Western States Composition Conference 2002
Writing and Disciplinarity:
Rhetorics, Discourses, and Literacies

back to WSCC 2002 page

Thursday, Oct. 24
Special Event  5:00pm-7:00pm--Watertown Hotel, Montlake Room
Disciplinary Courses as Contexts for Writing
Joan Graham (University of Washington, Interdisciplinary Writing Program)


Friday, Oct. 25
Coffee and Registration--Watertown Hotel Conference Room 8:30am-9:00am

Introductions and Announcements: Anis Bawarshi (University of Washington)
Introduction, Keynote Speaker

Keynote Address:

What's Rhetorical About Composition?  Valuing Students (' Communication) in Assignments
David Russell (Iowa State University)

Sessions (to be held at South Campus Center)

Session I  10:45-12:15

1a. Roundtable: Diplomatic Relations: Peer Tutors in the Writing Classroom
Teagan Decker, W. Todd Kaneko, Jenny Wasicek, Steven Corbett, University of Washington

Ib. Panel: Using Multiple Assessment Tools in Faculty Development
Robin Jeffers, Bellevue Community College: “Rubric is not a Four-Letter Word”
Beth Kalikoff, University of Washington, Tacoma: “‘And Toto, Too’: Learning from Student Assessment”
Rebecca Reed, University of Washington, Bothell: “You Most Often Get What You Ask For: The Link between Assignment and Student Product”

Ic. Panel: Expressivism(s), Rhetoric(s), and the Debate over the Personal, Singular Self
Sidney I. Dobrin, University of Florida: “Singular Is and Multiple Rhetorics”
Karen Surman Paley, Rhode Island College: “’Expressivist,’ Where Art Thou?”
Susan Miller, University of Utah: “Insides and Outsides: American Binary”

Id. The Acquisition and Disciplining of Literacy
Darsie Bowden, DePaul University: “Exterminating the Rat: Literacy, Rhetoric, and Control”
Kirk Branch, Montana State University: “Disciplining Literacy in the History of Composition and English Studies”
Philip Gaines, Montana State University: “Students’ Acquisition of Academic Discourse and the Limits of Analytic Pedagogies”

Ie. Writing, Literacy, and Discourse in the Professions
Elizabeth Birmingham, North Dakota State University: “Strict Discipline: Women, Absence, and the Discourse of Architectural Studies”
David Overbey, Kent State University: “The Impact of Technology on the Literacy of Meteorology”
Sandi Reynolds, Texas Women’s University: “The Knowledge of Nursing: Teaching Writing to First-Year Nursing Students”

Lunch Break  12:15-1:45

Session II  1:40-3:15
IIa. Roundtable: Genre, Materiality, and Disciplinarity: Frames for Understanding Writing in the Academy
Angela Jones, Mercyhurst College, Mary Jo Reiff, University of Tennessee, Elizabeth Rowse, Minnesota State University, Moorhead

IIb. Panel: Cutting the Apron Strings: Changing Notions of Literacy in the Face of Standardization
Lauren Yena, Arizona State University: “Rethinking Literacies and the First-Year Composition Course”
Jennifer Clary Lemon, Arizona State U.: “Movin’ on Up?: Shifting Literacies and Critical Multiculturalism”
Micheal Callaway, Arizona State University: “Piling Up and Competing: Multiple Literacies in the Cultural Studies Composition Classroom”

IIc. Panel: Locating Composition in Rhetoric, Locating Rhetoric in the World
Marlia E. Banning, Kent State University: “An Ideoscape of Public Discourse, Popular Opinion, and Political Correctness”
Onur Azeri, Kent State University: “Nate, Rhetoric, and Possible Futures”
John Ackerman, Kent State University: “Rhetoric and Public Imagination in Urban Renewal”

IId. Technology and Writing
Charles Hill, University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh: “Reading Images: Teaching Visual Rhetorics in the Writing Classroom”
Peter N. Goggin and Maureen Daly Goggin, Arizona State University: “Disciplining Computers and Writing”
George Pullman, Georgia State University: “Writing into the Future: Composition, Information Design, and XML”

IIe. Race, Rhetoric, and Resistance
Stacy Grooters, University of Washington : “Imperial Rhetorics of Freedom in Progressive Pedagogies”
Matt Jackson, University of Utah: “Discursive Disclaimers: Exploring How Whiteness Frames Academic Writing”
Keith Miller, Arizona State University: “Malcom X’s Alternative Literacy”

Session III  3:30-5:00
IIIa. Roundtable: Cyberspeak: The Dynamics of the Student/Teacher Dialogue in Online Education or ‘What They Can’t See Me Say Won’t Hurt Them”
Stephen Beatty, Diana Bowling, Deirde Pettipiece, Timothy Ray, Arizona State University

IIIb. Panel: A Genre Approach to Academic Argument
Irene Clark, California State University, Northridge: “Academic Argument Beyond the Writing Class”
Martin Behr, California State University, Northridge: “Narrative as Form of Evidence”
Janet Garufis, California State University, Northridge: “The Genre of Crisis Rhetoric”

IIIc. Panel: Course as Conflict: Re-Thinking Literature-and-Composition Pedagogy
Heather Easterling, University of Washington: “Towards a Pedagogy of Problems: The Acts of Composition and Literature”
Gary Ettari, University  of Washington: “Disparate Disciplines?: Student Responses to Reading in a Composition Classroom”
John Webster, University of Washington: “Teacher-Training and the Challenges of the Literature/Composition Classroom”

IIId. Writing and Disciplinarity: History, Responsibility, and Practice
Rebecca Moore Howard, Syracuse University: “The Rage to Disciplinarity”
Judy Kirscht, University of California, Santa Barabara: “The Enemy is Us: Breaking Through Our Own Boundaries to Interdisciplinary Writing”
Amanda Espinosa-Aguilar, Washington State University: “Playing the Blame Game: Why Discipline-Specific Writing Instruction Isn’t Just the Responsibility of the Writing Center”

IIIe. Multiple Perspectives on Writing and Identity
Rochelle L. Harris, University of Nebraska, Lincoln: “What Happened to Your ‘I’?: Using Creative Non-Fiction When Writing Becomes Critical”
Amy Reddinger, University of Washington: “Genre and Dislocation: An Analysis of Homeless Shelter Intake Notes”
Raúl Sánchez, University of Utah: “The End of Identity and the Beginning of Writing”


Saturday, Oct. 26

Session IV  9:30-11:00
IVa. Roundtable: A Disciplinary (Mis)Match: College Compositionists Training High School Teachers of Writing
Brad Benz, Adyan Farra, Shawn Fullmer, Joal Lee, Chantey Pribble, Fort Lewis College

IVb. Panel: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Genre: Classrooms, Institutions, and Communities
Peter Clements, University of Washington: “Genre Analysis in the Composition Classroom: Looking Outward, Looking In”
Amy Vidali, University of Washington: “A Failed Genre? The Ineffectiveness and Intertextuality in the Course Evaluation of the First-Year Composition Course”
Riki Thompson, University of Washington: “Genre Analysis in the ‘Extracurriculum’: The Healing Journal as the Site of Genre Evolution in a Discourse Community”

IVc. Panel: Cooking, Cleaning, and Sewing: The Rhetoric of Households
Christine Norris, Purdue University: “Domestic Rhetorics and Style in Eighteenth Century England”
Jennifer Courtney, Purdue University: “Servant or Scientist? Rhetorical Constructions of Women in Domestic Advice Literature”
Kate Agena, Purdue University: “Rhetorics of Quilting: Academic Appropriations and Political Texts”

IVd. Defending, Teaching, and Assessing First-Year Composition
Joseph Eng, Eastern Washington University: “Assessment Politics in First-Year Composition: Assessment Rubrics, TA Training, and Writing Program Administration”
Leigh Jones, University of Arizona: “Points of Distinction: The Importance of Exigency and Vocabulary in Effective Cultural Studies Writing Pedagogy”
Mark Waldo, University of Nevada: “Saving First-Year Writing”

IVe. Intertextual Ecologies: Activity Theory, Materiality, and Disciplinarity
Kimberly Emmons, University of Washington: “(Un)Disciplining Discourse: Investigating Intertextuality In/Through Genres”
Maureen Mathison, University of Utah and Linn Bekins, San Diego State University: “Mediating Activity, Mediating Disciplinarity”
Scott Stevens, California State University, Fresno: “Rhetorical Ecology in Composition Studies”

Session V  11:15-12:45

Va. Roundtable: Tensions and Possibilities: Supporting the At-Risk Student In and Beyond the Department
George Bauer, Brandy Parris, Richard Mulcahy, Leah Spence, Brooke Stafford, University of Washington

Vb. Panel: Tutor Trouble: Territory, Theory and Transgression
Sonia Apgar Begert, Olympic College: “Tutor Tactics: The Writing Center as a Site of Pedagogical Production and Resistance”
Catherine McDonald, University of Washington: “Tensions in Tutor Training: The Rhetoric of Theory vs. Practices in the Center”
Amberine Wilson, University of Washington: “Practically Agreeing with Theory”

Vc. Panel: Dissolving Borders: Changing Lines in the New (Media) University
Thomas Rickert, Purdue University: “Bring the Noise: Writing Out the Corporate University”
Julie Woodford, Purdue University: “Reconceiving the Corporate Writer: Transcending Instrumentalism”
Byron Hawk, George Mason University: “Placing New Media: Or, Technology and the Shift from Writing to Rhetoric”

Vd. The Place of Rhetoric in Composition
Fredel M. Wiant, University of San Francisco: “The Place of Composition in Rhetoric”
Kevin Brooks, North Dakota State University : “North Dakota is Everywhere: Disciplinary Lessons from a Historical Study of Composition at two North Dakota Universities”

Ve. Exploring and Reconceptualizing Writing Programs and English Studies
John Talbird, Virginia Crisco, and Katie Stahlnecker, University of Nebraska, Lincoln: “Reconceptualizing English Studies: An Interdisciplinay Vision
for Graduate Education”
Peter Vandenberg, DePaul University: “Exploring the Great Divide: Composition, Creative Writing, and the Emergence of ‘Writing Studies’”

back to WSCC 2002 page

Session I Abstracts

Ia. Roundtable: Diplomatic Relations: Peer Tutors in the Writing Classroom

This roundtable will begin by outlining the historical tensions between writing centers and classrooms, writing centers’ traditional insistence on autonomy, and what is at stake for students when the classroom/writing center relationship changes. Speaker one will describe a program at the UW English Department Writing Center which involves sending tutors into writing classrooms to facilitate peer response groups. When tutors visit the classroom, they take a risk: the tutor, once immersed in the unavoidable hierarchy of the classroom, may become more teacherly , relinquishing the unique qualities of peer tutoring.  Ignoring the classroom, however, can create a climate of misunderstanding and even mistrust.  The speaker will explain how this program attempts to avoid these pitfalls, while reaping some unforeseen benefits. The peer response group facilitation project has allowed the Writing Center to engage in a diplomatic mission, forging ties to the classroom without compromising autonomy.  Speakers two and three will describe some of their experiences as tutor-facilitators, focusing on whether or not they retained their writing center identity and how students reacted to tutors in the classroom. They will show how, at its best, this service casts tutors as emissaries, bringing writing center pedagogy into the classroom. Speaker four will then focus on the classroom informational visit, a more traditional form of writing center diplomacy. He will describe his techniques for creating a collaborative environment where a short speech is the norm.
This roundtable will initiate discussion revolving around the nature of the writing center/classroom relationship: Now that most writing centers have established their autonomy, should we now attempt to forge ties with the classroom? On whose terms? Does the very nature of the classroom predict tutor behavior? Or can tutors resist the hierarchy of the classroom?

back to session I list

Ib. Panel: Using Multiple Assessment Tools in Faculty Development

[No description available]

back to session I list

Ic. Panel: Expresivism(s), Rhetoric(s), and the Debate over the Personal, Singular Self

This panel proposes to examine in depth the on-going conversation in composition about the position of what has been labeled “expressivism.”  Presenter 1 critiques expressivism as over_simplifying the position of the writer and the writer’s experiences in larger discursive environments.  Arguing that writing is more than a performance of the self, Presenter 1 considers the inflexibility of expressivist views of the author as singular self in writing environments that require an understanding of and navigation of the multiplicities of discourses, rhetorics, and literacies and argues instead for flexible, rhetorical view of the writer, whose writing is performed not by self but through unique, non-codifiable  rhetorical moments.  Presenter 2, then grapples with the knee-jerk acceptance of something called “expressivism,” based on both James Berlin’s use of the word  “expressionism” in his taxonomy of the field of composition and Patricia Bizzell’s categories of inner and outer-directed discourse.  This paper turns to material from an ethnographic study of writing courses taught in programs at Boston College directed by faculty who would be lumped under the category of “expressivist.”  This paper will then examine the social and political complexities of some “personal” narratives, and the presenter will deconstruct the representation of so-called “expressivist” rhetoric as representing coherent, unified, and solitary selves.  In the final presentation, Presenter 3  takes an oblique perspective on the current and growing divorce in composition studies between expressive and rhetorical perspectives on writing assignments, course conduct, teacherly subjectivity, and desired outcomes for students as certain kinds of people.   That divorce, Presenter 3 explains,  pits other tacit descriptors against each other and that these oppositions are now easily itemized and readily defended, on any side, as appropriate guides for at least the frequently required first-year writing course. This paper argues that this opposition is constitutive of deeply held American ambivalence about intellectualism, especially insofar as schooling in language rehearses American myths about populist/democratic access to class and economic standing. But the paper additionally looks at benefits to composition studies, the major cultural site of that ambivalence, of continuing hostility between these camps, a conflict recently intensified on personal grounds rather than their weakly argued theoretical precedents.

back to session I list

Id. The Acquisition and Disciplining of Literacy

Exterminating the Rat: Literacy, Rhetoric, and Control--Darsie Bowden

In Bellingham, Washington, a group of students ranging in age from ten to fifteen years are causing quite a stir in the local school district.  The students publish a newspaper, which they call The Rat, that deals not only with school issues but also with local and national politics.  They have an office in one of the students’ homes, hire student staff writers at 50 cents an article and up, set weekly publication dates, sell advertising to local businesses and distribute the paper free to fellow students and subscribers.  For the past two years, the school district has tried to ban the newspaper, charging that distributing the paper to the district’s students violated school policy.  Alerted by an article about The Rat in the local Bellingham newspaper, the ACLU has stepped in and threatened to sue the school district for violating students’ rights to free speech.  The controversy is still being played out.

In this particular case, school officials objected to The Rat’s publication and distribution on the basis that school officials have little control over its content.  They asserted that it is potentially harmful to give students of this age the kind of first amendment rights guaranteed to high school students and adults.  But while this is arguably a concern for the courts, this case is not only about first amendment.  It is also about the disjunction between school-sanctioned literacy and learning “outside.”

In my presentation, I will explore the distance between writing in school and writing outside it, arguing that this notion of institutional control is directly related to the current mania for testing, thus making it part of a disturbing trend in literacy education in this country.  Through interviews with the staff, students, parents, ACLU attorneys, teachers, and school officials, I propose to unpack the issues involved, particularly public perceptions about the commodification and control of knowledge.

I will use this incident to argue that we radically rethink the literacy instruction at all levels of literacy education—grade school through post-secondary.  It is not enough to incorporate “publication” in the classroom (as many writing classrooms do) or to send students out into the community through service learning.  Rather, we need to be more consistent about opening up the four walls of our school, legitimizing student efforts at control—from the very early grades through the university.  In so doing, we will be far more effective at engaging our students in the process of their own education in arenas that both the academy and many people outside the academy: public debate, argument, critical thinking, rhetoric, ethics, style, and preparation for students entering the marketplace.

Students' Acquisition of Academic Discourse and the Limits of Analytic Pedagogies--Philip Gaines

The current conversations about academic discourse‹its nature, politics, socio-cultural significance, and pedagogical implications‹represents nothing
less than a thorough-going critical examination of the textual life of the academy‹its systems of values, rhetorical impulses, and claims to power.
Some of the more influential and powerful rubrics include conceptions of the discourse community, critiques of disciplinary rhetoric, analysis of the
discursive conventions of the professions, and genre analysis.

All of these models and more have greatly enhanced our perspectives on the discursive dynamics of the academy and the professions.  A simplistic
account is to say that these methodologies examine the language of disciplinary texts on many levels, from lexis to large-scale discursive
form, and then abstract systems of description that focus on such things as stylistic conventions, rhetorical structure, characteristics of genre,
knowledge-making practices, socio-political assumptions, and power relations.  These descriptive systems can then be employed as powerful
heuristics for ongoing analysis of academic and professional discourse.

Such analytic systems can also be adapted as models for teaching academic writing‹the result being what I call analytic writing pedagogies.  The idea
is to help students see how academic language practices are guided by the genre characteristics or stylistic conventions or community presuppositions
or rhetorical dynamics of academic disciplines and their discourses so that they can participate in those language practices in more informed and
effective ways. The stronger claim of analytic pedagogies, however, is that students cannot be expected to competently write academic discourse at all
without the understandings offered by such analytic systems. One assumption is that most students enter the academic community substantially helpless
and with little to build on for writing academic prose. The answer offered is to apply an analytic rubric with its companion pedagogy and thus lay a
foundation for learning academic writing.

It is this stronger case for analytic pedagogies that I problematize in this paper. What I suggest is that the notion of a great divide between students¹
primary language practices and the language practices of the academy has been overstated, and I want to further suggest that our students bring with
them to the academic writing task effective linguistic, discursive, rhetorical, and communicative competencies that can be applied directly to
the acquisition of academic discourse.  Analytic pedagogies, inasmuch as they are oriented toward looking at language, inevitably involve a
distancing from language.  This distancing, while valuable and necessary for doing the kind of work that analytic systems do, needs to be complementary
to a discovery process that depends on a non-analytic and direct encounter with language‹an encounter that invokes intuitions and competencies that
students already possess.

back to session I list

Ie. Writing, Literacy, and Discourse in the Professions

The impact of technology on the literacy of meteorology--David Overbey

Based on an observation of and interview with a meteorologist as he prepared and delivered the evening weather forecast, this paper will explain how technology has impacted the field of meteorology and in turn transformed the types of literacy skills necessary for the production and delivery of weather
forecasts.  Specifically, weather forecasting mainly involves accumulating, synthesizing, and presenting information from a variety of technological networks.  The meteorologist's own thoughts about his job as well as his actions over the course of the observation reveal that keeping up with technology, and being
able to access various technological information networks, i.e. the National Weather Service, is the most important part of the job.  The importance of technological skills in the field has increased tremendously since the arrival of the first weather computers in the mid 1980s.
     Of particular consequence here is how this technological change redefines how we think about literacy.  This study affirms, for example, multiple theories about literacy that define it as a social practice, in which immersion in workplace settings and membership to certain groups is paramount to being
literate (Schultz, 1997; Haas, 1994; Freedman et al., 1994).  The study also shows how the impact of technology has changed the traditional role of reader and author, since the contemporary weather forecast is really a hypertext (Baron, 1997).  The meteorologist is as much a reader of other texts as author of the forecast; as the subject of the interview put it, his job is to "pass along...information."  The observation confirms this blurring of the boundary between readers and authors in numerous ways, one
being an instance when the meteorologist altered his forecast so it more closely fit with the recommendation from the National Weather Service.
     Finally, this paper will present a theory of literacy as a technnology, a theory that argues that to understand literacy we must understand how it works in conjunction with other technologies.  This theory is based on the findings discussed here that demonstrate how the literate skills necessary to do weather
forecasting have changed as the technology in meteorology has changed.  In offering this definition of literacy as a technology, this paper addresses Graff's argument that "literacy must be accorded a new understanding--in a historical context."  In other words, to think of literacy as a technology enables us to think of how it has changed--like technology in general--over time, why those changes have occured, and what the consequences of those changes are.

The Knowledge of Nursing:  Teaching Writing to First-Year Nursing Students--Sandi Reynolds

Because rhetoric is the integrating core for the study of human communication, education in rhetorical principles allows the student of any discipline to study and utilize the nuances of discourse that affect the informative, persuasive, exploratory, and expressive use of language, whatever the subject matter. For this presentation, I will summarize a course I designed to help nursing students understand the disciplinary discourse specific to healthcare writing as well as to satisfy a specific state goal, that of closing the gaps of success in nursing education.  I will outline the specific assignments as well as student responses to those assignments and to the course in general.  I will make suggestions for the future of such “writing across the disciplines” developments and discuss briefly the state of this movement at our university.

The course was adapted for several reasons.  In her 2001 text, The Nursing Profession, Norma L. Chaska asserts that nursing education must adapt to the current changes occurring in higher education.  These changes pivot around the concept that the paradigm under which we are now operating calls for a focus on “achievement of desired outcomes” rather than on process.  Furthermore, Chaska states, “Nursing, like all health care, needs a knowledge worker for the information-age.  A knowledge worker
nurse is one whose practice is grounded in skills associated with (a) critical thinking and clinical judgment; (b) teamwork and communication; (c) new technologies; and (d) leadership, management, and delegation” (144, emphasis mine).  Furthermore, in August 2001, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board developed a plan for “closing the gaps in higher education.”  Goal Two of this plan includes closing the gaps in success by increasing the number of successful graduates in several areas
including nursing and allied health.  “Successful graduates” should include those students who not only master the skills required for competent nursing, but also the discourse required to represent and advance the profession.

This discourse includes writing, a strand of communication woven together with listening, talking, reading, and thinking.  Writing is a process that develops as we hear what others have to say, talk through our own ideas with other writers, and read what others have written.  Writing and reading instruction leads to superior critical thinking skills.  I have discovered in the research for my dissertation, “Collaboration or Subordination?:  The Role of Rhetoric in the Conception of Primary Healthcare Providers,” that the nursing community is being confined to a subordinate position in large part because of what is being written both about and by nurses. For example, Dr. Mary Mundinger’s article published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1994 raised the ire of primary care physicians nationwide because she failed to consider her audience.  Similarly, the study published in the January 5, 2000, edition of JAMA was ineffective in convincing the medical community of the validity of the nurse practitioner movement due to the authors’ failure to anticipate the intended audience’s objections. Had these authors been trained in rhetorical principles such as purpose and audience, and had they received instruction in the artistic appeals, these innovative pieces might have been more successful in advancing the nurse practitioner
movement in particular, and the nursing profession in general.

back to session I list

Session II Abstracts

IIa. Roundtable: Genre, Materiality, and Disciplinarity: Frames for Understanding Writing in the Academy

Presenters will explore the ways in which a focus on the materiality of language and the genres that contextualize language can reveal the relations and tensions between writing and disciplinarity.  Specifically, presenters will address WAC/WID, first-year writing, literature and multidisciplinary courses from the following perspectives:

When WID courses privilege course content and text forms over disciplinary language use, they enculturate students into predetermined modes of thought.  A truly liberating writing pedagogy should assume language as material, and should present language use—the disciplines' ways of shaping, trading, and sharing language--as the real course "content."

Genres mediate the material language interactions of disciplinary cultures and the social practices and beliefs that define a discipline.  Because genres function both pragmatically and epistemologically—are both the familiar language interactions within disciplines and the frames for understanding and interpreting these communicative events—a genre approach can better integrate writing instruction and disciplinary knowledge.  How can a genre approach help us re-envision learning to write and writing to learn?

First-year writing courses are considered pre-disciplinary, so their genres and language struggle to instantiate rhetorical actions.  The arhetorical use of these genres in the past has stripped them of rhetorical force but not material consequence.  Can first-year genres like analytical essays, argument papers, and research papers be reclaimed, perhaps by teachers reinvesting them with disciplinarity--the discipline of "academia"?

Although a genre approach has become increasingly accepted in rhetorical and composition studies, few critics have addressed what this approach means for other disciplines within the field of English studies. Literary study, in particular, continues to rely upon an older, static approach to genre.  How, then, can applying contemporary genre theory to literature, particularly reinvigorate study in that field?

Without the direct constraints of a particular discipline – in a multidisciplinary department – the traditional strictures of disciplinary genres are to some degree relaxed. There is no automatic privileging of one discipline or its genres over another. In this context of multiple disciplines and multiple genres, how can contemporary views of genre help us rethink multi-disciplinary contexts and integrate diverse writing activities?

back to session II list

IIb. Panel: Cutting the Apron Strings: Changing Notions of Literacy in the Face of Standardization

Hanging on to a Dream: Shifting Literacies and Critical Multiculturalism--Jennifer Clary Lemon

        This talk will contrast my experience teaching composition at an inner-city four-year college in the city of Chicago and teaching on the same college's
suburban campus, with teaching at a large state university in Arizona. Drawing on the work of Peter McLaren, The Chicago Cultural Studies Group,
Thomas West, and others, I employ a stance of critical multiculturalism in discussing these experiences of shifting interpretations of literacies,
exploring and "engag(ing) the issues of cultural movements" employed by these particular institutions in the creation of their first-year writing
requirements (Chicago Cultural Studies Group 115; qtd. in Goldberg Multiculturalism Cambridge: Blackwell 1994).
        The overwhelming majority of administrators and policy-makers on both urban, suburban, and state campuses of these two particular institutions are
white. While teaching at the Chicago school, the "General Studies" department, under which English classes are housed, had recently changed the
first-year English curricula to a literature-based rather than an argument/rhetoric-based one. This change resulted in confusing students
while instituting a specific notion of "corrected" literacy, based primarily on the politics of "whiteness" and the expectation of a literacy not defined
by students' discursive communities, but by faculties' ideas of "appropriate" literacy.
        The college in Chicago draws from a local population of students with low grade averages and test scores. Most of students on the urban campus (88%)
are non-white. As quite a contrast, their suburban branch contains roughly half of that (46%). Moving to teach at a large, State university in the
Southwest, non-white student populations shrank by half again, at about 20%. Each institution tailored their first-year requirement to their ideas of
literacy based on the diversity of student populations: On the urban Chicago campus, the curriculum switch to literature, best represented by reading
essays by Joyce and Faulkner, had the urban campus students struggling as they were given a glimpse of a dominant academic discourse without first
being able to master the secondary discourse of writing in the academy. As a contrast, the suburban students (the majority of which were white) seemed
better equipped to make sense of the secondary discourse of analyzing the canon in the English classes that I had taught.  More evident of the multiplicity of perceptions of literacy was at a state institution, where an overarching rhetoric curriculum tries more successfully to meet the demands of a huge first-year student body, and the
majority of whom function well within the discursive space created for them by a first-year rhetoric-based program. Still noticeable, however, was the
separation of "basic writers" from the more "traditional," eighteen-year old, white freshman. Through a move from urban, to suburban, to state
institution, it seems that this "norm" is the force behind the standardization of literacies in the first-year classroom by which
everything else, everything "other," is measured and evaluated.

Multiple Literacies in the Cultural Studies Composition Classroom--Micheal Callaway

Bartholomae (1985) reminds us of the importance of learning to speak the language of the university; however, now more than ever it is important to
think of literacy in the plural.  With that in mind, we must ask ourselves what kinds of literacies are first year composition students bringing to the
classroom?  Reading the canon and participating in a dialectical with peers is slowly but surly being replaced by sitting in front of the television.  More
students have become autodidacts with the ever-expanding proliferation of mass media in society.  They have visual literacy.  The ability to understand and
use images, including the ability to think, learn and express oneself in terms of images; the ability to understand and produce visual messages.  However,
many of these students have not acquired the critical literacy necessary to question the ways in which texts have been constructed or the analyzing power
to deconstruct the messages that they assimilate into their collective psyche.

This presentation will outline my experiences with a group of first year composition students in an ENG 101 class.  Cultural studies allowed us to
really delve into the underlying issues in the media that seem benign, but really are manipulative.  While the presentation will emphasize practice, a
disciplinary theoretical context will be provided to situate the discussion regarding the impact of multiple literacies using the work of scholars such
Paul Martin Lester, John C. Bean and Kenneth Burke.  The presentation will create a brief composite of problems some students have when confronting the
multiple literacies that they encounter in the cultural studies composition classroom and possible ways to heighten critical/analytical skills.

back to session II list

IIc. Panel: Locating Composition in Rhetoric, Locating Rhetoric in the World

Our panel explores whether and how composition, as an industry in the university, might adapt to new directions in rhetorical, sociological, and discursive studies that assume and reflect a fragmented and shifting world.  Our papers are influenced by research and theory on “fast capitalism” (Gee, Hull, & Lankshear, 1996), “disorganized capitalism” and its struggle over signs, space, and popular opinion (Lash & Urry, 1994), the cultural imagination (Anderson, 1982; Appadurai 1996), and the interrelationships among technology, media, and global constituencies (Bijker, 1995).

 Appadurai (1996) suggests that the 21st century project for language specialists shifts to include research and pedagogy that endeavor to comprehend a rhetorical situation in terms of the distribution and connection of local and global resources, populations, and ideologies. He offers a framework that places discourse in the ebb and flow of different ‘scapes’ or formations that index cultural landscapes, electronic capacities for reproduction, and “ideoscapes” that comprise discursive strategies of the nation-state and its various counter-discourses.  The panel will include (speaker #1) an analysis of the discursive limits produced by political interests, media and popular opinion that appear as a discourse on political correctness, (speaker #2) a critique of center-periphery models of linguistic expropriation and social enculturation that supports a rhetoric of “possible futures,” and (speaker #3) an empirical and theoretical account of the design and production of a neighborhood park that emphasizes sociotechnical change and the production of locality.

An Ideoscape of Public Discourse, Popular Opinion, and Political Correctness

 This paper analyzes the discursive limits on composition classrooms designed to critically examine contemporary issues of popular culture and public discourse.  The focus here is on classrooms that identify the popular terrain of opinion and everyday life as overtly ideological, political and therefore debatable.  Any such cultural debate is invariably reframed by a discourse of political correctness, broadly deployed across mass media and public discourse. This paper defines the discourse through its history and display.  Ultimately, the paper traces how the discourse of political correctness opens some doors while closing others in the composition classroom and on the larger stage of the university and intellectual life.

"Nate," Rhetoric, and Possible Futures

 This paper critiques center-periphery models of linguistic expropriation and social enculturation, often exemplified by the “Nate” studies of Berkenkotter, Huckin, and Ackerman (1988) and their critiques (Prendergast, 1995) that reproduce a reductive and coercive view of outsiders and insiders in complex social networks.  As a counter-theory, this paper explores the potential for “oblique strategies” (Schmidt, Eno) from musical composition to explore models of “new literacy” that may well contribute to “possible futures” argued for my proponents of multi-modality and interdiscursivity (e.g., New London Group, 1996).

Rhetoric and Public Imagination in Urban Renewal

 This paper retraces the development of Orchard Community Park through the design practices and  decision  and the constellation of  investments of the  “relevant social groups” (Bijker, 1995) who supported the development.   Orchard Community Park is located in a major, post-industrial city in US, and the design process and practices reflect the will and imagination of the community but eventual give way under the weight of global social affiliations and the “global flows” of capital, work forces, and urban renewal policies.  The paper  relies on a descriptive and qualitative study of landscape architecture in an urban neighborhood to illuminate the “production of locality” (Appadurai, 1996).

back to session II list

IId. Technology and Writing

Reading Images: Teaching Visual Rhetorics in the Writing Classroom--Charles A. Hill

Along with the ability to comprehend and critically analyze written texts, students today need the knowledge and skills necessary to accurately interpret and critically analyze visual images, as well.  Much of the information that people are exposed to today is in visual form, and our students are being increasingly exposed to highly manipulated images meant to influence their beliefs, opinions, and behaviors.  Just as we teach our students to analyze, interpret, and respond critically to verbal texts, we need to teach them to apply similar skills and attitudes to visual messages.

While calls for increased attention to visual aspects of communication are becoming commonplace, exactly which knowledge and skills students need to obtain in order to deal with visual messages is a matter of some debate.  In my presentation, I will describe several types of visual literacy skills that we could teach students within our current curricular structures and argue for a core set of skills and knowledge that I believe are most critical.  I will also describe some pedagogical methods that can help students become more informed, critical consumers of visual messages.

Of course, communication departments have been dealing with visual rhetoric for some time, but their coursework is often confined to the types of images encountered in the mass media.  And instructors of technical and business writing have been teaching students to interpret, analyze, and create certain types of visuals for decades, though these courses do not generally include work on the critical examination of pervasive and influential cultural images.  I will argue for an approach to visual rhetoric that includes and integrates these approaches and others.

General education writing courses cannot accomplish all of the goals of a visual rhetoric pedagogy; these courses are often already overburdened.  However, because every text has important visual aspects, and because visual and verbal appeals often work together in tightly integrated formats, it is becoming anachronistic to continue to ignore issues of visual rhetoric in the writing classroom.  I will describe some ways to incorporate visual rhetoric into general education writing classes as these courses are currently constructed, but I will also outline an alternative curricular structure, one that would facilitate the task of incorporating work on visual literacy and visual rhetoric more broadly into the undergraduate curriculum.

Disciplining Computers and Writing--Peter N. Goggin and Maureen Daly Goggin

In Technology and Literacy in the Twenty-First Century: The Importance of Paying Attention, Cynthia Selfe issues a powerful call for literacy educators when she states: “We must try to understand--to pay attention to--how technology is now inextricably linked to literacy and literacy education in this country” (24). In responding to her call, our greatest challenge is likely to be how we will situate our thinking and actions within a framework of theories and practices grounded in disciplinary knowledge and tradition. The problem is that as an area of specialization in writing studies more generally, it is not really clear what defines and differentiates CMC (Computer Mediated Communication) writing specialists from other scholars in writing studies apart from making the material technologies of writing more visible. The question is whether a singularly narrow focus on the materiality of technology offers a powerful enough exigency for sustaining this field of study.
Accounts of other (especially failed) disciplinary endeavors demonstrate that without strong theoretical frames and disciplinary mechanisms for constituting and reconstituting objects of studies and scholarly problems, the likelihood of demise is strong. And in the case of CMC, Selfe’s call may be rendered silent. As this presentation will show, the field of Conflict Resolution offers one powerful example and an instructive analogy. Conflict Resolution emerged in the 1970s with all the trappings of a discipline in the social sciences—a scholarly journal, graduate programs of study, a professional organization—but was unable to define and thus sustain a strong enough theoretical foundation and eventually fizzled out as a disciplinary area of study. The fate of Conflict Resolution ought to serve as a cautionary tale for our field; it raises the question of what theoretical grounding is for computers and writing. The question is further problematicized because there is little consensus about the disciplinarity of the larger field of rhetoric and composition (Goggin “Disciplinary,” Authoring). Debates continue about what constitutes our objects of study, our methodologies, our discourses, and our theoretical terrain and even whether or not the field may be rightly understood as a discipline (e.g., Olson; Sledd; Miller). Given the unstable ground of rhetoric and composition, the problem of defining disciplinary theory for computers and writing is made all the more difficult, but all the more crucial, if we are to heed Selfe’s call.
In short, as an area of specialization, computers and writing may be defined in its identity with communication technologies, but it is not separate or immune from the politics of composition/writing studies and the various philosophically located groups within the larger field that jostle for recognition and dominance. Drawing on a larger study of the field, this paper will show the competing and contradictory theories of literate practice, a cacophony that challenges Selfe’s call. This presentation will thus argue that before we can tackle the kinds of problems Selfe rightly identifies as needing our attention, we need to examine the disciplinary grounding of computers and writing.

Writing into the Future: Composition, Information Design, and XML--George Pullman

Many years ago Marshal Macluen asserted that the media is the message, a memorable slogan that for many composition teachers, myself included,
formulates an axiom of composition instruction: form and content are inseparable. At the simplest level this means not splitting the grade
between “ideas” and  “expression”.  At a more complex level, it means believing that the expression “I know what I think; I just can’t articulate
it” is nonsense—muddled writing is muddled thinking. Recent developments in composition technology have begun to refine the meaning of this axiom for
me, however. Desktop- publishing software and web-design software, both now standard means of communicating writing, routinely separate style and
content. To use these programs correctly means to design a style sheet that affects the final appearance of the words but does so indirectly. In MS
Word, for example, this means highlighting your title and then choosing “Heading 1” instead of changing the font and the point size directly. By
choosing “Heading 1” you are employing a style sheet. On the other hand, by changing the font and the point size for that one line you are subverting
the style sheet.  (It is worth pointing out that HTML is a markup language, not a formatting language, and that even though we all do it, using tables
to create visually interesting layouts violates HTML the way comma splices violate written English.) In a practical sense, learning to differentiate
form from content when it comes to composition means differentiating visual rhetoric from discursive rhetoric while teaching both as critically
significant for anyone who would be a professional writer or, as they are called today, a content provider. But at a theoretical level the last
sentence points up an irony of composition instruction. We are training people to be “content providers” but our content is from. We teach patterns
of thought, figures of speech, and genres of writing. We don’t teach “knowledge” in the sense of information about political or legal or social
issues, although we do teach people how to acquire and assess information.  The content of composition is form. And if the content of composition is
form, then it’s clear why we’ve always asserted that form is inseparable from content. It’s not so much because they are but rather because for us
they are. Teaching our students to see form and content as inseparable, however, not only unhelpfully blurs the distinction between markup and
layout, but hides the fact that being able to see the form independently from the content is a critical composition skill.

The onset of XML offers us an intriguing way of addressing this problem. And that, finally, is what this paper is about. I will explain what XML is and
how it works, and then discuss one way in which it could be used to teach writing in general by showing how it might be used to teach argumentation.

The value of this approach is two-fold. It teaches an important technical skill—how to make an XML document. And it also teaches writers to separate
the argument from the argumentation—to see the topic of  “less is more”, for example, as a pattern that can be used in nearly any argumentative situation
and not to hear any given expression of it as something they either agree or disagree with. XML can teach people how to transcend an argument by moving
from language to meta language.

Let me be more concrete by describing one small piece of this application.  XML allows you to make your own tag set. In HTML you are limited to <title>
and <h1> and so on. But in XML you can have <topic sentence> and <supporting details>. By having students mark an argument for topic sentences, one
teaches the idea of a topic sentence and its relation to the rest of a paragraph, but by marking them with XML one can then  choose to display them
and only them, hiding for a moment the supporting details and revealing an outline of the argument. If this outline is compelling as a syllogism like
argument, then one knows one has a well formed properly arranged argument.  If there are gaps, they should be rendered apparent.

This is just one example. Much more can be done. By designing and Document Type Definition for argumentation, and marking up existing arguments, one
can develop a data base of techniques and approaches, improving our understanding of how real argumentation works.

back to session II list

IIe. Race, Rhetoric, and Resistance

Imperial Rhetorics of Freedom in Progressive Pedagogies--Stacy Grooters

In her ground-breaking work Masks of Conquest, Gauri Viswanathan argues that the introduction of English literature into the curriculum of Indian
universities in the early 19th century provided "a blueprint for social control in the guise of a humanistic program of enlightenment" (10).  By
presenting the study of literature as a means for individual growth and freedom, colonizers were able to mask their use of it as a tool of
conquest.  The endurance of such liberal-imperial approaches is evident in later educational texts in which the liberal mask "slips" and an
underlying colonial rhetoric is revealed.  For example, in R. W. Livingstone's _Defence of Classical Education_ (1917), his humanist
representation of education as a means for freeing his (British) students from "the chains of their servitude" gives way to a colonizing discourse.
Livingstone's descriptions of *thought* as "the great solvent" that breaks down the world -- which the educated can then "remodel and rebuild" -- and
*reason* as an "ardent desire [. . .] seeking to reshape [life] in accordance with itself"  echo imperial rhetorics of conquest and
appropriation (100, 87).  I would argue that for Livingstone, liberty is less about the freedom *from* oppression and more about the freedom *to*

Although contemporary progressive educators would be quick to distance themselves from the liberal humanism of Livingstone and others -- arguing
that "liberatory" is not "liberal" and "humanistic" is not "humanist" --many current discussions of feminist, radical, and developmental
pedagogies employ rhetorics of freedom similar to those of liberal humanism.  Do these rhetorics -- typically claiming to focus on social,
rather than individual, freedoms -- also mask a colonizing discourse?  Is it possible for pedagogical discourse to enact an anti-imperial rhetoric
of freedom?  Should freedom even be a goal of education?  In this 20-minute paper, I draw on the framework established by David Spurr's
treatment of colonial discourse in _The Rhetoric of Empire_ in order to examine the ways these contemporary rhetorics of freedom re-enact and
resist colonial discourses.  Among the texts I examine are bell hooks' treatment of feminist pedagogy, _Teaching to Transgress: Education as the
Practice of Freedom_; Paulo Freire's most recent engagement with radical pedagogy, _Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and Civic Courage_; and
John Robert Shotton's discussion of education for social justice in India, _Learning and Freedom_.

Discursive Disclaimers: Exploring how Whiteness Frames Academic Writing--Matt Jackson

“The history of madness would be the history of the Other...the history of order imposed on things would be the history of the Same.” Foucault, The Order of Things xxiv

This paper is an application of a discursive analysis of Lucille Schultz’ award-winning book, The Young Composers: Composition’s Beginnings in Nineteenth-Century Schools. In her book, Schultz points to a shift in writing pedagogy from the general and abstract to the personal and concrete, “from knowledge grounded in authority to knowledge grounded in experience,” as a “democratization” of writing in public schools (96). She limns out a relatively unknown part of composition history, “writing the young teachers and their young composers into our history; to give them voice” (165).
I will argue that the ways that Schultz writes her book, following the conventions of academic scholarship very nicely, limns out her historical findings in a way that fails to critically represent how the history and foundation of composition practices are connected to our present and future political problems, particularly where race is concerned. I suggest that Schultz’s book serves as a powerful example of how the discourse in, around, and through academic writing in the disciplines has historically been and continues to be framed by whiteness.
The whiteness of academic discourse has produced an educational milieu that is at best assimilative and at worst exclusionary and discriminatory. This paper argues that we cannot continue to think about race and composition education as we have; in order for us to transform our writing practices and policies, a radical shift must take place in the framework that perpetuates an “epistemology of whiteness”
A Foucaultian question asks, “Can ‘we’ look critically at the messy, sprawling, chaotic elements of our past, present, and future and ask how ‘our’ discourse has (not), does (not), and will (not) be better?” Can we unlearn whitely ways in academic writing and search for  new ways to think and that might seem as though they were madness?  This is hard for us as writing teachers. We like nice neat patterns, routines, conventions, lesson plans, handouts—things that make our jobs do-able with time constraints, limited budgets, impatient students and less-than-understanding administrators. However, I don’t think that radically transforming our discipline and the joys that are supposed to be at the heart of education are mutually exclusive, in fact I think they are hopefully intertwined.

Session III Abstracts

IIIa. Roundtable: Cyberspeak: The Dynamics of the Student/Teacher Dialogue in Online Education or ‘What They Can’t See Me Say Won’t Hurt Them”

back to session III list

IIIb. Panel: A Genre Approach to Academic Argument

    During the 1960’s and 1970’s, when Composition was being established as an academic discipline, the required first year writing course tended
to emphasize personal or expressive writing as a means of empowering previously marginalized student populations through the discovery of
personal voice.  Although this model persists at a number of colleges and universities today, many first year writing courses now focus on a
text genre that is often referred to as  “academic argument”  a term used by Rose in 1983 to refer to an essay that requires the “calculated
marshalling of information,  a sort of exposition aimed at persuading” (Rose 113). Rose’s essay maintains that all students, even those labeled
remedial, need to gain familiarity with this type of writing in order for them to do the work of the university and beyond.  This endorsement of academic argument as the primary genre for the first year writing course is supported by the goals delineated in the January 2001 WPA Outcomes Statement for First Year Composition, in particular,
Rhetorical Knowledge (focus on purpose, the ability to respond to the needs of different audiences), Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing,
Processes (including the collaborative and social aspects of writing), and Knowledge of Conventions (genre conventions of structure,
paragraphing, tone, mechanics, and documentation). The assumption behind these goals, presumably, is that strategies associated with academic
argument are relevant to writing tasks in other settings and therefore contribute to student success at the university.

    This panel, titled “A Genre Approach to Academic Argument,”  will focus on how the recent reconceptualization of genre theory can enable
both teachers and students to gain insight into academic argument as it is presented in the first year writing class.  Speaker #1, in “Academic
Argument Beyond the Writing Class,”  will use genre theory to set the context for a study which examine how characteristics associated with
the argument essay are viewed by faculty in other disciplines, in particular English, Business, Engineering, and Geography at two
universities, one private, the other public. The study emphasizes generic features of argumentation, such as the situation eliciting the
production of a text, the presence of a clear thesis, use of logical support,  awareness of audience, and adherence to appropriate text and
genre conventions. It also examines elements that are often not associated with the “genre” of argument, such as the use of personal
narrative and the presence of a strong personal voice.

    Speaker #2, in “Narrative as  Form of Evidence,” will use the personal narratives of minority autobiography,  in particular,
autobiographies of native Americans and Canadians, to discuss how narrative can function as a type of “evidence” in academic argument.
The word “evidence” in this context will be defined as the acts by which language is used to create shared meaning and knowledge.  To address the
question of how narrative functions as evidence, this presentation will invoke Bakhtin’s notion of “stylized discourse.” His contention that
writers develop their individual style by absorbing “primary” speech genres into “secondary” ones helps explain how narrative becomes
“stylized” as evidence in academic argument, enabling writers to address the expectations of particular discourse communities.

    Speaker #3, in “The Genre of Crisis Rhetoric,”  will examine how awareness of argument as a genre can help students critique political
rhetoric, in particular the genre of crisis rhetoric, as exemplified in President Bush’s responses following the events of September 11th, 2001.
Because one of the goals of an argument based first year composition class is to acquaint students with the effects of biased language on
readers and writers,  identifying the generic elements of crisis rhetoric can help students evaluate other forms of political discourse
in a critical way. This presentation will suggest that rhetorically analyzing the underlying arguments that are common to crisis rhetoric,
and focusing attention on its generic features will foster insight into the nature of the claims, enabling students to evaluate them on their
own merit.

back to session III list

IIIc. Panel: Course as Conflict: Re-Thinking Literature-and-Composition Pedagogy

Within the field of Composition, renewed attention to reading as a critical practice of writing classrooms has revealed the varying conceptions of “reading” that exist across the field of English studies, and the often unexamined teaching practices that such conceptions produce. While steps have been taken to make writing processes and practices more explicit, the same has not been true of reading.  This is perhaps most evident in that mainstay of most composition programs, the writing-with-literature course. While first-year writing classes are typically straightforward workshops which focus on students’ writings as meaning-making texts, the addition of a literary reader introduces a host of other disciplinary allegiances, assumptions, and practices surrounding reading and writing.  In this scenario, students’ work becomes a subservient text, and no longer the primary material of the course, and, as critic Wendy Bishop has remarked, “reading” ceases to be a “complicated, interactive reception of texts,” instead becoming a narrower process of consumption and storage .  This panel proposes to examine the writing-with-literature course as such a site of disciplinary and pedagogical intersection between composition and literary studies, ultimately re-framing its conflicts as productive teaching and learning “problems.”
The first two speakers will address this course first in terms of its larger genre, and then more locally by way of an extended inquiry with one particular class of students.  The first paper, “Towards a Pedagogy of Problems: The Acts of Composition and Literature,” will begin with a survey of scholarship, framing the current debate over reading in both writing and literature courses, and then making the case for a productive re-thinking of the writing-with-literature course as an explicit site of disciplinary conflict via a thorough parsing of the diverse and often under-examined practices of which it is constituted.  The second paper, “Disparate Disciplines?:Student Responses to Reading in a Composition Classroom,” will examine the role of reading and writing in the writing-with-literature course by presenting and analyzing student responses to questions about their reading and writing practices.  It concludes by theorizing the role that an observed dialectical impulse could further play in courses that use literature to generate student writing.  The third speaker will offer the perspective of both a literature specialist and long-time supervisor of writing-with-literature novice instructors.  His paper, “Teacher-Training and the Challenges of the Lit.-Comp. Classroom,” will first present and analyze different strategies and observed pitfalls of using literary texts to generate expository writing, and finally comment on the teaching and learning potential of a course re-framed according to a pedagogy that makes explicit disciplinary tensions.
These very tensions have been the source of consistent calls for the elimination of the writing-with-literature course; implicit in this panel’s papers, however, is that such elimination would be a mistake. The writing-with-literature course indeed asks different things of students than other composition courses, but the difficulties therein usefully point up pedagogical gaps.  If we want students to engage constructively, even recursively, with texts, including literary texts, we need to approach reading with as much theoretical and practical consideration as we do writing.  As well, the range of practices signified by the terms “reading” and “writing,” rendered newly explicit, will offer students the genuine opportunity to engage with English as the diverse discipline it is.

back to session III list

IIId. Writing and Disciplinarity: History, Responsibility, and Practice

The Enemy is Us: Breaking Through Our Own Barriers to Interdisciplinary Writing--Judy Kirscht

For 20 years Writing Across the Curriculum and Writing in the Disciplines scholars and teachers of composition have been seriously engaged in integrating the teaching and study of writing with the academic and professional disciplines. However, the academic edict that no one should step outside their field of expertise has prevented us from claiming the competence to have students actually engage in the thinking, research, and writing activities of other disciplines. David Russell, Chuck Bazerman, Carol Berkenkotter, and many others have argued convincingly that writing is shaped by the activities of those who use it; if we accept their arguments, we cannot understand or teach interdisciplinary material without understanding and teaching those activities.  Susan MacDonald’s work underscores this; she finds students with incomplete understanding of the abstractive processes have difficulty in moving between data-driven discourse of the humanities and concept driven discourse of the social sciences, particularly if they have not manipulated data in the latter (431).  All of this literature argues strenuously for including inquiry activities in courses that introduce students to the university. This paper examines one such course and argues that composition teachers do have the competence to engage their students in such cross-disciplinary activity, and that doing so can reveal much to both students and researchers about the intellectual leaps required for academic thinking and writing, the role of language in knowledge making, and the nature of genre.

 The course recontextualizes familiar composition thinking/writing processes—invention schema, the modes, abstraction and inference skills, the elements of argument, diction and syntax—reuniting them with purposeful activity. Young, Becker, and Pike’s trimodal invention schema (particle, wave, and field), for example, returns to science (from whence it came), becoming ‘static,’ ‘dynamic,’ and ‘systemic’ observation skills. The purpose of such observation is to answer the basic questions: What is it? How does it develop? How does it function? –questions which provide a framework for inquiry that can be applied across science, social science, and humanities disciplines. That intimidating foreigner, the scientific method becomes simply the process of observing, hypothesizing, testing, revising, and observing once again, a cycle that gives a methodological foundation for inquiry and a process view of knowledge.

Further, specific disciplinary inquiry methods emphasize different aspects of the thinking process and therefore become excellent sites for practicing language skills appropriate to those processes. Science emphasizes observation and inference skills; expressing science therefore requires precise description and clarity of logical relationship. The multiple theories and methods of the social sciences illustrate the way theory shapes perception and selection, and the testing of theory demands the same observation inference skills employed in science. Combined, they emphasize the relationship of theory and data and shape the language of theoretical debate. Students enter the humanities with a far greater understanding of the interaction of perception, theory, and data, in all fields. Their close reading is more thorough, their interpretations more faithful to the text. Most importantly, these thinking and writing skills come to life spontaneously as part of the process of creating knowledge, and the genres take shape as their natural outgrowth— as expression of the researchers’ “ways of being” in Chuck Bazerman’s words (59).

This course has had a troubled and controversial career, largely because it was developed to train TAs, who in turn were trained in literature; new to teaching and unfamiliar with composition, they understandably found the addition of cross-disciplinarity too much to cope with.  Many composition teachers, however, share this group’s unwillingness to venture outside the humanities and to use data other than texts in the classroom.  For others, however, its rewards have been worth the controversy, for students; struggle with the material reveals the inner difficulties of 1) letting go of certainty, 2) accepting the restraints data puts on claims, and  3)  letting theory and data impinge on personal belief. We have long tried to achieve, in our students, language that shows mastery of these processes with very little knowledge of the processes themselves.  The course provides opportunity worth the risk of working outside our disciplinary fortress.

Playing the Blame Game: Why Discipline-Specific Writing Instruction Isn't Just the Responsibility of the Writing Center--Amanda Espinosa-Aguilar

Almost every institution of higher education supports the idea of writing across the curriculum and in the disciplines. What doesn't always get
support is the infrastructure to see these programs become established, much less flourish.  Too often a small campus will try and alleviate WAC
problems in some predictable ways.  A WAC coordinator may be hired; a writing center may be created; a writing "specialist" may be called in,
consulted, or hired full-time.  Tensions occur when budgets and other constraints require an institution to dump all of the responsibility for
writing instruction on one person or office.  Given the state of the field, too often this work is asked of non-tenured, junior faculty who are assumed
to have the time, energy and political savvy to pull this off.  This paper examines the problems facing one institution where all writing issues are
being expected of the writing center, whose staff, resources and support are not adequate to do the job.

Budget cuts often require schools to hire only one person to handle writing problems and programs.  What I discuss are the problems that can occur when
all writing issues are placed into the hands of the writing center.  Faculty often complain when they get papers or assignments whose
writing they consider sub-par.  Instead of working with their students themselves, faculty often falsely expect the writing center staff to teach
their students how to write.  If the writing center is expected to provide all of the WID training on campus, the author proposes that faculty be
required to work part of their load as tutors in the writing center.  The author reviews some of the programs where this practice is taking place.

Composition theory supports the premise that WID is most successful when faculty from all disciplines participate in establishing shared values,
expectations and goals for writing.  What this paper will do is invite discussion of who is responsible for WID or WAC by asking: where does
instruction takes place on campuses? Who promotes and supports WAC?  What expectations are placed on the various offices dealing with writing
instruction?  How much writing instruction is done outside of English departments?  Why can't faculty be required to tutor in the writing
center?  How can one person survive implementing a WID program?

IIIe. Multiple Perspectives on Writing and Identity

What Happened To Your “I”?: Using Creative Nonfiction When Writing Becomes Critical--Rochelle L. Harris

Through my scholarly work in writing classrooms and in the fields of Critical Studies and Creative Nonfiction, I have been able to see that student writing, at times, becomes a vehicle for critiquing self, identity, and culture.  The intersections between Critical Studies and Creative Nonfiction have not been studied in any great depth in the context of Rhetoric and Composition, yet the emphasis that both of these disciplines place on the “I” in writing and reading have important implications for compositionists.  Increasingly, narrative, personal essay, and even research projects from a first-person perspective are the texts of choice in first-year writing and upper level writing courses.  Teachers draw from expressivist, process and epistemological pedagogies to help students read and craft texts.  My work with student writers reveals that these theoretical contexts for writing do not significantly account for the “I” in texts.

My conference presentation, a twenty-minute paper format, takes up this aspect of writing in a Composition II class setting.  Specifically, my presentation looks at the ways in which a student, Jenny, and a teacher, myself, drew from Critical Studies and Creative Nonfiction to situate, interpret and make decisions about our texts and conversations in a writing classroom.  Jenny began a research project about a book significant to her; she quickly found herself researching why she disliked reading and writing and how this single book positively impacted the course of her academic career.  Then she discovered that this book had been negatively critiqued by people she respected, a distressing and painful discovery for her.  Throughout her research process, I talked with Jenny and responded to her drafts, not only trying to encourage her writing and thinking but also trying to let her see she had choices in this text.  Jenny had to decide, in her words, either to “play it safe” or “go for it” in her writing.  Would she continue to try to think her way through this difficult, critical moment?  Or would she just ‘report’ on the information she found, believe the book’s naysayers, and dismiss her own experience with the book?  Three questions arose for me in this negotiation:
· When does writing become critical work?
· How do teachers and students read and respond to such writing?
· How can writing classes facilitate, or at least make space for, that kind of work?

While my research is ongoing, I have come to some conclusions about how composition teachers can provide students with support and response, as well as facilitate sustained intellectual engagement with a writing project, when assignments turn into unexpected (or expected) critical texts.  Those conclusions rest on the generative uses of genre, the kinds of relationships students and teachers build in a classroom setting, and the kinds of inquiries teachers ask their students to make through writing.  Such writers and scholars as Victor Villanueva, in Bootstraps, Anne Lamott, in Bird by Bird, bell hooks, in Teaching to Transgress, and Amy Lee, in Composing Critical Pedagogies, implicitly (and at times explicitly) study the critical “I” in student texts, as well as in their own texts.  Ultimately, I provide a framework for understanding what can happen to the “I” in writing by drawing from Critical Pedagogy and practitioners of Creative Nonfiction.

Genre and Dislocation: An Analysis of Homeless Shelter Intake Notes --Amy Reddinger

This paper examines the genre of “intake notes” that structures the process of admitting addicted, abused and poor women into homeless shelters. These notes are created as a result of the “intake interview”-- the moment of first meeting during which a woman becomes a client of the institution. This power-charged transaction results in a one-page narrative, relating both the client’s reported experiences as well as the staff member’s impression of this woman.  Drawing on Anis Bawarshi’s notion of institutional genres as both rhetorical actions and recurrent situations (2000),  this study aims at exploring the discursive power transacted during this specific rhetorical exercise. Particularly, it is the intake notes, and their power to re-inscribe the very factors of identity which have created the client’s homelessness, that is the subject of my inquiry.
This study focuses on two specific functions of the intake notes: the way in which they construct the client of the institution; and the way that they work to (re)construct the institution itself, and by doing so, re-assert the genre’s necessity. These two concepts are closely interrelated and interdependent.
Useful in examining the relationship between institutional genres and identity is Carol Berkenkotter’s view of psychotherapy intake notes as that which both establishes the patient as a subject in an institutional system (mental health) and also begins to establish and construct an identity for the client in a way that may influence the person’s view of themselves (2001). This constructed view of self is closely linked to the institutions simultaneous construction of its own identity.  To explore the role of intake notes in the (re)construction of the institution I will call on Carolyn Miller’s use of exigence as social motive (1984), to interrogate the complex relationship between the social need (homelessness), the response (the institution) and the means of effecting change though discourse--primarily through the construction of a “client.”
The establishment of rhetorical, institutionally-constructed identities at the site of the shelter intake note that warrants further exploration. Particularly within an institution that aims towards alleviating the poverty, inequality and disempowerment of women, it becomes important to explore these rhetorical acts as sites of potential recursivity.

back to session III list

Session IV Abstracts

IVa. Roundtable: A Disciplinary (Mis)Match: College Compositionists Training High School Teachers of Writing

We propose a 90 minute roundtable which addresses the disciplinary issues which arise when College Compositionists train English Education majors.  Although many Rhetoric and Composition faculty have little or no experience teaching writing at the high school level, these university faculty members are often asked to train future high school English teachers in composition theory.  Indeed, despite the fact that most may never teach writing at the college level, undergraduate English Education majors enrolled in composition theory courses are often asked to read various scholars -- Berlin, Lu, Hairston, Bartholomae -- whose work explicitly addresses the teaching of writing at the college level, the same work which apparently is also implicitly applicable to teaching writing in high schools.  This raises important questions about the disciplinary differences between Rhetoric-Composition and English Education, and not only where the goals for the two disciplines are the same and different, but also how they are similar or different.  For example, it is common for college compositionists to discuss academic rhetorics and disciplinary discourses found on campus, the same rhetorics and discourses which their composition students will encounter during their undergraduate careers, a laudable and important investigation.  Yet, how does a university writing-in-the-disciplines model of teaching writing hold up in a high school classroom?  How can, if at all, should future high school teachers integrate notions of the varying academic rhetorics into their high school classrooms?  Our roundtable will address this disciplinary (mis)match and others, and how such issues are and might be mitigated.

As such, the roundtable will be composed of five people: two college professors engaged in training future high school English teachers and three former students who are now teaching in Colorado high schools.  The focus of the roundtable will be the professors discussing their approaches to training future High School teachers of writing, and the student teachers contrasting what they learned in a composition theory course with what they see happening in their high school classes.  The goals will be to promote a discussion which addresses the uneasy -- if fairly common -- disciplinary (mis)match of  Composition-Rhetoric and English Education and then to engage the audience in a dialogue which considers ways to help better meet the needs of the two disciplines.

back to session IV list

IVb. Panel: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Genre: Classrooms, Institutions, and Communities

Aviva Freedman (1993) claims that the teaching of genres is a misguided project at best:  that students can master genres without explicit
instruction, and that such instruction can actually hinder the acquisition of the tacit understandings that genres embody; her conclusions, however,
are complicated by the paucity of research that has adequately addressed the effectiveness of such instruction, as well as the nature of the
learning process.  This panel investigates the problematics of teaching and learning genres, which opens the door to a host of questions: How are
genres learned? Does the learning of one genre transfer to other writing situations? What defines the success or failure of a genre? This panel
will discuss these concerns by framing them in terms of an underlying question: What makes genres effective (or in-) as the rhetorical
formations through which we construct and understand the way writing is learned, and the way it should be taught in classrooms, institutions, and
communities? Furthermore, this panel heeds the call to examine the composition produced outside the walls of the classroom, what Anne Ruggles
Gere calls the "extracurriculum" of composition, while at the same time problematizing this notion of "extracurriculum" by conducting genre
analyses in the unexpected spaces within, between, and beyond the composition classroom.

Genre Analysis in the Composition Classroom:  Looking Outward, Looking In The first speaker will discuss the applicability of genre to the
composition classroom by presenting data from an action research project.  Specifically, the project examines the use of genre analysis activities in
two sections of a freshman composition course.  It will be proposed, first of all, that the use of these activities varied strikingly in theoretical
and pedagogical orientation one section employing a "classical" notion of genre by emphasizing formal features, and the other employing a New
Rhetorical notion of genre as social action.  Based on this proposal, artifacts from the course will be analyzed for possible differential
effects, especially as they are indicated by the students drafts of writing assignments, teacher commentary on those drafts, assignment
sheets, in-class writings in short, the interacting genres that constitute the composition classroom.  This analysis will focus on the effectiveness
of genre analysis in promoting the critical reading of texts (in this case movie reviews), as well as the negative transfer that can result from
using an outside genre as the basis for an academic writing assignment.  The speaker will suggest that classroom genre analyses should focus
students attention at least as much on the genres within the classroom as those outside it.

A Failed Genre? The Ineffectiveness and Intertextuality in the Course Evaluation of the First-Year Composition Course
In addition to the genres employed in the classroom, students face a variety of institutional genres that are linked to the composition course.
To evaluate the "effectiveness" of such institutional genres, the second speaker will present findings from a genre analysis of course evaluations
completed by first-year composition students. The discussion will particularly focus on the handwritten portion of the evaluation, paying
attention to both the evaluation itself and over 300 student responses.  The analysis reveals that rather than focusing on the main issues of the
composition course in which they were enrolled, writing and argument, the students focus on personal concerns beyond the scope of the class and
elements of the class that are/were unchangeable. Such responses question whether this institutional genre is "effective" for those involved: the
students, the instructor, the Department, and later, the Tenure Committee. In addition, as the composition courses featured in the evaluations claim
to provide students with a handle on "academic discourse" that will be useful in other contexts, what Slevin calls "writing across the
curriculum," the second speaker will also evaluate the degree to which the students employ the genre of argument learned in the composition course in
the evaluations (where appropriate), revealing the intertextuality of the composition course and the evaluation, as well as the possible
transferability of the genre(s) learned in the composition classroom.

Genre Analysis in the "Extracurriculum": The Healing Journal as the Site of Genre Evolution in a Discourse Community In moving beyond the composition classroom, the last speaker will present the effectiveness, as well as the shortcomings, of genre for a non-traditional discourse community that utilizes composition as a
discursive tool for emotional healing. The discourse community of trauma survivors, working from the conceptual framework of "imagined communities"
(Anderson: 1991) shares a common goal of healing, as well as a language of recovery and healing, that is diffused throughout texts and word of mouth.
The reader intends to create a genealogy of the healing journal within this discourse community, considering the journal as a cultural artifact (Miller 1994) to trace historically and understand how this genre has come into being, as well as allowing for other genres to come into existence as a compliment. Genre theory is a useful tool to follow the evolution of the healing journal in both its form and forum, from private written entries in diaries to public discourses on the Internet. Through genre analysis of
this "extracurriculum", the speaker responds to Geres call to examine composition produced outside the walls of the classroom and into the

back to session IV list

IVc. Panel: Cooking, Cleaning, and Sewing: The Rhetoric of Households

Lynn Worsham argues in a recent JAC essay (19.3) that “the question of identity cannot be isolated from the question of history, the question of knowledge, and the struggle to produce the knowledge and practices appropriate to the discipline’s institutional and social warrant” (400). This panel will examine current and historical writings on household work to understand how women’s identities, work, and cultural worth have been constructed by theories of domesticity and institutionalized gender roles.  We will argue that the way these sites have been read has been both gendered and classed, allowing some texts to be privileged over others as well as writing about domesticity to be valued over the work itself.

This the Boke of Cokery: Cookbooks and the Belletristic Tradition
Speaker one will discuss the influence of belletristic rhetoric on the evaluation of cookbooks in eighteenth-century England. The speaker will argue that the use of belles lettres as a criteria for evaluating the quality of cookbooks evaluated the status of food writing in general but also privileged those books written by social elite, and marginalized the writings of female and working-class cooks.

Managers and Maids: Rhetoric and the Hierarchies of Housework
Speaker two will examine the recent upsurge in housekeeping literature aimed at middle class audiences that conceptualizes domestic work as aesthetic, intellectual, and moral. The speaker will then juxtapose these rhetorical constructions housework with the increase in hired domestic labor performed in middle class homes by poorly paid, often minority, women. The speaker will suggest implications of this tension and argue that despite highly commodified texts attempting to stylize domestic work, actual labor remains entrenched in patriarchal and classist traditions.

Rhetorics of Quilting: Academic Appropriations and Political Texts
The metaphor of quilting has been frequently invoked in academic discourse as a means of capturing a pattern present in the way we view our world. Little attention has been given, however, to the linking of fragments that occurs in the piecing of a political quilt. This presenter will draw from theory, including work by Bourdieu and Deleuze & Guattari, and the actual work and words of a group of political quilters to explore the gap between the status of the quilting metaphor and the object of the political quilt in a postmodern culture.

back to session IV list

IVd. Defending, Teaching, and Assessing First-Year Composition

Assessment Politics in First-Year Composition: Assessment Rubrics, TA Training, and Writing Program Administration--Joseph Eng

While the writing portfolio has been widely adopted as an integral part of the composition curriculum as discussed in the professional literature, especially by Wolcott and Legg, Kathleen Blake Yancey, Edward M. White, and others, the application and efficacy of such as an exit measure for First-Year Composition is not fully explored.  Nationally, many schools either have no exit measure or base the entire exit exam on a single writing sample (such as an argumentative piece); perhaps, the writing portfolio is not universally adopted as a holistic exit measure supported by trained scoring teams and detailed rubrics.  A recent discussion thread on the WPA-L posted by an administrator from the California State University System solicited help in devising a scoring rubric tailored to the exit portfolio; local community colleges have exit portfolios based on anchoring portfolio samples but use no rubric.  Further, discussions involving FYC exit assessment seldom explore the intricate relationship involving first-year composition curriculum, training of teaching assistants, and writing program goals.  This presentation attempts to address some, if not all of the above, through the following:

1. Defining inherent problems regarding the English 101 exit exam of a mid-size composition program of 150 sections, supported by 28 TAs and 7 lecturers, at a regional comprehensive university

2. Introducing four different rubrics for different purposes

3. Introducing the pilot exit portfolio and sharing the results from one academic term

4. Introducing the new composition curriculum by combining both formative and summative assessments

5. Discussing program politics

This talk concludes by presenting new issues in TA and staff training, composition curriculum, and pass rate.  Questions and comments from the audience will be entertained throughout this interactive session.

Points of Distinction: The Importance of Exigency and Vocabulary in Effective Cultural Studies Writing Pedagogy--Leigh Jones

Cultural Studies is currently one of the most important influences on composition teaching approaches, particularly among graduate student teachers.  The courses that many graduate students teach, as well as many of the first-year composition readers they use, reflect the influence of Cultural Studies on writing instruction and on the textbook market.  I agree with James Berlin, John Trimbur, and David Leight who argue that Cultural Studies is an appropriate approach to teaching introductory composition courses because it addresses complex political and social realities that students and instructors face today.  Yet, many graduate student teachers are left frustrated as they attempt to use Cultural Studies textbooks to teach writing and analysis.  This frustration often stems from vaguely defined goals for using Cultural Studies in a writing class.

In this presentation, I will argue that in order for a Cultural Studies approach to be an effective tool for analysis in a composition classroom, it must 1) include a clear sense of political exigency, and 2) include a useful vocabulary for discussing complex social constructions such as race, class, and gender.  I will consider what theorists including Stuart Hall, Guyatri Spivak, and Henry Giroux say about cultural studies as an analytical and pedagogical tool, and I will examine the reasons why many currently popular textbooks fail as Cultural Studies approaches to reading and writing.  Finally, I will propose ways that compositionists in general, and graduate students in particular, might more effectively teach by invoking a Cultural Studies approach.

Saving First-Year Writing--Mark Waldo

My twenty minute paper presentation will argue a defense of first-year composition courses and programs in the face of burgeoning writing requirements within the disciplines.  Why is such a defense necessary?  As I see the problem, for two reasons.  First, composition courses usually operate out of a set of values for writing limited to a particular disciplinary community–composition studies.  As a discipline, composition studies trains teachers in its own specialized language, and that language crosses the curriculum in a limited sense only.  Yet these programs are often massive, expensive, and teach writing to students campus-wide.  This situation creates hallway conversations between community-minded faculty members from, say, English and Biology, the Biology faculty member remarking that her students “don’t know how to write” or “don’t  know how to write as I want them to.”  These conversations and complaints are increasing, as awareness has grown that global writing programs do not meet local writing needs.

Second, when WAC programs develop out of acceptance of language differences between disciplines and engage faculty and students on their home turf, the amount of writing required of students may increase dramatically.  At the University of Nevada, Reno, for example, ninety-six percent of the faculty require writing of their students in undergraduate classes.  Sixty-seven percent require more writing than they did five years ago.  (Percentages are drawn from a phone survey of 400 faculty at UNR.)  This means to me that there is a great deal of writing being assigned on our campus and that our WAC program is having a positive impact.  It also means that the Core Writing Program, a two semester writing requirement offered through the English Department, might be argued as unnecessary.

What must first-year writing programs (and by extension graduate programs in rhetoric and composition) do, in the face of their potential irrelevance?  First-year writing programs must defend their courses and pedagogy on their own terms.  These are the only courses on campus in which student writing becomes the text.  They are the only courses, or among the very few, which privilege writing over reading.  They are the only courses in which drafting and the sharing of drafts in small groups becomes a major pedagogic activity.  They are the only courses, or among the few, in which the student’s personal experience can become a legitimate subject matter for writing, and the development of “authentic voice” a legitimate goal for learning.  They are certainly a more intimate and comfortable setting for nervous first-year students than almost any other class.  These courses will not teach students to write biology, nursing, or even history; the faculty in those disciplines must do that.  But they are defensible on their own terms, and the increasing success of many WAC programs makes a focused defense for first-year writing more pressing.

IVe. Intertextual Ecologies: Activity Theory, Materiality, and Disciplinarity


 Current work in genre and activity theory (e.g., Berkenkotter, 2001; Russell, 1997) has begun to imagine genres, rhetorics, and literacies as plural formations, as entities that are best understood in relation to larger systems of texts.  In Carol Berkenkotter’s work, the therapist’s genre of the initial assessment is analyzed as the recontextualization of notes taken during the therapy session (which are, themselves, a recontexutalization of the spoken genres of the interview).  Thus, for Berkenkotter, the initial assessment gains meaning through citing and reformulating previous genres and by anticipating its place in future genre systems (e.g., insurance claims processing).  This recognition of the constitutive intertexutality of genres should help us account for the heterogeneity of texts within genre systems.  Nevertheless, in Berkenkotter’s formulation, the recontextulaizations occur within a closely aligned set of genres – the initial assessment is indexed by its relation to the therapy session, to the meta-genre of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and to the material requirements of insurance categories.  The question that this paper will ask, then, is whether this goes far enough in imagining the possibilities of discursive travel.  In other words, how can we account for the interplay between genres or activity systems that address very different exigencies?
 When we move to theorizing writing, rhetoric, and literacy in the plural, we need to account for the multiple activity systems and social motivations that come into play in each moment of textual production.  As David Russell has recently argued, the need for this theorizing is amply demonstrated in our own classrooms, where our object/motive is sometimes misaligned with that of our students, leading to mutual frustration over what is being taught/learned (“Writing It Up”).  In response to such frustration, this paper argues that we must investigate the interactions among activity systems both inside and outside the academy.  And further, it argues that we must account for the ways that intertextual anticipation, to use Berkenkotter’s concept, can cross disciplinary boundaries.  When we attempt to help students negotiate the rhetorics of our fields, we must be aware of the potential for/of extra-disciplinary knowledge/discourse.
 This paper will explore the potential of discursive travel in/through genres and activity systems by examining a variety of texts that circulate around women and depression in the United States.  The texts used in this study represent related but distinct activity systems: National Institute of Mental Health pamphlets produced for public health awareness, drug advertisements created to enhance consumer need, and memoirs published to foster a sense of community connection.  These texts offer a chance to explore how information about depression is deployed rhetorically and managed both within and across activity systems.  How, this paper will ask, do these related systems influence each other, the generalized discourse on depression in this country, and, most importantly, the women at whom they are ostensibly directed?  This paper will argue that our recent interest in plurality should be expanded to encompass a mode by which discourse can travel across disciplinary/generic boundaries.  The freedom of such movement among non-academic texts like those examined in this paper suggests that disciplinary knowledge consists not only of interactions among sanctioned genres but of negotiations with other systems of knowledge organization as well.  In the end, theorizing this intergeneric movement may potentially help us understand some of the tensions between academic and professional writing practices, and it may lead to a clearer picture of how/why genres shift and change over time/setting.

back to session IV list

Session V

Va. Roundtable: Tensions and Possibilities: Supporting the At-Risk Student In and Beyond the Department

This 90-minute roundtable will address and present for discussion the following questions:

· What is the relationship between Writing Centers, Academic Services, and Writing Programs?
· What are the individual contributions to learning writing and how do they interact with one another?
· Do they (should they) all work from the same goals?  How are these goals arrived at?
· How can TA training approach this interrelationship to make it more productive?

Our first panelist, a Writing Center Coordinator, will describe his goals for tutor training, focusing on the most often requested service, grammar instruction.  He will briefly explore the issues of creating guidelines for grammar instruction, modifying teaching goals to suit learning capacities, and finding techniques such as modeling that work.

Our second panelist, a Writing Specialist, will explain her role in creating reading workshops for students in our program.  She will address the problems of coordinating TA and workshop goals and scheduling, increasing student involvement, and involving tutors in the workshops.

Our third panelist, a Learning Specialist, will explain special difficulties posed by student athletes:  socialization to the University environment, progress-monitoring methods, athletic versus academic consequences, and tutor training and availability.

Our fourth and fifth panelists, Writing Program Directors, outline their interactions with these other specialists and with Teaching Assistants.  They will tie together the strands of the conversation, describing their roles in defining the goals of the program and as liaisons between the Teaching Assistants and Support Services, and suggesting methods of training TAs to help improve relations between these different groups.

Panelists will speak briefly (five minutes each) and each will include in their talk a perspective of the ways in which they have worked together, explaining various tensions that have arisen and how they have been managed.  They will then engage the audience in a discussion of the issues at hand by posing questions (such as those listed above), hearing questions, and moderating the conversation.

back to session V list

Vb. Panel: Tutor Trouble: Territory, Theory and Transgression

The writing center is a territory where disciplinary conventions are reproduced and yet contested in triplicate: by the director, the tutor, and the student writer.  Tutors inhabit the middle ground, a site between academic and student literacies (Harris). The multiple literacies they bring to their work in writing centers, as well as the inherent differences between writing centers at R1 institutions versus those with open admissions, necessarily complicate writing center discourse—and the lives of writing center directors.  This panel argues that writing center theory can benefit from investigating sites of “tutor trouble,” where transgressions between theory and practice serve to clarify the work we do and the ways we think about it.  Drawing on theories of genre, identity, and cultural consumption, a writing center director from a community college, an assistant from an R1 university, and a tutor discuss tensions between and among writing center theory and practice, directors and tutors, and the rhetorical practices of  a variety of writing center sites.  By examining writing centers as habitats where rhetorical practices replicate but also reshape the conventions they contain, the panel considers the transgressive tactics tutors use to maintain a sense of agency while being “disciplined” in and into writing center theory and practice, and addresses the exigencies that sites of trouble expose.

Speaker 1 examines the writing center as a site of pedagogical production and resistance.  Drawing on cultural studies’ investigations of institutional production and consumption (especially Michel de Certeau's notions of institutional strategies for keeping people "in their place"—and the subsequent tactics everyday people employ to subvert them) to discuss peer tutors' resistance to theory and the transgressions (pedagogical and otherwise) which constitute their “poetic ways of ‘making do.’”  By examining these transgressions in light of the tutors’ relative place in the power structure of the academy, it becomes clear that they must to a certain extent resist the practices imposed on them from above in order to maintain a sense of agency needed to enact the role of tutor at all.

Speaker 2 looks at a tutor training course curriculum as she conducted it in a community college and interrogates sites where the theory of writing center scholarship fails to articulate the needs of community college tensions. The rhetoric articulated in the virtual space of scholarship falls short of completely wording the reality of practices in community college writing centers. At a community college, the quality and quantity of tutor training curriculum has to be measured against concrete limits: limited time, funding, and literacies of both writing center interns as well as the students they serve. This contextualized experience introduces ambiguities that are vital to the discourse of writing center pedagogy.

Speaker 3 takes up the questions posed by Speaker 2 and dialogically responds to them from the rhetorical position of one of the tutors in the training program. She will evaluate the training program and posit her own interpretation of both the rhetoric of training and the experience of enacting it. Answering Elizabeth Boquet’s admonition that “conclusions are drawn about peer tutors, information is produced for peer tutors, but rarely are these things created by peer tutors. Tutors are often objectified and essentialized in the literature devoted to them. In this way, tutors are disallowed a voice in the literature that pertains most directly to them” (18), this tutor will speak to the issues raised by the director of the writing center and the instructor of tutor training.

back to session V

Vc. Panel: Dissolving Borders: Changing Lines in the New (Media) University

It is a commonplace today that the university is in transformation. New instruments of accountability are being put in place to bring the university and its productions in line with market logics. Although the corrosive effects of the market are often decried, especially in terms of humanities-based scholarship, there are a great many new opportunities available to us especially in the contexts of New Media. These prospects require a re-thinking of what
scholarship and (post)disciplinarity can be, which in turn necessitates a re-thinking of what the role of humanities-based scholarship in the new university should be. As New Media disseminate throughout the disciplines, often through various TAC, WAC, or WID programs and emerging new inter/disciplinary minors, various lines that have defined the old university—various disciplinary lines, the lines between education and business, as well as the lines dividing rhetoric, writing, and communication—are being changed, redirected, or retraced. This panel attempts to examine these changes and lines of flight.

Presentation #1—"Bring the Noise: Writing Out the Corporate University"

In the postmodern university, new instruments of accountability are evolving to coordinate the university with market logics. I will suggest how we can successfully adapt while looking at new business-, media-, and technology-savvy scholarship. I will discuss ways in which these
interdisciplinary examples dissolve barriers that divide the academy from the public and business while extending the range and kind of writing we produce.

Presentation #2—"Reconceiving the Corporate Writer: Transcending Instrumentalism"

Research in the Chicago job market indicates professional writers must use new media in a far wider range of writing environments than those addressed by professional writing curricula. Accordingly, I am identifying areas outside professional writing that can provide new and superior pedagogical models for transcending the instrumental approaches to technology and
writing often shared in business and academic constructions of the professional writer.

Presentation #3—"Placing New Media: Or, Technology and the Shift from Writing to Rhetoric"

In the new media university, the definition of "writing" is changing. Is composing a web page writing? Is using a video clip as evidence in an argument better writing than a written description of the clip, if the actual clip makes the argument stronger? This suggests that the move from writing to rhetoric in the context of multimedia may be necessary. Consequently, I call for shifting from writing and technology programs that serve other disciplines to the development of minors in Writing, Rhetoric, and Multimedia that cross disciplinary lines.

back to session V list

Vd. The Place of Composition

The Place of Composition In Rhetoric--Fredel M. Wiant

 The Call for Papers for this conference suggests "The Place of Rhetoric in Composition" as an area of examination. In this paper, I suggest that this phrasing limits  both the study of rhetoric and the study of composition. Rather, I propose that examining composition as a field of rhetoric opens the door to a wider understanding of composition in the academy and provides a ground for interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches to writing instruction.
 First I define rhetoric and provide a very brief historical review of the place of rhetoric in the academy with emphasis on classical and medieval periods. The more recent history of the relationship between composition studies and rhetoric has been well-documented (Berlin, S. Miller, M. Goggin, Mathison, and many others) and rather than taking time to review that history, I will make an annotated bibliography available.
 The primary focus of this paper is an argument that restoring rhetoric to the prominent position it once held and understanding rhetoric as the foundation of intellectual activity will provide several significant advantages for composition:
 1) It will enhance the legitimacy of composition as a discipline rather than an often-undervalued service course and/or the neglected stepchild of another department. By emphasizing the academic context of composition, it will also discourage the "anybody can teach FY composition" attitude that often accounts for the low status of our discipline.
 2) It will provide an additional intellectual base for relating composition to other fields such as science, the social sciences, history, and philosophy; that is, it will provide a substantive academic rationale for advocating writing across the curriculum.
 3) It will provide a framework for designing team-taught interdisciplinary courses. Consider, for example, a rhetoric of science in which students examine the relationship off experimental laboratory procedures to the composing process or a rhetoric of history class in which students read and respond to historical documents in terms of audience and purpose as well as historical impact.
 4) It will initiate a multidisciplinary dialogue that can lead to closer cooperation between composition programs and other departments in teaching, assigning, and evaluating student writing.

North Dakota is Everywhere: Disciplinary Lessons from a Historical Study of Composition at two North Dakota Universities --Kevin Brooks

This presentation will challenge the widely held conception that North Dakota is synonymous with “nowhere,” and that in fact the first-year composition programs at the University of North Dakota and North Dakota State University are surprisingly representative of the disciplinary movements in composition over the past thirty years.  After brief histories of composition at each institution, which draw on archival research, secondary sources about composition and higher education in North Dakota, and extensive interviews with faculty, lecturers, teaching assistants, and students, I will offer three lessons to the discipline:

1) Composition, as Richard Miller has recently argued, may never become “one nation,” but in order to make positive curricular or labor reforms, local practices need to be examined (or exposed) in the context of regional and national disciplinary practices. Successful curricular and labor reforms at UND and NDSU over the past 30 years have always been supported or catalyzed by national pedagogical or labor initiatives, and heterogeneity, rather than homogeneity, at the national level provides local programs with a wider array of reform strategies to draw on.

2) Composition programs should discipline themselves with a “ten-year rule” for rejuvenation.  Richard Haswell, in Gaining Ground in College Composition, argues for a thorough and open rethinking of composition programs’ goals and practices every ten years, and the programs at both North Dakota institutions intuitively sought the same kind of regular reform.  The successes and failures of the reforms at UND and NDSU, however, suggest that this process needs to become more formalized for programs, and more thoroughly apart of the departmental culture.

3) Composition programs would do well to begin or continue to put effort into developing vertical writing curriculums, writing minors, and writing majors as a supplement or alternative to the standard first-year courses.  The North Dakota institutions are just now beginning to make this shift in focus, and in the process are adding additional composition faculty, which in turn holds the potential of strengthening the first-year curriculum and the graduate programs in rhetoric and composition.

These lessons are being articulated by other scholars in other contexts, but by grounding them in specific institutional practices, and by grounding them in North Dakota (nowhere/everywhere), I hope to convince the audience that local practices are and should be thoroughly situated in national practices, and that local histories are vitally important to our national, disciplinary conversations.

Ve. Exploring and Reconceptualizing Writing Programs and English Studies

Reconceptualizing English Studies: an interdisciplinary vision for graduate education--John Talbird, Virgina Crisco, and Katie Stahlnecker

We have heard several calls recently to reconceptualize the profession and the curricula of English Studies around visions of a more productive relationship between rhetoric and poetics (Berlin, North, Scholes, Seitz). Considering that graduate school is often the site that initiates this split, we feel this is a logical place to begin the work of reimagining the possibilities of joining these polarized aspects of English Studies. Clearly, as James Slevin notes, the profession needs “to open up some curricular space within which our graduate students can learn about and participate in this critique of the profession” (qtd. in North Refiguring the PhD in English Studies, 75).

Through our work together as doctoral students, we too recognize this need for and the value of such critical participation.  Over the past year, we have been fortunate enough to share several opportunities to engage in meaningful critique of certain facets of English Studies on both departmental and professional levels.  We contend that these collaborative, critical moments have been instrumental to our development not only as graduate students but also as professionals in the field and should, thus, be made more available.  Through this presentation, then, in which we plan to share our collaborative stories, we hope to illustrate the potential of graduate students as active participants in reshaping our profession.  Specifically, we will first report on the collaborative work undertaken by six students and two professors in the process of creating a new course for the graduate program at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and our subsequent efforts to document this work in an article about English Studies collaboratively written for publication.  Second, we will offer a set of situated reflections on the process of building a collective (but by no means univocal) understanding of the professionalization of graduate students and the curricula as well as the writing and reflection that has issued from it.  Then, we will consider what general challenges we faced in enacting an interdisciplinary vision for graduate education; how this collaborative work erased disciplinary divisions, created new alliances and modes of inquiry, and structured new opportunities for scholarly work; and how collaboration became a means for reenvisioning graduate education and professionalization.

All of this work is significant precisely because it occurred at the intersection of disciplinarity, knowledge, writing, socialization, and graduate student education.  Through our presentation, then, we aim to offer a vision of graduate education that crosses the boundaries of rhetoric and poetics to consider how PhD students, typically streamlined into very narrow disciplinary areas, can, indeed should, find the value in the blurring of those boundaries.  Thus, we will offer a multi-vocal text, which challenges (in form and function) traditional models of monologic/authoritative learning in which one speaker or one text is identified as the locus of knowledge.  Ultimately, we hope to provide not only our reflection on but also an *enactment* of graduate student professionalization as shared intellectual inquiry.

Exploring the Great Divide: Composition, Creative Writing, and the Emergence of “Writing Studies”--Peter Vandenberg

Over the last decade, rhetoric and composition scholarship has established a scholarly discourse to inform the teaching of what has traditionally been called “creative writing”—student production of poetry, short fiction, and literary non-fiction.  Authors and editors such as Wendy Bishop and Hans Ostrom, Mary Ann Cain, Lynn Bloom, Patrick Bizzaro, Nancy Welch and others have produced books, essay collections, and articles utilizing the disciplinary knowledge of rhetoric and composition in the production of pedagogies for creative writing courses.  Such theorizing, for example, refigures belletristic composition as a social, rather than personal enterprise; demonstrates the use of classical categories of invention as topoi for writing verse; critiques and displaces the writing workshop, the workhorse of conventional creative-writing pedagogy, with more collaborative approaches.   Most recently, a collection edited by David Starkey, Teaching Writing Creatively, attempts to redirect this emergent discourse back toward
mainstream writing pedagogy.  In the introduction, Starkey endorses what he calls a “polyculturalist” approach to writing instruction constructed by “teacher-theorists who, over the years, have actively cross-pollinated areas of writing that had once been isolated from each other” (xiv).
 This speaker will argue, however, that while the synthesis Starkey and others endorse no doubt leads to interesting and effective pedagogy, the growth in publishing about the teaching of creative writing has yet to have a significant impact on the teaching or staffing of creative writing courses in American universities; the deconstruction of the creative writing/composition binary remains a largely theoretical matter.  Drawing on the historical work of D. G. Myers (The Elephants Speak) and others, this speaker will show that this new discourse mostly fails to address, let alone reconcile, underlying material-structural issues that continue to divide composition and creative writing in most institutional settings: the radically different approaches to training MFAs vs PhDs; the differing standards for marketable expertise defined by most hiring institutions (“creative” vs “scholarly” publications); the similarly bifurcated expectations for promotion and tenure.  And perhaps most important, this discourse ignores the fierce desire for independence from scholarly community that ironically binds many who teach creative writing.
 These issues of separation and synthesis will be firmly situated in the emergent “Writing Studies” movement, the origination of undergraduate major programs in writing.  This impetus toward curricular change is perhaps best exemplified by Coming of Age: The Advanced Writing Curriculum by Shamoon et al.  This speaker will argue that in many institutions creative writing faculty may offer more significant resistance to Writing Studies curricula than the literature faculty that Shamoon et al. address, particularly to the extent that such curricular change focuses on public rather than personal, rhetorical rather than formal, useful rather than aesthetically pleasing.  The speaker will argue that a flexible theoretical framework to unite composition and creative writing in a Writing Studies major may be dependent on explicitly addressing the material partitions between them.

back to session V list

updated Sept. 15, 2001

back to WSCC 2002 page