant Editor 7. Krista Roberts, Assistant Editor 8. Publications Unit Staff, Copyeditors

Accomplishments/Task Breakdown 1. New Contributions to and Maintenance of Organization and Planning Systems

Most of my work this semester has focused on minimal updates to documents that have already been created (including review guidelines for Guest Editors, submission guidelines for writers, templates for Editor Letters and emails, etc.). I continue to update the submissions spreadsheet every time a new article or revision moves to a different step in the process. In addition, creating a more complete, thorough copy editing/style guide is an ongoing task I have been gradually completing as the semester has progressed. As has become a common practice, at the beginning of the Spring 2015 semester I recruited a number of new Guest Editors to assist in reviewing new submissions. For the 6.1 issue of the journal, we had 20 Guest Editors. For the 6.2 issue of the journal, we have worked with 22 Guest Editors on different aspects of the editorial process. All new Guest Editors who started during Spring 2015 were trained during the first couple of weeks of the semester and were provided with an updated version of the “How to Review for the GWRJ” document. One key addition to the editorial process this semester was the hiring of the Publications Unit at ISU to serve as the copyeditor once the entire journal was designed. This involved incorporating this additional step into the editorial calendar and providing the Publications Unit with the necessary information (including the in-progress style guide) to complete the copyediting project. This was a beneficial addition to our editorial process and is one I plan to continue to build into the editorial schedule for future issues of the journal. Another major change to the organization and planning of the journal was the addition of an extra step in the review process for new submissions. Because we received 22 new submissions prior to the beginning of the Spring 2015 semester, we developed the step of adding an initial review of all new submissions to our process. During this review, the associate editor and two assistant editors divvied up the work of reading through all new submissions and categorizing them as (a) ready to move to the first round of the review process or (b) requiring revision and resubmission prior to proceeding. Ten submissions were deemed ready to move to the first round of review; the rest of the authors received a detailed letter from me. Each letter included general revision guidance as well as a paragraph of revision advice specific to the article the author submitted. Although adding this step in the process early in the Spring 2015 semester delayed our editorial schedule for new submissions, it proved beneficial because we did not have to scramble to find enough reviewers to review 22 new submissions when many were not yet ready to be sent to guest editors for review. This is the first step in what will hopefully be a more selective editorial process for new submissions in the future. As a result of this added step in the process, at the end of the Spring 2015 semester I recruited Guest Editors who would be willing to complete a second round of review over summer break because we were not able to get through two full rounds of review within the Spring 2015 semester. Revisions to articles are currently coming in from many writers and will be sent out to Guest Editors for the second round of review in the coming weeks. Additionally, at the end of the spring semester I spent time revamping the editorial schedule to reflect changes that have been made to the process and spent time planning for summer hours and tasks that need to be completed in order to transition the associate editor duties from myself to the incoming associate editor, Sarah Warren-Riley. These tasks will continue through the summer months, as will the work of refining existing organization and planning systems and related documents. 2. 6.1 Issue—Fall 2015

The 6.1 issue of the journal is currently in the pre-press stage with Stipes. It will be printed within the next couple of weeks, which is ahead of schedule from previous semesters. This issue includes 14 new articles (8 written by graduate students, 5 written by undergraduate students, and 1

collaboratively written by a graduate student and an undergraduate student). I guided the entire 6.1 issue through every step in the editorial process, beginning in the Fall 2014 semester. This involved taking over shepherding a number of undergraduate articles that former associate editor Meghann Meeusen first worked with through the line edit stages. It also involved training and working with a group of four assistant editors from ENG 402 and collaborating with the ENG 402 instructors to guide all of the 402 submissions through the review process. Much of that work happened during the Fall 2014 semester. During the Spring 2015 semester, I focused in specifically on:

• Completing line edits for all articles scheduled to appear in the 6.1 issue • Compiling and editing all images and other visuals scheduled to appear in the 6.1 issue • Coordinating with assistant editors and Joyce Walker on initial copy editing of all

manuscripts, while also conducting a thorough copy edit of each article myself • Working with Joyce to ensure all potential issues related to images, copyright, and discussion

of theory within the journal were adequately addressed before sending the manuscripts and images to Stipes

• Sending all materials to Stipes and working with Brian to ensure issue 6.1 was designed according to our needs

• Contracting with the Publications Units to have the entire designed issue of the journal copyedited, while also reviewing everything in the page proofs myself and compiling all edits to send to Stipes

• Reviewing two rounds of revisions to text and images made by Stipes 3. 6.2 Issue—Spring 2015 During the Spring 2015 semester, I received revised articles from the seven Fall 2014 402 writers whose work is slated to appear in the 6.2 issue of the journal. Those articles will undergo line edits and copy editing over the summer. In addition, during Spring 2015 I worked to continue moving new submissions from undergraduate writers through the editorial process. Currently, four undergraduate articles are ready for line edits over the summer semester and will be published in the 6.2 issue. An additional three undergraduate articles are awaiting their last round of feedback from Guest Editors and I and then, once revisions are submitted, will move on to the line edit stage of the process. Additionally, over the summer I will be working with an undergraduate writer who is writing a new Half-Mile Project interview for the next issue of the journal. This should round out Issue 6.2, although we do also have one graduate article and a couple of undergraduate articles that may be ready to move through an expedited editorial schedule to be published in Isssue 6.2 if needed. Most of the work required to prepare Issue 6.2 for Stipes will be undertaken over the summer months so the issue is ready for manuscript-stage copyediting at the beginning of the Fall 2015 semester. 4. Undergraduate Submissions Of the 22 articles submitted prior to the start of the Spring 2015 semester, all 10 articles that were deemed ready to move through the editorial process are still in progress. Most have already been reviewed and revised and reviewed again, with writers now completing a second round of revision. Of the 12 writers that received revise and resubmit letters, three have submitted revisions that are currently being reviewed by guest editors. An additional three writers expressed interested in submitting at a later date. I would like to mention that assistant editors Sarah Warren-Riley and Laura Skokan have been particularly essential to moving forward all of the work with undergraduate submissions this semester, as initial reviewers of new submissions, anonymous reviewers on many articles at different stages in the process, and as copyeditors. Additionally, assistant editors Brandi Wells and Krista Roberts have been on-call to help with reviewing and copyediting articles as needed. I can’t stress enough how important it is to have talented, reliable assistant editors to help move articles forward.

All of the Guest Editors have also been vital to moving undergraduate submissions through the editorial process this semester. This semester, we finished working with Grassroots recipient Vanessa Garcia on her article, which was collaboratively written with Laura Skokan. Laura’s involvement was vital to getting that article completed. We expect to receive two more submissions from Grassroots Scholarship recipients in the coming weeks and then will begin planning for a transition to the new undergraduate internship that will begin in the fall. A continuing area of focus for me this semester was assisting ENG 101 and 145 instructors with inclusion of the journal in their classes, both in terms of utilizing the articles as a teaching tool in the classroom and assigning students to write articles as an assignment. I spoke with three ENG 101 classes at ISU about the editorial process and submitting articles to the journal. I also did a Skype session with students in one of Meghann Meeusen’s courses at the institution where she is currently a professor. Laura Skokan also visited two ENG 101 classes for me to speak to students about the journal. Additionally, I worked one-on-one with four honors students from Danielle Cochran’s class to help them refine the articles they were writing as final projects for his course; I have already received an official submission of one of those articles and hope to receive the other three as well. In the last two weeks of the semester, we have already received five new submissions, and we are still a week from our “final” spring submission deadline, so I expect we may receive more. These submissions will be reviewed by incoming associate editor Sarah Warren-Riley and assistant editor Tharini Viswanath over the summer so writers can receive a revise and resubmit letter or be notified that their articles are proceeding through the review process at the beginning of the Fall 2015 semester. 5. Summer Tasks Over the summer my primary goal will be moving all articles slated for inclusion in issue 6.2 through the editing process so they are ready for copyedit when the Fall 2015 semester starts. In addition, I will be finishing up sending revised undergraduate submissions to Guest Editors for review and returning that feedback to writers. I also will be coordinating with Sarah Warren-Riley and Tharini Viswanath to assist as needed as they review new submissions to determine which are ready to proceed through the editorial process and which need further revision. Other tasks on my summer to-do list include:

• Finalizing the updated copyediting/style guide • Updating all process guides for the incoming associate editor • Updating all editorial letter and email templates • Writing the guide to teaching with issue 6.1 for the fall summit • Working with incoming associate editor Sarah Warren-Riley to transition duties to her • Updating the new website as needed with Grassroots materials, including a 5 Tips for

Submission post, links to PDFs of all issue 5.2 articles, and descriptions of all new 6.1 articles Hours In total, I worked 160.5 hours this semester, which includes 16 weeks of the term in addition to hours preparing for the semester over winter break. I can provide further details regarding the breakdown of my activities or produce charts and graphs upon request. My hour sheet can also be found in the GWRJ Associate Editor Dropbox account under “Hour Logs and Reports.” Recommendations

Based on my experiences this semester, I have a few recommendations for next semester and the future of the journal, summarized below. Organizational Systems and Documentation

• I recommend continued use of Dropbox to store and share files. However, we did have a few “scares” when guest editors thought they were deleting files only from their computers but actually deleted files from the Dropbox folder itself. I was able to recover those files, but it underscored the need for backing up all files we have on Dropbox. I would recommend that the writing program purchase a portable hard drive or other form of file storage for backup purposes.

• I believe that the documents that have been currently created in regard to templates, process documents, and tracking documents all are functional and useful in their current form. However, continual revising and revamping will be necessary as processes change.

Editorial System

• The system Meghann implemented in Spring 2014, in which the Associate Editor works closely with an Associate Editor-in-Training during the spring semester, who will then take over the editor position in the year to come, seems to be an effective process. I would like to see this continue as it helps with a smooth transition between editors.

• As I mentioned above, I can’t stress enough the importance of enlisting dedicated, quality assistant editors to assist with the editorial process. Ongoing training and recruitment of quality editors should continue to be a top priority for future associate editors.

• Continued recruitment of Guest Editors is also vital to the success of the journal. • I hope the new copyediting process, in which the Publications Unit is hired to do the

final copyedit on the entire journal, will continue to be useful for future editors. I find hiring trained copyeditors for the final review to be a worthwhile use of journal funds because of the quality work they do and because it helps to ease the associate editor’s workload.

New Submissions

• I do think that the revise and resubmit letter we developed this semester needs some more revision to clarify that only substantial revisions will be accepted; some of the revisions we received this semester were not substantial enough to warrant acceptance, but because we were not explicit enough in that letter, we went ahead and accepted them anyway. In the future, it may be necessary to begin to reject submissions that are not appropriate for the journal outright rather than encouraging revision and resubmission in order to be mindful of the number of articles already in process and editors’ workloads.

• I hope that future editors might have time to engage more directly with ENG 145 instructors to encourage them to assign Grassroots articles to read and write in their classes. It would be great to see more new submissions from students in ENG 145 classes.

• I also hope future editors may be able to work more with recruiting additional undergraduate, graduate, and faculty submissions from outside institutions, as that seems like a great way to grow and improve the journal moving forward.

Spring 2015 Semester Report, Writing Program Outreach Coordinator (Emily Johnston) Breakdown of Spring 2015 Semester Hours

This semester, I spent the majority of my hours on transitional work: revamping the Undergraduate Fellowship Program into a Grassroots Internship Program (launching in Fall 2015), and preparing a training packet of materials & resources for David Giovagnoli who will take over the Outreach Coordinator position in Fall 2015. In addition, I assisted with outreach-‐ and program-‐related projects, including helping the Experimental Teaching Group to produce documents for K-‐12 teachers on genre studies/activity theory approaches to writing instruction, and representing the Writing Program on the Critical Inquiry Committee as it works to form greater alignment between the COMM and ENG courses as well as Milner Library. Other hours went towards assisting the current undergraduate fellows with their Colloquium presentations and GWRJ articles, attending weekly meetings with the Writing Program Director, and bi-‐ weekly meetings with the Writing Program Leadership Team. Since this was my final semester as the Outreach Coordinator, this semester report is longer than usual. I added in links in this document (where necessary) to resources related to my Spring Semester activities. I have also added in notes on any follow-‐up work needed during Summer and Fall 2015. I hope this will facilitate a smooth transition for David Giovagnoli to “hit the ground running” in Fall 2015. General P.A. Duties (80 hours) Throughout spring semester, I assisted with multiple outreach-‐ and program-‐related projects, in addition to doing my general duties as a Program Assistant for the Writing Program. I refer to this work as “General P.A. Duties” as this term encompasses both the regular tasks the outreach coordinator is responsible for, as well as miscellaneous tasks assisting other team members with their projects. • Fall 2015 Summit on Writing Instruction: I worked with the Professional Development Coordinator and Writing Program Director to determine which new ENG 101 learning

outcomes to offer workshops on at the Fall Summit (to be held on 8/14/15), and to solicit & confirm roundtable commentators for these workshops. Here are the results of that work: o CHAT (L.O. #5): D.C. Cochran has agreed to commentate. Ana Roncero-‐Bellido signed up initially, but is no longer available. Olga Cochran also signed up, but has not responded to follow-‐up emails. I recommend that we find at least one more person to commentate during this workshop, either by following-‐up once more with Olga, or by soliciting someone else. o Uptake & Antecedent Knowledge (L.O. #6): Meg Gregory has agreed to commentate. Rob Rowan has also agreed to commentate, if he is teaching in the program as a post-‐ doc in Fall 2015. The two others who initially signed up but have not responded to follow-‐up emails are Mark Fotenhauer and Oriana Gilson. I recommend that we find at least one more person to commentate during this workshop, either by following-‐up once more with Mark and Oriana, or by soliciting others. o (Multi)modalities & (Multi)media (L.O. #7): Andrew James has agreed to commentate. I recommend that we find at least one more person to commentate during this workshop. o Cultural & Ethical Impacts (L.O. #8): Kristen Strom and Cristina Sánchez-‐Martín have agreed to commentate. I think we are all set for this workshop! • Undergraduate Mentors Project: I worked with the Writing Program Director to develop a strategic plan and promotional flyer for this project, which aims to bring together students from diverse writing and life experiences to mentor their peers in ENG 101. Here is the plan: o We expect that mentors will first take a special section of ENG 101 in their first (Fall 2016) semester at ISU, which will cover regular ENG 101 content and also how to share learning with future ISU students. o In their second (Spring 2017) and third (Fall 2017) semesters, mentors will attend different ENG 101 classes, work with 101 instructors to design materials & resources for students, and hold mentoring sessions with students. o We hope to be able to pay mentors $10/hour in their mentoring semesters (Spring & Fall 2017). This will depend on grants and other funding sources. o The Writing Program hopes to launch this project in Fall 2016. We began publicizing the Mentors Project this semester by distributing a promotional flyer at the English Studies Showcase (held on 4/25/15), in which juniors from diverse high schools in the Chicago area came to ISU to learn about the university and specifically, the English Department. The promotional flyer can be found in the WPLT Dropbox folder/Outreach Coordinator/Undergraduate Mentors Project. • Writing Program Professional Development Plan: As part of the Writing Program’s efforts

to improve professional development resources for non-‐tenure track faculty and other advanced instructors, I worked with the Writing Program Director to compose and submit a proposal for the Teaching-‐Learning Innovations Grant sponsored by ISU’s Center for Teaching, Learning, and Technology. This grant would provide funds (up to $2500) for the Writing Program to facilitate an all-‐day professional development workshop, for non-‐tenure track faculty and other advanced instructors, on taking up the new ENG 101 learning outcomes in their teaching practices. We submitted the proposal on April 24, 2015. If awarded this grant, funds will be available to us after July 1, 2015. The final draft of the

proposal can be found in the WPLT Google Drive/Program Funding folder: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gd10cXJm-‐

9EGIARsNtqe5loW6qf0Hg5sbLNojDSs6TY/edit. • New ENG 101 Learning Outcomes: I assisted with the Writing Program’s new ENG 101 Learning Outcomes (to be implemented in Fall 2015) by providing feedback on rough drafts of the outcomes and taking notes on instructors’ uptakes of and comments about the new outcomes at the town hall meetings in March 2015. These notes can be found in the WPLT Google Drive folder/Learning Outcomes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_h70x5JNnqDOWTb6V27XLrSvVP_rbF9DNuZ9Gh mhX4U/edit. • Speaker Series: I worked with Maegan Gaddis to finalize Kathleen Yancey’s itinerary for the Fall 2015 Speaker Series. Kathleen will visit ISU Oct 6-‐8. Maegan has purchased her flight, and reserved her hotel room at the Marriott. For copies of the flight and hotel itineraries, please email Maegan Gaddis. Kathleen’s schedule is as follows: o Tues, 10/6: Kathleen arrives. Research talk: 7pm, STV 401. (Room is already reserved.) o Wed, Oct 7: Kathleen visits ENG 402: 5:30-‐8:20pm. o Thurs, Oct 8: Kathleen departs. Over the summer, I will continue correspondence with Kathleen to obtain her bio, research talk abstract, and other materials related to her visit. David Giovagnoli will takeover as the coordinator for Kathleen’s visit beginning in August 2015. I recommend that David begin actively planning the specifics of Kathleen’s various visit activities by the start of Fall Orientation. • Meetings: Most weeks, I attended one-‐on-‐one meetings with the Writing Program Director (10 meetings total). I attended WPLT group meetings every other week (7 meetings total). • Emails: I spent roughly 1 hour each week on email correspondence related to the different projects I worked on this semester. • Miscellaneous: I spent several hours developing my workplan and semester report for Spring 2015. I staffed the Writing Program Space while Maegan Gaddis and Nancy McKinney could not be there. I updated the website, as needed, on projects coordinated by the Outreach Coordinator. I also worked to prepare David Giovagnoli to take over the Writing Program Outreach Coordinator position in Fall 2015. David and I met in person to discuss the position (4/24/15), and I am also creating a training packet for David detailing the various projects the outreach person coordinates and providing links to and documents/other resources relevant to this position. This packet will be completed and sent to David before Fall Orientation begins (by August 2015). GWRJ Fellowship Program (42 hours) This semester, I worked on the Fellowship Program in three capacities: • Coordinating and facilitating the Grassroots Spring Colloquium (held on 2/26/15), which involved mentoring Fellows Kayla Scott and Stephanie Behnke with their colloquium

presentations, as well as inviting past Grassroots authors to present on their articles (Thaddeus Stoklasa and Scott Pyrz—GWRJ 5.2). • Helping the current fellows with their colloquium presentations and Grassroots articles on a CHAT analysis of the artist statement genre (Kayla Scott) and the activity of interpersonal apologies among ISU undergraduates (Stephanie Behnke). The fellows will submit full drafts of their articles to the GWRJ Editors by the upcoming spring deadline (5/16/15). • Working to launch the Grassroots Internships, a revised version of the Fellowship Program, which will launch in Fall 2015. The Writing Program Director and other WPLT members helped me develop and revise a plan for revamping our Fellowship Program into a paid Internship Program, which will focus more on students doing editorial work for GWRJ and supporting the Writing Program generally. The proposal outlines several key changes: (1) establishing a more direct link between students’ research studies and the work of the Grassroots Writing Research Journal; (2) emphasizing the activities of being writing researchers more; and (3) appealing more to undergraduates’ “real-‐world” trajectories by calling the fellowship an internship—a term that more accurately reflects the work students do and that carries more cultural currency on students’ resumes. The program revamp document can be found in the WPLT Google Drive/Grassroots Undergraduate Fellowship Program folder: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GoEYjJeo0NWQSoIBrw6QsTPmu438Q7Qug5RnTh2 IZ1Q/edit. I also produced a promotional flyer, which can be found in the WPLT Dropbox folder/Outreach Coordinator/Grassroots Writing Research Scholarships, which describes the internships in detail. We sent this flyer to the English Department Internship Director, who forwarded it to undergraduate English majors. As a result, we received several applications, interviewed those applicants, and have selected/confirmed two interns for 2015-‐16: Annie Hackett and Nathan Schmidt. The next outreach coordinator will work closely with Maegan Gaddis (program supervisor) and Joyce Walker (faculty mentor) to work with interns—not by closely-‐mentoring them in writing GWRJ articles as we have done in the past, but in ensuring that interns are tracking their work as interns and representing that work in the form of a “Writing for the GWRJ/Becoming A Writing Researcher” blog on our website. Critical Inquiry Committee (16 hours) This semester, I served as a Writing Program Representative on the CIC—a spot the Writing Program Director usually fills. As a representative, I presented with other CIC members at the CTLT Teaching & Learning Symposium (1/7/15), attended regular CIC meetings, composed a semester plan for and summary of the role ENG plays in the CIC (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jW9itbc7Rx6F2bgX8QWgNEC_FQH3eUabZnMJz6f4iB Q/edit), and prepared a document for instructors and librarians working with both the COMM 110 and ENG 101 programs. That document, which can be found in the WPLT Google Driver folder/Critical Inquiry (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0Bzy4RCQC-‐ GeSMDdTVHB5UkNtc0U/0Bzy4RCQC-‐ GeSZUhxZWxxaWRCT1U/0B8FeI9sVi8LKYTJZSUJnUWFlNVE/0B0vrL-‐ DffM_dRENvODBualA2aEE), summarizes areas of alignment discussed at the Critical Inquiry Colloquium (1/8/15) and offers recommendations for building greater alignment.

K-‐12 Outreach (12 hours) This semester, I helped Deb Riggert-‐Kieffer run the Experimental Teaching Groups on K-‐12 outreach. I attended regular meetings with Michelle Wright-‐Dottore, an ETG participant, and helped the ETG prepare documents for K-‐12 instructors on genre studies/activity theory approaches to writing instruction. Those documents have been compiled and posted by Deb.

Professional Development Coordinator End-of-Semester Report Michelle Wright Dottore May 5, 2015 *For a week to week breakdown, please refer to the Excel PDC Hours Log for Spring 2015.

Note: Summit hours includes only hours for the Fall 2015 Summit and does not

reflect the 46.75 hours for the Spring 2015 Summit before the start of the semester

5%

29%

7% 11% 10%

11%

18%

9% Spring 2015 Semester

Tasks 9.25 54.5 12.75

Summit

Podcasts

Half-‐Mile

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

7.5 6.25 5.25 9.25 11.25 9.25

14

10.25 12.5

17

10.5 11 13

19.75 17

10.25

My Weekly Hours

-‐-‐-‐Spring Semester 2015-‐-‐-‐

Spring Summit 46.75

6

Finals week

After the Spring 2015 Writing Summit, the beginning of the semester demands decrease significantly but then steadily build throughout the semester. Since my tasks are often event-‐

based, hours culminate in surges throughout the semester weeks, with the end of the semester becoming the most active.

• Let’s CHAT Podcast Series and the BEYOND 101 Student Podcast Series:

54 hours, 29% Recruiting, scheduling, and collaborating with 101 instructors, Technology Coordinator, and Podcast host to create and expand multimodal resources for our program on topics, current trends, and research relevant to instructors as means of fostering professional development as well as enhancing program visibility. This semester’s special focus was not using these podcasts as a part of our website resources, but also new orientation materials for future classes. Three Podcasts were recorded with instructors as guest speakers and with one Podcast featured returning 101 students. Let’s CHAT Podcast Series Spring 2015: Installment 1, Episode 10 “First Year Reflections: The PhD Edition” Monday, March 2, 5:30 pm - 6:30 pm Instructors: David Giovagnoli, Sarah Warren-Riley, Tharini Viswanath Host Thaddeus Stoklasa Producer Michelle Wright Tech and Editor Laura Skokan Let’s CHAT Podcast Series Spring 2015: Installment 2, Episode 11 “First Year Reflections: The MA Edition” Monday, March 23rd, 6:00 - 7:00 pm Instructors Shannon Harman, Bradley Poling, Maclain Scott, Andrew Trevarrow, Host Thaddeus Stoklasa Producer Michelle Wright Tech and Editor Laura Skokan Let’s CHAT Podcast Series Spring 2015: Installment 3, Episode 12 "Advanced Instructors:: Tricks of the Trade” Friday April 17, 6:00 pm - 7:00 pm Instructors Gretchen Frank, Emily Johnston Host Thaddeus Stoklasa Producer Michelle Wright Tech and Editor Laura Skokan The overall objectives of the Writing Program’s Let’s CHAT Podcast Series include eight vital components:

• To use current research and theory in Writing Studies and related fields of research, learning, and literacy.

• To explore the specific use of research in genre studies and CHAT, learning transfer and cognition.

• To move beyond just learning about composition theories and research and to enact it. • To observe how traces of theory and research make their way in our daily literate practices • To incorporate what we are learning into our personal knowledge as literate citizens • To bring together interested members of our community to talk about praxis

• To capture the knowledge and expertise of program instructors and practitioners and share this as resource to others including but not limited to other instructors, students, and future classes coming to ISU

• To cultivate professional development and to participate in disciplinary conversation of Writing Studies

The audience includes program practitioners, instructors, students, and members of local community as well as any website audience interested in current conversation in Writing Studies New goals for this semester is continue making this professional development series consisting of a more streamlined and familiar format, including using bumper music, having intros and outros, adhering more to a shorter recording time, and scripting with general talking points on the topic at hand (rather than simply interviewing guests) to underscore our goals of exploring current Writing Studies research and theory, cultivating continued profession development, and participating in the conversations, while creating more accessible, more engaging, and more collaborative resource. Another change was shortening our invited speakers’ total commitment time for prep and recording to one hour (rather than one and half hours) to help open up more possibilities in finding the best day and time for everyone to meet up. In order to make this change, the support crew would participate in the same Doodle Poll as the invited speakers but would know that the one time slot would have to pushed back by 30 minutes or so to allot for set up and prep that did not require the invited speakers to be there.

Beyond 101 Spring 2015 Podcast… First Installment, Episode Two Monday, April 6th, 5:30-6:30 ISU students Jamie Campbell and John Golden Host Michelle Wright Producer Laura Skokan The student episode inspired more development and created momentum that this podcast series could really become something special for students and instructors in the program. Looking to the future and trying to consider ways to allow for more involvement of other instructors and their students turned into a conversation about the logistics, such as continuing the database of potentially interested students who would be willing to come back next semester or anytime in the future to participate with other fellow formers students in a podcast that then could be perhaps hosted by their former instructor or other students. While visiting current composition classes and promoting the student podcast definitely generates interest, possibly becoming the best means to acquire the names and email addresses of students who might like to join us for this future recording opportunity, this semester another promotion plan was implemented, which included making materials (letter to instructors, notice emails, bookmarks, and questionnaires) and putting them into instructor mailboxes to have instructors promote this for our program. Another idea in the works is how to further promote these, what themes and topics that the actual recordings could include, and how to promote their use by program instructors as a potentially enriching resource. Future goals would be to have these podcast more student-generated, with student hosting, generating the topics, talking points, and questions. Contributing to Program Website: Creating various documents, links, and resources for instructors as well as for students, parents, community members, field colleagues, and any others, wanting to know more about our program and our disciplinary frameworks.

• Half-Mile Project 12.75 hours, 7%

Community Guest Speaker Jenn Rients

Monday, April 20, 2015 9:00-10:00 am Instructor Tharini Viswanath and ENG 101 class Producer Michelle Wright ISU Writing Program’s Half-Mile Project is invested in writing research and writing researchers and seeks to uncover new information about what happens when people try to compose particular texts in particular situations. Therefore, we invite people from our local community, people with real-world experience to talk to students about their real-world literate practices. The audience includes program practitioners, instructors, students, and members of local community as well as any website audience interested in current conversation in Writing Studies. A continuing goal for the Half-Mile Project is maximizing its applicability as resource for more instructors and students in the program. One of the ways of maximizing its applicability is by making the video footage of the event more accessible by clipping and writing promotional previews for our program website. The goal of this clips and promotional previews is really focus on the instructional and student value, situating the clips within our Writing Program’s key concepts and terms while at same time using a conversational tone to enhance their applicability as a quick but engaging resource. My goal here was to keep these clips and promotional previews specific enough without compromising the potential broad appeal, thereby aiming to offer everyone the freedom of zooming in on specific but brief moments of interest. The goals of these previews are to highlight the actual questions posed by students and hinting at the guest speaker’s replies without giving too much information in hopes to peak curiosity. Overall, each clip should try to compliment, correspond, or offer a brief but insightful example of WP curriculum and the projects and activities (including Grassroots) that many instructors already use. As these clips were previewed at the Spring Writing Summit 2015, it seems that reception of these resources were quite positive, though I do not have any hard data on the amount of activity that these clips received over the course of the semester, which could be something we might want to collect in the future. This semester’s Half-Mile was happy to have Jenn Rients to join us. Compositions that Share & Care: Writing to Empower Families Jenn Rients, Regional Coordinator for the Parents Care + Share program, has been employed with Children’s Home + Aid (formerly The Children’s Foundation) in Bloomington for 16 years, which provides support group services for parents and caregivers, along with accompanying children’s groups. In charge of 16-20 groups at any given time within the Central Illinois Region, Jenn creates promotional materials for individual groups and the program as a whole, recruits and manages volunteers, and serves on a number of committees, advisory boards, and coalitions in McLean County and the surrounding areas. Jenn also heads up the annual “Blue Bow Campaign,” occurring each April in conjunction with National Child Abuse Prevention Month. Jenn’s vision is to bring education, confidence, and inspiration to parents and caregivers, and thereby to their children. Now that’s composition that shares and cares! What’s new this semester is advertising and moving up the timeline of this event. In the past the instructor awarded the opportunity to for their class to attend the talk has been done at the Writing Summit, which is after instructors have prepared and completed their curriculum plans for the semester. Therefore, being the recipient instructor of this opportunity denotes having to alter plans that have already taken shape, which may contribute to less interest in participating in it. This semester we moved up the timeline and attempted to award this opportunity at the end of the semester, thereby giving the recipient instructor more time to incorporate this event and the enriching engagement that it is into their actual plans for the next semester. However, this might not have been well received as we would have like, perhaps because it went out the last week of classes.

Winning Compositions! Don’t Scramble in the Writing Trenches: Get a Play-Action Pass from a Coach Gaddis Huddle up! Wes Gaddis, football player and coach with over twenty-five years of experience, will be visiting this Fall Semester to talk with students about how he tackles writing situations. Wes Gaddis played quarterback in high school and has served as Assistant, Defensive Coordinator, Offensive Coordinator, and Head Coach. Helping players from diverse neighborhoods, such as Clinton, Olympia (Stanton), Decatur, Downs, and our own backyard, Bloomington-Normal, Coach Gaddis’s accomplishments include: 2004 #2 Defense in the Conference, 2008 and 2011 Little League Runners-up, 2009 and 2010 Little League Champs, 2012 #1 Defense in the Conference, 2013 Conference Champs, 2013 State Title Runners-Up, and 2014 Playoff contender. Touch Down! Coach Gaddis frequently litters his daughters’ homework with random football plays that pop into his head. If you want to score extra points with your composition students this fall, zip an email. Now that’s forward progress!

Contributing to Program Website: Creating various documents, links, and resources for instructors as well as for students, parents, community members, field colleagues, and any others, wanting to know more about our program and our disciplinary frameworks.

• Writing Summit Fall 2015:

9 hours, 5% (There was a total of 46.75 hours for the Spring 2015 Writing Summit.)

Writing Program's Fall 2015 Summit, which will be held that Friday before classes resume, August 14, 9:00 am—4:00 pm. This fall’s Summit hopes to continue to offer everyone different options in a hybrid style conference in order to maximize engagement and interaction as well as to give individual instructors time to take up the new learning objectives and incorporate these as a special point of focus of their professional development over the next 2015/2016 school year. Basic Summit format is as follows: Morning Concurrent Sessions: There will be two concurrent sessions, with a total of 8 possible sessions during the morning portion of our Summit. Instructors may propose a solo presentation, or work with colleagues to propose a panel. Sessions are 50 minutes. We are very open to your ideas/suggestions and have thought up a few possible topics to help spark your inspiration! Afternoon Discussion/Breakout/Workshop Groups: While the morning Concurrent Sessions are open and the formatting will be the same as before, the Fall 2015 Summit will see some changes to the afternoon session in which are goal is to transform the breakout groups into workshops where individual instructors will have the opportunity to work on one of the four new and revised writing program learning outcomes and come up with a plan on how they hope to work with it in the coming semester. Wrap Up: These changes are in line with the next Program Assessment where instructors will be able to discern how their students performed in the eight revised program learning outcome areas. Therefore, the breakout groups have been augmented to enhance a sense of individual-instructor responsibility for their own professional development. Special attention for this Summit included the goal of increasing instructor accountability to these ends, so we can say in good confidence that the eight critical areas of professional development have been met. Roundtable discussions will begin with volunteer commentators with members of the WPLT hosting/moderating these talks and culminate with breakout groups discussing the application of a certain learning goal within their curriculum and lesson plans in a workshop that provides time for instructors to map out individually how they plan on addressing their own goals.

• Meetings with WPLT and the Director for planning and development 20 hours, 11%

Meetings include time spent with Director, Office Manager, and any official sort of business.

• Event Reporting, recording, logging, archiving, and upkeep of records 17.25 hours, 9%

Extensive records are kept, detailing email, invites, and events that went out as well as keeping a color coded log of hours in order to collect data on the semester.

• Other WPLT, including helping other members of the team during special events

18 hours, 10%

The majority of these hours were spent helping the 145 Coordinator and the Outreach Coordinator with the Spring Semester 2015 Experimental Teaching Group. Our goal is a K through 12 teacher preparation initiatives that seeks to introduce genre studies and activity theories as well as “writer researcher” models to K through 12 school settings, which included developing a glossary of writing program terms and lesson plans that could be implemented in elementary, middle, and secondary schools and classrooms. The efforts toward this initiative culminated in a proposal for NTCE as well as a group presentation for Word’s Worth Graduate Conference Symposium on April 17th, in which many pre-service teachers attended. Deb Riggert-Keiffer was the moderator and lead. Kristen Strom focused on implementing in high schools; Dan Hummels focused on implementing in middle schools; and Maclain Scott focused on implanting in elementary schools. My role in the presentation was to introduce the “writer researcher” model and situate its applicability within current school contexts as well as English Studies models. My contribution to the PowerPoint portion of the presentation included added graphics, transitions, special effects, and process metaphors to help attendees situate these practices in their own contexts. Additional hours here involve helping the Outreach Coordinator with the Grassroots Colloquium and promotional materials for that as well as the new and upcoming mentorship program.

• Other WPLT and department work, such as helping out with the English Studies Showcase, 20.75, 11%

English Studies Showcase held Saturday April 25, 2015 is a diversity recruitment initiative by the Department of English, inviting junior and senior students from local diverse areas to Stevenson Hall to learn more about ISU and our undergraduate English Studies programming in hopes to attract more diverse students to our programs. My duties included designing the program as well as helping out the day of the event with programming and registration.

• Special event of representing our writing program presenting with last year’s Experimental Teaching Group on Uptake Genres at the CCCC, 34 hours,

18% Excitedly, last year’s Experiment Teaching Group, members Elizabeth Williams, Julie Bates, Angela Sheets, and I were selected to present a workshop on Uptake and Uptake Genres at the CCCC in Tampa on March 18th, in which I chaired our

workshop committee. Each member had a hand in the design, implementation, and delivery of the workshop, which culminated in a packet of resources for participants and instructors in our program. Elizabeth tended to the script for the day of the event, fine turning the interactive activities. Angela and Julie collected uptake genre samples and helped to situate the scholarship and terms. I added to the samples, and brought the parts and sections together, bridging, writing, editing, and breaking down the complexities into more consumable bits and graphic conceptualizations, which will also contribute to our program website, creating various documents, links, and resources for instructors as well as for students, parents, community members, field colleagues, and any others, wanting to know more about our program and our disciplinary frameworks. Julie and I made final edits to the packet and printed and bound it for distribution.

Semester Report Spring 2015 Summer Qabazard Data Coordinator ISU Writing Program _____________________________________________________________________

Data Analysis 60 Hours I did miscellaneous data analysis on both the program-wide assessment and self assessment at the beginning of the semester. Data Tracking 5 Hours

Data AnalysisData TrackingData OrganizationCopyeditingMeetingsEmailsArticleMisc.

40%

20%

18%

10%

3%

2%

3%

3%

In the later part of the semester, I helped our longitudinal study interviewers set up interviews. I also kept track of the recorded interviews and made sure they were stored properly. Data Organization 5 Hours I created a data guide for the next data coordinator showing which documents are connected to this position, and where they are located. Copyediting/Proofreading/Revisions 30 Hours I copyedited and proofread miscellaneous Writing Program documents throughout the semester, including the annual report, assessment IRB forms. And I revised the last self assessment. Meetings 27 Hours I attended biweekly meetings with the rest of the Writing Program Leadership Team and weekly meetings with Joyce Walker (Director). Emails 15 Hours I emailed with other members of the Writing Program Leadership Team and Writing Program instructors throughout the semester. Article Research 5 Hours I researched assessment articles that might help the Writing Program with an article on assessment. Miscellaneous 3 Hours I assisted with colloquium preparation. I also assisted with coordinating presenters in preparation for the Fall 2015 Summit. I also selected genres and accompanying images for upcoming self assessment. ISU Writing Program End of Semester Report - Spring 2015 Jeff Rients - English 101 Coordinator This semester I logged 168 hours of work on Writing Program-related tasks and activities, with peak activity occurring in the middle three weeks of the semester.

The kinds of activities I performed in my role as 101 Coordinator can be broken down into eight major categories.

Recurring Meetings constituted 22 percent of hours logged, or 37 hours total. This category includes the biweekly Writing Program Leadership Team staff meeting (eight meetings, typically 90 minutes in length), a weekly planning meeting with the Writing Program Director and usually the 101.10 Coordinator (typically an hour in length), and leading a weekly mentoring meeting with the cohort of graduate instructors teaching English 101 for the first time. The latter were sometimes attended by the Assistant Director, the 101.10 Coordinator, more experienced graduate instructors, and Milner librarian Alexis Wolstein.

Scheduled Meetings were 4.5% of the total, or 7.5 hours. These include additional meetings with the Director and/or 101.10 Coordinator, as well as individual meetings requested by instructors for assistance with a task or problem. Impromptu Meetings took up 16.2%, or 27.25 hours, of the total time logged. These consist primarily of drop-in visits to my office or conversations in the Writing Program suite. Most of the impromptu meetings recorded are one-on-one meetings focused on troubleshooting specific problems for individual graduate instructors. Most of these meetings were with instructors in their first year teaching in our program. At 3.25 hours, or under 2% of the total, Emails are probably under-reported. It does not always occur to me to log an email exchange with an instructor. Observations required 13 hours, or 7.7% of the total logged time. This activity consisted of a classroom ethnography for each of six instructors, a debriefing after class is dismissed, and the time needed to transcribe handwritten observation notes. Five of the observations were of first semester instructors, members of the same group that attended the cohort meetings mentioned above. The sixth observation was of a first time instructor for English 145; the 145 Coordinator and I swapped observations because we each had an instructor who taught at the same time that we did. Special Events were 14% of the total, or 23.5 hours. This category consists primarily of official Writing Program events, such as the Writing Summit, Grassroots Colloquium, the Let’s CHAT! Podcast, and the Half Mile Project. My role in these projects was mostly support rather than leadership. I also worked with the Director and Outreach Coordinator at the English Studies Showcase. My Special Project for this semester took more time than any other category, totalling 45.75 hours, or 27.2%. The project consisted of an overhaul of the new PhD instructor Summer Orientation. To this end, I created a set of pre-Orientation learning modules on ReggieNet and revised the Orientation to better reflect the Writing Program’s new learning outcomes. Miscellaneous tasks required 10.75 hours, or 6.4% of the total. Laura Skokan Technology Coordinator Writing Program End of Semester Report April 27, 2015 Summary This semester’s worth of work was fairly unique for the Technology Coordinator, insofar as I spent the better part of it re-designing the website. This was a bit of a larger undertaking

than I think most people were expecting, but a confluence of events made this a good opportunity to take stock of what we needed on the site and reorganize it accordingly. Most significantly, we shifted from pages to posts. Which gave us a site that is much more navigable, that allows access to many topics without overwhelming the visitor, and provides us a powerful organizational tool. Additionally, this semester also saw an upgrade in our technology. The microphones for the podcasts are of a remarkably higher quality. The podcasts are starting to sound quite professional – it is starting match the content. Our software upgraded as well, as we now have Final Cut Pro X. This tool not only does a lot of work for us, but it also allows us to do much more complicated tasks. Which also helps the professional quality we are striving for. For a more detailed breakdown of hours, please go to: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B8FeI9sVi8LKYTJZSUJnUWFlNVE/0B8FeI9sVi8LKOV9fR0NBQ3V4amc

Because this was a unique year, I suspect that my numbers will not be representative of future Tech Coordinators’ times. For instance, I did very little in terms of helping instructors with technology issues. There are two reasons for this. First, this was second semester. Most technical problems for new people had come up and been resolved in the first semester and we did not introduce any new technologies into the classroom. As a result, no major issues came up for me to address. Second, I was directed to focus my attention on the site. My predecessor, Kate Browne, had suggested to me that holding an hour a week for office hours was a good balance. This accounted for most of her email correspondence and not in-person tech help. She said doing much more than an hour

WPLT Web Coordination!

8%!Office Hours!

2%!

Media Production!21%!

Recording!6%!

Website!45%!

Meetings!18%!

Tech Coordinator !Spring 2015 Hours!

would not have allowed her to do the rest of the tasks she needed, but less would not have accounted for the accumulation of various small tasks she had to address during the week. I was able to learn a lot about Final Cut Pro by looking at videos online. However, I got a much better handle on it after working with it. The approach I took on the first two podcasts is not the approach I ended up with (or would recommend, as the first two took significantly longer to edit than later episodes). I was also able to take old podcasts that had not been put online and edit them in a way that brought their sound quality up. Similarly, I got better at recording the podcasts. I recorded 4 episodes. By the third one, I got the quality up to where it should be, which made the editing process decidedly easier. To that end, I would suggest meeting with the Tech Coordinators at the beginning of the next semester and show them what I did. In the future, there should be some documentation of this, but I ran out of time to make them myself. (This will be re-addressed in the Recommendation section.) Timing was important to me in these recordings. I was able to take out pauses or strange deviations (without losing any meaning or even humor). This I think is a helpful skill for the videos especially. Since they are not as visually interesting as they are in their content, editing lagging bits was crucial. For instance, there were some technical troubles in one presentation and rather than show the space where the speaker was not, I added in a title card and cut out about 30 second of waiting. This made for a nicer edit than simply cutting, and is a helpful tool from Final Cut Pro. Descriptions of Major Projects

• Recreating the website This was a fairly involved process and, as it will not be the task of the Tech Coordinator for a long time to come, I will keep my description fairly brief o Converting pages to posts o Making content work with the new theme o Re-organizing Content for increased navigability o Creating Categories

§ Including Updates Categories, making it easier to see what posts need updating and how often

o Aesthetics § Layout of posts for various topics § Images for the homepage

o Moving our media (e.g. podcasts, GWRJ issues) from Googledocs to our media server

• Coordinating the WPLT’s use of the Website o Training Writing Program Leadership Team on how to use website

§ In person § Creating Documents for primary tasks

o Organizing who does what jobs for the site § Accounting for every post § Appointing the most relevant person for each post § Organizing posts into a schedule of updates (Before the end of the

semester, Semesterly, Yearly, and posts that are “Under Construction”)

o Creating email addresses through server § Creating passwords and names § Adding consistency between teams as new members come on § Decreasing need to update the site and listserv § Providing a buffer for putting team member’s personal email

addresses out on public site • Media Production

o Researching, setting up, and working with New Equipment o Learning Final Cut Pro o Editing o Adding Intro/Outro for Beyond 101 o Creating playlists on YouTube Channel for ease of the website

Reflections and Recommendations My main recommendation is about the organization of data. I used the laptop so I could take it home. While I backed-up recordings and final copies to the external hard drive, the originals on the laptop will be too large for the laptop soon enough. The external hard-drive has a sufficient amount of storage space, but there should be more permanent place for it too. Kate Browne had suggested backing up and clearing off the SD cards. I was not able to address this. Additionally, naming and creating navigable folders would be really helpful. Overall, what I think needs to happen next is to put in place a standardized process for how to store content. I found the mixer to be difficult to use. Especially since it added effects onto the recordings, rather than letting me add them in post, and the gain has to be turned up all the way in order for it to pick up any sound. I found two work-arounds for the echo. The first has to be done manually every time and so is less than reliable. The second might be a more permanent solution. However, it will need to be looked into further and a new mixer might be needed. Michelle and I found that we needed to have the space to ourselves to do a proper test of the equipment. (I did not notice the echo the mixer added when we did sound levels because the group continued to have a conversation while I was listening to the test recording.) I would recommend keeping the guests out until a preliminary test can be done. Then invite the guests in to do a check on levels. For the site. I made some executive decisions about layout. I would recommend that the Tech Coordinator make sure that the layouts are at least unified. Especially for multiple posts for the same subject (e.g. podcasts, Half-Mile Project, the Colloquium, etc.). This was not the case for the site before and I think the lack of unification made it seem disorganized. I would also invite the Tech Coordinator to keep information streamlined. I found in going through the old site that there would be many examples or explanations on a single subject. It is tempting to keep adding more since we can. However, my suggestion would be to offer 10 sold, foundational examples, rather than 50 decent ones that together cover every possible angle. This would require updating and deleting the examples as more

getting added on, but given our evolution as a program, that kind of curation seems not only helpful, but germane to our process. I was able to mark chapters on the podcasts when using Final Cut Pro. However, I do not believe this transferred over when I condensed it in Audacity (FCP does not condense the MP3 enough for the site). I know that GarageBand has a chapter marking feature, but that introduces 3 softwares to make this happen and that became unwieldy. I think chapter markers are a considerate thing to provide the listener as they allow for easier navigation. I also think it’s becoming more the standard, so we should look into a more streamlined way to do it. I was not able to create materials for recording and editing the podcasts/videos. Nor was I able to make documents for the more complicated back-end website information. Partly, this is because I will be available next semester and, knowing the two incoming Tech Coordinators, I know they have familiarity with most of these tasks. However, I think it will be absolutely necessary as this position gets passed further down.

INTEROFF ICE MEMORANDUM

TO: JOYCE WALKER

FROM: DEB RIGGERT-‐KIEFFER

SUBJECT: SPRING 2015 SEMESTER REPORT

DATE: MAY 2, 2015

CC:

17%

43%

18%

11%

11%

Chart Title

Mentoring & Observations Research & Planning Meetings Emails Other WPLT Support

Introduction

My work during Spring 2015 was primarily focused on creating materials with the Experimental Teaching group. I completed the ENG 145 survey with the College of Business and the sample course plan for ENG 145 instructors.

For this report, I will outline my tasks and duties for the semester and provide commentary on projects that I plan to continue in the fall 2015 semester. Attached to this report is a visual breakdown of my hours spent over the course of the semester.

Semester Tasks

Mentoring and Observation

30.75 hours were devoted to mentoring and observations. There were four new ENG 145 instructors this semester. I met with two instructors at the beginning of the semester to discuss spring course plans with most of the mentoring for ENG 145 students completed at the beginning of the semester. Since the majority of ENG 145 instructors have experience teaching this course, mentoring for these instructors was limited. Occasionally, instructors would stop me in the hall or visit my office to brainstorm ideas for projects or ask questions about student concerns. Again this semester, the majority of the mentoring I did was with ENG 101 instructors. I continued to stay in contact with the PhD student I mentored last semester, primarily providing advice on instructional materials.

Looking to the fall semester, it might be beneficial for the ENG 145 coordinator to set aside time early in the fall for mentoring new instructors since the ENG 145 coordinator typically has fewer projects during this time. This time could be coordinated with the ENG 101 coordinator so that students who need additional assistance are supported. This will allow the ENG 101 coordinator to meet the needs of the majority of the students without spending all of the allotted time providing assistance to one or two students.

Research and Planning

77.5 hours were devoted to research and planning. The majority of these hours were spent working with the experimental teaching group. At the beginning of the semester, I sent an open invitation through the grad student list-‐serve. Six students responded to the invitation and agreed to attend weekly meetings. The Outreach Coordinator agreed to meet with one PhD student who could not attend the Tuesday afternoon meeting time due to a scheduling conflict. I attended meetings with both groups until the meeting time was changed due to scheduling needs. Three PhD students and two Master’s students attended weekly meetings every Tuesday afternoon during the semester. We created materials based on outreach envisioned for K-‐12 teachers in public school settings. First, we created a flyer with an overview of creating writing researchers. We also created a series of lesson plans for the genre of valentines/love notes for the grade bands 3-‐5, 6-‐8, and high school. Plans featured either 5 or 6 days of instruction and included learning outcomes related to CCSS, which teachers are being asked to address. We also built on a terms list initiated by work that Mark Pfotenhauer in ENG 402. We thought it would be important for teachers to have a glossary of terms that while possibly familiar, are used differently by our instructors. Four of the experimental

teaching group members and I presented our materials at the Wordsworth Conference on April 17. I think the materials that we produced will be valuable for our NCTE presentation in November of 2015.

We also proposed re-‐writes for a series of five GRWJ articles that we thought would be high interest for middle school students. I contacted the authors to request permission. All agreed to allow us to re-‐write their articles. One author volunteered to re-‐write her own article, and I met with her to address the language/reading demands of middle school students. I have re-‐written one of the articles already and am waiting for feedback from the author. This is an ongoing project that I anticipate continuing next semester.

I completed the ENG 145.13 survey report. We proposed a series of classes that would address grammar concerns, which were prevalent among the 145.13 instructors’ responses. Although I have not received a response from Dr. Longfellow, this might be an area of development for next semester.

I also completed the sample course plan for our new ENG 145 instructors. I think this document could also have an outside audience for instructors interested in a genre theory approach. At the writing of this report, the ENG 145 sample course plan has not been uploaded to the new website, but I anticipate having this completed before the end of May.

At the end of the semester, I worked on adapting the ENG 101 learning outcomes for ENG 145. While they are still being revised at the writing of this report, I anticipate having them completed and on the new website before the end of May.

I continued compiling course plans and syllabi from ENG 145 instructors that could be shared with other instructors. This project is one that has been ongoing, and I plan to continue to gather more resources for the 145 and 145.13 instructors.

Meetings

20.75 hours were devoted to meetings. Bi-‐weekly WPLT meetings and weekly meetings with the WP director were an essential part of my work in order to stay updated with what the rest of the team was doing and to keep the WP director in the loop on the progress that I was making each week. Half of our weekly meetings were conducted via phone or email.

Emails

32.25 hours were devoted to writing, reading, and receiving emails. Email is the most effective and efficient way for me to contact and remain in contact with the ENG 145 instructors and WPLT members. Email also allowed me to share material with the graduate student I mentored, and was especially helpful in communicating during the hours I was not available on campus. Email was also a tool that allowed me to communicate with the WP director if, for some reason, one of us was not able to make it to our weekly meeting.

Other WPLT support

21 hours were devoted to supporting other members of the WPLT. Most of my addition work was devoted to working on the spring writing summit and the colloquium. I attended one meeting with Comm. instructors and the Outreach Coordinator. I also helped one student plan primary research for a GRWJ article. I completed one ethnographic observation for the ENG 101 coordinator due to a scheduling conflict with his classes. Finally, I helped with small tasks like putting up posters for WP events and editing documents. I tried to make myself available if other WP staff asked for my assistance.

Summary

Overall, I was able to complete the projects that I started this semester, and I am very happy with the materials that I was able to create with the help of the experimental teaching group members. I think these materials will be especially helpful as we plan to present the “Dr. Nobody's No-Holds Barred Genre Studies and Activity Theory Throwdown: How to Create a Writing Researcher” session for NCTE in November. I am looking forward to continuing the Spreading Roots work as we re-‐write GRWJ articles for younger students. I am also looking forward to assisting a former middle school student in researching and writing a GRWJ article.

Evan Nave 101.10 Coordinator Spring 2015 Semester Report

10

50

25

15

15

10

25

101.10 Coordinator Fall 2015 Hours Distribution

Cohort Group Meetings

2015 Document Planning/Writing

WPLT Meetings

Observations

Professional Development Discussions

Spring 2015 Writing Summit

Administrative Duties

Introduction The Spring 2015 semester brought a shift in my ENG 101.10 Coordinator duties, as the Writing Consultants I mentored in the fall moved to instructing their own sections of ENG 101 (and therefore somewhat out of my sphere of influence.) Since there was only one operating section of ENG 101.10 in the spring semester, my responsibilities became planning program modifications/adjustments for the 2015-2016 school year and creating documents that outlined my intentions for these modifications. With this being said, the majority of my Writing Program work hours were dedicated to the production of documents intended for future 101.10 Instructors, Consultants, and WPLT staff. My remaining hours, in general, were used engaging with 101.10 Consultants and Instructors, consulting other WPLT members regarding future Writing Program modifications, attending to email and other administrative duties, and meeting with the WPLT and Dr. Walker for weekly Writing Program updates. WPLT Meetings (25 hours) Every other week, all of the WPLT members meet for an hour to an hour and a half to discuss projects pertinent to the writing program. In addition to these larger group meetings, I met with Dr. Walker every week for a half hour to an hour to discuss relevant issues pertaining specifically to ENG 101.10. These hours combine all the meeting times where I met with Dr. Walker and/or the entire WPLT. Observations (15 hours) As mentioned in the “Introduction,” there was only one operating section of ENG 101.10 in the spring semester. I attended several of this section’s class meetings and Consulting sessions, as well as post-class and post-session meetings with the individual Instructor and Consultant, respectively. These observations and meetings fed into my understandings of how to better augment fall 2015 ENG 101.10 goals and expectations. Professional Development Discussions (15 hours) With my less campus-intensive duties this past spring, I spent less time in my office in Stevenson Hall. Whereas in the fall I spoke with the ENG 101.10 Coordinator, Jeff Rients, almost daily about teaching, program Coordinating, and other administrative topics, our meetings in the Spring were less frequent. But Jeff still set aside hours of his time to answer my questions, listen to me brainstorm, and help me problem solve. I consider our sporadic but intense conversations part of my professional development, as they progressed my thinking and planning of ENG 101.10-related issues. Administrative Duties (25 hours) Since I did not meet with many Consultants face-to-face this semester (due to their roles as ENG 101, rather than 101.10, Instructors), I spent a lot of time answering former Consultant emails, addressing Instructor concerns on a case by case, in-person basis, and checking in on Instructors during their on-campus office hours. These hours cover my day-to-day duties as the ENG 101.10 Coordinator, the small communication-related tasks that add up to ENG 101 and 101.10 running more smoothly. Cohort Group Meetings (10 Hours)

Even though I did not hold formal “Cohort Meetings” like I did in the fall, I still spent a lot of time checking in with the Instructor and Consultant in the single section of ENG 101.10 in the spring. I went to their offices, took them out to coffee, and met with them in the Writing Program to discuss their teaching practices and ideas about future program improvements. These informal meetings provided crucial feedback that helped me as I attempted to redesign certain aspects of ENG 101.10 for the fall 2015 semester. Spring 2015 Writing Summit (10 Hours) These hours pertain to the time I spent helping plan and execute the 2015 Writing Summit. My duties at the Summit included setting up meals, preparing spaces for group activities and workshops, and staying after the event ended to help clean up the spaces used in Stevenson Hall. 2015 Document Planning/Writing (50 Hours) Most of my spring semester was spent planning for the fall 2015 semester. The majority of my work revolved around organizing a system of communication that allowed ENG 101.10 Instructors, Consultants, and students to share information more clearly and efficiently. I spent a lot of time brainstorming, theorizing, revising, and writing out a notetaking process that could provide everyone involved with 101.10 access to what writing research activities were taking place in classes, study group sessions, and one-on-one tutoring sessions. My goal was to design a system of communication that kept everyone on the same (or at least close to the same) page throughout the semester, and one that let Writing Program administrators see examples of the discourses that exist in ENG 101.10. In my hours of designing and documenting, I asked for input from current and former ENG 101.10 Instructors and Consultants, researched different ideas for student and instructor/consultant notetaking, thought about how I would use notetaking in my own classroom, and met with Dr. Walker and other WPLT technology Coordinators to consider which digital mediums would work best for the notetaking. By the end of the semester, I had written a collection of documents explaining the new ENG 101.10 notetaking processes and prepared them to be viewed by incoming ENG 101.10 Instructors, Consultants, and Coordinators. Conclusions and Future Plans The spring semester was difficult for me because I did not feel like it catered to my strengths in interpersonal communication and classroom/study group session problem solving. I feel I work best when I’m in close quarters with others, sharing their daily struggles and triumphs, and helping them plan for future instructional opportunities. Without nearly as many Instructors and Consultants to work with on a daily, or at least weekly, basis, I often felt like I lost my way. My work was more theoretical than concrete; I spent much more time researching and writing and planning for future than I did talking with Writing Program teachers and WPLT members. My responsibilities shifted from being more social/interactional to being more writing-intensive. I spent a lot of time in front of my computer, learning the importance of pushing myself to make the Writing Program better. In the future, I need to do a better job of setting realistic goals, sticking to a consistent work schedule, and keeping my sights on future outcomes (instead of getting caught up in the ups and downs of program planning.) To do this, I will put more trust in the power of group work and collaboration with other members of the WPLT. My successes in the spring semester came when I combined my ideas with the input of others to make sustainable and exciting goals for ENG 101.10. I look forward to spring 2016 and another opportunity to plan for successful future semesters.

jwalke2

Typewritten Text

jwalke2

Typewritten Text

jwalke2

Typewritten Text

Appendix B: Spring 2015 Summit Program

jwalke2

Typewritten Text

jwalke2

Typewritten Text

jwalke2

Typewritten Text

jwalke2

Typewritten Text

Illinois State University Writing Program

SUMMIT ON WRITING

INSTRUCTION

Friday, January 9, 2015

Stevenson Hall (STV)

8:30 am—3:30 pm

Spring 2015

Cover Photos: “Research Cycle” “Qualitative Research” http://insertmedia.office.microsoft.com

Writing Program Assistants (PAs) are available throughout the semester to help you address any teaching questions or concerns that you may have. We would also love your feedback and suggestions. So stop on by STV 133 or send us an email to set up a meeting time!

English 101: Jeff Rients, 414 A, [email protected]

English 101.10: Evan Nave, 414 A, [email protected]

English 145: Deb Riggert-Kieffer, 414 E, [email protected]

Professional Development: Michelle Wright Dottore 414 C, [email protected]

Technology: Laura Skokan, 413 D, [email protected]

GWRJ Editor: Julie Bates, 414 B, [email protected]

Assessment/ Writing Research: Summer Qabazard, 414 C, [email protected]

K-12/Community Outreach, Speaker Series: Emily Johnston, 414 E, [email protected]

Thank you and good luck to Kate Browne who will be leaving the WPLT. You will be greatly missed. A warm hello to Laura Skokan who will be our new Technology Coordinator this semester. Welcome aboard, Laura!

Special Thanks goes out to all of our Summit Presenters, Facilitators, Writing Program Instructors, Faculty, Staff, and Program Assistants. It is because of your awesomeness that we’ve been selected to receive the CCCC Writing Program Certificate of Excellence at the National Conference in Tampa this spring.

THANK YOU!

We’re here to help

Writing Program Director, Joyce Walker, [email protected], STV 133

Assistant Director, Nancy McKinney

[email protected], STV 133

Office Manager, Maegan Gaddis


Fostering a Community of Writing Researchers

CONCURRENT SESSIONS A: (10:00 am—10:50 am)

SPRING 2015 WRITING SUMMIT SCHEDULE

ACCOMODATING DIVERSITY OF LEARNERS / 219

“What does Accessibility Mean?: Making Courses and Spaces Accessible and Inclusive for More Students"

Barbi Smyser-Fauble

"'Stop Staring at Your Notebook': How Assumptions about the Relationship between Staring and Learning in the

Classroom Marginalize and Undermine Introverted Learners" Shannon Harmon

SOCIAL PHENOMENA & JUSTICE IN GENRE STUDIES / 221 A

"Keeping It Real: Using Contemporary Social Phenomena to Teach Genre Studies"

Danielle Cochran

"Exploring Social Justice Issues in the Genre Studies Classroom" Lisa Dooley

UNDERSTANDING THE VALUE OF RESEARCH / 221 B

“From Quick Queries to Intense Investigations: Teaching Writing Research Methods, Activities, and Practices”

Angela Sheets

“Decoding the Coding Process: Figuring Out How to Use Coding in the Composition Classroom”

Shelby Ragan

EXPLORING SOCIAL MEDIA AND GENRES IN THE WILD / 219

"Researching and Writing the Genres of Social Media” Kristi McDuffie

“Community Research: Encouraging Students to Explore and Experience Genres ‘In the Wild’”

Kristen Strom

FREEDOM & POWER IN THE WRITING CLASSROOM / 221 A

“The Fiction That Frees: Using a Grading Contract in the Writing Classroom"

Joan Crooks, Anne Norton, and Rob Rowan

“I Got The Power: Examining Non-Traditional Classroom Management” Dan Hummels

DIVERSE CONTENTS & DIVERSE CONTEXTS IN FYC / 221 B

“What Does This Have to Do with Me?: An Examination of Age Related Studies in the Classroom"

Irene Taylor

“Writing Our Way Out of the Closet: Literacies of Sex(uality) in First-Year Composition”

David Giovagnoli

LUNCH: SOUP, SALAD, & BAKED POTATO BAR 12:00 pm—12:50 pm / STV 401 A

Sign up for Panel Discussions/Group Sessions A & B during lunch in 401

SUMMIT ACTION ITEMS AND WRAP UP...COFFEE & DESSERT! 3:00 pm—3:30 pm / STV 133

BREAKFAST 8:30 am—9:00 am / STV 401 A

PROGRAM UPDATE 9:00 am—9:20 am / STV 401

MIXER: WHAT ACTIVITIES ARE YOU LOOKING FORWARD TO? 9:20 am—9:50 am / STV 401

CONCURRENT SESSIONS B: (11:00 am—11:50 am)

Discover Gather Create

Share

jwalke2

Typewritten Text

Appendix C: Summary of Summit Spring 2015 Evaluations

jwalke2

Typewritten Text

82.61% 38

17.39% 8

Q1 Your position as an instructor for theEnglish Department?Note -- we know thereare a lot of different classifications, but wegrouped you into GA or Faculty (becausewe wanted to preserve your anonymity).

Answered: 46 Skipped: 0

Total 46

GraduateTeaching...

Adjunct, NTT,Post-Doc or...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Answer Choices Responses

Graduate Teaching Assistant (MA or PhD)

Adjunct, NTT, Post-Doc or other Faculty Appointment

1 / 9

Summit for Fall 2015 -- Participant Survey

Q2 This question gives you a chance to givesome overall rankings about your reactionto several different multiple aspects of theSummit. Rankings run from Poor (left) to

Excellent (right)!Answered: 36 Skipped: 10

0.00%0

0.00%0

13.89%5

36.11%13

50.00%18

0.00%0

36

4.36

0.00%0

0.00%0

8.33%3

19.44%7

72.22%26

0.00%0

36

4.64

0.00%0

0.00%0

13.89%5

30.56%11

55.56%20

0.00%0

36

4.42

2.86%1

0.00%0

8.57%3

28.57%10

57.14%20

2.86%1

35

4.41

0.00%0

5.56%2

13.89%5

22.22%8

58.33%21

0.00%0

36

4.33

0.00%0

8.33%3

11.11%4

30.56%11

50.00%18

0.00%0

36

4.22

OverallExperience

Interactionswith members...

Chance tolearn from...

Chance toshare...

Chance tolearn new...

Chance to meetto people

The food

Theorganization...

respectfulnessand engageme...

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Poor Not SoGood

OK VeryGood

Excellent N/A Total WeightedAverage

Overall Experience

Interactions with members of the Writing Program Team

Chance to learn from other instructors

Chance to share information about my teaching practices

Chance to learn new information about goals and practices of thewriting program

Chance to meet to people

2 / 9


0.00%0

0.00%0

8.33%3

27.78%10

63.89%23

0.00%0

36

4.56

0.00%0

0.00%0

22.22%8

16.67%6

61.11%22

0.00%0

36

4.39

0.00%0

0.00%0

8.33%3

27.78%10

63.89%23

0.00%0

36

4.56

The food

The organization and structure of the event

respectfulness and engagement of other members of thecommunity

3 / 9


Appendix D: 101.10 Course Information for Instructors ISU Writing Program Fall 2015

Teaching ENG 101.10 Dear Instructor, We’re very excited to have you teaching ENG 101.10 in the fall of 2015. In fall 2014 we implemented our newest version (V.4) of the course, and it was very successful. For 2015 our goal is to “tweak” the course in order to make the movements among people, tools, and spaces as smooth as possible, and keep the communication and learning flowing. To help us with this goal, we ask that you pay close attention to the material listed below, and work to integrate into your course the various communication tools we’ve developed to help students, instructors and consultants navigate ENG 101.10. What You Can Do:

1. Read the information below 2. Make the appropriate adjustments to your 101 syllabus (see the end of this document for the checklist) 3. Set up a meeting time to talk with Evan Nave, the 101.10 coordinator, about the course before the end of

Spring 2015 (Evan will be in touch with you to set up a meeting). 4. Turn in a copy of your course syllabus by August 1, 2015 so we can use them in our training of the new

consultants 5. Be available to meet with the Writing Program staff and with your consultants on Thursday, August 13th

2015. 6. Facilitate the Self-‐Assessment with your students during the first week and a half of the semester (see end

of this document for a brief explanation of the self-‐assessment) 7. We also ask that you “go above and beyond” in thinking of ways to incorporate the various “notes” (which

are the communication tools we’ve developed) into your class structure. Think of ways you can you them as more than just “talking points” by integrating them into your uptake genres for the course. These docs are about making learning visible – so they fit right in with the overall goal of our course. [You should feel free to contact the 101.10 or 101 coordinators if you want to talk over how you might integrate these documents into the “uptake” genres of your course.]

Once you’ve read the materials below, remember that you can contact Evan Nave (101.10 Coordinator – [email protected]) or Joyce Walker (Writing Program Director – [email protected]) if you have any questions. We’re here to help and we appreciate hearing your feedback. And remember, the changes that have been made to the structure and practice of the course are designed to make the experience of 101.10 (and the learning that happens in this class) better for everyone. If you have ideas or suggestions for improvement, please let us know! Course Overview ENG 101.10 is designed to cover the same material that is taught in ENG 101, but 101.10 is structured to provide additional assistance to students in the form of writing consultants who can work in small study group sessions and in 1-‐on-‐1 consulting sessions. The course itself meets 3 days a week; two of these meetings are with a second-‐year M.A. or PhD instructor, and the other is a study group session

2

facilitated by a first-‐year M.A. writing consultant. The class meetings with instructors work with the same writing research course content as in 101 classes; but the study group sessions help students to examine their antecedent knowledge and uptake in order to “learn how to learn,” and also help them to pick up additional thinking and study skills that will be useful to them. In addition to these weekly classroom and study session meetings, students will meet in 1-‐on-‐1 sessions with their consultants as a way of gaining the more personalized writing support they have expressed a need for in registering for 101.10. The People

The people who are primarily involved in 101.10 are as follows:

• 101.10 Instructors

• 101.10 Students

• 101.10 Consultants

• Writing Program Staff

The Spaces Unlike our ENG 101 courses, there are multiple spaces used by the people involved in the 101.10 course: 101.10 Documents Because 101.10 has multiple people and spaces involved, we’ve designed some documents that will help information to flow from one space to another:

• Instructor Notes: Instructors will complete Instructor Notes every day after class. We’ll provide a “guide” for these notes, and they’ll be in an online location that both students and consultants can access. These notes are intended to help consultants and students understand what the most important topics of conversation/study might be for the study sessions. Your notes will contain the major ideas/concepts/activities that students and consultants might want to engage with as they work together.

• Student Notes: For each 101.10 class session, three students in the class will be assigned to complete a Student Note Sheet (the class Consultant will draw up the Note-‐taking schedule so that each student will take notes about 4 times during the semester). These Student Notes (we’ll also provide students with a guide for these notes) will be used in the study sessions, both as a way to help the students remember and think about what happened in the class, and as a way for consultants to help students understand how uptakes (understanding and taking up the ideas from class) can diverge and coalesce. Comparing

1-‐to-‐1 Sessions STV 133

Study Group Sessions STV 250 & STV 133

Classroom Sessions STV 250

3

Student Notes and Instructor Notes can also help students to see and understand better the classroom activity system.

• Study Group Session Notes: At the end of each study group session, the three student note-‐takers and the consultant will all contribute to the Study Group Notes, which will document the activities in the session and also establish questions students have and “action items” they want to work on. Instructors can then use these Study Group Session Notes to begin the next class meeting.

• 1-‐to-‐1 Session Notes: Every time a student and consultant meet in a 1-‐to-‐1 session, they’ll also complete (together) a short set of Session Notes that outline the conversations, ideas, questions and activities they’ve engaged in. These notes will be copied for students and made available to instructors.

• NOTE: See Appendix A – we’ve provided a quick reference to explain where each of these different types notes will be stored and shared.

Although it may seem like students, consultants, and instructors are being asked to fill out a lot of paperwork regarding their learning, these note sheets can help to increase and improve communication across the different people & spaces of 101.10. They can also be used as part of the uptake genres of the regular class. Students can use all of these various documents (and they’ll be available online, so you won’t have to be responsible for keeping track of them!) to document their learning at various points in your different Units. So they will have a practical value for student learning that goes beyond just helping us all to keep in touch.

Instructor

Notes

Stud

ent

Notes

Stud

y Grou

p Notes

1-‐to-‐1

Notes

4

Information Flow Together, the information flow of 101.10 looks like this:

About the Students We surveyed 160 ENG 101.10 students in Fall 2013. 119 of these students said that they viewed themselves as struggling writers and had specifically selected the course over a regular ENG 101 because they wanted extra help with their writing. Generally, these students respond affirmatively to the following statements:

• Generally, I don't read independently • In high school, I did not do much writing • I have not had a chance to learn many different genres of writing—either within or outside of

school. • I don’t write unless I have an assignment • My high school GPA was about average or below average • I'm unsure about the rules of writing—commas, apostrophes, and so forth • I've used computers, but not often for writing and revising • I don't think of myself as a strong writer

5

• I am not all that confident about my ability to learn new kinds of writing in different setting or for different purposes

• I would feel hesitant to discuss my writing with an instructor In short, the typical 101.10 student often lacks confidence in his or her ability to navigate writing, reading, and research situations. Because of this lack of confidence, we find that these students can be sometimes be resistant to genre studies because they are focused on becoming more adept at what they see as traditional writing (which they often don’t feel they have mastered). So in their anxiety to become “better” writers, they can be reluctant to invest in our approach, because they perceive “learning to write a good paper” as a clear goal that they still need to master in order to be successful in college. We have also found that these students require instructors who are willing to be organized and explicit in their classroom materials and assignment sheets, as detailed as possible in keeping records of class activities, and flexible in terms of adopting an approach based in goodwill when interacting with students. It’s important to remember that the majority of the students in each section have self-‐selected based on a desire for additional assistance. They can translate this into an expectation that explanations will be clear and direct. This means that we need to take care to scaffold appropriately as we move into assignments and projects, even though the pacing of assignments and projects can (and should) be equivalent to an ENG 101 class. However, it’s also important to remember that intellectually, these students need (and want) to be stimulated and challenged. They are sensitive to situations where writing seems “too easy.” This can make them resist working with genres that emphasize visuals or that don’t use a lot of text. They often explain that this doesn’t seem like “real writing.” This doesn’t mean you need to change the way you teach the course, or the assignments you develop. It just means you should be aware that these students need some real help understanding the value of the kinds of writing experiments we assign. The Structure of ENG 101.10 Class Session and Consulting Sessions: The chart below shows how a schedule for ENG 101.10 would appear for one week. Note that this chart combines a total of one instructor, one consultant and 18 students (which is the cap for ENG 101.10). Each instructor meets with students twice a week, and each consultant holds 2 study group sessions each week (which students will sign up for when registering for the course). Each student attends two classes a week and one study group.

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday ENG 101.10 Course

8:00-‐9:15 1st Group Study

Session (9 Students and 1

Consultant) 8:00-‐8:50

ENG 101.10 Course 8:00-‐9:15

2nd Group Study Session

(9 Students and 1 Consultant) 8:00-‐8:50

1. Each 101.10 class meets normally, 2-‐times a week, with the same 18 students. 2. Small study group sessions of 9 students meet twice a week but each student only attends one

session per week.

6

3. Consultants will also be available for one-‐on-‐one consulting sessions each week and students must attend at least 3 of these sessions during the semester, and these “required” sessions should coincide with the Units you assign. In other words, they should have a visit with a consultant at least once for every unit (rather than trying to cram them in all in the last week of class J.

Expectations for Consultants:

• Who are the Consultants? 101.10 Consultants are usually new M.A. level Graduate Instructors (although other instructors in the Writing Program can sometimes be assigned to this work as well).

• How many Sections of 101.10 do they have? Generally, each new M.A. consultant will be assigned to only one section of ENG 101.10. So they’ll be working with 18 students. If a 101.10 instructor is teaching two sections of the course, he/she will work with two different consultants.

• Study Group Sessions: 101.10 Consultants will hold two study group sessions each week (typically, these include 9 student – ½ of the class – in each session). In the first couple of weeks, sessions will focus on ice-‐breaker activities that also help students to start thinking about writing as an activity system (note: In 2015, we’re going to be focusing on “note-‐taking” as a way to begin to “see” the complexity of learning and writing situations). But after the first two weeks, these study sessions will focus on using the instructor and student class notes to discuss the class, help students figure out what they need and want to focus on in their work, and encourage them to rely on their peers to help them understand and succeed in the course work.

• Activities for Study Group Sessions: Consultants may also work to prepare different kinds of activities for students to help them grasp different concepts, or work on genre or content research skills.

• Study Group Session Notes: Consultants will work with students during each study group session to create the “Study Session Notes” which will be available to students and instructor in the course.

• One-‐to-‐One Sessions: Consultants will be available for one-‐to-‐one sessions each week. They are available for up to eight ½ hour sessions each week. That means, if students are really taking advantage of these sessions, the consultants could meet all the members of the class at least once every two weeks! While we don’t expect this to happen every week, we hope that instructors will really encourage their students to take advantage of these sessions.

• One-‐to-‐One Session Notes: Consultants will also work with students to create 1-‐to-‐1 Session Notes. We’ll keep a copy of these in the writing program, but we’ll also make copies available to instructors and students.

• Midterm and End-‐of-‐Semester Documentation for Instructors: The consultant is responsible for keeping track of those aspects of the students’ course grades that are related to study group and one-‐on-‐one sessions (attendance and notes). The consultant will provide the instructors with documentation just before mid-‐term and just before the end of the semester, so you can use it in your grading.

7

Expectations of Instructors: The ENG 101.10 sections do not represent a different workload than regular ENG 101 sessions. Students may require additional help (and you can provide that help as an instructor, so don’t feel as if the consultants are taking that responsibility from you), but you also have five fewer students (18 vs. 23) than you might have in a regular ENG 101 class. There are some specific expectations for instructors in the course, which are based both on serving the students well, and on creating a smooth communication between the different “spaces” that students, instructors and consultants occupy. Relationships and Communication: These following items are “relationship” expectations:

• Be Organized & Detailed: The syllabus and class plans for 101.10 should be organized and detailed (when appropriate – we know sometimes having students actually work to build an assignment plan is part of the learning). Many 101 instructors keep a pretty loose schedule in their courses, but we’ve found that 101.10 students can experience more anxiety and frustration when they don’t have a clear idea of schedules and assignments for each Unit.

• Give Clear Instructions: We find that 101.10 students typically don’t respond well to a lack of clear instructions. You can definitely work on creating instructions WITH students, and thus still have a very student-‐centered class, but once the instructions are created, they should be clearly posted and shared. In general, we think that student anxiety about school and about writing can manifest in resistance to poorly defined or poorly justified activities. So instructors need to be aware of this, and be ready with strategies to help students to feel as if they know what’s expected.

• Explicit Pedagogies: The “why” of assignments should be discussed often – and the relationship to the learning outcomes and the goals for each project should be explicit.

• Awareness of the 101.10 Population: Instructors need to be aware of the differences in these students. Taking time to get to know them (and what they know about writing and do with it) can be even more important in this class than in ENG 101.

• Lot’s of Communication: Our design of the different “notes” documents should help everyone in the class (and the staff in the Writing Program) to stay in touch and try to make sure the resources we provide are making a difference for student learning. However, there can still sometimes be mis-‐communications between instructors, students and consultants. Remember to assume that your colleagues are doing their best, and try to resolve any communication difficulties quickly and collegially. If you feel as if you might need extra help, please contact us in the Writing Program – we’re here to help.

Documents and Activities: These items are related to documents you’ll produce or activities we need you to engage in.

• Work on the Self-‐Assessment with your students: See note on self-‐assessment below • Make sure your syllabus matches up with the program requirements for this course: See

checklist below • Post your Instructor Notes after each class: See above for a description of these notes. You’ll

post them after every class, in an online space that will store it and make it available for both students and the consultants.

8

• Incorporate the Various Notes in your Course plan: It’s important that you don’t just “include” the note-‐taking requirements in your course plan. Yes, students must learn to take the notes and use them when they attend study groups and one-‐to-‐one sessions; however, the whole process will be more effective if you (the instructor) can really incorporate these elements into the learning in your course, and the uptake genres you use to measure and assess learning.

• Meeting with Consultants: Consultants and instructors don’t need to have regular weekly meetings. But we will ask you to meet with your consultants on the Thursday before the semester starts (that will be Thursday, August 13th – so you’ll need to make sure you are back on campus by that date).

• Copy of your Syllabus: We’ll need this by August 1st, so we can use them when we’re training the new consultants!

Expectations for Students We do have expectations for students (we have a handout that 101.10 students will get in their first study group session). We’ll continue to work on that document to get it revised for fall, but this is a list of our current listed expectations:

• Come prepared to participate every week – This also means attending and participating in class, so that you are up-‐to-‐speed on the concepts and projects of the course.

• Be generous with your knowledge, especially in the study groups -‐-‐ Remember that every group member has different skills, so sharing yours will be important.

• Think about your contributions in class, in your study group and in the one-‐to-‐one sessions – This process is only helpful as a way for students to learn if each student makes use of the resources provided as part of the class.

• Do make use of the Consultant as a resource -‐-‐ The consultant is an experienced writer, and a successful student. He/she will definitely be able to help the group with information and ideas about your writing and can direct you to a whole range of other resources you can use.

• Don’t Expect the Consultant to know what your Teacher expects -‐-‐ You and your peers will have a lot more information about the writing assignments and project than the consultant, because you are attending the class, so you’ll need to use that knowledge rather than trying to depend on the consultant.

Information to Include in Your Syllabus This section includes a checklist of items you’ll need to make sure you’ve included in your syllabus, with some language you’ll want to include verbatim – so read carefully! [Note: You can “tweak” language a bit if you need to – but make sure information stays the same!] ☐ Course Description

Specific Language: English 101.10 is a course that is designed to provide more hands-‐on writing experience for students who decide they can benefit from extra help with writing. Students self-‐place into sections of ENG 101.10, which meets 3 days per week. The regular class sessions meet 2 days a week (MW or TR), but 101.10 students get the added advantage of organized study groups, led by your writing consultant, which will meet once each week. Additionally, students are expected to make use of one-‐to-‐one meetings with consultants to improve your understanding and ability to complete the work of the course.

9

☐Description of Extra Session Activities Specific Language: Working with your peers and your writing consultant will be an important part of your work in this course, and 15% of your course grade will be based on these activities. In addition, you’ll use work that you do in the study and one-‐to-‐one sessions to improve your work on projects in the class – so working with your consultant can really help you to be successful in the course. NOTE: These are the activities you should list as comprising that 15% grade. You can tweak language here, and you may want to change these items even more if you are thinking about incorporating these activities and documents into other “uptake” genres in your course. So feel free to adjust, but these activities should definitely be listed as part of the course grade.

• Study Groups: You’ll be expected to attend a 1-‐hour Study Group session each week, in addition to our two class meetings. Missing these counts against your grade in the course.

• One-‐to-‐One Meetings: You’ll also be expected to meet with your consultant in a one-‐to-‐one meeting, at least once for each of our Units (or at least three times per semester). Missing these required meetings counts against your grade.

• Extra One-‐to-‐One meetings: If you meet with your consultant more than one time during a particular Unit, you can “bank” a little bit of extra credit, which you can use at the end of the semester. Each extra meeting can count for 1/3 of a point (on a 100 point scale for the course), so three extra meetings would be an entire point towards improving your grade average in the course – remember though, that meetings need to be productive in order to be counted – so you’d need to make good use of these sessions! [Here we are thinking of this as a way to encourage students to attend extra sessions. They seem to respond more to the idea of “banking” points for when they need them rather than “extra credit.” – don’t ask us why since it’s basically the same thing! Feel free to tweak how extra points can be “banked” and what they are worth.]

• Participation: You’ll be expected to participate fully in both study group and one-‐to-‐one sessions. The consultant doesn’t “grade” you with an A, B, etc., but he/she will make note of students who “sit with their arms crossed” and refuse to try to make the study groups and one-‐to-‐one sessions useful. Also, remember that your fellow students also count on you for their learning.

• Student Class Notes: At least four times during the semester, you’ll be asked to be a note-‐taker for class. These notes will be used in the study sessions, and for other parts of the course as well.

• Study Session Notes: When you’re one of the class note-‐takers, you’ll also be asked to help create the Study Session notes at the end of the session.

• One-‐to-‐One Session Notes: When you meet for a one-‐to-‐one session with your consultant, the two of you will also create meeting notes after the session.

☐Consultant Contact Information: You’ll need to add this once you’ve been assigned a consultant who will be working with your students.

10

☐Attendance Policy: Attendance policy for 101.10 courses is the same as for any 2-‐day a week Writing

Program Course. For a MW or TR course: Two absences are unpenalized (although missing work can still be assessed). Each absence beginning with the third receives a penalty of 1/3 of a letter grade. This means that whatever the FINAL letter grade in the course, it is reduced by the accrued absences. Eight absences is just slightly over 20% of the classes for the course, and thus results in an automatic failing grade for the course.

☐Three Units: All of the students in this course will be completing the self-‐assessment (and it takes about a 1 ½ weeks (three class periods) to discuss it. Additionally, we think it will work best to connect to the required one-‐to-‐one session visits, if each instructor divides his/her course into three major Units in addition to the self-‐assessment. These units can be whatever you decide (in terms of content) and you can have more than one kind of writing/genre that gets produced in each Unit. We just think that chunking it up this way will help students to value (and attend) the one-‐to-‐one sessions, and help you to incorporate those meetings into your grading for each Unit.

Information about the Student Self-‐Assessment Last year (fall 2014) we did a pilot test in which students were asked to complete what we call a “self-‐assessment” as part of their introduction to the course. Our student found some interesting (positive) results, so we’re going to try it again in Fall 2015. The goal of this activity is threefold:

• We want to introduce students to concepts of genre and activity theory • We want to help them see how this kind of work can be practical and useful to them • And we want to kind of “test” them (have them try to do genre and activity analysis and

research and production) as a way to open up a “conceptual emptiness” that illustrates that these are not yet skills they posses in significant amounts.

This last item (that they don’t already know this stuff) is something that we (as teachers) know, but often students don’t seem to fully realize. Often in 101 (and especially in 101.10), the seem to assume that all they need is a set of directions, and any kind of writing will be makes sense and be accessible. This means that it often takes 2-‐6 weeks before students (in both 101 and 101.10) will admit that our genre/activity focus might actually have some value. Wow. In designing the assessment, we hope that asking them to complete some actual activities that would be common in the course, would help them to see what they don’t know. The assessment isn’t graded, and it’s not meant to be punitive. The idea is that just going through the activity will help them to see that there is a “hole” in their knowledge and thus make them more willing to take up the new ideas and concepts the class provides them. In the pilot study we found some results that definitely support this idea – certainly enough for us to feel like we want to try it again, and actually research some of the differences between students who complete the assessment and students who don’t! All of the 101.10 classes will complete the assessment. This fall (2015) the assessment and all the surveys will be done online – so you can do it in your classroom on the first day of class. We’ll be providing you the assessment instruments before the end of spring semester (so you’ll know what to expect, but here is a checklist so that you can think about how to organize your first weeks of class:

☐Self-‐Assessment Checklist: You don’t need to put the self-‐assessment in your syllabus (since it’s not graded). But we do need to you to provide time in your calendar to complete the various aspects of the

11

assessment (including discussing answers to the self-‐assessment with students). There are actually four elements to the assessment: (1) the First day survey; (2) The actual assessment; (3) the follow-‐up survey; and (4) the end-‐of-‐semester survey. Here is how you should plan for these activities in your course schedule:

• First day of class – Student should complete the “pre-‐survey” before they discuss the class at all (survey will be online and should only take about 10 minutes).

• Then you can discuss the assessment with them (you can feel free to explain it and help them to understand it) and have them start on the assessment in class. The assessment should take the remainder of the class period on the first day of class. (The assessment will be online).

• On the 2nd day of class you can discuss your syllabus and course plan with students. You can talk about the assessment in any way you want, if you want (but you won’t have the results yet).

• By the 3rd day of class you’ll have the results of the assessment. Your discussion shouldn’t necessarily be like a “quiz,” (where you go over all the answers). What’s important is that you and your students discuss the “why” of these questions. What did they feel confident about – what did they NOT feel confident about? Did they see how studying these kinds of things might be useful?

• Then, on the last day of the 2nd week of class, we’ll ask you to have students complete a 2nd survey (survey will be online and take about 10 minutes or so to complete).

• Finally, during the last week of class, we’ll ask the students complete a final survey. • NOTE: All surveys should be completed in class, in order to get the highest possible response

rate. Also – we’ll send you all the survey questions and assessment questions by June 1st, so that you can have plenty of time to look them over before the semester starts.

APPENDIX A: Information about the Note Taking Documents 101.10 Documents The following chart shows each type of note-‐taking activity with important information about who makes it, where it gets stored, etc. (We’ll provide guides for instructors and students for their “notes” as well as instructions for any technical aspects you need to understand. Type of Document

Who Writes It? Who needs Access?

Print/Digital Where is it stored?

Instructor Notes

Instructors write these after each class they teach. (2-‐4 times each week, depending on the

Students Consultants Instructors Writing Program

Digital These notes are actually going to be public on our website at www.isuwriting.com (the notes will not be prominently displayed but will available through a link). We’ll

12

number of sections they teach)

General public

provide you with a specific handout on how to create your notes in ths space, but it should be a really very straightforward process.

Student Notes

3 students in EACH class period throughout the semester will write these.

Accessible to class members but not across sections or to the public.

Digital Instructors will create a folder in their “resources and materials” space in Reggienet where students can upload their meeting notes. Consultant will also have access, and we’ll ask you to add one member of the WP staff to your class, so we can download the notes for our archive.

Study Group Session Notes

These are composed by both students and consultant together.

Accessible to class members but not across sections or to the public.

Digital These will saved to a google doc that allows access only to members of the class (and the WP staff member). We’re using Google Docs so all members can write the document together in a shared file.

1-‐to-‐1 Session Notes

Composed by a single student and single consultant

Accessible on to student, consultant and instructor

Digital For these notes, student and consultant will use a word. Doc form and email it to instructor, consultant and student. Consultant will store a copy for the WP archive.

Scheduler for 1-‐to-‐1 sessions

This is an online space where students can sign up for 1-‐to-‐1 sessions.

Students can sign up, cancel appointments and get reminders. Consultants can also view.

Obviously digital. Here is the software we’re currently using.

Here is the system we used last fall. We may be switching to a new system for Fall 2015. https://simplybook.me/

jwalke2

Typewritten Text

Appendix E: Flyer for the Spring 2015 Writing Research Colloquium

Sponsored by The Illinois State University Writing Program www.isuwriting.com

For more information about this event or accommodations, or to reserve seating for your class, please contact Emily Johnston, Colloquium

Coordinator, at [email protected], or contact the ISU Writing Program at (309) 438-‐3957.

The annual Grassroots Writing Research Spring Colloquium promotes student research in the study of writing practices, taking its name from the Grassroots Writing Research Journal, the core text for ISU Writing Program courses. Our invited speakers at

this year’s colloquium include the following student writing researchers:

Stephanie Behnke, 2014-15 Grassroots Undergraduate Writing Research Fellow “The Process of Expressing Apologies Among Undergraduate Students”

A sophomore in Sociology at ISU, Stephanie is currently researching the activity of interpersonal apologizing, applying her newfound interest in cultural-historic activity theory to her passion for studying society. In this presentation, Stephanie uses

activity theory to better understand how ISU students apologize to one another in interpersonal relationships. Stephanie seeks to create a robust picture of the choices students make when they’re apologizing, especially their choices to use different

digital and non-digital technologies to make apologies.

Kayla Scott, 2014-15 Grassroots Undergraduate Writing Research Fellow “A Writing Research Project on How Artists Write”

A sophomore styling both Art Teacher Education and Ceramics majors at ISU, Kayla is currently conducting “A Writing Research Project on How Artists Write.” Kayla’s passion for art, language, and teaching has sparked her love of writing research. In this presentation, Scott discusses her quest to further understand the genre of the artist statement through

interviews and surveys with artists at various stages of their careers. Ultimately, she finds that writing connects people across different disciplines—whether you are an artist, mathematician, or still undeclared—and is essential for communication,

understanding, and being successful.

Thaddeus Stoklasa and Scott Pyrz, Grassroots Writing Research Journal Authors (5.2) “A Story of Collaborative Writing: How Technology and Unchecked Arrogance Led to an Unpublishable Debacle” In this presentation, Thaddeus and Scott (Ph.D. students in English Studies at ISU) share about composing an article featured

in the current issue of the Grassroots Writing Research Journal—an article that ruminates on how technological and partnership choices people make when writing collaboratively impact the successes and failures of that work.

REFRESHMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED.

THE ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY WRITING PROGRAM PRESENTS

THE GRASSROOTS WRITING RESEARCH SPRING COLLOQUIUM

Thursday, February 26th Stevenson Hall 401

7-‐9PM

jwalke2

Typewritten Text

Appendix F: Flyer for the New Writing Program Internship Positions

jwalke2

Typewritten Text

The ISU Writing Program sponsors a paid internship program to promote student research in the study of writing practices. These yearlong internships provide a $500 stipend ($250/semester) for up to two undergraduate interns, as well as cutting-edge professional experience in writing, researching, editing and publishing. Up to 6 hours of English Department internship credit are available but not required for this opportunity. What do Grassroots Interns do? Interns work for the Grassroots Writing Research Journal (GWRJ), a journal of citizen writing research published through the ISU Writing Program. Intern activities include: ü Assisting with the journal’s review and editorial process ü Contributing to a writing research blog on the ISU Writing Program website ü Creating resources for authors to help them write GWRJ articles ü Presenting at our annual Grassroots Colloquium ü Producing GWRJ articles themselves.

How can I become a Grassroots Intern? Contact the ISU Writing Program Outreach Coordinator at [email protected]! We will ask applicants to submit (1) a current resume and (2) a letter of interest detailing their experience with editing, journalism and/or qualitative research, as well as any prior GWRJ experience. NOTE: If you want to use this opportunity as your English Department internship, we can help you make your hours work with the department’s internship requirements. Will these skills be on your resume? ü Multimedia storytelling skills ü Data collection, analysis & interpretation ü Ability to maintain tight deadlines ü Excellent written & oral communication skills ü Strong editing & proofreading skills ü Adaptability (ability to work well independently & in teams)

The Illinois State University Writing Program Grassroots Undergraduate Internships

Appendix G: Writing Program Undergraduate Mentors Note: This is a draft version of a plan for this project Overview: The Writing Program Undergraduate Mentors Project is designed to bring together as a team students from a diverse range of writing and life experiences to mentor students in our ENG 101 classes. This project seeks to increase the diversity of incoming freshmen at ISU, particularly (prospective) English majors, and to ensure the continued success of students in the ISU Writing Program. In the ISU Writing Program, students learn to focus on how different types of writing are constructed in a whole range of situations. We call this broad writing landscape, literate activity, or complex writing situations. To focus on literate activity means to study how people use various literacy skills in all kinds of situations in the world: from filling out forms, to sending texts, emails, notes & letters, to producing articles and essays and videos. Our ENG 101 class is designed to help students investigate this landscape, and to develop practical skills for assessing their own writing and learning to to transfer their skills into diverse literate situations. The mentoring project seeks to help students build up robust writing research identities. Additionally, the project seeks to help students value the work they will do in ENG 101. We have found that frequently, students who have mostly thought of “school writing” as equivalent to “essay writing” can have a difficult time understanding why we are asking them to study complex writing situations. Used to studying one kind of writing at a time, these students often have difficulty learning to connect the writing they do in one place with other kinds of writing they may do elsewhere. The Undergraduate Mentors Project will help us to introduce new ENG 101 students to more experienced students who have already been successful in the class. The mentors can also share information about all the kinds of writing they are doing, in lots of places (other ISU classes, co-curricular activities, work & community life). Who will be Mentors? Because we know that English majors tend to be people who like reading, hearing and telling stories, writing and teaching, we think that ISU English majors could be excellent mentors in our program. Students can apply to be mentors in our program when they make the decision to attend ISU, and we will enroll them at the same time as they enroll in their fall courses at ISU. Starting with the incoming class of Fall 2016, we will select 23 student mentors from the incoming freshman class who have stated an intention to attend ISU as English Studies Majors. How will the Mentors be trained? Enrolled Mentors will take a special ENG 101 class. This class will cover the same content, generally, as our regular ENG 101 classes, but students will also spend the semester training to become mentors. So instead of just learning the course material, they will be discussing how to share what they are learning with future ISU students. What will the Mentoring work be like? Selected mentors would commit to 1 ½ years to train and then serve as mentors. Beginning in their 2nd spring semester at ISU, mentors will work with students taking ENG 101. They will attend class sessions from a range of ENG 101 classes, work directly with instructors to help develop materials for ENG 101 students, and hold one-on-one and small group mentoring sessions with current ENG 101 students. They will continue this role in the Fall semester of their sophomore year.

Will Mentors be paid? Yes! Students selected for our Mentorship program will be paid 10.00 per hour for the work that they do in the spring and fall following their training semester. How does one become a Mentor? Once you have received your acceptance from ISU, you can apply online for our mentorship program. We will ask you to write a brief essay about your writing experience, fill out a short questionnaire, and provide two letters of support. These can come from friends, teachers, community members, or work supervisors who can talk about your writing experience. How are Mentors selected? We will select up to 12 students who apply. The ideal qualifications for being a Writing Program Undergraduate Mentor include having different life experiences with writing. We are especially interested in students from diverse ethnic, social, and economic backgrounds who are interested in telling us about how their experiences with writing have shaped them in unique ways. We are not looking for students who are “best” writers, rather students who are willing to think about how writing works in the world. How can writing be fun, scary, difficult, or exciting for you? How can writing help you achieve things in the world, but also can act as a barrier -- a way to keep people out of certain groups or institutions? These are the kinds of questions we are most interested in hearing applicants engage with. Most of all, were looking for students who can think broadly and creatively about all the activities in the world that include writing, and students who are excited by the idea of exploring how writing happens in these different spaces. Your grades will not be considered as part of your application, although we are interested in hearing about what you have learned from the writing you have done in school. What are the requirements for being employed as a Mentor? Once we select our mentors for the year, these students will be placed into an ENG 101 course that has been specifically designed to both teach them the course material and to train them as writing program mentors. Students must pass the class with be B or better. The course will be designed to help all 12 students move on to become mentors, but mentors will also have to prove their willingness to learn course material and their commitment to the work of being mentors. Further, mentors will need to maintain an exemplary work record in the spring semester to be asked to return for the next fall semester. Benefits of the Mentorship Program Department Benefits: For our English Studies department the Mentorship program is an excellent resource. It can help us to recruit students with diverse ethnic, social and economic backgrounds, but it can also help us to value these students once they arrive on campus. Since many of these diverse students may have writing backgrounds that are different, working with these students can help us to value these experiences as part of our improving understanding of literate activity. But this program can also help us to help these students as they may struggle at times to connect their own experiences to those of the mainstream students at Illinois State. Thus we can help them to succeed in our program and as ISU students, while at the same time helping them (and us) to recognize and explore how their diverse experiences shape them as writers. Writing Program Benefits: This program can have enormous benefits for our Writing Program, which will then benefit our work to connect to the General Education courses, and to efforts at developing a more robust Writing-Across-the-Curriculum program at ISU. While we have only begun to explore the specific benefits of this project for our program, we can provide the following partial list:

• We’re excited as we simply begin to imagine the wealth of experience and knowledge student-mentors will bring to our understanding of literate activity. Working with these students can help us make our program pedagogy more inclusive, more responsive, and more rigorous.

• Working directly with undergraduate students in ways that allow students an active voice in shaping the curriculum is a long-term goal for the program. This project will help us create a pool of students who better understand the program goals and therefore, may have a stronger investment in helping us to improve the course.

• Having one-on-one and small group mentoring available for ENG 101 students that is directly connected to our program pedagogy has been a long-term goal for our program. This project will help us to develop these resources.

• As they students move on into their coursework at ISU, we can invite these students to return as undergraduate editors, reviewers, and authors for the Grassroots Writing Research Journal and our Beyond 101 Student Podcasts.

Benefits for the Writing Program Mentors: The specialized ENG 101 class will give mentors a chance to develop a cohort, and to work more closely with english graduate students and faculty very early in their work at ISU. The work of closely examining their own literate practice can be valuable for these students, regardless of the track within the major they decide to pursue. Connecting to the Writing Program more directly, early in their progress at ISU, can open up avenues for further experiences, teaching, writing, editing and publishing. Finally, these students will have a way to earn at least a small salary doing work that connects directly to their experiences as English majors, which can be a valuable experience for their resumes and future employment prospects. Benefits for ENG 101 Students: This population of students will also benefit from the mentor project. The Undergraduate Mentors can provide the kind of peer-mentoring that has been shown to be effective in a range of writing center experiences. They can benefit from the resources (sharing stories, experiences of writing and ideas for success in the course) these Mentors will produce, and they can benefit from the ways the writing program will collaborate with the Mentors to make the course more accessible and understandable. Timeline: Spring 2015 - Fall 2016: Work to recruit prospective English Majors Spring 2015 - Fall 2016: Apply for a range of funding opportunities Fall 2015:

• Set up the ENG 101 course for these students; recruit an instructor • finalized designs for the course • Redesign our STV space (Room 128) to be a space for the mentors • Finalize application and selection process • process through which we’ll introduce these student to campus and to each other

complete • Figure out payment plan for students • Make sure we have an adequate system in place for students to sign up for 1-on-

1 or small group sessions. Spring 2016:

• Application and acceptance process complete • begin 1-on-1 contact with students selected for the program • Begin recruitment for Fall 2017 Mentors

Summer 2016: Some kind of event for the new mentors before school starts. Fall 2016:

• Cohort ENG 101 course (all Mentors attend) • they can also do work with our M.A. level Writing Consultants during this

semester (sitting in on 1-on-1 and group sessions). • Develop marketing materials for Spring 101 -- advertising the mentor services for

101 instructors. • Figure out how Mentors will interact with 101 instructors • figure out pay schedules for mentors (note any who may drop out of the program

for various reasons) Spring 2017:

• Prior to the semester session for Mentors • Introduce them to our instructors at our Summit • begin mentoring work and work with 101 instructors • have mentors work on resources for students (including 101 podcasts)

Summer 2017:

• Mentors maybe meet during summer for team-building day? In the week before the semester starts?

• Introduce experienced mentors to the new mentors during team-building • Make adjustments to mentoring process based on spring experiences

Fall 2017: • repeat mentoring activities. • begin with new mentors

Budget This is still a very drafty section, but we know we’ll need funding for the following:

Supervisor for the program: I’d like to see a faculty member get a course release for this

?

budget for summer training for mentors 1000.00

budget for M.A. level students (2) to oversee mentors

75 hours x 15.00 = 1125.00 (+2) = 2250.00 per semester x 2 = 4500.00

budget for student mentors each semester 9000.00 x 2 = 18,000.00

23,500.00

Draft of Flyer to promote the program

Appendix H: Semester Reports for Fall 2015 These are the semester reports from Fall 2015 for the Writing Program Team members Evan Nave 101.10 Coordinator Fall 2015 Semester Report

WPLT Meetings (25 hours) Every other week, all of the WPLT members meet for an hour to an hour and a half to discuss projects pertinent to the Writing Program. In addition to these larger group meetings, I met with Dr. Walker every week for a half hour to an hour to discuss relevant issues pertaining specifically to ENG 101.10. These hours combine all the meeting times where I met with Dr. Walker and/or the entire WPLT. Professional Development Discussions (10 hours)

35

20

25 10

35

25

101.10 Coordinator Fall 2015 Hours Distribution

Cohort Group Meetings

2015 Document Planning/Writing

WPLT Meetings

Professional Development Discussions

Fall 2015 Orientation

Administrative Duties

Although I was on campus less this semester (due to a move outside the Bloomington-‐Normal area), I still met informally with the ENG 101 Coordinator, Jeff Rients, to discuss the operation of ENG 101.10. Our discussions usually pertained to how to best handle different administrative duties and implement Writing Program policies and Learning Outcomes. I categorize our discussions as “Professional Development” because they helped me grow as a Writing Program Leadership Team member and teacher. Administrative Duties/Mentoring (25 hours) As in previous semesters, I spent a lot of time in Fall 2015 answering Consultant emails, phone calls, and text messages, addressing Instructor concerns on a case-‐by-‐case, in-‐person basis, and checking in on Consultants and Instructors during their on-‐campus office hours. These hours cover my day-‐to-‐day duties as the ENG 101.10 Coordinator, the small communication-‐related tasks that add up to ENG 101 and 101.10 running more smoothly. Often, my meetings (both formal and informal) with Consultants pertained to helping them develop successful professional attitudes and behaviors in their work as Writing Program teachers and Illinois State University graduate students. Cohort Group Meetings (30 Hours) I held two, one-‐hour, mandatory Cohort group meetings each week this fall semester. One meeting was with 4 Consultants, and the other with the remaining 3 Consultants, to fit the schedules of all our new WP master’s students. In these meetings (sometimes held on campus in the Writing Program, and sometimes held at local coffee shops) we discussed how the different aspects of ENG 101.10 (Study Group Sessions, 1-‐On-‐1 Sessions, office hours with students, communicating with ENG 101.10 Instructors, etc.) were functioning for each of the Consultants. These meetings offered Consultants professional support, opportunities for camaraderie, and a space to share experiences and offer suggestions for future iterations of ENG 101.10. Fall 2015 Orientation (30 Hours) These hours account for planning and participating in the fall 2015 Writing Program Orientation events. Some of the activities I engaged in were: designing and leading Consultant training lessons, meeting with Consultants 1-‐on-‐1 to welcome them to ISU as a geographic location and the Writing Program and English Department as academic/professional spaces, participating in Program policy/philosophy sessions, and holding office hours so Consultants could meet if they needed further clarification of Orientation goals. 2015-‐2016 Document Planning/Writing (15 Hours) Similar to spring 2015, a good portion of my time this semester was spent planning for future semesters of ENG 101.10. I conceptualized and completed administrative documents for future Advisors, Instructors, and Consultants, created an end of the semester survey (I’ll analyze data this coming spring), and worked with master’s student, Shannon Harman on re-‐envisioning the functionality of Instructor, Consultant, and Student Notetaking practices and philosophies.

Email: One of my most time intensive tasks this semester concerned the mass amounts of e-‐mails I had to send/read. E-‐mail was the most common form of communication for when someone would request help or shed light on a problem (typically a website issue). Throughout the semester, I helped several people with Reggienet and SimplyBook issues, website problems, hardware questions, and practically all communication concerning the longitudinal study – all through e-‐mail. Although somewhat time consuming on my end, e-‐mail proved to be the best form of communication for my duties. Meetings: The meetings this semester consisted of the weekly small group meetings (with Francesco and Joyce), the bi-‐weekly big group meetings with the WPLT, and any and all meetings with fellow instructors (scheduled through e-‐mails), longitudinal study volunteers (Emily and Danielle), Francesco (to help train me), and the podcast crew (both the intern podcast crew and David). Most of the problems that were presented through e-‐mails throughout the semester were solved through in-‐person meeetings. Planning/Logistics: Much of this category could be switched to the Meetings category and vice versa. A great deal of planning for various tasks such as the podcasts and website improvements were done during meetings. I tried to keep the more “planning focused” meetings scheduled under this category. Other planning/logistics tasks completed this semester include researching the best software for a variety of tasks (audio/video compression, forum replacements, etc.), planning for the set up and tear down of hardware (mics, cameras, etc.), and organizing data. Tech/Website: The majority of my time this semester was spent on tech and the website. Almost all of my tasks included either tech or website requirements that might be considered for other categories (exporting, bouncing, and uploading media for example), but fit best under tech/website. Each week I would spend time on the website searching for any bugs or

broken/dead links. Also, time I spent researching and working with the back end of the site took up a good deal of time. All of the podcasts and video recordings also fit under this category. Although a good deal of my time was spent on tech/website tasks, my busiest weeks were at the end of the semester when everyone else had all of their media ready to be edited/uploaded. Total Hours: 151.5 ENG 145 Coordinator Activity Report Fall 2015

Resource Development (24%): This category logs work done writing blog entries for isuwriting.com and new content for the Spreading Roots section of the website. It also includes hours for the CHAT podcast with Jeremy. A majority of these hours were primarily spent on re-‐writes of GRWJ articles for Spreading Roots. I also included work on the info-‐graphic for ENG 145 in this category. Meetings (19%): This category consists mostly of the biweekly Writing Program Leadership Team meetings and weekly meetings with the Writing Program Director. Email (14%): Email exchanges with other WPLT members and with other instructors. Email is the most effective way for me to respond when I’m not on campus. Events (13%): This included assistance with the Visiting Speaker event and participating in the Writing Program presentations at the TYCA-‐Midwest conference and at NCTE. (I only included presentation time for both of these events.)

19%

14%

13%

9%

0%

3% 2%

6%

24%

10%

Hours Logged by Activity

Meetings

Email

Events

Planning/Logistics

Professional Development

Observations

Editorial/Review

Mentoring/Training

Resource Dev.

Tech/Website

Tech/Website (10%): These hours were primarily spent on updating/uploading the resources for the isuwriting.com. ENG 145 and Spreading Roots sections. It also includes hours for updating the mini-‐grant section of the site and uploading the three new grants for the fall semester. Planning/Logistics (9%): This category consists mainly of planning meetings with Jeremy for the CHAT podcast. Additional work included planning for the WAC survey. Mentoring (6% of total): This category includes meetings exchanges with any Writing Program instructor in need of any sort of support. Observations (3%): These included observations of two instructors new to ENG 145/ENG 145.13. Instructors were observed for 50 to 75 minutes each, followed by a short debriefing. Later, the notes from the observation were proof-‐read and edited, shared with the instructor, and archived in the Writing Program’s Dropbox account. Editorial/Reviewing (2%): This category records editorial or review work done on the Director’s new article for the Grassroots Writing Research Journal and review work on another GRWJ article. Professional Development (0.00%): There were no hours spent on professional development outside the Writing Program. TOTAL HOURS LOGGED: 148.25 Submitted by Deb Riggert-‐Kieffer Fall 2015 End of Semester Report David Giovagnoli, Writing Program Outreach Coordinator

Planning & Logistics – 33% Because the majority of my tasks this semester were event-‐based, especially the Visiting Speaker Series, most of my hours this semester were spent in preparation for these events. This category includes work for the Visiting Speaker Series, Instructor Podcasts, TYCA conference presentation, and the Spring 2016 Writing Research Colloquium. This category, as logistics, also includes one week of substitute instructing for two sections of a writing program course. Events – 17% This category includes the Visiting Speaker Series and a presentation at the TYCA-‐Midwest conference, both of which were significant short term expenditures of time. This category refers to the actual execution of these events. Meetings – 14% A significant percentage of my time was spent in meetings this semester, which included both semi-‐weekly Writing Program Leadership Team meetings and semi-‐weekly individual meetings with Maegan Gaddis, Writing Program Program Coordinator. In addition, this category includes other one-‐off meetings, such as one with the Milner Library critical inquiry team members. Email – 11% This category includes reading, composing, and writing emails during the semester that dealt with Writing Program business, on average an hour a week. Mentoring – 9% This category refers to the Grassroots Writing Research Internship Program. I met weekly with interns Nathan Schmidt and Annie Hackett to discuss their progress on their various tasks during the semester, including the Beyond 101 Student Podcast series, their blogging, and the Half-‐Mile project. Professional Development – 8% In preparation for transition to the ENG 101 Coordinator position, I attended the weekly cohort meetings with ENG 101 instructors and the ENG 101 Coordinator, Jeff Rients. The activities conducted here could also be considered mentoring. Editorial – 4% A small percentage of my time was spent doing editorial work for the Grassroots Writing Research Journal, in the form of reviewing.

Observations – 2% I observed one instructor’s class this semester, for the Writing Program Director. Resource Creation – 2% The actual execution of the instructor podcasts took 2% of my time, in addition to work done over the winter interim to put them on the website with text annotations.

Editorial/Reviewing

(32.89% of total): This

category includes

direct editorial work

for the GWRJ. This

includes: reviewing

article submissions

and review

letters/revision

assessments written

by assistant and guest

editors, writing editor

letters and

copyediting. The work

represented in this category is the primary responsibility of the GWRJ Associate Editor.

Meetings (24.97% of total) – This category consists of weekly one-on-one meetings with the Director

and bi-weekly Writing Program Leadership Team meetings as well as various other meetings (including

one-on-one meetings, trainings and classroom visits) throughout the semester with assistant editors,

guest editors, interns, writing instructors and student authors. It also includes meetings that were held

individually with WPLT members for planning purposes.

Planning/Logistics (23.65% of total) – This category includes a wide range of duties that are essential to

the eventual publication of each issue of the journal. Examples of tasks included in this category are:

planning for and assigning article reviews and revision assessments to assistant and guest editors,

tracking the progress of all submitted articles and the various assignments given to reviewers (assistant

editors, guest editors, interns, etc.), and strategizing and planning for the next installment of the journal,

among other things.

Email (14.66% of total) – This category includes all email related to the GWRJ. This includes time all

spent on email correspondence with authors, assistant and guest editors and other interested parties as

well as monitoring of the GWRJ email account.

Events (3.83% of total) –This category represents the time spent providing support for the Visiting

Speaker visit.

Tech/Website (0.00% of total) – This category does not include planning activities and meetings with

the tech coordinator and Director regarding the GWRJ section of the website.

Professional Development (0.00% of total) – This category does not include activities attended as part

of the WPLT.

GWRJ Associate Editor Activity Report

Fall 2015

Observations (0.00% of total) – This category is not relevant to this position.

Resource Development (0.00% of total) – This category does not include development of resources

directly in support of the GWRJ including updating/creating of documents such as the “Teaching w/ the

GWRJ” and “Connecting to the Learning Objectives w/ the GWRJ” or other guidance documents related

to writing for, editing with or using the journal as a teaching resource. Time spent on these resources

are included in the “Planning/Logistics” category above.

TOTAL HOURS LOGGED: 189.25 Submitted by Sarah Warren-Riley

WPTL Tech Coordinator Activity Report (website) Fall 2015 Hours Logged by Activity

Website development and maintenance (83.75%): This category consists of the work I did related to developing and maintaining the website, including: design and implementation of 101.10 consultant session notes system, 101.10 consultant scheduling system, custom wiki system for Key Terms & Concepts, advanced search system (including by author, tag, custom field), social media system (with auto-posting to various social media outlets), blog system (including custom tag-related features), user-related customizations (set-up, roles, restrictions, dashboard, and custom widgets), and GWRJournal section (based on individual, taggable, downloadable, journal articles). Each of these systems required customizations across multiple WordPress core functions, as well as testing and troubleshooting. Included in this category is also fixing navigation issues (like the Professional Development section), troubleshooting and fixing any website issues identified by WPTL team members, and setting up and maintaining a website back up system (both on server and on external hard drive). Meetings (14.95%): This category consists of biweekly Writing Program Leadership Team meetings, weekly meetings with the Writing Program Director, and website related meetings with WPLT staff. Events (1.3%): Attending Visiting Speaker and other WPLT sponsored events. TOTAL HOURS LOGGED: 148.75 Submitted by Francesco Levato

Professional Development Coordinator End-of-Semester Report Michelle Wright Dottore, December 5, 2015

42% Resource Development (approx. 100 hours): Resource development included many mediums and areas. One of the mediums involved continuing to produce another White Board Animation YouTube video, which is a part of our YouTube Channel: Learning Outcome Adventure Series, intended to help instructors and students from Illinois State University and beyond about our Writing Program’s key concepts and terms, which come together in our eight program Learning Outcomes. Another goal for me was continuing to maximize the applicability of our online resources, such as clipping videos of our Half-Mile Event into fifteen consumable two-three minute clips with titles and textual previews. Other resources included making materials for two professional conferences, such as producing PowerPoints, packets of information and resources. Researching and drafting my blog post, “New Views on Writing and Writing Research” was another resource activity as well resources sections in the Summit Program. 30% Events (approx. 71 hours): This semester I was involved in both on-campus and off-campus events. One of the events is co-facilitating the Fall 2015 Writing Summit and also preparing for the Spring 2015 Writing Summit. Preparation included drafting Preliminary Schedules, particularly the morning and afternoon sessions, drafting Call for Proposals, and scheduling panelists and presenters and organizing and drafting the new Summit Program Booklets. I participated and presented at two out-of-state conferences. On Oct 8th, I co-presented our “To Be Alternative: Creating Writing Researchers” presentation at the TYCA Midwest Conference in Overland Park, Kansas. On Nov 19th, I co-facilitated a four hour workshop “Dr. Nobody’s No-Holds Barred Genre Studies and Activity Theory Throwdown: How

NCTE Annual Convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Helping out to Create a Writing Researcher” at the with our Visiting Speaker this fall, Dr. Kathleen Yancey’s workshop, talk, and social as well as helping with the preparation, questions, and the filming at our Half-Mile Event with our visiting community member Coach Wes Gaddis. 10% Meetings (approx. 23.25 hours): Meeting this semester included my weekly check-ins with Program Coordinator, Maegan Gaddis, which included face-to-face, phone conversations, emails, and texts as well as our biweekly WPLT Meetings with the Director Joyce Walker and the entire Writing Program Team. Other meetings were with the Outreach Coordinator, consulting on Podcasts as well as meetings with Writing Program Team co-presenters for upcoming conference and events.

10% 3%

30%

6%

0% 0% 3% 3%

42%

3%

Fall Semester 2015 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Meetings 10% Email 3% Events 30% Planning 6% Prof. Dev. 0% Observations 0% Edit/Review 3% Mentoring 3% Resource Dev. 42% Tech/Website 3%

Professional Development Coordinator

Michelle Wright Dottore (Total Logged hours:

Approx. 237.75 Hours)

Professional Development Coordinator End-of-Semester Report Michelle Wright Dottore, December 5, 2015

6% Planning and Logistics (approx. 14 hours): Planning and logistics covered a wide array of activities, which include planning out for multimodal resources, events (such as the Writing Summit and Conferences), which mainly involved determining resource needs for the website and for events. 3% Emails (approx. 8.5 hours): Emailing is large part of the communication outside of team meetings as well as a means to be in contact with potential presenters and panelist for our Writing Summit. 3% Editorial Reviews (approx. 7.75 hours): This semester I helped to edit an infographic for Business College and served as a guest review for the Grassroots Writing Research Journal. I completed a revision assessment with in-text comments for one writer, and completed an initial review and revision assessment with in-text comments for another. Both writers are being considered for the 7.1 edition. 3% Website/technical (approx. 6.75 hours): These hours include posting new and updating old materials, blurbs, and media for our resources and events. This also involved mining through current resources and archived files for potential use on the site. 3% Mentoring (approx. 6.5 hours): This involved helping program instructors with Summit presentation ideas as well as helping an international instructor in our program with incorporating grammar under a genre studies frame in her teaching of composition, which included consulting with instructor, making materials for two 101 ENG classes, and presenting, following up via email with instructor, sharing the presentation and resources.

35% Whiteboard Animation Research and Creation (approx. 87.25 hours): This included researching and producing the first video of the Learning Outcome Adventure Series for LO 6 on Uptake. 34% Creating Website Resources for Program Eight Learning Outcomes: (Combined Mining Resources 25%, Half-Mile 5%, and Website Los 4%, approx. 86.75 hours): This included mining through program videos, podcast, articles, and/or documents for teaching and student resources as well as clipping and writing previews for these resources, organizing them under the best suitable new learning outcome or outcomes. 24% Summit Planning and Orientation Week Prep (Combining Summit Planning 17% and Orientation Week Prep 7%, approx. 60.25 hours): This involved contacting presenters, panelist, as well as making materials for the week of Orientation and the Writing summit, including Icebreakers, Workshop on Uptake, Summit Program Booklet, and online resources to preview that day. 7% Meetings (Combing Meetings and Record keep, approx. 18 hours): Meeting included biweekly check-ins over the summer with Program Coordinator, Maegan Gaddis.

17% 4%

5%

25% 35%

7% 7% Summer 2015

Professional Development Coordinator

Michelle Wright Dottore (Total Hours approx. 252.25

Summer & Orientation Week)

Summit Planning 17% Website LOs 4%

Half-Mile Clips 5% Mining Resources 25%

Whiteboard Animate 35% Meetings 7%

Orientation Prep 7%

ENG 101 Coordinator Activity Report Fall 2015

Mentoring (37.36% of total): This category includes three weekly hourlong meetings with members of the new instructor cohort as well as facetoface meetings and email exchanges with any Writing Program instructor in need of any sort of support. This category represents the primary duty of the ENG 101 Coordinator. Observations (14.29%): 16 new Writing Program instructors (12 new graduate assistant instructors, 3 new

hires, and 1 returning Master’s student who had not taught before) were observed for 50 to 75 minutes each, followed by a short debriefing. Later, the handwritten notes from the observation were transcribed, shared with the instructor, and archived in the Writing Program’s Dropbox account. Meetings (13.34%): This category consists mostly of the biweekly Writing Program Leadership Team meetings and a weekly oneonone with the Writing Program Director. The cohort meetings described above are not logged here. Events (12.24%): Assisting with the Visiting Speaker and participating in the Writing Program presentation at the TYCAMidwest conference are the two items logged under this category. Editorial/Reviewing (8.01%): This category records editorial or review work done on the Director’s new article for the Grassroots Writing Research Journal, the new draft course plan template for ENG 402, the ENG 101 Course Structure and Topical Outline, and the one page infographic describing ENG 101. Resource Development (5.02%): This category logs work done writing blog entries for isuwriting.com and new content for the PreOrientation Lessons in the Writing Program Instructor Resources page in ReggieNet.

Tech/Website (4.87%): Noncontent structural work on the PreOrientation Lessons is logged here, as is time spent reviewing and editing pages on isuwriting.com. Planning/Logistics (3.92%): This category consists mainly of planning meetings with the ENG 101.10 Coordinator at the beginning of the semester and a review of twelve existing course plans for their connections to the Writing Program learning outcomes. Email (0.94%): Email exchanges with other WPLT members. Emails exchanges with Writing Program instructors are logged under Mentoring. Professional Development (0.00%): This category does not include professional development not specific to the Writing Program, such as CTLT programming. TOTAL HOURS LOGGED: 159.25 Submitted by Jeff Rients

Appendix I: 101.10 Training Materials

Understanding Consul:ng for ENG 101.10Author Note: The original dra2 (and much of the original thinking contained in this ar9cle) was produced by Savvanah Fowler, an M.A. student in the Department of English Studies at Illinois State University. Working in collabora9on with Savannah, Joyce Walker (Wri9ng Program Director) both edited the text and created some new content. The text should be considered a collabora9ve effort of these two authors, but it also reflects to crea9ve thinking of our en9re “Experimental Wri9ng Research Laboratory” here at ISU.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

• Sec:on 1: 101.10 Course Overview (p.1)• Sec:on 2: Introduc:on to Consul:ng (p.7)• Sec:on 3: Understanding how Ac:vity Theory Informs Consul:ng Prac:ces (p.8)• Sec:on 4: The Ac:vi:es of Consul:ng (p.9)

Sec:on 1: 101.10 Course Overview

ENG 101.10 is designed to cover the same material that is taught in ENG 101, but 101.10 is structured to provide addi9onal assistance to students in the form of wri9ng consultants who can work in small study group sessions and in 1-‐on-‐1 consul9ng sessions. The course itself meets 3 days a week; two of these mee9ngs are with a second-‐year M.A. or PhD instructor, and the other is a study group session facilitated by a first-‐year M.A. wri9ng consultant. The class mee9ngs with instructors work with the same wri9ng research course content as in 101 classes; but the study group sessions help students to examine their antecedent knowledge and uptake in order to “learn how to learn,” and also help them to pick up addi9onal thinking and study skills that will be useful to them. In addi9on to these weekly classroom and study session mee9ngs, students will meet in 1-‐on-‐1 sessions with their consultants as a way of gaining the more personalized wri9ng support they have expressed a need for in registering for 101.10.

The PeopleThe people who are primarily involved in 101.10 are as follows:

• 101.10 Instructors

• 101.10 Students

• 101.10 Consultants

• Wri9ng Program StaffThe SpacesUnlike other ENG 101 courses, there are mul9ple spaces used by the people involved in 101.10:

• 1-‐to-‐1 sessions (STV 133)• Study Group Session (STV 250 & STV 133)• Classroom Sessions (STV 250)

101.10 DocumentsBecause 101.10 has mul9ple people and spaces involved, we’ve designed some documents that will help informa9on to flow from one space to another:

• Instructor Notes: Instructors will complete Instructor Notes every day a2er class. We’ll provide a “guide” for these notes, and they’ll be in an online loca9on that both students and consultants can access. These notes are intended to help consultants and students understand what the most important topics of conversa9on/study might be for the study sessions. Your notes will contain the major ideas/concepts/ac9vi9es that students and consultants might want to engage with as they work together.

• Student Notes: For each 101.10 class session, three students in the class will be assigned to complete a Student Note Sheet (the class Consultant will draw up the Notetaking schedule so that each student will take notes about 4 9mes during the semester). These Student Notes (we’ll also provide a guide for these notes) will be used in the study sessions, both as a way to help the students remember and think about what happened in the class, and as a way for consultants to help students understand how uptakes (understanding and taking up the ideas from class) can diverge and coalesce. Comparing Student Notes and Instructor Notes can also help students to see and understand befer the genre of the classroom and the assignments and ac9vi9es.

• Study Group Session Notes: At the end of each study group session, the three student note-‐takers and the consultant will all contribute to the Study Group Notes, which will document the ac9vi9es in the session and also establish ques9ons students have and “ac9on items” they want to work on. Instructors can then use these Study Group Session Notes to begin the next class mee9ng.

• 1-‐to-‐1 Session Notes: Every 9me a student and consultant meet in a 1-‐to-‐1 session, they’ll also complete (together) a note sheet that outlines the conversa9ons, ideas, ques9ons and ac9vi9es they’ve engaged in. These notes will be copied for students and made available to instructors.

Although it may seem like students, consultants, and instructors are being asked to fill out a lot of paperwork regarding their learning, these note sheets can help to increase and improve communica9on across the different people & spaces of 101.10. They can also be used as part of the uptake genres of the regular class. Students can use all of these various documents (and they’ll be available online, so you won’t have to be responsible for keeping track of them!) to document their learning at various points in your different Units. So they will have a prac9cal value for student learning that goes beyond just helping us all to keep in touch.

About the Students

We surveyed 160 ENG 101.10 students in Fall 2013. 119 of these students said that they viewed themselves as struggling writers and had specifically selected the course over a regular ENG 101 because they wanted extra help with their wri9ng. Generally, these students respond affirma9vely to the following statements:

• Generally, I don't read independently• In high school, I did not do much wri9ng• I have not had a chance to learn many different genres of wri9ng—either within or outside of

school.• I don’t write unless I have an assignment• My high school GPA was about average or below average• I'm unsure about the rules of wri9ng—commas, apostrophes, and so forth• I've used computers, but not o2en for wri9ng and revising• I don't think of myself as a strong writer• I am not all that confident about my ability to learn new kinds of wri9ng in different senng or

for different purposes• I would feel hesitant to discuss my wri9ng with an instructor

In short, the typical 101.10 student o2en lacks confidence in his or her ability to navigate wri9ng, reading, and research situa9ons. Because of this lack of confidence, we find that these students can be some9mes be resistant to genre studies because they are focused on becoming more adept at what they see as tradi,onal wri9ng (which they o2en don’t feel they have mastered). So in their anxiety to become “befer” writers, they can be reluctant to invest in our approach, because they perceive “learning to write a good paper” as a clear goal that they s9ll need to master in order to be successful in college.

We have also found that these students require instructors who are willing to be organized and explicit in their classroom materials and assignment sheets, as detailed as possible in keeping records of class ac9vi9es, and flexible in terms of adop9ng an approach based in goodwill when interac9ng with students. It’s important to remember that the majority of the students in each sec9on have self-‐selected based on a desire for addi9onal assistance. They can translate this into an expecta9on that explana9ons will be clear and direct. This means that we need to take care to scaffold appropriately as we move into assignments and projects, even though the pacing of assignments and projects can (and should) be equivalent to an ENG 101 class. However, it’s also important to remember that intellectually, these students need (and want) to be s9mulated and challenged. They are sensi9ve to situa9ons where wri9ng seems “too easy.” This can make them resist working with genres that emphasize visuals or that don’t use a lot of text. They o2en explain that this doesn’t seem like “real wri9ng.” This doesn’t mean you need to change the way you teach the course, or the assignments you develop. It just means you should be aware that these students need some real help understanding the value of the kinds of wri9ng experiments we assign.

The Structure of ENG 101.10 Class Session and Consul:ng Sessions:

The chart below shows how a schedule for ENG 101.10 would appear for one week. Note that this chart combines a total of one instructor, one consultant and 18 students (which is the cap for ENG 101.10). Each instructor meets with students twice a week, and each consultant holds 2 study group sessions which students will sign up for when registering for the course. Students afend two classes a week and one study group.

Monday Tuesday Wednesday ThursdayENG 101.10 Course

8:00-‐9:151qr Group Study

Session(9 Students and 1

Consultant)8:00-‐8:50

ENG 101.10 Course8:00-‐9:15

2ⁿt Group Study Session

(9 Students and 1 Consultant)8:00-‐8:50

1. Each 101.10 class meets normally, 2-‐9mes a week, with the same 18 students.2. Small study group sessions of 9 students meet twice a week but each student only afends one

session per week.3. Consultants will also be available for one-‐on-‐one consul:ng sessions each week and students

must afend at least 3 of these sessions during the semester, and these “required” sessions should coincide with the Units you assign. In other words, they should have a visit with a consultant at least once for every unit (rather than trying to cram them in all in the last week of class .

Expecta:ons for Consultants:

• Who are the Consultants? 101.10 Consultants are usually new M.A. level Graduate Instructors (although other instructors in the Wri9ng Program can some9mes be assigned to this work as well).

• How many Sec:ons of 101.10 do they have? Generally, each new M.A. consultant will be assigned to only one sec9on of ENG 101.10. So they’ll be working with 18 students. If a 101.10 instructor is teaching two sec9ons of the course, he/she will work with two different consultants.

• Study Group Sessions: 101.10 Consultants will hold two study group sessions each week (typically, these include 9 student – ½ of the class – in each session). In the first couple of weeks, sessions will focus on ice-‐breaker ac9vi9es that also help students to start thinking about wri9ng as an ac9vity system (note: In 2015, we’re going to be focusing on “note-‐taking” as a way to begin to “see” the complexity of learning and wri9ng situa9ons). But a2er the first two weeks, these study sessions will focus on using the instructor and student class notes to discuss the class, help students figure out what they need and want to focus on in their work, and encourage them to rely on their peers to help them understand and succeed in the course work.

• Ac:vi:es for Study Group Sessions: Consultants may also work to prepare different kinds of ac9vi9es for students to help them grasp different concepts, or work on genre or content

research skills.

• Study Group Session Notes: Consultants will work with students during each study group session to create the “Study Session Notes” which will be available to students and instructor in the course.

• One-‐to-‐One Sessions: Consultants will be available for one-‐to-‐one sessions each week. They are available for up to eight ½ hour sessions each week. That means, if students are really taking advantage of these sessions, the consultants could meet all the members of the class at least once every two weeks! While we don’t expect this to happen every week, we hope that instructors will really encourage their students to take advantage of these sessions.

• One-‐to-‐One Session Notes: Consultants will also work with students to create 1-‐to-‐1 Session Notes. We’ll keep a copy of these in the wri9ng program, but we’ll also make copies available to instructors and students.

• Midterm and End-‐of-‐Semester Documenta:on for Instructors: The consultant is responsible for keeping track of those aspects of the students’ course grades that are related to study group and one-‐on-‐one sessions (afendance and notes). The consultant will provide the instructors with documenta9on just before mid-‐term and just before the end of the semester, so you can use it in your grading.

Expecta:ons of Instructors:

The ENG 101.10 sec9ons do not represent a different workload than regular ENG 101 sessions. Students may require addi9onal help (and you can provide that help as an instructor, so don’t feel as if the consultants are taking that responsibility from you), but you also have five fewer students (18 vs. 23) than you might have in a regular ENG 101 class. There are some specific expecta9ons for instructors in the course, which are based both on serving the students well, and on crea9ng a smooth communica9on between the different “spaces” that students, instructors and consultants occupy.

• Be Organized & Detailed: The syllabus and class plans for 101.10 should be organized and detailed (when appropriate – we know some9mes having students actually work to build an assignment plan is part of the learning). Many 101 instructors keep a prefy loose schedule in their courses, but we’ve found that 101.10 students can experience more anxiety and frustra9on when they don’t have a clear idea of schedules and assignments for each Unit.

• Give Clear Instruc:ons: We find that 101.10 students typically don’t respond well to a lack of clear instruc9ons. You can definitely work on crea9ng instruc9ons WITH students, and thus s9ll have a very student-‐centered class, but once the instruc9ons are created, they should be clearly posted and shared. In general, we think that student anxiety about school and about wri9ng can manifest in resistance to poorly defined or poorly jus9fied ac9vi9es. So instructors need to be aware of this, and be ready with strategies to help students to feel as if they know what’s expected.

• Explicit Pedagogies: The “why” of assignments should be discussed o2en – and the rela9onship to the learning outcomes and the goals for each project should be explicit.

• Awareness of the 101.10 Popula:on: Instructors need to be aware of the differences in these

students. Taking 9me to get to know them (and what they know about wri9ng and do with it) can be even more important in this class than in ENG 101.

• Lot’s of Communica:on: Our design of the different “notes” documents should help everyone in the class (and the staff in the Wri9ng Program) to stay in touch and try to make sure the resources we provide are making a difference for student learning. However, there can s9ll some9mes be mis-‐communica9ons between instructors, students and consultants. Remember to assume that your colleagues are doing their best, and try to resolve any communica9on difficul9es quickly and collegially. If you feel as if you might need extra help, please contact us in the Wri9ng Program – we’re here to help.

Expecta:ons for StudentsWe do have expecta9ons for students (we have a handout that 101.10 students will get in their first study group session). We’ll con9nue to work on that document to get it revised for fall, but this is a list of our current listed expecta9ons:

¥ Come prepared to par:cipate every week – this also means afending and par9cipa9ng in class, so that you are up-‐to-‐speed on the concepts and projects of the course.

¥ Be generous with your knowledge -‐-‐ remember that every group member has different skills, so sharing yours will be important.

¥ Think about your contribu:ons -‐-‐ see below for a list of ideas about how different members can contribute.

¥ Do make use of the Consultant as a resource -‐-‐ The consultant is an experienced writer, and a successful student. He/she will definitely be able to help the group with informa9on and ideas about resources.

¥ Don’t Expect the Consultant to know what your Teacher expects -‐-‐ You and your peers will have a lot more informa9on about the wri9ng assignments and project than the consultant, because you are afending the class.

Sec:on 2: Introduc:on To Consul:ng in the ISU Wri:ng Program

Although the Consultant Program at ISU is rela9vely new, it’s an incredibly useful resource for students. And within the structure of 101.10, the Consultants are the primary resource to provide the extra support that students self-‐selec9ng into ENG 101 have indicated they need and would like.

The ISU Wri9ng Department works diligently to increase the efficacy of the consultant posi9on through frequent re-‐structuring and re-‐vamping of the program's concepts, and altera9ons in the Consultant role in ENG 101.10 in response to our own research and surveys of ENG 101.10 students. Since changes the Consul9ng prac9ces are made every semester, each new group of Consultants must work to “re-‐think” the opportuni9es and challenges of this posi9on. This document outlines the Consultant posi9on in its current form (Fall 2015).

A ques9on that the Wri9ng Program frequently revisits is what par9cular consultant behaviors will result in both successful consul9ng sessions and helping students to become wri9ng researchers. While

consul9ng acts as a great prepara9on for tasks such as teaching and draws on several different areas of experience like tutoring and wri9ng center experience, it’s not really exactly like any of these ac9vi9es. Prior experience in teaching and/or wri9ng centers can certainly help to inform consultant decisions in the session. However, consultants shouldn’t try to mimic the behaviors that are part of the classroom or wri9ng center senng.

In order to define the parameters of the consul9ng session, we have to start by defining the consultant!Possible Defini:on: The consultant is a person with knowledge of the ISU wri9ng program pedagogy and goals, who acts as a resource for students in their peer study groups, and as a mentor and guide in one-‐on-‐one sessions. In addi9on, the Consultant works to model effec9ve “wri9ng research” behaviors. Above all, the consultant acts as a type of expert resource for students, someone who can help them figure out how to research (not just blindly complete) the literate prac9ces involved in their par9cipa9on in a 101.10 classroom.

The informa9on in this document will explain the prac9ces and behaviors involved in being a consultant and will also help you to more fully understand the goals of the ISU Consul9ng Program. This document also includes a short discussion of ac9vity theory and how it helps the consultant to iden9fy poten9al tools/resources they can use to help students meet their goals.

Finally, the last and most substan9al sec9on of the document will discuss what are known as divergences* that can occur when students, consultants, and teachers are working to learn together. These scenarios in this sec9on are designed to help you consider the posi9on of the consultant, the space of the classroom and the value of an Ac:vity Theory approach in each divergence. Included in the Divergence sec9on is a blank map which assistants should use to map out the space of the consul9ng rooms. The map and your basic understanding of ac9vity theory can help you to approach divergent situa9ons produc9vely. There is also a sort of “worksheet” sec9on, where you can write about how you think you might address these learning moments. Comple9ng this ac9vity can help you to become more aware of how common divergence can be and to think through all the ways you can address it through your own ac9vi9es and responses.

*Divergences are discussed more fully in the Divergent Learning Situa9ons Handout, but what we generally mean by this term is that even though we o2en make assump9ons that students are all learning what we’re trying to teach (just at different levels), in fact students can take up ideas that are presented to them in VERY different ways. Some9mes this kind of “divergent uptake” can mean frustra9on for students (and teachers and consultants). So when things seem to be going wrong, it’s o2en worthwhile to stop and think about what kinds of divergent thinking and understanding might be causing the problem, and then brainstorm ways to bring the group back together.

Sec:on 3: Understanding how CHAT (ac:vity theory) informs Consul:ng Prac:ce

The best way to understand the theories and concepts and prac9ces that shape our wri9ng program is to review our learning outcomes (which you can find online on our website: www.isuwri9ng.com). But this lifle sec9on here starts us out with one of the theories we use (Cultural-‐Historical-‐Ac9vity-‐Theory, or CHAT) that help us to describe the complexity of how wri9ng works in the world. This is a really important concept for working as a consultant, because we find that it helps us to really rethink the

http://www.isuwriting.com

purposes and ac9vi9es of a First Year Wri9ng Class (as well as helping us to see why/how the actual classrooms of 101.10 can be used to help students understand “school” ac9vity systems, and the literacies they require).

What is Ac3vity Theory?

The ISU Wri9ng Department uses Cultural-‐Historical Ac9vity Theory (CHAT) in both its classrooms for instructors and in its consul9ng program in conjunc9on with Composi9on 101.10. Below is a defini9on of ac9vity theory from David R. Russell and Arturo Yanez from their ar9cle 'Big Picture People Rarely Become Historians': Genre Systems and the Contradic9ons of General Educa9on:

Ac9vity theory is a way of analyzing human ac9vity over 9me, especially change-‐including that kind of change called learning. It does not claim to provide a neat way to predict outcomes, but rather offers tenta9ve explana9ons. It is a heuris9c. That is, a way of useful ques9ons to ask. It asks those ques9ons not to find any final answer, but to give people working in some ac9vity a useful perspec9ve from which to develop new approaches, new media9on tools (or new ways of using new tools) to transform or “re-‐mediate” their ac9vity (355).

How does this apply to consul9ng? When students in consul9ng sessions encounter an unfamiliar task or genre, ac9vity theory can offer different avenues of thought for students to pursue. This is done by encouraging students to view texts as rhetorical social produc9ons that are both cultural and historically influenced. It is not uncommon for students to view wri9ng and texts as random produc9ons that have nothing to do with encouraging change in the surrounding world (or requiring change in the author). By viewing texts as objects that encourage ac9ons and responses from audiences, students can begin to think of texts in new and increasingly complex ways.

Ac9vity theory can also apply to the consultant’s understanding of his/her role in the ac9vity system that is 101.10. From a CHAT perspec9ve, the consultant-‐as-‐wri9ng-‐researcher par9cipates by working to gain a VERY complex and detailed understanding of all the tools, people, resources that go into (or might go into) the ac9vi9es of learning, and then help students to make selec9ons among the available resources to them at a given 9me.

Finally, thinking like a CHAT Wri9ng Researcher can help the consultant model (for students) how the awareness of complexity isn’t just for the sake of intellectual gymnas9cs or even for befer cri9cal, cultural, or meta-‐cogni9ve awareness. This process of inves9ga9ng not just genres but ac9vity systems, can be an extremely prac9cal way for students to learn about the different resources they can employ, both for understanding literate situa9ons AND engaging in the acts of wri9ng within those situa9ons.

Laura Jarema's “The Invisible Barriers That Affect Students' Percep9on and Proof Of Learning: A Study Of The Elusive Factors That Impact Knowledge Transfer In First-‐Year Composi9on and Communica9on Courses” explains it this way:

Within a specific classroom, students are mo9vated to learn as they con9nually collaborate, discuss and are encouraged to expand their ideas. Instructors are expected to inspire and guide students on important concepts of the course, which students may not be mo9vated to learn otherwise. For example, if individual learners were not involved in the ac9vity system of an English course, they may never be mo9vated to learn about important grammar and language conven9ons. Individual learners become mo9vated to learn due to aspects of the ac9vity system, such as course grades, instructor encouragement, and interac9on with other learners

(19-‐20).

Sec:on 4: The Ac:vi:es of Consul:ng

The Group Study SessionsSessions will take place in either of two loca9ons: Room 128 or the 250 computer lab classrooms on the second floor of Stevenson. Although each session will start in the assigned classroom, students may decide on (or the Consultant may suggest) a move to another available space to conduct the session or pursue resources that takes the group out of the classroom – this kind of decision would be up to the students, but would need to take into account the judgment of the Consultant, and availability of all members to make the move.

The layout of the classroom (mostly the 250 suite classrooms, but some sec9ons will meet in Room 221A) are all somewhat unique, so one of the first projects student groups will need to engage in will deciding how to use the space effec9vely.

The primary work of the study sessions is to figure out “what’s next?” Students like this. They o2en feel if they just know what to do next, all will be well. However, your job as a consultant is o2en to help them see that, in fact, they can’t know what to do next un9l they’ve figured out what they know (and don’t know) about the “literate ac9vity” involved.

For example: If I get an assignment to write a “reading response,” but I don’t know what that is, then I’m stuck. But If I’ve wrifen some kind of a response to a text before (maybe even in an English class), I might s9ll be stuck, because the kinds of texts I’ve wrifen before might not be what’s expected here. But wait. There’s more. Even if I ask the instructor, “hey, what, exactly do you want?” I might s9ll be stuck, because the instructor might look at me and say, “just respond to the wri9ng.” Or the instructor might give me some direc9on, but then it’s up to me to decide what is the same (or different) about what the instructor wants, compared to my own experiences with “wri9ng responses” in the past. Jeez.

The problem is that students (maybe especially 101 students) aren’t very used to making these “adjustments” and moves. Even for those of us who make them more o2en, it can s9ll be a REALLY problema9c task – painful, even. So as a consultant, it’s your job to help them open up the can of worms that is “the literate ac9vity,” which includes not only the wri9ng, the expecta9ons for the wri9ng, an indvidual’s own knowledge and lack-‐of-‐knowledge and goals, plus all the prac9cal components, like 9me and tools, plus just the whole, big, fat cultural-‐historical soup that permeates all our interac9ons as humans. Whew.

To help with all of this, we’ve organized the Study Group Sessions about a set of different “notes,” which we’ll explain here.

Taking Notes In ENG 101.10• Instructor Notes: Instructors will complete Instructor Notes every day a2er class. We’ll provide a “guide”

for these notes, and they’ll be in an online loca9on that both students and consultants can access. These notes are intended to help consultants and students understand what the most important topics of conversa9on/study might be for the study sessions. Your notes will contain the major ideas/concepts/

ac9vi9es that students and consultants might want to engage with as they work together.

• Student Notes: For each 101.10 class session, three students in the class will be assigned to complete a Student Note Sheet (the class Consultant will draw up the Notetaking schedule so that each student will take notes about 4 9mes during the semester). These Student Notes (we’ll also provide a guide for these notes) will be used in the study sessions, both as a way to help the students remember and think about what happened in the class, and as a way for consultants to help students understand how uptakes (understanding and taking up the ideas from class) can diverge and coalesce. Comparing Student Notes and Instructor Notes can also help students to see and understand befer the genre of the classroom and the assignments and ac9vi9es.

• Study Group Session Notes: At the end of each study group session, the three student note-‐takers and the consultant will all contribute to the Study Group Notes, which will document the ac9vi9es in the session and also establish ques9ons students have and “ac9on items” they want to work on. Instructors can then use these Study Group Session Notes to begin the next class mee9ng.

As the consultant, one of your primary job is to ask the students, at each study session, to compare the notes the instructor has provided and the notes the students have made. WHERE are the differences? What can the group agree on (in terms of defini9ons, assignments, ac9vi9es) where are there disagreements? Finally, the consultant can lead the students through a process of thinking about “what’s new here?” and “what do we need to do next?” The consultant can also (always) work to help students see where their resources are – what tools do they have (or what tools can you help them find and use) that will help them do (and learn) what needs doing (and learning)? It’s important for the consultant not just to remember but to ac9vely insist on in the group and one-‐on-‐one sessions) that they are only one tool/resource among many that students can (and should) learn to use.

One-‐on-‐One (or small group) Sessions:

These mee9ngs should take place in the Wri9ng Program space (Room 128), but you might find that you also have or need to schedule addi9onal mee9ngs that might take place in an alternate, agreed-‐upon loca9on.

These sessions are normally for ½ hour, but can be extended if the Consultant has 9me in her/his schedule. Addi9onally, online mee9ngs could occasionally be subs9tuted if that is the preference of the student.

One-‐on-‐One and small group sessions (2-‐3 students might all have the same issue and want to meet with you regarding that issue) are also collabora9ve (student share responsibility for leading), but depending on the student the Consultant might need to take a more ac9ve role, asking ques9ons, trying to engage the student in conversa9on about what his/her ques9ons or problems or ideas might be.

One-‐on-‐One Session Notes: There are also notes that go with the one-‐to-‐one sessions. At the end of each session, the student(s) and consultant fill out a form that lists (1) session obec9ves, (2) What happened, (3) ac9on items (what’s next?). These notes are saved and sent to both student and instructor.

What the Consultant Does The Consultant should first and foremost work to model successful wri9ng research prac9ces and to act as a resource (albeit one with capable of independent thought and inten9on) for students to use as they need. This makes the consultant a vital stepping-‐off point for student research, promo9ng both a trust in the consultant (as a place to go for answers) and an ever-‐increasing independence as they learn to also use other resources to do their own daily wri9ng research. Some areas of knowledge that Consultants need to afend to include the following:

¥ A knowledge of genre theory and CHAT (and other theore9cal underpinnings)¥ Experience in wri9ng research and using resources ¥ Familiarity with common University resources for doing research and learning about wri9ng,

especially the Milner Library Resources.¥ Familiarity with whatever materials the instructor commonly provides the students. This will certainly

include the weekly study guides that instructors provide for students, but may also include perusal of the instructor’s materials (including those on the instructors course site).

¥ The ability to use various resources to demonstrate what wri9ng research is, how it looks, and its value as a skill.

¥ The ability to answer ques9ons directly when that’s appropriate, but also the tendency to offer students op9ons about their choices and whenever impossible encouraging them to engage in wri9ng research prac9ces independently.

Important Consultant Behaviors

The bulleted list below features the most important behaviors for consultants and how to make their sessions successful for themselves and their students.

• Read the Instructor Notes provided by the instructor and the Students Notes before each Study Session.

• When possible, trace out some interes9ng stuff that you see in these documents. Where does stuff match up well, and what are some of the discrepancies?

• As you read through these notes, try to iden9fy what kinds of skills student might need to accomplish the work of the project that’s underway. Are their library or research skills they might need? Might they want to prac9ce doing some “genre” or “ac9vity theory” kinds of research and analysis? Be ready with sugges9ons that would be useful in case the group has trouble deciding what to do.

• Be ready to talk about note-‐taking with the students. What are the best ways to really figure out what’s important for a par9cular ac9vity? How can they improve their ability to ferret out what’s important?

• Maintain your role as a consultant as a resource, rather than a separate authority figure that has “secret knowledge” about what the teacher may want from the assignment.

• Encourage Students to meet with you in one-‐on-‐one session

Divergence WorksheetENG 101.10 Consultant TrainingFall 2015

What is a divergence?

Divergence is the term that the Wri9ng Program uses to describe moments when the “script” of the study group diverges from “ideal” expecta9ons (which would be a group that is ac9ng produc9vely and accomplishing goals, while sa9sfying members expecta9ons for learning). Obviously, in a chao9c system like a group-‐in-‐real-‐9me, there are constant divergences from any kind of “ideal” script. However, in this sec9on we’re going to be talking primarily about divergences that expand to the point where a Consultant might need to intervene/interact in some specific way to alter the trajectory of the group into what she/he perceives as a more coherent, or more produc9ve structure. Divergences can also be situa9ons when students clearly lack a resource they need to accomplish their projected goals, where the Consultant may need to assess the situa9on and decide how/when to be more ac9ve in providing or iden9fy the necessary resource.

Through the use of Ac9vity Theory (working to see the system opera9ng both whole and parts, simultaneously, through the examina9on of actors and tools “in play” within the system), these moments of possible interven9on by the consultant are viewed as an opportunity rather than of instances of right/wrong, good/bad or broken/fixed. Thinking of student learning and choices as something wrong or as a glitch in a system assumes that there is only one correct text, knowledge set (antecedent knowledge possessed by students) and ac9vity within an ac9vity system.

The consultant's ability to recognize these moments of divergence is vital in fulfilling the role as a knowledgeable resource for students. Instead of thinking in terms of right/wrong or good/bad, consultants are encouraged to always consider what is likely to happen in any given divergence and ask themselves where do I intervene as a consultant?

The choice to use the word “divergence” is a deliberate one. Defini9ons of divergence are centered around re-‐direc9on and movement rather than dead ends. If a divergence can be defined as a devia9on from an ideal – and at the same 9me we recognize both the impossibility and irrelevance of an “ideal” learning ac9vity in a complex system with mul9ple par9cipants, then divergences are not only expected, they can be valued as moments when members can work to reestablish a coherent rela9onship that helps to stabilize or energize the group.

______________________________________________________________________________

The next sec9on addresses various types of divergences that have occurred in previous consul9ng sessions. While these divergences are not guaranteed to happen in any given situa9on or in the same manner, it is important for consultants to become proficient in no9cing the markers and characteris9cs of divergences. Rather than simply providing the details of the divergence in its en9rety, the scenario has been organized into a mul9-‐sec9oned heuris9c, which is designed to help you understand and think through the situa9on as you would in real 9me consul9ng. These subsequent maps are not meant to represent the only solu9on to these or similar divergences. Rather, they help to stress the use of ac9vity theory in decision making and get consultants familiar with this model of thinking.

What are the Important 101.10 Resources?

A resource is any tool, object, source, text or ac9vity that provides some type of contribu9on or support for the students’ outlined goals. While consultants are arguably the primary and most present resource for students, they should recognize that they are not the only resource for students, and that one of

their primary tasks is to both direct students to other resources and to help them learn to use these other resources effec9vely. The use of ac9vity theory in these sessions (being aware of the ac9vity system as robust and complex) allows consultants to vacate the expected “expert” posi9on and steer students toward a range resources that can offer advice and informa9on that consultants may not. Below are a few examples of common resources for students. Modeling Wri9ng Research Behavior can help consultants to show students how prac9cal wri9ng research works as a process to collect and use resources to understand wri9ng situa9ons more fully (and poten9ally to make success more likely). Some resources that Consultants should always remain aware of as poten9al tools for students include:

-‐Pre-‐exis:ng Texts: Ar9cles, book chapters, video/audio that consultants can direct students toward. -‐Classroom Texts: Any materials from the classrooms are vital to discussion about the course work. Promo9ng students to take effec9ve notes in class and then share them in the group would be one important way to point to this kind of resource for students. But accessing handouts or other teacher-‐provided materials could also be useful. -‐NOTES, NOTES, NOTES: Use the notes AND student’s memories of the class to really try to ferret out holes in their knowledge and understanding. Don’t let them tell you that they “know” or that that “have no idea.” The truth is always somewhere in the middle.-‐Created Texts: Consultants can create handouts or lists of resources to meet student’s needs if they decide that this would be useful for students. This includes helping them to create charts, graphs, diagrams, notes, etc. that explain, summarize, or explicate the course material and concepts.-‐Other human resources: Experts, professors, librarians, family members. A par9cular point to note is the use of students in the group as resources. Since we call the student groups “study groups” and the students are in the same class, each student should be able to bring in and use their various antecedent or prior knowledge* to the group. The consultants should encourage the use of one another as references and opportuni9es for ideas through ac9vi9es such as group work or open discussion of ideas and sugges9ons. -‐Antecedent Knowledge: Antecedent or prior knowledge is any type of knowledge or skill that students already possess from working with an ac9vity. A common example of antecedent knowledge for freshman wri9ng students is the Five Paragraph Essay. Students do most of their high school work in this genre and typically have a great deal of experience with it. -‐Digital resources: Examples are: Computers, search engines, programs, applica9ons, digital audio/visuals. There are an endless amount of tools and resources for students. Consultants should consider the group and their goals when determining the resources to recommend to students.

Sec:on 6: Mapping Divergence

The process of “mapping” divergences involves afemp9ng not only to describe a general type of situa9on within a group, but instead to map out the various humans and non-‐humans interac9ng in the space, and iden9fy how these different elements are impac9ng the trajectory of the ac9vity. [Note: That’s why, when were actually modeling divergences-‐in-‐process we need to use the classroom maps to help us remain focused not just on the “story” of the divergence, but it’s ac9vity].

The examples of Divergences are broken up into four sec9ons: (1) Explana,on of the scenario, (2) iden,fying possible tools and resources for students in this situa,on, (3) sugges,ng ac,vity for both the consultant and student and (4) thinking of Trajectory, which examines the possibility of the iden9fied ac9vi9es becoming regular paferns of thinking and talking about problems for students.

Structure for Studying Divergence

Direc:ons: To begin, imagine a session in ac9on. Where might everyone be? How will the room be arranged?

1. With a copy of the Map in front of you, either read (or if working in a group have one member read) the Divergence example.

2. Use your map to imagine and locate the where/when/why of the divergence as it might happen in the physical space of a par9cular session.

3. Answer the ques9ons as the end of the Divergence4. Discuss with the group a2er you have completed analyzing the various

scenarios.

Sec:on 5: Divergence Scenarios

Divergence #1: Baby Bird Syndrome

Part One: Descrip:on of the ScenarioBaby Bird Syndrome involves situa9ons when students are finding it difficult to make plans and set goals. In Baby Bird Syndrome, students see the consultant as either an addi9onal teacher or a subs9tute instructor who is armed with knowledge about what the instructor wants for the assignment. Students then afempt to gain this informa9on from the consultant, typically by using specific rhetorics. These situa9ons o2en involve phrases like, “What do you think the teacher wants?” or “we don’t understand what the teacher wants”. This invites the consultant to play the role of expert with secret informa9on, thus transforming into an authority figure and nega9ng their role as a resource.

In examining this scenario, try first to envision a specific situa9on in which this par9cular divergence might play out. What kind of classwork might the students be talking about? How would the room be organized physically? Where would the Consultant be sinng?

Part Two: Tools and Resources

What are the resources available to alter the trajectory of this situa9on? To turn this divergence into an opportunity?

1. Resources Students have (but obviously aren’t using):2. Resources Consultants have:

Part Three: Ac:vi:es that Might Occur

What are the ACTIONS that could happen as the result of a redirec9on of tool use and resource use?

1. Ac9vi9es to suggest: 2. Things the students do: 3. Things the consultant does:

Part Four: Trajectories

Redirec9on back into a produc9ve “work flow” for the session is great. That’s what we’re shoo9ng for. But in the act of “redirec9ng” a consultant can some9mes hit upon a tool or ac9vity – or just a perspec9ve for thinking about things – that could turn this divergence into a new learning opportunity. Try to envision/invent some ways that the ac9vi9es in part Three could have “persistence” – that is, become regular paferns of thinking and talking about problems.

Divergence #2: We’re Bus:ng Out of Here

Part One: Descrip:on of the ScenarioStudents o2en have a difficult 9me visualizing what exactly a wri9ng researcher looks like or how the ac9vi9es we’re modeling as “wri9ng research” can have direct value on their wri9ng process. This means that the students need to be shown how and where wri9ng research literally happens along with the resources that make specific types of research possible. Although the program has its default mee9ng spaces, students may assign themselves goals that must be met outside of the default space of the session. This is a key component in helping students to further differen9ate the space of their teacher and classroom from their consultant and session room. Students will look toward the consultant for the correct ac9ons to take as well as to determine what can be realis9cally accomplished within the 9me of the session. In other words, students will look to the consultant to help them decide what to do and where to do it.

In examining this scenario, try first to envision a specific situa9on in which this par9cular divergence might play out. What kind of classwork might the students be talking about? Where might they want (or need) to go? What authority might they invest the consultant with in this situa9on? What would the possible “new” loca9ons for work be?



1. Resources Students have (but obviously aren’t using):2. 2. Resources Consultants have:

Part Three: Ac:vi:es




Redirec9on back into a produc9ve “work flow” for the session is great. That’s what we’re shoo9ng for. But in the act of “redirec9ng” a consultant can some9mes hit upon a tool or ac9vity – or just a perspec9ve for thinking about things – that could turn this divergence into a new learning opportunity. Try to envision/invent some ways that the ac9vi9es in part Three could have “persistence” – that is, become regular paferns of thinking and talking about problems, and about the physical and material aspects of “being a wri9ng researcher.”

Divergence #3: Disrup:ve Students in Session

Part One: Descrip:on of the ScenarioEven though the program encourages student camaraderie, sessions s9ll need to remain on track and students produc9ve toward accomplishing their goals. Some study groups may have members who are entertaining and serve to lighten the mood of the session. This is helpful and great overall for encouraging conversa9on and helping students to feel comfortable in sessions. However, too much comedy can become a problem and reduce the overall progress of the session. The ques9on is not if the consultant should intervene, rather, how they should intervene. Since the Consultant is not the instructor, his/her role in redirec9ng difficult behavior can be very ambiguous. Rather than the consultant appearing to be personally upset, she/her would need to illustrate for the group how the mee9ng is being disrupted. In other words, the consultant needs to frame the divergence as a concern for students, not the consultants themselves. What resources could the consultant produce to help students see this?

In considering and mapping this scenario, Consultants might want to envision all types of disrup9ve behavior. Not just “genng off topic” or “controlling the comedy” but situa9ons where more nega9ve behaviors are being displayed. The first step is s9ll the map, however. Try to envision a situa9on where certain group members might be engaging in behaviors that you think are ul9mately keeping the group from working effec9vely. Place the people in the room – where would they be sinng? What kind of work would be going on? Where would the consultant be?








Redirec9on back into a produc9ve “work flow” for the session is great. That’s what we’re shoo9ng for. But in the act of “redirec9ng” a consultant can some9mes hit upon a tool or ac9vity – or just a perspec9ve for thinking about things – that could turn this divergence into a new learning opportunity. Try to envision/invent some ways that the ac9vi9es in part Three could have “persistence” – that is, become regular paferns of thinking and talking about problems for the group.

Divergence #4: Becoming a Literate Ci:zen

Part One: Descrip:on of the ScenarioFirst Year Wri9ng students o2en insist that wri9ng isn't an everyday ac9vity for them. Consultants shouldn't be surprised to hear the words, “I just don't write”. Because students do not see the value of wri9ng or view it as a daily ac9vity, it is common for them to resist their classroom wri9ng assignments. Addi9onally, students have been condi9oned to only view academic or difficult wri9ng as “true wri9ng” while non-‐academic genres of wri9ng are rarely considered as such. Past consultants have o2en asked students to make list of all the genres that they frequently write in. This list, which is usually short and dominated by academic genres, may only help to reinforce the student's view of what wri9ng truly is. In the Peer Study Group model, the Consultant will not be “in charge” of changing student antudes and understanding of their wri9ng directly in the group, but she/he will s9ll need to consider how limited understanding of literate ac9vity may be hampering or limi9ng students ability to engage in the behaviors of a Literate Ci9zen.

In considering this scenario, try to imagine discussions that students might have about a project

or type of genre-‐research ac9vity where their understanding would be limited if they don’t (a) have a grasp of all the different kinds of wri9ng as “really wri9ng” and/or (b) their own understanding of their own wri9ng ac9vi9es doesn’t include enough different kinds of texts to give them compara9ve experience. What might students be talking about or working on when this kind of thing would happen? How might the group produc9vity “deteriorate” as a result? Where would the Consultant be sinng or moving around?









Divergence #5: She Broke up on the Rocks

Part One: Descrip:on of the ScenarioThe peer group numbers are actually (because of departmental budget constraints) not ideal. 9 students is a large number to have in a study group. At some point (early or later in the semester) the Consultant may observe the groups func9on is being shaped by the number of members in ways that might not be produc9ve for all the members. In this case, students themselves may feel frustrated, but not really know (themselves) how to solve the problem, since the “rules” will say they are supposed to work as a group. They may look to the Consultant to ac9vely help them in this situa9on, or they may just struggle along.

In considering this scenario, try to imagine discussions that students might have about a project or type of genre-‐research ac9vity where their understanding would be limited if the group

dynamic is genng unwieldy. In what situa9ons might this occur, and how might the trajectory of the group (it’s coherence and the ac9vi9es of individual members) be altered?






1. Ac9vi9es to suggest: 2. Things the students do: 3. Things the consultant does



Divergence #6: No (Wo)Man is an Island

Part One: Descrip:on of the ScenarioIn previous itera9ons of the consul9ng role, Consultants o2en spent a lot of 9me worrying about how to engage the student who doesn’t want to engage – but sits quietly, or is ac9vtely board during the mee9ngs. In the Consultant-‐as-‐Kind-‐of-‐a-‐Teacher model, the Consultant has power to alter the trajectory in some very direct ways. But in the new model (the Consultant-‐as-‐Wri9ng-‐Researcher-‐and-‐Facilitator) ac9ons that can be taken by the Consultant are more constrained. This scenario address the possibility that some students in the peer group may be afending but failing to par9cipate.

In considering this scenario, try to imagine a specific situa9on in which the Consultant might observe a par9cular student’s lack of engagement. Where is the student si9ng? What is going on around him/her? How is the group responding to this lack of engagement? What is the consultant doing?









An Ac:vity Theory Approach to NotetakingOne of the major changes we’ve made to the structure of ENG 101.10 from 2014 to 2015 is the inclusion of Instructor, Consultant, and Student notetaking components. Basically, during and/or a2er all ENG 101.10 mee9ngs (course sessions, study group sessions, 1-‐on-‐1 tutoring sessions) notes will be taken that document the ac9vi9es and learning that took place within the mee9ng. These notes will then be shared so that all par9es connected to each sec9on of ENG 101.10 will have access to the different perspec9ves of learning made visible in the wrifen notes.

The notetaking that will be completed during the semester recognizes that knowledge is constructed in groups, not individually. ENG 101.10 is not simply a course where instructors transfer knowledge to students and that knowledge is reinforced by wri9ng consultants via study group session ac9vi9es. Instead, instructors, consultants, students, and Wri9ng Program administrators work together to con9nually create and recreate what we know and call wri9ng research. In this way, what we (as a group, as individuals) know about wri9ng research is constantly changing, growing, shi2ing—it is constantly being wrifen, edited, and revised. Wri9ng research is not sta9c, but dynamic, therefore the teaching and learning regarding

wri9ng research should be recognized as equally dynamic.

Since wri9ng research knowledge is always on the move, instances of wri9ng research learning are also on the move. Instructors, consultants, and students (as groups and individuals) teach and learn and relearn at different paces. With all the different speeds of knowledge uptake and transfer, it’s important for groups to have check ups that allow individuals to compare how they are taking up new ideas (o2en in different ways), and to check milestones for each group member. Documenta9on of learning can be a visual and tac9le tool to keep everyone “up to speed” and help members learn to be more conscious of their “knowledge-‐making” as they learn.

We see efficient, shared notetaking as a way to keep ENG 101.10 instructors, consultants, students, and administrators in communica9on with each other regarding their wri9ng research learning. This communica9on is cri9cal in connec9ng all par9es involved in ENG 101.10. With the aid of accurate, con9nual, and in some senses communal notetaking, we remove the guesswork of whether or not everyone is “on the same page” when it comes to ENG 101.10 course objec9ves and Wri9ng Program Learning Outcomes. The notes become places to ask ques9ons, share thoughts, revise goals, and reinforce knowledge. As such, they not only document learning, but play an important role in the very processes of teaching and learning.

Ul9mately, notetaking is a group ac9vity: it works best to help with learning when everyone does it individually and compares their resul9ng work. Important learning moments arise when one party’s understandings of course objec9ves support or conflict with another party’s. We can view the notes as important spaces to slow down our teaching and learning and check for shared understanding and wri9ng community growth. With all this in mind, full par9cipa9on (wri9ng, reading, discussing, revising) by everyone in the ENG 101.10 community is cri9cal. When notetaking, and the sharing of notes, is thorough and open, everyone’s learning improves, as mul9ple learning perspec9ves gain cri9cal voices.

Type of Document

Who Writes It? Who needs Access?

Print/Digital Where is it stored?

Instructor Notes

Instructors write these a2er each class they teach. (2-‐4 9mes each week, depending on the number of sec9ons they teach)

StudentsConsultantsInstructorsWri9ng ProgramGeneral public

Digital These notes are actually going to be public on our website at www.isuwri3ng.com (the notes will not be prominently displayed but will available through a link). We’ll provide you with a specific handout on how to create your notes in ths space, but it should be a really very straigh�orward process.

Student Notes

3 students in EACH class period throughout the semester will write these.

Accessible to class members but not across sec9ons or to the public.

Digital Instructors will create a folder in their “resources and materials” space in Reggienet where students can upload their mee9ng notes. Consultant will also have access, and we’ll ask you to add one member of the WP staff to your class, so we can download the notes for our archive.

Study Group Session Notes

These are composed by both students and consultant together.

Accessible to class members but not across sec9ons or to the public.

Digital These will saved to a google doc that allows access only to members of the class (and the WP staff member). We’re using Google Docs so all members can write the document together in a shared file.

1-‐to-‐1 Session Notes

Composed by a single student and single consultant

Accessible on to student, consultant and instructor

Digital For these notes, student and consultant will use a word. Doc form and email it to instructor, consultant and student. Consultant will store a copy for the WP archive.

1-‐On-‐1 Tutoring SessionsWhat You Need to Know

One of the best features of ENG 101.10 is that it provides you, the student, with opportuni9es to meet with a skilled, professional writer (your Consultant), for 1-‐on-‐1 help with your wri9ng tasks, assignments, and projects. This extra help can prove invaluable when it comes to planning, researching, dra2ing, edi9ng, and revising your wri9ng. But mee9ng with someone for extra help with your wri9ng might be new to you, so this sheet will tell you some of the things you can expect from this feature of ENG 101.10.

The Basics

First, here are the basics of what you need to know about your 1-‐on-‐1 tutoring sessions with your ENG 101.10 wri9ng Consultant.

Where? – All tutoring sessions will take place either in the ISU Wri9ng Program (Stevenson Hall Room 128) or your Consultant’s office, whichever is most convenient for you and your consultant (The default mee9ng place will be the ISU Wri9ng Program, but you can confirm a mee9ng place with your Consultant when you schedule your session.)

When? – A requirement of ENG 101.10 is that you meet with your Consultant for a

1-‐on-‐1 tutoring session at least once per course unit project. This means you will meet with your Consultant a minimum of 3 9mes during the semester. But you are encouraged to schedule addi9onal 1-‐on-‐1 tutoring sessions so that Consultants can help you even more with your research and wri9ng. They are here to help you! Let them! Schedule some tutoring sessions!

Why? – When you registered for ENG 101.10, you signed up for a first-‐year wri9ng course designed to provide you with more 1-‐on-‐1 wri9ng support. In addi9on to study group sessions, the 1-‐on-‐1 tutoring sessions are the way the ISU Wri9ng Program provides you with the extra help you asked for.

Frequently Asked Ques:ons

1. What is my role as a student in a 1-‐on-‐1 tutoring session?

You will arrive to your tutoring session with an idea of the wri9ng research goals you would like to accomplish with your Consultant in the hour you have to meet together. These goals will be unique to you and your wri9ng project, but could include: planning or mapping out a future wri9ng project, genng professional advice and feedback on a wri9ng project that is already in progress, asking for edi9ng or revision ideas on a dra2 of a wri9ng project. You will ask your Consultant ques9ons, listen to what they have to offer you, and plan out how to best incorporate your combined session work into your wri9ng project. At the end of the 1-‐on-‐1 tutoring session you will complete a 1-‐on-‐1 Notes form recapping the work you did with your Consultant and turn it in to your instructor

2. What is my wri:ng Consultant’s role in a 1-‐on-‐1 tutoring session?

Overall, your Consultant’s main job in the 1-‐on-‐1 tutoring session is to listen to your needs as a wri9ng researcher and offer resources and encourage your progress as much as they can. It is important to note that 1-‐on-‐1 sessions are not designed so your Consultant can do your work for you or tell you how to do it to get the best grade (remember, they are not your 101.10 instructor and so they can’t assess your work the way your instructor will.) But your consultant can offer wri9ng knowledge, wisdom, experience, and advice, and this can be incredibly valuable to your wri9ng research process. Your wri9ng Consultants are expert writers who love to write, teach, and help students with their wri9ng. And all of their talent is at your disposal!

3. What is going to happen in the 1-‐on-‐1 tutoring session?

The majority of your 1-‐on-‐1 tutoring session 9me will be spent communica9ng with your Consultant about ways to improve your wri9ng and research. You will bounce ideas off each other, present wri9ng obstacles and think of ways to overcome these obstacles, ask each other ques9ons, share wri9ng advice and experiences, and work with each other to make progress towards your successful comple9on of a 101.10 wri9ng goal (be it an assignment, project, or general wri9ng problem or ques9on.) These 1-‐on-‐1 sessions, while personal, are not in9mida9ng or scary. Your wri9ng Consultant will not judge or harshly cri9cize you or your wri9ng (that’s not their job.) Their job is to guide you towards more effec9ve wri9ng strategies

and prac9ces, to help you in becoming the most successful writer you can be.

We really want you to take advantage of all the wri9ng resources that are part of ENG 101.10, and one of the best resources is your opportunity to meet 1-‐on-‐1 with your wri9ng Consultant this semester. Tutoring sessions are convenient, easy to schedule, low-‐stress/low-‐pressure, and have the poten9al to take your wri9ng to levels it has never been before. We are excited to help you in becoming a befer, more confident writer, so schedule a tutoring session soon!

jwalke2

Typewritten Text

Appendix J: Evaluations for Fall Orientation 2015

jwalke2

Typewritten Text

100.00% 15

93.33% 14

93.33% 14

93.33% 14

93.33% 14

66.67% 10

Q4 Which of the following Pre-OrientationModule materials did you read prior to

Orientation?Answered: 15 Skipped: 0

ProgramOverview

LearningOutcomes

Wardle, "MuttGenres"

Devitt, "GenrePedagogies"

Walker, "JustCHATting"

the latestissue of the...

Welcome toStevenson video

What We Teachvideo

one or moreLet's CHAT...

anything inthe Intro to...

anything inthe Syllabus...

anything inthe Experime...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Program Overview

Learning Outcomes

Wardle, "Mutt Genres"

Devitt, "Genre Pedagogies"

Walker, "Just CHATting"

the latest issue of the Grassroots Writing Research Journal

4 / 47

New Instructor post-Orientation Survey Fall 2015

20.00% 3

40.00% 6

13.33% 2

33.33% 5

46.67% 7

33.33% 5

Total Respondents: 15

Welcome to Stevenson video

What We Teach video

one or more Let's CHAT pocasts

anything in the Intro to Consulting module

anything in the Syllabus First Draft module

anything in the Experiment First Draft module

5 / 47


Q15 Your Rankings for orientationAnswered: 15 Skipped: 0

0.00%0

0.00%0

0.00%0

100.00%15

15

4.00

0.00%0

0.00%0

33.33%5

66.67%10

15

3.67

0.00%0

0.00%0

13.33%2

86.67%13

15

3.87

0.00%0

0.00%0

26.67%4

73.33%11

15

3.73

0.00%0

0.00%0

20.00%3

80.00%12

15

3.80

0.00%0

0.00%0

26.67%4

73.33%11

15

3.73

The Staff

LearningOpportunities

PersonalSupport

The Food

The Space

Your OverallExperience

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Poor Not so Good Good Excellent Total Weighted Average

The Staff

Learning Opportunities

Personal Support

The Food

The Space

Your Overall Experience

16 / 47


80.00% 12

20.00% 3

6.67% 1

0.00% 0

Q16 For Everyone: The ReggieNetinformation provided by Frank & Francesco



I thought theinformation...

Some of theinformation...

There werethings I wan...

I didn't findthe informat...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


I thought the information presented was important and useful

Some of the information presented was difficult to understand or wasn't always useful to me

There were things I wanted to know about technology that weren't covered

I didn't find the information useful

17 / 47


93.33% 14

40.00% 6

6.67% 1

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

Q17 The program concepts andphilosophies session led by Joyce



I enjoyed thissession and...



I thought thesession...


I didn'tattend that...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


I enjoyed this session and found it useful

I thought the information presented was important

Some of the information presented was difficult to understand

I thought the session presented too much information at once


I didn't attend that session

18 / 47


93.33% 14

46.67% 7

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

Q19 The program policies session led byJeff and EvanAnswered: 15 Skipped: 0








0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%








20 / 47


46.67% 7

6.67% 1

40.00% 6

26.67% 4

0.00% 0

Q21 Cocktail party (Friday)Answered: 15 Skipped: 0


It was a greatway to relax...

I felt Ishould atten...

I didn’t attend

I think thisevent should...

I think thisevent could ...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


It was a great way to relax at the end of the week

I felt I should attend but didn’t really enjoy it

I didn’t attend

I think this event should definitely continue

I think this event could be dropped from the schedule

22 / 47


58.33% 7

58.33% 7

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

16.67% 2

Q22 The library meeting for ENG 101instructors only









0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%








23 / 47


80.00% 12

46.67% 7

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

6.67% 1

Q23 The session on the Grassroots WritingResearch Journal (Julie Bates & Sarah

Warren-Riley)Answered: 15 Skipped: 0








0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%








24 / 47


86.67% 13

13.33% 2

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

Q24 I felt that the Writing program teameffectively and promptly addressed my

questions.Answered: 15 Skipped: 0

Total 15

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

25 / 47


73.33% 11

26.67% 4

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

Q25 Overall, I felt the writing program teamsupported and addressed my needs as a

new instructor?Answered: 15 Skipped: 0

Total 15

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

26 / 47


6.67% 1

0.00% 0

20.00% 3

40.00% 6

33.33% 5

Q26 I sometimes felt alienated or left outAnswered: 15 Skipped: 0

Total 15

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

27 / 47


13.33% 2

20.00% 3

26.67% 4

33.33% 5

6.67% 1

Q27 I felt that my peers were anxious,confused, or uninterested during

orientationAnswered: 15 Skipped: 0

Total 15

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

28 / 47


40.00% 6

53.33% 8

6.67% 1

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

Q28 I felt that I received the information Ineeded to begin the semester successfully


Total 15

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

29 / 47


6.67% 1

13.33% 2

13.33% 2

46.67% 7

20.00% 3

Q29 I didn’t always get the information thatI needed


Total 15

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

30 / 47


53.33% 8

46.67% 7

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

Q30 I felt that the "split sessions"(separating the two groups and not

attending all day) was an effective way forme to get information, to have time to

process information, and (maybe) time tothink about or do other things I needed to

accomplish during the week.Answered: 15 Skipped: 0

Total 15

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

31 / 47


53.33% 8

33.33% 5

13.33% 2

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

Q31 I am eager to learn more about theWriting Program's model for teaching.


Total 15

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

32 / 47


73.33% 11

26.67% 4

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

Q32 I felt a sense of communityAnswered: 15 Skipped: 0

Total 15

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

33 / 47


6.67% 1

6.67% 1

26.67% 4

33.33% 5

26.67% 4

Q33 I felt I had questions that weren’tanswered


Total 15

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

34 / 47


13.33% 2

20.00% 3

46.67% 7

13.33% 2

6.67% 1

Q34 I feel that the program focused toomuch on theories of pedagogy and not

enough on practical mattersAnswered: 15 Skipped: 0

Total 15

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

35 / 47


6.67% 1

6.67% 1

26.67% 4

33.33% 5

26.67% 4

Q35 I had needs that weren’t addressedvery well


Total 15

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

36 / 47


33.33% 5

60.00% 9

6.67% 1

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

Q36 I felt that my peers (the other newinstructors) had a positive attitude during

orientation.Answered: 15 Skipped: 0

Total 15

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

37 / 47


33.33% 5

53.33% 8

6.67% 1

6.67% 1

0.00% 0

Q37 Attending Professional DevelopmentEvents Hosted by the Writing Program


Total 15

Willdefinitely use

Will probablyuse

Not sure

Probably won’tuse

Definitelywon’t use

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Will definitely use

Will probably use

Not sure

Probably won’t use

Definitely won’t use

38 / 47


93.33% 14

6.67% 1

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

Q38 Talking with Jeff Rients and Evan Nave(the 101 and 101.10 course coordinators)


Total 15

Willdefinitely use

Will probablyuse

Not sure

Probably won’tuse


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Will definitely use

Will probably use

Not sure



39 / 47


53.33% 8

46.67% 7

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

Q39 Talking with other graduate instructormembers of the Writing Program team.


Total 15

Willdefinitely use

Will probablyuse

Not sure

Probably won’tuse


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Will definitely use

Will probably use

Not sure



40 / 47


46.67% 7

46.67% 7

6.67% 1

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

Q40 Talking with JoyceAnswered: 15 Skipped: 0

Total 15

Willdefinitely use

Will probablyuse

Not sure

Probably won’tuse


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Will definitely use

Will probably use

Not sure



41 / 47


93.33% 14

6.67% 1

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

Q41 Talking with members of my cohort andother friends I make at ISU


Total 15

Willdefinitely use

Will probablyuse

Not sure

Probably won’tuse


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Will definitely use

Will probably use

Not sure



42 / 47


73.33% 11

20.00% 3

6.67% 1

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

Q42 Using the resources on the WritingProgram website and archive


Total 15

Willdefinitely use

Will probablyuse

Not sure

Probably won’tuse


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Will definitely use

Will probably use

Not sure



43 / 47


100.00% 15

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

Q43 Participating in ENG 402Answered: 15 Skipped: 0

Total 15

Willdefinitely use

Will probablyuse

Not sure

Probably won’tuse


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Will definitely use

Will probably use

Not sure



44 / 47


53.33% 8

26.67% 4

13.33% 2

6.67% 1

0.00% 0

Q44 Doing my own reading & researchAnswered: 15 Skipped: 0

Total 15

Willdefinitely use

Will probablyuse

Not sure

Probably won’tuse


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Will definitely use

Will probably use

Not sure



45 / 47


13.33% 2

40.00% 6

40.00% 6

6.67% 1

0.00% 0

Q45 Attending sessions at the Center forTeaching and Learning with Technology

(CTLT)Answered: 15 Skipped: 0

Total 15

Willdefinitely use

Will probablyuse

Not sure

Probably won’tuse


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Will definitely use

Will probably use

Not sure



46 / 47


6.67% 1

26.67% 4

60.00% 9

6.67% 1

0.00% 0

Q46 Other training or workshops (notoffered by the writing program)


Total 15

Willdefinitely use

Will probablyuse

Not sure

Probably won’tuse


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Will definitely use

Will probably use

Not sure



47 / 47


jwalke2

Typewritten Text

Appendix K: Fall Summit Schedule

Illinois State University Writing Program

SUMMIT ON WRITING

INSTRUCTION

Friday, August 14, 2015

Stevenson Hall (STV)

9:00 am—4:00 pm

Fall 2015

Writing Program Assistants (PAs) are available throughout the semester to help you address any teaching questions or concerns that you may have. We would also love your feedback and suggestions. So stop on by STV 133 or send us an email to set up a meeting time!

English 101 Coordinator:

Jeff Rients, 414 A, [email protected]

English 101.10 Coordinator: Evan Nave, 414 A, [email protected]

English 145 Coordinator:

Deb Riggert-Kieffer, 414 E, [email protected]

Professional Development Coordinator: Michelle Wright Dottore 414 E, [email protected]

Technology Coordinator:

Francesco Levato, 413 C, [email protected]

Technology and Research Coordinator: Frank Macarthy, 414 B, [email protected]

Community Outreach Coordinator:

David Giovagnoli, 414 B, [email protected]

Grassroots Writing Research Journal Editor: Sarah Warren-Riley, 414 C, [email protected]

Special thank you and good luck to Julie Bates, Emily Johnston, Summer Qabazard, and Laura Skokan. You will be greatly missed!!! A warm hello to David, Francesco, Frank, and Sarah. Welcome aboard! And to our Fall 2015 Summit Presenters, Panels, and Commentators…

We’re here to help

Writing Program Director, Joyce Walker,


Program Coordinator, Maegan Gaddis,


Welcome to Our Undergraduate Interns!

Anne Hackett and Nathan Schmidt

Fostering a Community of Writing Researchers

mailto:[email protected]

CONCURRENT SESSIONS A: (10:30 am—11:20 am)

GRASSROOTS WRITING RESEARCH / 220

“Teaching the Writing of GWRJ Article”

Oriana Gilson and Kristen Strom

EXPERIENCE THE MULTIMODALITIES / 221 A

“Is It a Frog? A Horse? A Frog-Horse? Using Visual Rhetorics

To Encourage New Views on Genre and Writing Research” Michelle Wright

"Auditory Representations and Language Varieties:

Their Place in Writing" Olya Cochran

PROBLEM STUDENTS &

FOSTERING RELATIONSHIPS / 221 B

“Responding to Problem Students: In Person and on the Page”

Joan Crooks

“Fostering Relationships in the Classroom: Group Cohorts and Collaborative Writing”

Ryan Edel

BREAKFAST

9:00 am — 9:20 am / STV 401 A

PROGRAM UPDATE & AWARDS

9:20 am — 9:50 am / STV 401

MIXER: DISCUSS PROGRAM EVENTS AND RESOURCES

9:50 am — 10:20 am / STV 401

BREAK

10:20 am – 10:30 am

FALL 2015 WRITING SUMMIT SCHEDULE

Dramatization.

FALL 2015 SUMMIT SCHEDULE CONT.

WRAP UP: Share Your Learning Outcome Goals

3:15 – 4:00 / STV 401 A

AFTERNOON GROUP DISCUSSIONS

& INSTRUCTOR WORKSHOPS: Which Learning Outcome Interests You the Most?

Select the Session that Best Represents Your Interests, Challenges, and/or Instructional Goals

for the Upcoming Fall Semester

UPCOMING EVENTS

MINI GRANT INFORMATION

APPRECIATION AWARDS

Visiting Speaker Series

Our 2015-16 Visiting Speaker will be Dr. Kathleen Yancey of Florida

State University. Dr. Yancey's current research is on teaching for

transfer, and she will be giving a talk on that topic and a workshop on

portfolio use on Wednesday, October 7. For more information visit our

website: http://isuwriting.com/2015/08/12/kathleen-yancey-2015-16-

visiting-speaker/

Podcasts

Let’s CHAT Instructor Podcast focuses on the strategies, experiences,

and experiments in teaching for the Writing Program. As such, it’s

conversations with instructors for (mainly) instructors. For more

information visit our website: http://isuwriting.com/category/podcasts/lets-

chat/

Beyond 101 focuses what it’s like to learn in our Writing Program. The

guests are undergraduates and it’s meant to be easily used in the classroom. As this is a new resource, our podcasts are still being

produced. Visit: http://isuwriting.com/category/podcasts/beyond101/

Half-Mile Project

Huddle up! Wes Gaddis, football player and coach with over twenty-five

years of experience, will be visiting this Fall Semester to talk with

students about how he tackles writing situations. Congratulations to

Kristen Strom! She was randomly chosen for the fall Half-Mile Project

with visitor Wes Gaddis! Stay tuned for information on our guest speaker

for spring semester, and check out some of our great clips from past

projects at http://isuwriting.com/category/grassroots-projects/half-mile-

project/.

Guide to Teaching with the GWRJ

Our ‘Guide to Teaching with the Grassroots Writing Research

Journal’ has gone digital! NEW this year, we also have ‘Connecting

the Learning Outcomes to the GWRJ’, which offers suggestions of

articles that will link well with the new learning outcomes. Both

documents can be found at

http://isuwriting.com/category/gwrjournal/about-the-gwrjournal/.

Writing Program Mini-Grants

Did you know the Writing Program offers financial assistance for

classroom projects? We offer up to three $100.00 mini-grants per

semester to qualifying class projects to help offset the cost

associated. Visit http://isuwriting.com/2015/02/28/writing-program-

mini-grants-2/ for more information and to apply! Fall deadline is

September 26th.

Appreciation Awards

Congratulations again to our Writing Program Appreciation Award

winners! If you have someone you would like to nominate for their

contributions to the Writing Program, feel free to submit your

nomination at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JGFK8TD.

GRASSROOTS WRITING RESEARCH GUIDE

http://isuwriting.com/2015/08/12/kathleen-yancey-2015-16-visiting-speaker/

http://isuwriting.com/2015/08/12/kathleen-yancey-2015-16-visiting-speaker/

http://isuwriting.com/category/podcasts/beyond101/

http://isuwriting.com/category/podcasts/beyond101/

http://isuwriting.com/category/grassroots-projects/half-mile-project/

http://isuwriting.com/category/grassroots-projects/half-mile-project/

http://isuwriting.com/category/gwrjournal/about-the-gwrjournal/

http://isuwriting.com/2015/02/28/writing-program-mini-grants-2/

http://isuwriting.com/2015/02/28/writing-program-mini-grants-2/

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JGFK8TD

PRAXIS AND PRACTICALITIES / 220

“Question and Answer for New Instructors,"

Jeff Rients, Eric Pitman, Brad Poling, Krista Roberts, Thaddeus Stoklasa, and Tharini Viswanath

GRASSROOTS AND GLOBALISM / 221 A

“Grassroots as a Global Vehicle Panel”

Joan Crooks, David Giovagnoli, Deb Riggert-Kieffer, and Jonah Mixon-Webster

SOCIAL PHENOMENA & JUSTICE IN GENRE STUDIES / 221 B

“Dealing with Stereotypes and Stigmas”

Sarah Warren-Riley

“CHATing about Justice” Emily Johnston

LUNCH

POTBELLY’S SUBS, SALADS, AND MORE

12:30 pm — 1:30 pm / STV 401 A

Be Sure to Sign Up for Learning Outcomes Discussions And Workshop Sessions during lunch in 401

CONCURRENT SESSIONS B: (11:30 am—12:20 pm)

FALL 2015 WRITING SUMMIT SCHEDULE

INSTRUCTOR COURSE PLAN RECORD

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVTIVES

Investigating Literate Activity in the Classroom, Community, and Beyond

RESOURCES

NEW LEARNING OUTCOMES

The Writing Program has developed some new activities that

align with our new learning outcomes! Here are some of the

newest and most popular Writing Program activities that will

fulfill your PD obligations:

Common Read – For experienced instructors. You can commit

to reading articles or books aligned with ENG 402 and join in

on the discussion (face-to-face or online) with the course! This

semester’s Common Read is Writing Across Contexts by

Kathleen Yancey.

Instructor Blog Project – Instructors are invited to write blog

posts for the Writing Program website. Topics can vary from

specific Learning Outcome issues, to great ideas that have

transformed your classroom understanding!

Grassroots Journal Article – This classic welcomes

instructors to write an article for the GWRJ for publication.

Professional development and earn $50.00 = Win. Win!

Podcasts – Instructors have many options on working with the

podcasts! You can simply listen to one and write a response

that can be used on our website, or participate in the Just

CHATting recordings. Additionally, instructors can recruit

students from their class and participate with them in a Beyond

101 recording.

For a more detailed list of activities, or for more details of the

Professional Development requirements, please visit

http://isuwriting.com/2015/04/24/professional-development-2/.

Important resources for your professional development!

Our Writing Program has developed these eight Learning Outcomes to

explain to students what you can expect to learn when you take

English 101 at ISU. Each English 101 is unique because each English

101 Instructor designs his or her course individually, and so our eight

Learning Outcomes helps to unify all instructors with common

concepts, terms, focuses, and requirements while, at the same time,

preserving the individuality of each instructor’s unique course designs.

For more information and more resources, including multimodal

resources, such as podcast and podcast clips, videos and video clips,

white board animations, presentations, and GWRJ articles that

correspond with each Learning Outcome please visit:

http://isuwriting.com/category/learning-outcomes/

http://isuwriting.com/2015/04/24/professional-development-2/

http://isuwriting.com/category/learning-outcomes/

82.61% 38

17.39% 8

Q1 Your position as an instructor for theEnglish Department?Note -- we know thereare a lot of different classifications, but wegrouped you into GA or Faculty (becausewe wanted to preserve your anonymity).


Total 46

GraduateTeaching...

Adjunct, NTT,Post-Doc or...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Graduate Teaching Assistant (MA or PhD)

Adjunct, NTT, Post-Doc or other Faculty Appointment

1 / 9


Q2 This question gives you a chance to givesome overall rankings about your reactionto several different multiple aspects of theSummit. Rankings run from Poor (left) to

Excellent (right)!Answered: 36 Skipped: 10

0.00%0

0.00%0

13.89%5

36.11%13

50.00%18

0.00%0

36

4.36

0.00%0

0.00%0

8.33%3

19.44%7

72.22%26

0.00%0

36

4.64

0.00%0

0.00%0

13.89%5

30.56%11

55.56%20

0.00%0

36

4.42

2.86%1

0.00%0

8.57%3

28.57%10

57.14%20

2.86%1

35

4.41

0.00%0

5.56%2

13.89%5

22.22%8

58.33%21

0.00%0

36

4.33

0.00%0

8.33%3

11.11%4

30.56%11

50.00%18

0.00%0

36

4.22

OverallExperience

Interactionswith members...

Chance tolearn from...

Chance toshare...

Chance tolearn new...

Chance to meetto people

The food

Theorganization...

respectfulnessand engageme...

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Poor Not SoGood

OK VeryGood

Excellent N/A Total WeightedAverage

Overall Experience

Interactions with members of the Writing Program Team

Chance to learn from other instructors

Chance to share information about my teaching practices

Chance to learn new information about goals and practices of thewriting program

Chance to meet to people

2 / 9


0.00%0

0.00%0

8.33%3

27.78%10

63.89%23

0.00%0

36

4.56

0.00%0

0.00%0

22.22%8

16.67%6

61.11%22

0.00%0

36

4.39

0.00%0

0.00%0

8.33%3

27.78%10

63.89%23

0.00%0

36

4.56

The food

The organization and structure of the event

respectfulness and engagement of other members of thecommunity

3 / 9


Appendix M: Millner Library Collaborative Tasks for Spring 2016 At our meeting on December 8th we came up with ideas for how to move forward with our collaboration in spring Attending Meeting: Jennifer, Alexis, Chris (from library) and Joyce, Jeff and David from WP.

Note: These are Joyce’s notes, so the actual tasks may vary somewhat as you all figure out what’s possible to accomplish. Research Data Collection: We have several activities going on in spring that will allow us to collect data about what resources students and 101 instructors need. Here is what we’ve got planned:

• The Critical Inquiry Colloquium will include an on-site research project where instructor work for 20 minutes or so to fill out a questionnaire. Then groups of 101 and 110 instructors will talk about their responses and then report back to the larger group. The data from this activity help the Library folks gather information about what instructors think students need and what they need (as instructors) in their relations with the library and the resources they could use.

• We’ve developed an Information Fluency Checklist (for students) that asks them to rate their comfort level with a variety of research knowledge and activities. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SCG9CTS Jeff Reints and David will be working with new 101 instructors in spring, and they’ll be asking these instructors to have their students fill out the checklist at least once -- but preferably more than once. This checklist gives students and teachers a starting point for research, but it will also allow us to gather data about what students think they know (and where they are confused) when they do research

• The new Instructor Course Plan Record asks instructors to answer some specific questions about the writing they assign (what students produce, what categories of writing instructors assign) This data could be compiled by Shelby to help us gain understanding about where the “Genre Research Tutorials” the Library could create would be most useful.

• The Grassroots Writing Research Journal Tag list: We are individually tagging all of our archived articles (Laura Skokan doing over winter break). This will create a “tag” list which we’ll share with the library. It might be cool to link the “Genre Research Tutorials” to some of our articles!

Plans and Resources So for spring and then next fall, here are some of our goals:

• Alexis will work with Jeff again to connect to the new instructors (maybe offer office hours in 133).

• We will work to identify through research (above) what kinds of resources students and teacher most want to help them. Make a list and save it here in Google docs!

• The WP will work to create a curated list of available library resources and link it to our website. We may need to do some rearranging to figure out where this tab will go. Finish this by end of spring.

• David Giovagnoli will work with Jeff -- once new 101 instructors have come up with a tutorial they’d really like to see created, Nathan and Annie (Interns) will work with the library to create one!

• Library will determine several (maybe as many as 5-6 if we could) ideas for “genre research tutorials” and work to get them created and linked to the library site (they’ll also be link through our page) by fall. We’ll then use these for new instructor training next fall.

• Use data from Colloquium to think about providing a list of possible resources -- ways instructors can interact with librarians, which could be share through our website and give specifically to instructors at next fall’s Summit.

Appendix N: Self-‐Assessment Research ENG 101 Self-‐Assessment Project Fall 2015 Illinois State University Writing Program Joyce R. Walker, Director

Introduction and Table of Contents We know that instructors are busy and have a lot of work to do. However, this self-‐assessment project investigates some pretty important ideas about improving student learning in a genre studies/Activity Theory pedagogy. As a teacher in our program, it will be worth the time it takes to read this document. Since we know you are busy, though, we’ve organized it into sections. If you are selected to participate in a group for the 2015 study, Section 4 provides the details you need about how the research project will work in the spring.

Table of Contents Section 1: Background for the purpose of the study Section 2: Description and brief overview of the 2014 Study Section 3: Results of the 2014 Study Section 4: The 2015 Study [a must read for instructors selected to participate]

Section 1: Why Self-‐Assessment? How Could This Help Students?

1In 2013, two M.A. level graduate Instructors in our program, Lauren Jarema and Kayla Bruce

conducted a small, informal pilot study that adapted the 2010 work of Artemeva and Fox, which

looked at student knowledge of “technical reports” in a technical communications class. The

Artemeva and Fox study seemed to show that while many of the introductory technical

communication students had heard of, and had some knowledge of, the genre of Technical

Reports, only the students in the study who had actual previous experience writing in the genre

were able to successfully replicate important features of the genre in a first attempt. What

Laurenn and Kayla wanted to see was whether students in our FYC course (ENG 101) could

replicate features of genres that were associated with their projected careers. Initially, their

1 This text is excerpted from a 2015 CCCC presentation “Rootedness and Reaching Out: Complicated Formation of Writing Research Identity” by Joyce R. Walker.

2

findings were significant in finding that in their ENG 101 courses, none of the students came into

the class with specific experience in the genres they were asked to perform, and that none were

able to reproduce important features of these genres when asked to do so in an assignment on

the first days of class. What was more interesting, from our program’s point of view, was that,

for the most part, these students were also not able to identify the different genres in the

different disciplinary areas they self-‐selected. Further, among those students who were able

make these identifications, they were unable to remember (or articulate) what cues they used

to identify the writing as being part of a particular genre.

This study, which Kayla and Laurenn later repeated more formally and are writing up for

publication, had another point of interest for our program. They found that completing the work

of this first class assignment (looking at and trying to reproduce an unfamiliar genre in a “test”

kind of setting) seemed to have a surprising effect on the students. Following their participation

in the recognition/production assignment, a significant number of the students seemed to have

a lowered “resistance” to studying genre than our instructors had found typical. In fact, in a

survey about 1 week into the course, Laurenn had students do an end-‐of-‐class information

writing about their goals, and the majority of her students gave responses that indicated that

their goals for the course were focused on learning more about how to writing in many different

genres. Since this kind of acceptance, so early in the semester, of the importance of studying

multiple genres, isn’t common for instructors in our program, we thought that something about

the activity of trying to identify and produce unfamiliar genres in a (albeit informal) assessment

setting, might have changed the students’ understanding of the potential value of this kind of

work. Artemeva and Fox refer to a potentially similar effect from their own study:

The assessment stimulated their developing sensitivity to genre differences in a safe

(because their performance was not tied directly to a mark), or neutral, territory where

they could take full advantage of this learning experience (p. 498).

In our own program-‐wide assessment, which took place in the spring of 2014, we found a

related result: In answers to an open-‐ended question, “What (if any) skills, concepts and

knowledge from this class do you think might be useful to you in future writing situations,” we

received responses that were coded and categorized with the following results:

3

Question 4 Genre CHAT Research No Skills All Skills N/A

21% 15% 2% 21% 28% 5%

That is, when not prompted by any kind of pre-‐labeled choices, these percentages of the

students in the study (N = 1121) mentioned these various terms and concepts as possibly

important to their future as writers. The number of students using terms related to “genre” and

CHAT was much lower than we felt we needed to achieve as a program, since these are key

terms for our program. Additionally, we were troubled by the number of students who

indicated that they couldn’t identify anything about the class that might be useful.

Taking up the work that Laurenn and Kayla had done along with our goal to “improve uptake”

of these “troublesome concepts” we developed what we called a “student-‐self assessment,”

which we introduced in a pilot study in the fall of 2014. Our goal was to see if participating in a

self-‐assessment that asked students to do the same kind of “identifying” and “producing”

activities that Kayla and Laurenn had used, but with a more generalized “writing research

approach” (that is, the genres were more generalized and not discipline-‐specific), might alter

students’ willingness to take up these new concepts. However, we were unsure about how to

actually move beyond trying to measure students’ understanding of the concepts (i.e., their

ability to provide a definition) or attempting to measure some kind of “writing skill” (i.e., their

ability to actually produce writing that reflected an improved understanding of the concepts).

We ultimately decided that a focus on “disposition” (i.e., the recognition that these concepts

might have practical value for them as writers) might be one way to help us visualize how

students were taking up the concepts. For this first effort, we decided to use self-‐reporting as a

way to uncover student disposition towards these concepts, but we did not attempt to

additionally look at student writing in the course to try to see if student self-‐reports could be

supported by actual writing from the course. Thus, although we included 30 course sections and

more than 750 students in our study, we would consider our data very preliminary.

4

Section 2: The 2013-‐14 Study Very briefly, we’re providing an overview of what we did in the 2013-‐14 project, along with some notes about the things we saw that made us want to continue working with this project.

The Study: in brief, our study included the following steps: 1. We developed a “self-‐assessment” that students could engage with that would do the

following: ○ provide some very brief explanations of key concepts in the program. ○ explain why our approach to learning about writing could have practical, useful

approach for them as writers ○ ask them to engage with some samples of different genres (very simple to more

complex) and try to both identify the genres and identify what information they used to decide what genre each sample was.

○ ask them to complete a “genre production” (a mission statement for the writing program) using basic genre research and analysis techniques.

2. Create Three Different Student Groups ○ A CONTROL group (20 sections of ENG 101), in which instructors were not asked

to change their course practice at all, except to have students complete a “pre-‐survey” at the very beginning of the class, a “post-‐survey at the end of the 2nd week of class, and an end-‐of-‐the-‐semester survey.

○ A REGULAR 101 group (20 sections of ENG 101) in which students took the “pre-‐survey,” then talked about the survey result in class; then took the “post-‐survey at the end of two weeks, and the end-‐of-‐the-‐semester survey.

○ A ENG 101.10 group 10 sections). ENG 101.10 is a student self-‐selected course that provides additional help to students who feel they would benefit from it) which followed the same steps as the 101 class. [NOTE: we separated the 101 and 101.10 sections, because we felt there was enough of a difference in the student populations that we might gather interesting information by separating them].

3. The Surveys were all three fairly basic, with both multiple choice and open-‐ended questions asking students what they felt was important about the class and what they thought they might learn, or had learned by taking the course.

A NOTE on participation: Instructors were required to participate in the study, but they took up this participation in different ways. Some had students complete the survey outside of class, while others did the survey as an in-‐class activity. Thus the numbers for each group for each survey are not entirely consistent (i.e., not all the students filled out all of the surveys).

Section 3: The 2014 Study Results2

2 Excerpt From Rootedness and Reaching Out: Complicated Formation of Research Identity. CCC Conference Presentation, March 2015, Tampa Florida. Joyce R. Walker.

5

Even though is was preliminary, the study generated a great deal of data, which we’re still exploring. However, the most significant reason for refining and repeating this study comes from student answers to several of the “open-‐ended” questions from the different surveys -‐-‐ specifically those which asked students to discuss (short answer) their understanding of the learning in the course. The questions from each survey are as follows:

● From the Pre-‐Assessment Survey (which students took on the first day of class): Please describe (in a brief paragraph) how you think this class might be valuable to you both as a student and as a writer.

● From the Post-‐Assessment Survey (taken at the end of week two of the course): Now that you've been in the class for a couple of weeks, please tell us what you think about the value/usefulness of this course to you as a writer (and whether it has changed from the first day).

● 1st Question from the End-‐of-‐Semester Survey: What were your expectations for what this class would be like?

● 1st Question from the End-‐of-‐Semester Survey: What did you learn in this class that you hadn’t expected to learn?

● 1st Question from the End-‐of-‐Semester Survey: Can you describe any skills, knowledge or concepts you learned in this class that you think you might be able to use in future writing situations?

In general, what seems significant to us when we look specifically at these responses to open-‐ended questions about learning in the course, is that there definitely seems to be a noticeable difference in uptake (as determined by undirected student comments) between the different groups, and especially between the Control and 101/101.10 groups, on the threshold concept of “genre/genre research.” These numbers indicate that working through the self-‐assessment may indeed have impacted how readily these students took up and used the term genre in their course, and how “ready” they were to receive that new information. The numbers for CHAT still show a relatively low uptake figure (nothing reaching 15%, which was the number from a similar coding of end-‐of-‐semester surveys for our last program-‐wide assessment in Spring 2014), However, CHAT concepts were not a significant part of the self-‐assessment, so this is actually another marker that shows that student’s attention to/uptake up genre study as a concept may have been impacted by the self-‐assessment. The charts below show the different levels of term use on the different survey questions. THE CONTROL GROUP pre-‐assessment %

post-‐assessment % Final Survey

What new did you learn? % (Q2)

Final Survey What can you use? % (Q3)

Specific Reference to Genre or genre analysis:

18.93 20.3 25.7 12.2

Specific Reference to CHAT:

0 0 6.3 11.3

THE 101 GROUP (this is a group that completed the self-‐assessment)

3 This is the number that we think was impacted by instructors asking students to complete the survey after introducing them to the course syllabus. We think it’s possible that without introduction, these numbers would be even lower – so we need to make sure that students in the 2016 study take the survey before reading the course syllabus.

6

pre-‐assessment % post-‐assessment % What new did you learn? % (Q2)

What new can you use? % (Q3)


10.8 49.7 59 34.9


0 0 12 13.9

THE 101.10 GROUP (this is a group that completed the self-‐assessment) pre-‐assessment % post-‐assessment % What new did you

learn? % (Q2) What can you use? % (Q3)


12 31.5 58.5 34.8


0 0 9.6 9.6%

Specific Reference to the term audience

1 .6 .7 .7

Specific reference to “creative/creatively”

2 1.3 .7 0

Results worth noting include the following:

• The percentage of overall students in each group who noted “genre” as an important term in the post-‐assessment survey were noticeably different for 101/101.10 and control groups:

o Control Group: 20.3 o 101 group: 49.7 o 101.10 group: 31.5

• The rise in percentage of the total of students referencing the concept of genre research/analysis (unsolicited) from pre-‐to-‐post surveys the was much higher for both of the groups who completed the self-‐assessment than for the control group:

o Control (Rise pre-‐to-‐post): +1.4 o Regular 101 (rise pre-‐to-‐post) : 37.1 o 101.10 (rise pre-‐to-‐post): 24.5

• The percentage of students in the 101 and 101.10 groups who mentioned genre concepts in the two questions on the end-‐of-‐the-‐semester survey was significantly higher than for the control group:

o Control: 25.7/12/5 o 101 group: 59/34.9 o 101.10 group: 58.5/34.8

• However, the numbers for mentions of CHAT were not significantly different. While the 101 group did have higher numbers than the control group, the 101.10 group did not.

o Control: 6.3/11.3 o 101 group: 12/13.9 o 101.10 group: 9.6/9.6

• We also want to note that these are “unsolicited” mentions – meaning that students mentioned studying genres or CHAT in response to a very general question about learning and usefulness, rather than direct questions about these terms.

7

8

Section 4: The 2016 Study [Please read carefully if your section has been selected to participate] So here we are, getting ready for Spring 2016. What can we do to test our findings, and most importantly to potentially help students kind of “warm up” to the pedagogies in our course? Here are our goals:

1. We don’t want to take up too much of class time with this (but if we’re right, this kind of self-‐assessment may be a great “1st week activity for both students and teachers, so it’s worth exploring)

2. We don’t want to freak the students out too much. We are working with a “testing” genre here – that is, students will see the self-‐assessment as a test, and it specifically uses the words “test” and “quiz”. But we don’t want students to see the self-‐assessment as akin to the kinds of standardized tests they have taken in school. Our goal is to have it be more like the quizzes you take on facebook. Even when they’re ridiculous, they make you think about your identity, your habits, your knowledge, your likes and dislikes.

3. We do want to help the students to see a “hole” in their knowledge. We definitely want to make the impression, through the self-‐assessment, that there is stuff about writing that they don’t know. Maybe even make them slightly anxious about it. This is actually one of the key goals of the study, because our sense is that this could be a productive anxiety for creating a disposition toward the course content.

4. We do want to try to develop questions that leave things open-‐ended (so we’re not pushing students to answer in particular ways) but do a better job of designing questions that let us see Pre/Post dispositions (attitudes about the concepts).

Components of the 2015 Study: The 2016 study will work very much like the 2014 study in most ways. In the Appendix you’ll see the questions for each component of the study.

For The Control Group: This will be a group of 10 sections of ENG 101, taught by regular 101 instructors.

• First day Survey: before beginning any discussion of the class, instructors will ask students to complete a survey. The survey is short – it should take less than 10 minutes to complete (see Appendix 1 for survey questions).

• Note on Course Teaching: Other than these surveys, the class should be run just the way the instructor usually does it. No worries about what to talk about or not talk about.

• 2 Week Survey: At the end of the 2nd week of class (IN CLASS), instructors will ask students to complete the 2nd survey (this one is really short – 10 minutes at most)

• End of Semester Survey: During the final week of the semester (again, IN CLASS) the instructor will ask students to fill out a final survey. This one is longer, perhaps about 20 minutes to complete.

9

Notes: Students will list their names and their instructor names in the survey. We need this information to keep track of differences between sections. But names will be stripped out of the surveys once they are complete and we’ve organized them. Note: For the control group, we ask that you not spend a great deal of time talking through the survey answers, but obviously you can integrate it into the work of the course, since students will be talking about what’s important to them. We will not, however, give instructors the full survey information, although we can give you data from specific questions (but not with student names) if you ask for it, and we’ll provide all the data when the study is complete.

For Self-‐Assessment Group: If your class has been selected for the self-‐assessment project, you will actually be working through a self-‐assessment with your students, in addition to having them complete the three surveys. Here is how the study will work for you and your students:

• First day Survey: before beginning any discussion of the class, instructors will ask students to complete a short survey, which should take about 10 minutes.

• Self Assessment: Then, still before giving them the syllabus, students will complete the self-‐assessment. This should be completed (as much as possible) by all students on the first day of class. The assessment will probably take the entire class period. If students don’t finish before the end of class, just have them complete as much of it as they can.

• 2nd & (possibly) 3rd Class Periods: We’re asking instructors to talk and think about the assessment answers with their students. We’ll make each classes’ results available to each instructor (with Names removed), so that you can review results with the class. The goal here is definitely not punitive. Instead, we want to approach this with a more speculative, “research” mindset -‐-‐ what answers did students find “easy”? Which were more complicated? What do their answers tell them about what they might need to know in the class? There will be a few questions on the survey that have “correct” answers, but many will also be “what do you think” kinds of answers which should promote discussion. Some instructors may want to take 2 class periods for this work, segueing into the first “genre analysis” or “activity theory” work for the first project directly from the assessment. Other may want to separate it off and just make the one class period of discussion work for them.

• 2 Week Survey: At the end of the 2nd week of class (IN CLASS), instructors will ask students to complete the 2nd survey (also short)

• End of Semester Survey: During the final week of the semester (again, IN CLASS) the instructor will ask students to fill out a final short survey.

Notes: Students will list their names and their instructor names. We need this information to keep track of differences between sections.

10

Checklist for Instructors:

For the Control Group: ü Make sure you have links to the surveys ready to give your students (we’ll send

these out to you before the semester begins, and we’ll remind you about them just before your first class starts).

ü Make sure you have students complete the first survey before you talk about the class to your students.

ü Make sure you have students complete all three of the surveys in class. ü For the 2nd and third surveys, the exact day isn’t really an issue for us. We’ll remind

you by email, but you can work it into your class as appropriate (but remember that students should do it in class!)

For the Self-‐Assessment Group: ü Make sure you have links to the surveys ready for your students (we’ll send these to

you before the semester begins). ü Make sure you begin on the very first day of class by having students do the first

survey (before doing the self-‐assessment or looking at the syllabus). ü Make sure you have the link for the self-‐assessment ready, and that you’ve read

through the self-‐assessment so that you can discuss it with students in class. ü Try to think about how to integrate the self-‐assessment into your class. What have

the students learned about studying genres and activity systems? ü We’ll send you self-‐assessment results (but email us to remind us if we don’t) ü For the 2nd and third surveys, the exact day isn’t really an issue for us. We’ll remind

you by email, but you can work it into your class as appropriate (but remember that students should do it in class!)

ü Make sure you have students complete all three of the surveys in class. ü At the send of the semester, we’ll ask teachers who worked with the self-‐

assessment to give us their impressions of how the self-‐assessment worked (or didn’t) to potentially spark conversations or change attitudes.

Bibliography: Artemeva, N. and Fox, J. (2010) ‘Awareness Versus Production: Probing Students’ Antecedent

Genre Knowledge’, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24(4), pp. 476–515.

11

Appendix 1: The Initial Survey Questions (The actual survey questions might be slightly different from this, because we’ll continue to think about and edit them up until the semester starts. But you can check out the actual survey here: https://isuwriting.wufoo.com/forms/zdnygea0fz8gu2/ ) and let us know if you have ideas or comments.

• Student Name • Instructor’s Name • How do you expect this writing course to differ from your past experiences with school

writing? • What do you think the most important things to know (or learn) about writing are? • What activities do you think will matter MOST to your grade in this course? • What are your expectations for the value of this course (how useful it might be to you)?

[Choices: Very useful, mostly useful, useful, not very useful, not useful] • Please describe the things you think you might learn in this class that could be useful to

you as you move on through college and out into your careers? • Please select one of the following choices to indicate your attitude towards this class: [ I

expect to enjoy it; I expect to enjoy most of it; I expect to enjoy some aspects of the class; I don’t think I’ll enjoy it much; I don’t expect to enjoy this class]

Appendix 2: The 2nd Week Survey Questions (The actual survey questions might be slightly different from this, because we’ll continue to think about and edit them up until the semester starts. But you can check out the actual survey here: https://isuwriting.wufoo.com/forms/z646rkd0ujlq1k/ )

• Student Name • Instructor’s Name • Now that you’ve been in the course for two weeks, how have your expectations about

the course changed (or if they haven’t changed, explain how they’d stayed the same)? • On the last survey, we asked you what you thought was important for writers to learn.

Do you think your ideas about this have changed at all? (if yes, let us know how) • What activities do you think will matter MOST to your GRADE in this course? • Now that you’ve been in the course for two weeks, please describe the things you think

you might learn in this class that could be useful to you as you move on through college and out into your careers?

• What specific terms have you learned about (name all you can think of) that you think will be important for this class?

• Please select one of the following choices to indicate your attitude towards this class: [ I expect to enjoy it; I expect to enjoy most of it; I expect to enjoy some aspects of the class; I don’t think I’ll enjoy it much; I don’t expect to enjoy this class]

12

Appendix 3: The Final Week Survey Questions (The actual survey questions might be slightly different from this, because we’ll continue to think about and edit them up until the semester starts. But you can check out the actual survey here: https://isuwriting.wufoo.com/forms/z11iyxmc0pswx8s/

• Your Name: • Your Instructor's Name: • Do you remember what you expected to be learning in this class were at the beginning

of the semester? How did the class match up with those expectations? • How valuable/useful did you end up thinking the class was?

Very Useful Mostly Useful Useful Not Very Useful Not Useful

• What did you learn in this class that you hadn’t expected to learn? • Can you describe any skills, knowledge or concepts you learned in this class that you

think you might be able to use in future writing situations? • What kinds of learning activities in this class had the most impact on your grade? • If your class did a self-‐assessment activity at the beginning of the semester (in the first

week), can you tell us what impact that activity on your understanding of the course?

o I remember it as an activity that definitely had an impact on how I

approached the class. o I remember the activity, and it did impact my learning, but it really wasn't that

important to me. o I sort of remember the activity, but I don't think it made much of a difference

to my learning in the course. o I'm not even sure I remember the activity, or it didn't seem at all important to

me. • Did your class discuss the term/concept of CHAT (Cultural Historical Activity Theory?).

If yes, can you tell us (1) what you think this terms means and (2) how you might use this concept when you are writing in future situations?

• Did your class discuss the activity of doing Genre Research or Genre Analysis as an activity? Can you tell us (1) What does this term mean to you? and (2) How might you use this concept as a writer in future situations?

• Did your class discuss the concept of "Transfer"? Can you tell us (1) What does this term mean to you? and (2) How might you use this concept as a writer in future situations?

• Did your class discuss the concept of "Uptake"? (Some teachers in our program would talk about "Proof of Learning" instead of using the word "Uptake.") If you've learned about this concept, can you tell us (1) What does this term mean to you? and (2) How might you use this concept as a writer in future situations?

13

• Did your class discuss the concept of "Antecedent Knowledge"? If you've learned about this concept, can you tell us (1) What does this term mean to you? and (2) How might you use this concept as a writer in future situations?

• Please pick the answer that most accurately reflects how you feel the Grassroots Writing Research Journal articles were used in your class

o We used them a lot and they were connected to the things we learned

and talked about in class. o We used them, but they didn't seem all that connected to the learning in the

class. o We didn't use all that many Grassroots articles, but the articles we used

seemed connected to our learning o We didn't use many Grassroots articles and the ones we used didn't seem very

connected to our discussions or learning in the class o We didn't use the Grassroots Journal article.

• Was there a Grassroots Article that you liked the MOST? Tell us about it! • Was there a Grassroots Article that you liked the LEAST? Tell us about it! • How would you rank the difficulty of this class?

o Very Difficult

o Moderately Difficult

o Not Very Difficult o Not Difficult

• Please select one of the following choices to indicate your attitude towards this class:

o I enjoyed it

o I enjoyed most of it

o I enjoyed some aspect of the class

o I didn't enjoy much o I didn't enjoy this class

Appendix 4: The Self-‐Assessment Here is the link to the Self-‐Assessment Survey: Some of these questions may get tweaked a bit before the 2016 semester begins https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/RJ7C7V8 Intro: Welcome to English 101. As a student at Illinois State University, you are already a highly literate person. A writer. You’ve already had a lot of experiences with writing, and we’re not just talking about grades here. Regardless of whether you think you are (or have been told that you are) a good writer (or a poor writer), you’re definitely a writer. A literate person. But Composition as Critical Inquiry (ENG 101) is designed to help you begin to think like a writing researcher [See definition below].

14

Writing research is something you’ve already done – but it might not be something you’ve thought about (or been taught) much about. Being able to research writing effectively is a fundamental, basic skill that you can use in order to be more successful in the writing you do for school, work, and in social situations. Therefore, ENG 101 works to familiarize you with the practices of writing research. We do this by working with all different kinds of genres [See Definition below] of writing. We investigate these different kinds of writing “in the wild” (looking at how writing works and how types of writing can evolve in actual situations outside of just classrooms). We also practice skills for learning to produce different kinds of writing in response to different situations. This self-‐assessment is designed to help you test and think about the writing research skills you already have – and those you might not yet have learned. You’ll be seeing different samples of writing and you’ll be asked to answer both multiple choice questions, and questions that are open-‐ended (where you write in a response). Once you’ve finished the assessment, you’ll get a chance to talk about your answers with your instructors and the other class participants. [Definition: Writing Researcher] What’s a Writing Researcher? Well, writing research is when a writer looks at writing (any kind of writing in any kind of situation) and asks questions like: How does this work? Why does it work this way? A Practical Writing Researcher asks these questions as he or she adapts existing writing knowledge in a new and unfamiliar writing situation. The practical writing researcher not only asks how and why, but also how do I do it? [Definition: Genre] A genre is any type of communication (written, oral, or visual) that’s used to convey a message. You’ve probably heard the word genre used to describe basic categories, like different genres of music (Pop, Country, R&B, Punk), but we use the term to describe how writing morphs and evolves in all kinds of different situations. A GENRE, in ENG 101, is any type of specific textual production that you (the writing researcher) can examine as a unique example of some kind of communication, created in response to a specific writing situation. Background Information: (1) Your Name (2) Your Instructor’s Name (3) Select any of the words below that you think describe you as a writer:

Good Poor Adaptable Creative Competent Interested Enthusiastic Careful

Anxious Slow Average Fast Unclear Independent Accurate Stubborn

(4) How would you describe your experiences with writing (in general) in the past 2 years. Successful, mostly successful, sometimes successful, not very successful, unsuccessful (5) Try to list 5 different types of writing you’ve engaged in in the last 12 months

a. ________________________ b. ________________________ c. ________________________ d. ________________________ e. ________________________

15

Quiz #1: Taking it Easy This quiz is a pretty easy intro to the kind of work that will happen in your ENG 101 course. Look at the example below, and then answer the questions that follow.

1. What is this genre?

a. Text message b. Letter c. Email

2. Explain why you think your answer is the correct genre. How do you know (or why you think) it’s this particular genre? What features do you recognize?

3. What option best describes this type of genre? a. Workplace-related b. School-related c. Community-related d. Social/entertainment-related

4. Explain your answer to question #3. 5. How would you categorize this type of writing/composing? (You may choose more than 1)

a. Informal b. Formal c. Simple d. Complex e. Personal f. Creative g. Professional h. Academic i. Other: ___________________

6. How many different people are generally involved in making and/or using this kind of text? 7. Who has the most “control” in creating this genre? In other words, who decides how it has to

look and what it needs to contain? 8. What tools does a writer need to produce or use this kind of text? 9. What specific tool would you say is the most important for producing this text? Why do you

think so?

16

10. What would someone need to know in order to produce (or participate in producing) this kind of text?

11. What are the goals of this kind of text? What does it do? 12. Do you think you could produce a successful example of this kind of text? Why or Why not? Quiz #2: I Like a Challenge (This part of the quiz is similar to the first part, but it’s a bit more challenging). Look at the example below, and then answer the questions that follow.

1. What is this genre? a. Encyclopedia entry b. Magazine article c. Scholarly article d. Abstract e. Internet news article

2. Explain why you think that this is the genre. How do you know (or why do you think) it’s this

particular genre? What features do you recognize?

3. What option best describes this type of genre? a. Workplace-related b. School-related c. Community-related d. Social/entertainment-related

4. Explain your choice for the previous question. 5. How would you categorize this type of writing/compositing? (You may choose more than 1)

a. Informal b. Formal c. Simple d. Complex e. Personal f. Creative g. Professional h. Academic i. Other: ___________________

6. How many different people are generally involved in making and/or using this kind of text?

The biographies of eight highly professional women form the material for discussing how women live, understand, and ‘perform’ success. After identifying macro-‐topics related to success, the authors carry out an analysis of the women's discursive strategies of self-‐representation. They examine features that are indicative of suppression or backgrounding of social actors and, related to this, sources of ambivalence, activeness, and passiveness. The authors also describe the metaphors the women use for constructing specific event models, which serve to establish coherent self-‐representations and unique life trajectories. Four event models were identified, systematizing the narratives: symbiosis, self-‐made woman, creating one's space and work, as well as coincidence and luck. Finally, the article investigates the ways in which the women's stories reflect relevant aspects of the professional and organizational cultures they find, concluding that although all of them are cooperating and non-‐antagonistic, they build their own success stories in small but important ways.

17

7. Who has the most “control” in creating this genre? In other words, who decides how it has to look and what it needs to contain?

8. What tools does a writer need to produce or use this kind of text?

9. What specific tool would you say is the most important for producing this text? Why do you think so?

10. What would someone need to know in order to produce (or participate in producing) this kind of text?

11. What are the goals of this kind of text? What does it do? 12. Do you think you could produce a successful example of this kind of text? Why or Why not?

Section Four: Stuff You May Not Know In this part of the assessment, your goal is to identify what you know about the following sample of writing. This sample of writing probably won’t be as easy to identify as the samples from the previous sections. You’ll notice that this excerpt isn’t complete – it is missing important information that would help you identify it. The key skill here is to look closely at the sample and think about what clues it provides – what can you learn about the text by looking closely? Examine the following text and answer the accompanying questions:

18

1. What is this genre?

a. Facebook post b. E-mail c. College entrance essay d. Dictionary e. Online newspaper article f. Book review g. Bibliography h. Glossary page i. Abstract j. Blog post k. Wikipedia entry

2. Explain why you think that this is the genre. How do you know (or why do you think) it’s this

particular genre? What features do you recognize? 3. Did you think this example was more difficult to identify that the first two? Why or why not? 4. Can you imagine writing a text that looks anything like this? In what kind of situation can you

image you might do that? What do you think you’d need to know in order to do it? Section Five: Try Your Skills

19

In this section of the self-assessment, your goal is to use the “raw information” provided to create an example of the chosen genre. Use your computer to go to isuwriting.com/about. Then use the information about the program that you find there to create a mission statement for the ISU Writing Program [Note for instructors: We’ll remove our mission statement before students begin the self-assessment] You may use any skills, tools or resources you have to complete this task. Type your text into the comment box provided. 1. Tell us a little bit about what you did as you tried to figure out how to write this text? 2. If one of the things you did was look at samples online, how do you think you actually used

the sample when writing the text? 3. What was the most difficult thing about producing the sample text? Was it something you

expected from reading the samples or not? 4. How close do you think your sample comes to being “on genre” (a good example of this

particular type of writing)? Why do you think so? 5. As a writer, how confident were you in producing your sample? 6. One of the key skills for being a practical writing researcher is adaptation. In this writing

exercise, can you think of any skills that you adapted? What were they? Section Six: Key Terms and Concepts In ENG 101 this semester, you’ll be learning about some key terms that can be important for writers. You may not know any of these terms right now, and that’s ok. Be we want to get a picture of how many 101 students have had experience with any of these terms before the semester begins. Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT): Got any ideas what this term means? Can you imagine how a theory might have a practical impact on a writer trying to write something new or different? Genre Research: This term might be a little bit easier. What do you think it might mean? Why would a writer want to do this kind of research? Uptake: We’ll help out a little here. “Uptake” is a thing that people do when they are learning something new (“taking up” new information). Can you tell us why this might be an important concept for writers? Antecedent Knowledge: Again, a little help. “antecedent” means “a thing that existed before.” How and why do you think this might be an important concept for writers, especially writers trying to write in a new situation?

Appendix O: Longitudinal Study Award Application Application for the 2015-2016 Assessment Initiative Awards Submitted by Dr. Joyce R. Walker, Writing Program Director, Department of English, Illinois State University Summary: This application seeks funding for an ongoing longitudinal study of ISU student writers as they move through a variety of academic and workplace writing settings. The study began in spring 2015, and will take up to six years to complete. Funding for the project has been (and will be) provided by the ISU Writing Program and the Department of English, but because of recent budget constrictions we will need to find replacement funding for the spring 2016 portion of the study. The data from this study will benefit multiple audiences. It will be used to directly improve our ENG 101 and ENG 145 course curriculum (and thus benefit the more than 1500 students who take the course each year). It will also be used to develop a plan for Writing Across the Curriculum currently under development at ISU. Following the recommendations of the ISU Writing-‐Across-‐the-‐Curriculum task force in 2014, our study seeks to better document the multiple kinds of writing students are completing through their years at ISU, and to better understand how their coursework can positively influence their learning and writing behaviors, in academic, co-‐curricular, and workplace settings. Ultimately, the study may impact multiple writing-‐intensive courses throughout the curriculum at ISU. Background for the Study: One of the most significant challenges facing those of us who teach writing is the difficulty in assessing how the content in one course (knowledge students may gain about writing in a particular setting) can transfer to new settings. Because writing situations vary greatly, it’s not always possible to see how learning in one location is being used in new situations (Russell, 1995). Fortunately, the issue of writing-‐skills-‐transfer has gained significant attention in recent years, with a growing pool of research conducted in writing programs across the country (See Wardle, 2012; Bawarshi & Reiff, 2001; Bergmann & Zepernick, 2007; Rounsaville, 2012). However, it remains difficult to document how students repurpose and remediate their learning from First Year Writing courses to the work they do in other writing situations beyond the first year. A significant component of this difficulty is the lack of longitudinal research projects that track student work (and their narratives about their writing practices) across multiple years. This study seeks to gather this type of longitudinal data for the benefit of our program, for our ongoing work on student writing across programs at ISU, and for the advancement of knowledge in the field of Composition Studies. Objectives of this Study: In our Writing Program here at ISU, we’re particularly interested in the issue of transfer. Our curriculum focuses specifically on helping students to build both particular skills and overall writing knowledge that they can use in a myriad of writing situations beyond ENG 101 and ENG 145. We focus on “transfer” as a term in our curriculum, and we provide students multiple opportunities to consider how their knowledge might be applicable in new writing situations, and also how that knowledge may need to adapt and change as they encounter new types of writing. However, because student’s prior knowledge tends to be focused on a fairly narrow understanding of writing “skill,” it can be difficult for students to take up a more robust understanding of writing as an activity, or

2

develop a more complex understanding of their own writing skills and knowledge. Their narrow understandings of writing skills tend to persist, even within a curriculum specifically designed broadened their perceptions of literate activity (See Yancey et. al, 2014). To both investigate the efficacy of our curriculum and to increase our knowledge of student’s use of particular writing skills and concepts, we began an IRB approved study in spring 2015 (IRB # 2015-‐0075), which is designed to supplement our end-‐of-‐semester assessments with a more longitudinal approach. The study involves open-‐ended interviews with students who have completed ENG 101 at ISU with a grade of C or better, and attempts to follow these students through their subsequent writing activities in academic and co-‐curricular situations. In spring 2015, we were able to conduct 1-‐hour interviews with ten ISU students who had completed ENG 101 in Spring 2014. We also collected writing samples from these students (examples of current writing projects, which they discussed in the interview). In each semester of Fall 2015 and Spring 2016, we will both re-‐interview the original group of ten students and add ten additional students, for a total of 30 students across three semesters. We plan to follow each of these students through an additional six semesters, in order to track their own narratives about how their skills evolve, as well as samples of their ongoing writing projects. In some ways this study hearkens back to early longitudinal work completed by Marion Sternglass (1997, 2004), but with the added component of specifically seeking to understand which concepts students make most use of, and adapt most freely across different writing settings (especially different writing intensive courses). Ultimately, our goal is to discover what concepts about writing seem most persistent for students, and the usefulness of these concepts to a range of writing situations. This knowledge can then help us to develop curriculum that not only seeks to reinforce the most useful concepts in ENG 101 and ENG 145, but to develop ways for these concepts to be reinforced through other writing experiences in their coursework as students at ISU. Time Frame: The entire longitudinal study will take 6 years to complete. However, we can begin to use data from the interviews as soon as it is collected, augmenting and increasing our knowledge with each new semester’s interview data. As per our IRB approval, all interviews take place in the ISU writing program and are stored and used according to our approved protocol. In 2014, we received funding from the ISU Department of English for our first semesters work, and we have additionally used Writing Program funds for the expenses of the study in fall 2015. Because of budget constrictions we are seeking this additional funding to support the spring 2016 portion of the study. Works Cited • Bawarshi, Anis, and Mary Jo Reiff (2011). Tracing Discursive Resources: How Students Use Prior Genre Knowledge to

Negotiate New Writing Contexts in First-‐Year Composition. Written Communication, 28:312. 312.337. • Bergmann, Linda S. and Janet Zepernick (2007). Disciplinarily and Transfer: Students’ Perceptions of Learning to Write.

WPA: Writing Program Administration, Fall/Winter 2007, 124-‐149. • Russell, David (1995). Activity theory and its implications for writing instruction. In Joseph Petraglia, Ed. Reconceiving

writing, rethinking writing instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pp. 51–78. • Rounsaville, Angela. (2012). Selecting Genres for Transfer: The Role of Uptake in Students’ Antecedent Genre Knowledge.

In Composition Forum (Vol. 26). Association of Teachers of Advanced Composition. http://compositionforum.com/issue/26/selecting-‐genres-‐uptake.php.

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

• Sternglass, Marilyn S.. (2004). 'It became easier over time': A case study of the relationship between writing, learning, and the creation of knowledge. In Zamel, Vivian; Ruth Spack (Ed.), Crossing the curriculum: Multilingual learners in college classrooms; Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

3

• Wardle, Elizabeth. (September 2012). Creative Repurposing for Expansive Learning: Considering “Problem-‐Exploring” and “Answer-‐Getting” Dispositions in Individuals and Fields. In Composition Forum (Vol. 26). http://compositionforum.com/issue/26/creative-‐repurposing.php.

• Yancey, Kathleen Liane Roberston, and Tara Taczak. Writing Across Contexts: Transfer, Composition and Sites of Writing. Utah State UP, 2014.

Budget for the 2015-2016 Assessment Initiative Awards Submitted by Dr. Joyce R. Walker, Writing Program Director, Department of English, Illinois State University Note: This budget offers a look at the budgets for the portions of the study that have been completed thus far as well as the projected budget (Finall table) for spring 2016, which is the funding we’re requesting. Spring 2015 (Completed) Activity Funding Totals We provided $10.00 gift certificates for the ten students who participated in the study.

10 x 10.00 100.00

We paid M.A. level graduate students to conduct 10 1-‐hour interviews, to properly label and store the audio files, and to write up reports on each interview (2 hours total per interview)

10.00 x 20 hours 200.00

We paid M.A. level graduate students to transcribe the interviews

4 hours x 10 interviews 40 hours x 10.00

400.00

700.00 Fall 2015 (in progress, using ISU Writing Program Funds) Activity Funding Totals Provide $10.00 gift certificates for the twenty students who will participate in the study.

20 x 10.00 200.00

M.A. level graduate students conduct 20 1-‐hour interviews, to properly label and store the audio files, and to write up reports on each interview (2 hours total per interview)

10.00 x 40 hours 400.00

M.A. level graduate students transcribe the interviews 4 hours x 20 interviews 80 hours x 10.00

800.00

1400.00 Spring 2016 (to be completed with funds from Assessment Initiative Award) Activity Funding Totals Provide $10.00 gift certificates for the thirty students who participate in the study.

30 x 10.00 300.00

M.A. level graduate students conduct 30 1-‐hour interviews, to properly label and store the audio files, and to write up reports on each interview (2 hours total per interview)

10.00 x 60 hours 600.00

4

M.A. level graduate students transcribe the interviews 4 hours x 30 interviews 120 hours x 10.00

1200.00

Total Requested Funding 1900.00

1

Appendix P: Planning for Updates to ENG 145.13 (with COB) ENG 145.13 Updates and Planning Updates

COB Study of Faculty Teaching Writing Intensive Courses

• In spring 2015 we completed a study that interviewed 29 COB faculty regarding the writing they assign in writing intensive courses.

• The data we collected indicated that instructors assign a wide range of types of writing (see Appendix A excerpt from the study). This is the basis for our understanding that ENG 145.13 better serves students if it offers the following:

o Information about the wide range of possible genres they may encounter in workplace and academic or scholarly settings.

o Opportunities to practice and receive feedback on multiple genres in both workplace and academic settings.

o Specific, repeatable skills for approaching new kinds of writing in new settings. • The study also indicated that a focus on sentence-‐level grammar, punctuation and mechanics is a

significant issue for COB faculty, with perhaps more emphasis placed on these issues as “stigmatizing” (i.e., writers who make errors “can’t write well”) than would be typical of most writing-‐centered courses taught from a Writing Studies perspective.

• However, other writing issues, including “clarity” and research skills” also received multiple responses (see Appendix B excerpt from the study).

Plans for ENG 145.13

Discussion with Instructors • In fall 2015 and spring 2016 we are initiating a series of workshops with ENG 145.13 instructors, where we

discuss the findings of the study and work to consider the different genres we teach in ENG 145.13 and how they align with the genres our study found were most valued/assigned in COB courses.

• We are also working on ways to bring the study data from both of our recent studies into each ENG 145.13 course, so that each course will include discussions of expectations of COB faculty and expectations in workplace settings and how the content of the course can help students meet these expectations.

Changes to ENG 145.13

• Because of the intensity of the focus on sentence-‐level mechanics that seems to be fairly prevalent

(although not universal) in COB writing-‐intensive courses, we are planning to add a component to ENG 145.13 that includes a “sentence-‐level skills” self assessment (using the online site Grammarly). This self-‐

2

assessment will be used to track development of skills throughout the semester and will be used to produce a personal “skills assessment” at the end of the course.1

• As part of a revision to all writing program courses, we will also be working on a “research skills” self-‐assessment that helps students identify areas of improvement in their research skills. This project is part of our ongoing collaborative work with Milner Library.

Possible Next Steps for COB

• If COB would like ENG 145.13 to be more specific (and potentially more unified) in the genres that it teaches, we will need more research that investigates exactly what genres and skills are assigned and expected in other writing courses and how these contribute to the overall skills you want COB majors to posses. The 29 faculty we studied may not represent in full the range of faculty writing assignments, and our study doesn’t break information down by major. So a more in-‐depth, widespread study of COB faculty writing requirements in different departments would certainly be useful.

• It could potentially be useful to engage in more widespread faculty discussions between the Writing Program and faculty who teach writing intensive courses. For example, we could provide workshops that help instructors learn how to tap into the skills students learn in ENG 145.13. A small pilot study in this area could potentially be productive.

• It would also be useful for the COB to gather information from the employers who employ significant numbers of ISU graduates regarding the specific kinds of writing they ask new employees to do, and their sense of where the most significant problems occur. This would also be useful data for thinking about changes to ENG 145.13 and other COB Writing Intensive courses.

• It would potentially be useful for the COB Curriculum Committee to consider the creation of a more vertically integrated curriculum, with a more clear understanding of (a) what classes are writing-‐intensive for different majors, (b) how these classes can make use of writing learned in BUS 100 and ENG 145.13, and (c) how introductory courses can connect to later writing courses.

• If COB would like to have more sections of 145.3 available for their students, then we should initiate a discussion with the Provost’s office to find out if funding to offer additional sections would be available.

• If COB would like to have ENG 145.13 serve more of a “gatekeeping” or negative assessment of writing skills roll, then additional sections of ENG 145.13 would be needed to accommodate students who are required to repeat the course.

Appendix A: Excerpt from COB instructor Survey (page 2) on Common Types of Writing Assigned Common Types of Writing Shared in ENG145.13 and Business Courses: The following responses were offered for instructors to select: • Reports: 18 responses • Case Studies: 13 responses • Memos/Emails or other Business Correspondence: 9 responses • Reading Responses (usually written in paragraph form): 9 responses • Multi-‐media Presentations: 8 responses 1 Our plan is to make this change to the course by Fall 2016.

3

• Business Letters and/or Memos: 8 responses • Job Materials (Cover letters, Resumes, Query Letters, etc.): 7 responses • Business Plans: 6 responses • Proposals: 5 responses • Budgets: 4 responses • Scholarly writing (specifically modeled on scholarly publications in a field or discipline): 3 responses • Training Materials: 2 responses • Timed Essay Exams: 2 responses • Storyboards (for Commercials, Training Videos, etc.): 2 responses • Scholarly writing (specifically targeted at undergraduate publication): 2 responses • Other: 6 responses Categories of Writing: Instructors selected the following categories for the writing assigned in their courses. • School-‐based Academic writing (Essay, Reports, Responses, etc.): 9 responses • Workplace writing: 7 responses • Some combination of the above: 7 responses • Technical writing similar to professional practice: 1 response • Briefs and Article Summaries: 1 response

Appendix B: Excerpt from COB instructor Survey (page 2) on Successful Writing and Skills What are the most important aspects of successful writing?

• Grammar 12 • Clarity 8 • Content Knowledge 6 • Research Skills 5 • Genre Conventions 4 • Critical Thinking 4 • Organization 3 • Student Selected Topic 1 • Summary 1

Total Coded Responses 44 What skills are your assignments designed to teach? • Content or Subject Knowledge 9 • Grammar 9 • Critical Thinking 6 • Analysis 5 • Persuasion 4 • Research Skills 3 • Genre Conventions 2

Total Coded Responses 38

4

Appendix Q: Writing Across the Curriculum Survey Dear Faculty or Instructor: The Illinois State University Writing Program administers ENG 101, ENG 101.10, ENG 101 Urban Ed, and ENG 101 Honors, courses specifically designed to help ISU students gain familiarity with the diverse kinds of writing they may encounter in classroom and the world. As we create resources for our instructors to support our program learning outcomes, we would like to gather input from faculty and instructors across the university. The survey below asks questions about the writing you assign in your courses, especially writing projects and assignments you'd consider "significant." *Significant writing* might include projects or assignments that are an important part of the course grade, or writing that requires both feedback and revision over time, or even smaller/short writing assignments that ask students to learn about issues, topics, or genres that are critically important to their work in particular jobs or disciplines. If you are willing to take approximately 30 minutes to fill out the survey below, you can help us gather much more specific information about the kinds of writing that different instructors assign, which will help us make decisions about our curriculum. If you have questions about the study, or would like to share additional ideas or information about the writing you assign, please feel free to contact us. We'd like to thank you for your efforts to help us improve the quality of student writing at Illinois State University. Sincerely, Joyce R. Walker Associate Professor, Writing Studies Director, Illinois State University Writing Program Department of English Studies Illinois State University phone: 309-438-1402 email: [email protected]

• Your Name *

• Please list all of the courses you teach that include significant writing. *

• Please share some details about the types of writing that you assign in your courses. *

• Though we don't need to gather explicit details about how instructors grade writing assignments, we are interested in collecting some general information about your grading methods. After reviewing the list of grading methods below, please check all that apply to the ways you grade writing assignments in your courses. * Students turn in work and receive a grade (without comments) Students turn in work and receive a grade (with minimal comments) Students turn in work and receive a grade (with extensive comments) Students turn in work, receive instructor comments, and then revise for a grade Students turn in work, complete peer review activities, and then revise for a grade Self-Assessments: Students comment on their own work and discuss its accuracy, quality, etc. Peer Assessments: Peers not only work to help with revision, but they assess and offer comments on the quality of the work (in terms of grade) Proof-of-Learning: Students are asked to document their knowledge about the type of writing they have completed

• Other types of Grading or Assessment *

• How would you categorize (in general) the writing you assign your courses? * School-based Academic Writing (essay, reports, responses, etc.) Undergraduate Scholarly Writing (for undergraduate research venues) Scholarly Writing for the Discipline (modeled after scholarly publications in the field) Discipline-specific genres (for example, lesson plans in English ed. Other

• What are the most important skills you feel the writing that you assign teaches (or is designed to teach)? *

• In the major types of writing that you assign, are there certain kinds of skills or knowledge that students demonstrate that tend to make their writing successful? Please share your ideas about what these are (or might be).*

•

Attach Files If you are willing to share, we would appreciate any samples of the following types of documents (Having these samples will help us to make ENG 101/101.10 more responsive to the kinds of writing that instructors assign and value): * Syllabi for courses you've discussed in the survey * Assignment sheets, handouts, and/or rubrics for specific writing assignments * Models of writing provided for students * Exemplary student work NOTE: We will not share these files with students, but we may use them as part of our faculty discussions about how to prepare students for the writing in their future courses. We may also make use of them in creating training materials for new instructors. The links for uploading files are below.

• Attach a File

• Attach a File

• Attach a File

• Attach a File

• Attach a File

• Additional Comments or Ideas?

•

Note: If you still have additional files you'd be willing to share, then please email them to Joyce Walker ([email protected])