Trimbur's article on writing centers was much shorter than either of North's, was more 'to the point', and slightly less opinionated. Yet, both authors dealt with what services a writing center should offer and what the name represents. Both authors made me question what services I think our writing center should offer.
North and Trimbur spoke of expanding the writing center so that it is no long just considered a place to go for a quick grammar fix or a quick paper re-write, they spoke of the idea of a multiliteracies facility. I believe that our writing center is capable of much more than just written assignments, especially because of our in class discussion on Wednesday. There were so many forms of communication we talked about and how they applied to the writing center. A lot of them were also mentioned in Trimbur's paper. Then there is the literal name of the writing center, we threw around a couple of idea's in class and had a hard time coming up with something plausible. Trimbur and North both continually mentioned that the name labels and limits what people assume the writing center is therefore and what it can help you with. Which brings me back to the idea of multiliteracies. Although I believe that our writing center should try to include rather than exclude services such as technological writings, multi language writing, etc., I think it is important to not overextend ourselves. This idea of spread one's writing center too thin was a topic of discussion in North's article on Revisiting "The Idea of a Writing Center". North admitted that even though he had great hopes and dreams for his own writing center, it was not plausible with such a small staff to accomplish them. It is this conundrum of the numerous services that it is possible for the writing center to offer and how many people there are to provide these services that prevent writing centers from expanding exponentially. I think that it is more important for a writing center to offer as many services as possible with the utmost proficiency than to offer numerous services with little perfection. North agrees that it is important to keep a balance between services and workers and I strongly believe that this is the most important aspect of writing center.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
My W.C. Experience (and other ramblings)
I am beginning to think about what writing consultants actually do in the sessions. We’ve talked about the general ideas, and it all sounds great in theory. But in person, it’s probably going to be a little harder leading students to enlightenment with your carefully thought out questions. You are trying to improve the writer more than the editable paper in front of you! Being a writing consultant seems like such a huge responsibility. Is anyone else a little nervous about knowing what to say? Or trying to direct a discouraged writer into the realm of confidence? Or avoiding the standard “Don’t worry, it’s a great paper!”?
It may or may not help that I've been in the customer service industry since I began working. I’m hoping it will serve as positive reinforcement as consultant training progresses. All of my previous jobs involved making people happy, selling them the product, and becoming their best friend within 30 seconds of greeting them. And it was difficult to be continually upbeat and outgoing about something I could not have cared less about. What can I say? It's easier for me to get excited about the writing process than overpriced Burberry outfits for toddlers.
I haven't observed any sessions yet, but I have been to the Center twice as a client. I want to remember how it felt before I do my first observation, and that is mainly what I’ll be using this blog post for. My Writing Center experience took place last year. I was a bit apprehensive, but the consultant made me feel comfortable. I just knew he had been through what I was going through, and I liked the equal footing. He was not a professional, but I could tell that between the two of us, my paper could be fixed. As we sat down, I told him I was very nervous because a) I was only a freshman and b) My first paper in college was going to be thirteen pages long. This did not deter my consultant at all. He made a quick copy of my paper, and then asked me to read it out loud. I laughed, and all too quickly realized that he was serious. What was this, kindergarten or something? I accidentally expressed this sentiment out loud, adding that it always sounds so weird when you read your own paper out loud. But read aloud I did. I ended up fixing most of my errors as I went. Convoluted sentence structure and misspelled words just jumped off the page as I read in the softest voice possible, so other tables would not be able to hear the words I had attempted to make into a genuine college paper.
We went over the guidelines of the paper to make sure I had followed them, and I distinctly remember my consultant saying he was impressed. He told me I had a distinct style of writing, which was apparently rare to see in college freshmen like myself. Sometimes all a gal needs is a little encouragement, you know?
So that was my first experience, and it hooked me on the Writing Center because no one was just telling me what to do. I had learned a new way of revising my papers. For me, the Writing Center was the best kind of peer review. If the distribution of my paragraphs or my MLA citation format were questionable, the information could be had. Sitting directly across the table from me was a person who did not mind discussing my writing for a half hour or more. Unlike traditional peer editing, I did not even have to reciprocate the favor! Forgive my cheesiness, but it was love at first consultation.
I apologize for the rambling, and I pinky swear that my next blog entry will be more relevant to the readings and/or class discussion from the week.
It may or may not help that I've been in the customer service industry since I began working. I’m hoping it will serve as positive reinforcement as consultant training progresses. All of my previous jobs involved making people happy, selling them the product, and becoming their best friend within 30 seconds of greeting them. And it was difficult to be continually upbeat and outgoing about something I could not have cared less about. What can I say? It's easier for me to get excited about the writing process than overpriced Burberry outfits for toddlers.
I haven't observed any sessions yet, but I have been to the Center twice as a client. I want to remember how it felt before I do my first observation, and that is mainly what I’ll be using this blog post for. My Writing Center experience took place last year. I was a bit apprehensive, but the consultant made me feel comfortable. I just knew he had been through what I was going through, and I liked the equal footing. He was not a professional, but I could tell that between the two of us, my paper could be fixed. As we sat down, I told him I was very nervous because a) I was only a freshman and b) My first paper in college was going to be thirteen pages long. This did not deter my consultant at all. He made a quick copy of my paper, and then asked me to read it out loud. I laughed, and all too quickly realized that he was serious. What was this, kindergarten or something? I accidentally expressed this sentiment out loud, adding that it always sounds so weird when you read your own paper out loud. But read aloud I did. I ended up fixing most of my errors as I went. Convoluted sentence structure and misspelled words just jumped off the page as I read in the softest voice possible, so other tables would not be able to hear the words I had attempted to make into a genuine college paper.
We went over the guidelines of the paper to make sure I had followed them, and I distinctly remember my consultant saying he was impressed. He told me I had a distinct style of writing, which was apparently rare to see in college freshmen like myself. Sometimes all a gal needs is a little encouragement, you know?
So that was my first experience, and it hooked me on the Writing Center because no one was just telling me what to do. I had learned a new way of revising my papers. For me, the Writing Center was the best kind of peer review. If the distribution of my paragraphs or my MLA citation format were questionable, the information could be had. Sitting directly across the table from me was a person who did not mind discussing my writing for a half hour or more. Unlike traditional peer editing, I did not even have to reciprocate the favor! Forgive my cheesiness, but it was love at first consultation.
I apologize for the rambling, and I pinky swear that my next blog entry will be more relevant to the readings and/or class discussion from the week.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Internet Literacy and Consulting
Reading the articles about the different forms of literacy left me with a conflicted opinion. I do agree that it is important for students to develop different forms of literacy as technology continues to change and the Internet becomes more and more prominent in our society. However, it sometimes seems to me that teaching these things should not be the responsibility of the Writing Center. It just seems extremely unfair to me that an instructor would assign a student to make a web page, for example, in a class that really has nothing to do with web authoring. If the instructor expects something specific in this area, then they should be prepared to teach it to students, and not judge on aesthetics that Sheridan suggests writing centers should help students with. Aesthetics and arrangement should only be important in a web authoring-centered class, where the students would obviously be studying it already.
However, I myself am not extremely Internet-savvy, and even after taking two introductory courses on web design/authoring, I still lack confidence in my abilities and struggle to remember different procedures in CSS, as well as in design software like Photoshop or Dreamweaver. Had I realized MSU had a more technological help center, I'm sure I would have gone. But another issue that Sheridan points out is that if there were two separate centers, one for writing and one for more multimedia consulting, students would probably skip a trip to the writing center and only go to get help with the multimedia aspects of assignments. I agree with this assumption, if only because when I was in my web authoring courses I didn't think I "needed" help with my writing, and I'm sure I only would have sought aid with the technical aspects of these courses. Despite this, if demand for technical consulting consulting continues to grow, I think some responsibility needs to be shifted to teachers. They should give the students in-depth explanations of techniques they expect in assignments, and provide more availability to help students outside of class. This is where writing center could enter, by setting up sessions with web design instructors and instructors who wish to incorporate web pages into their classes, just like the meetings between writing consultants and writing isntructors described in Stock's article on the origins of the MSU Writing Center. When the digital consultants understand the teachers' desires for their students, they can set up workshops and help the teachers learn more effective teaching techniques so students can gain competency in a complicated and expanding field.
However, I myself am not extremely Internet-savvy, and even after taking two introductory courses on web design/authoring, I still lack confidence in my abilities and struggle to remember different procedures in CSS, as well as in design software like Photoshop or Dreamweaver. Had I realized MSU had a more technological help center, I'm sure I would have gone. But another issue that Sheridan points out is that if there were two separate centers, one for writing and one for more multimedia consulting, students would probably skip a trip to the writing center and only go to get help with the multimedia aspects of assignments. I agree with this assumption, if only because when I was in my web authoring courses I didn't think I "needed" help with my writing, and I'm sure I only would have sought aid with the technical aspects of these courses. Despite this, if demand for technical consulting consulting continues to grow, I think some responsibility needs to be shifted to teachers. They should give the students in-depth explanations of techniques they expect in assignments, and provide more availability to help students outside of class. This is where writing center could enter, by setting up sessions with web design instructors and instructors who wish to incorporate web pages into their classes, just like the meetings between writing consultants and writing isntructors described in Stock's article on the origins of the MSU Writing Center. When the digital consultants understand the teachers' desires for their students, they can set up workshops and help the teachers learn more effective teaching techniques so students can gain competency in a complicated and expanding field.
W.C. Reactions
Yesterday I observed a session in the Writing Center, and afterward I had the opportunity to discuss the session with the conducting consultant. I should preface my commentary with a confession: I had never been to the Writing Center before. I hadn’t even known where it was located, prior to taking this course. I was under the misconception that the Writing Center was only there to help students who were “struggling” with “special problems,” as it were. Our readings and discussions thus far have thoroughly disabused me of this notion.
Even though my work wasn’t going to be evaluated, nor was I expected to advise the student seeking assistance, I was still strangely nervous. Without any previous experience in this area, I had no idea what to expect, and that’s always an unsettling feeling. Fortunately, the open, relaxed environment in the Writing Center did a lot to dispel those feelings of uneasiness.
Any remaining anxiety I felt was erased by the courteous, easy-going attitude of the consultant. He started out by asking the student to explain the assignment. This seemed like a good idea for two reasons. First, it gave the consultant an idea as to what the professor’s expectations might be. Second, it forced the student to think critically about what the requirements were, and to what degree her work satisfied those requirements.
From there, the two of them went over the assignment section by section. The consultant asked the student to read her writing aloud. This not only kept her an active participant in the reviewing process, but also helped her identify problematic sections of the text on her own. When a passage sounded awkward, he asked what sounded “off” about it, and what she might do to improve it. Most of his corrections were framed in the form of questions, helping her think about why something wasn’t working.
I also noticed that he usually began by pointing out something that was working, before pointing out what wasn’t. This method of combining praise with criticism seems like the most effective way to help someone genuinely improve. If they feel like they aren’t being punished or put down, they might be more open to the critique being offered. It’s important that it’s clear that the writing is what being critiqued, not the writer. If the writer feels uncomfortable or unhappy with their experience, they aren’t likely to come back.
Our goal at the Writing Center should be to provide a supportive environment that encourages return visits, to help writers continue to improve. The student whose session I observed seemed to have a positive experience, and didn’t give any indication that she wouldn’t want to return for a future visit. After this experience, I feel better about working at the Writing Center, and going there for help.
Even though my work wasn’t going to be evaluated, nor was I expected to advise the student seeking assistance, I was still strangely nervous. Without any previous experience in this area, I had no idea what to expect, and that’s always an unsettling feeling. Fortunately, the open, relaxed environment in the Writing Center did a lot to dispel those feelings of uneasiness.
Any remaining anxiety I felt was erased by the courteous, easy-going attitude of the consultant. He started out by asking the student to explain the assignment. This seemed like a good idea for two reasons. First, it gave the consultant an idea as to what the professor’s expectations might be. Second, it forced the student to think critically about what the requirements were, and to what degree her work satisfied those requirements.
From there, the two of them went over the assignment section by section. The consultant asked the student to read her writing aloud. This not only kept her an active participant in the reviewing process, but also helped her identify problematic sections of the text on her own. When a passage sounded awkward, he asked what sounded “off” about it, and what she might do to improve it. Most of his corrections were framed in the form of questions, helping her think about why something wasn’t working.
I also noticed that he usually began by pointing out something that was working, before pointing out what wasn’t. This method of combining praise with criticism seems like the most effective way to help someone genuinely improve. If they feel like they aren’t being punished or put down, they might be more open to the critique being offered. It’s important that it’s clear that the writing is what being critiqued, not the writer. If the writer feels uncomfortable or unhappy with their experience, they aren’t likely to come back.
Our goal at the Writing Center should be to provide a supportive environment that encourages return visits, to help writers continue to improve. The student whose session I observed seemed to have a positive experience, and didn’t give any indication that she wouldn’t want to return for a future visit. After this experience, I feel better about working at the Writing Center, and going there for help.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Reflections/Admin Project
Although this reflection may not (1) list the issues from the readings that we should discuss in class, (2) dialogue about the readings or (3) relate the readings to actual pratice in the WC, I do believe that this reflection serves as a vital role in my experiental and epistemological frames of race and the writing center, and to reflect, clarify and draw relationships to my attempts to tackle this admin project along with my final paper (incomplete).
I have often told those close to me that race haunts me, within my constant collides with race and language in the writing center I am open to the fact that I and the writing center space are seperate beings, with distinct/different historial backgrounds. In my ESL admin project and my final paper I attempt to answer the following questions:
1. If as Matsuda/Cox argues the reader formulating a response is the most important part of the WC session, In what ways do the racialization of writing influence listening or erasures (Ratcliffe)?
Erasure-as Ratcliffe contends is when a person disregards the racialization or contents of a speaker when/if they are identified as "racial markers"
2. How do tutors and writers silence issues of race or culture in formal sessions?
3. How can whiteness studies be used to bring forth a WELL NEEDED CONVERSATION on race and the writing center?
4. How can rhetorical listening be used as a code-of cross-cultural conduct to which can be utilized within writing center professional development, theory and practices?
5. Does/Can cross-cultural conversation influence/contribute to better academic writing?
In seeing race as a trope and examining the ways in which this trope is employed in the writing center; like literacy, I believe (as Grimm contends) this trope liberates and dominates; demands submission and offers promises of agency. As in Patricia Bizzell's article "4th of July.."where she contends that others/outsiders etc. who learn the dominate discourse can then utilize a "shared" vocabulary and a "shared" view to which can allow them to persuade the dominate rhetorics in their own wrong doings.
In Nancy Grimm’s book Good Intentions she contends that “writing centers cannot resolve the national confusion about literacy, but I believe that over time they can contribute to a deeper understanding of literacy and to more democratic approaches to literacy education. To do this, writing centers need to be more fully engaged with the paradox of literacy” (xiii). I am concerned about the notion that the “national” confusion of literacy cannot be healed or “resolved” by writing centers. Does history bind writing centers in the same way that academic instiutionalization bind identities and language?
...to be continued
I have often told those close to me that race haunts me, within my constant collides with race and language in the writing center I am open to the fact that I and the writing center space are seperate beings, with distinct/different historial backgrounds. In my ESL admin project and my final paper I attempt to answer the following questions:
1. If as Matsuda/Cox argues the reader formulating a response is the most important part of the WC session, In what ways do the racialization of writing influence listening or erasures (Ratcliffe)?
Erasure-as Ratcliffe contends is when a person disregards the racialization or contents of a speaker when/if they are identified as "racial markers"
2. How do tutors and writers silence issues of race or culture in formal sessions?
3. How can whiteness studies be used to bring forth a WELL NEEDED CONVERSATION on race and the writing center?
4. How can rhetorical listening be used as a code-of cross-cultural conduct to which can be utilized within writing center professional development, theory and practices?
5. Does/Can cross-cultural conversation influence/contribute to better academic writing?
In seeing race as a trope and examining the ways in which this trope is employed in the writing center; like literacy, I believe (as Grimm contends) this trope liberates and dominates; demands submission and offers promises of agency. As in Patricia Bizzell's article "4th of July.."where she contends that others/outsiders etc. who learn the dominate discourse can then utilize a "shared" vocabulary and a "shared" view to which can allow them to persuade the dominate rhetorics in their own wrong doings.
In Nancy Grimm’s book Good Intentions she contends that “writing centers cannot resolve the national confusion about literacy, but I believe that over time they can contribute to a deeper understanding of literacy and to more democratic approaches to literacy education. To do this, writing centers need to be more fully engaged with the paradox of literacy” (xiii). I am concerned about the notion that the “national” confusion of literacy cannot be healed or “resolved” by writing centers. Does history bind writing centers in the same way that academic instiutionalization bind identities and language?
...to be continued
Admin Project: ESL and Cross-Cultural Conversations
Event Description(s) & Conversation Themes
A series of topics surrounding relationships between cultural communities and academia are the premise of this ESL/Cross Cultural conversation group event. A total of 3 conversation groups will take place in multiple locations across campus during the semester. The following topics are suggested as conversation themes to begin Fall 2008 conversation groups: Contact Zones & Safe housing , Whiteness, Assimilation & Acculturation: Negotiating Culture and Standard English, Material Culture & Globalization and Popular Culture Music, Movies & The world wide web. Although the themes outlined may seem abstract, we hope to narrow content and revise themes so that specific subjects are clear and direct. Such workings will take place during event planning which will begin the week of August 25th. Given the deserve to provide a comfortable setting that enacts the professional yet, eclectic communicative feel of a coffee house or guest room, I outlined on-campus spaces that took on characteristics, or could take on characteristics of what I saw as a visual reenactments of a Burkean Parlor room. Kenneth Burke’s Burkean Parlor room had much influence on the designated location and characteristics of a space that would fuel assorted dialog. Most importantly, advocating and promoting various participants to enter and exit an ever evolving and continuous conversation at their own well, surrounding the above listed themes along with need based themes that participant’s suggest is the means of this conversation group. A conversational space that allows for listening, talking and re-inventing world views allow for critical consciousness, one’s ability to see him/or herself outside of their selves. Corder (1985, p. 16, 31) contends that “we are more particularly narrators, historians, tale-tellers”. As such, language creates recognitions and representations of world views, “creating a world full of space and time that will hold our diversities”.
Project Narrative
University Apartments service a large population of International Students and their families. Additionally, Michigan State University (MSU) is renowned for its Study Abroad programs. The International Center on campus is recognized for it’s plethora of resources made available to all students who seek collaborative affairs abroad. According to Resident Life community assessment survey in the fall of 2007 7% of students living on campus were International students. In partnership with Resident Life, The Writing Center, Writing, Rhetoric & American Cultures and the International Center ‘s TA program this event seeks to extend connections and cultural awareness through the exchange of pertinent conversations surrounding popular culture. This event also seeks to initiate cross-cultural partnerships and construct literacy communities amongst students of diverse and multi-ethnic backgrounds. As stated earlier University Apartments houses a number of International families, It is our goal that the ESL & Cross-Cultural Conversation groups will not only bridge the barrier between families and schools where husbands, mothers, sons and daughters “go away to college” to fuel intellectual and economic status in isolation from their families. Particularly families play a major role in many cultural communities, at best some cultural community members distrust academic spaces, thus offering as many family members as participants see fit welcomes an outlet of diverse world views and epistemologies that go across age, gender and nationalities. It is my hope that inviting family members of students will better prepare marginalized students for entering classrooms where their private or home vernacular, language or dialects are asked to be altered, divided, transformed, separated or negotiated given the dominance of Standard English.
The Writing Center staff like Resident Life seeks to advance cultural connections amongst the MSU campus community by creating a space that advocates collective conversations and cross-cultural learning. The Writing Rhetoric and American Cultures (WRAC) department has implemented shared learning goals to increase the number of cross-class conversation and collaboration amongst students and instructors in Tier-One writing courses. This event will allow WRAC students the opportunity to talk through writing assignments, campus frustrations or misunderstandings of various contact zones. Students who enter the conversations groups or leave while the conversation is still going on may find value in the themes and topics discussed. Arnetha Ball and Ted Lardner (2005) argue that conversation has become a significant part of student learning. TA’s should find value in suggesting that students attend the events to compliment readings and writing assignments.
Conversation like knowledge and writing is a process and whether it is formal or informal in context there will always be “pressure” to perform orally. At best the pressure to perform is normal and in many ways healthy, social awkwardness will be discussed and approached during the first conversation group, it is in this first conversation group facilitators (writing consultants and volunteers) will act as guiders, rather then authorities or experts. Facilitators will be asked to only enter and interrupt conversations when they see appropriate and removing themselves in ways that allow natural evolving conversations where in many cases a leader or facilitator of the conversation is created within and on its own terms amongst participants. The theory set behind developing a cross-cultural conversational group disagrees heavily with North’s (1984) argument that “…we are not here to serve, supplement, back up, complement, reinforce, or otherwise be defining by any external curriculum. We are here to talk to writers.” Because students are here, within the University for purposes other then being a better writer.
Paul Kei Matsuda (2006) contends that oral dialog is key to learning the lexical concepts of the English vocabulary for ESL students. This event will do more than just provide lexical and communal ways of knowing, it is expected that this event will allow participants the opportunity to dispel stereotypes and come to an understanding that “differences are not necessarily signs of deficiency” (Matsuda and Cox).
Thus, when facilitating the ESL conversational group it is our goal to pursue the following:
1. Encourage questioning which will foster further growth and understanding of multiple literacy practices within different cultural groups and communities.
2. (Taking a Post-structionalist Position) Utilizing Krista Ratcliff’s ideals of Rhetorical Listening-which advocates for an analysis of dominant cultural norms and an understanding that although we might not agree with each other, we should still value and validate another’s opinion or understanding of the world-by laying another person’s epistemologies in front of us, rather then beneath us.
3. Promote cross-cultural collaboration and foster friendships and professional partnerships.
4. Broaden world views surrounding popular topics or cultural concerns in America and abroad.
5. Promote a consciousness of multi-cultural understanding, language diversity and American writing standards and writing proficiency.
6. Share multiple alphabetical symbols of recognition; writing your name in multiple languages or writing the same sentence in multiple languages, viewing and critiquing the same commercial advertisement in multiple languages and for multiple racial/cultural communities, exploring global markets e.g. material culture & popular artifacts.
7. Frequently challenge understandings and ways of knowing regarding communication, survival, identity and politics.
References
Matsuda, P.K, Cox, M.,Jordan, J.,Ortmeier-Hooper, C., et al. (2006). Second-Language
Writing in the Composition Classroom: A Critical Sourcebook. NewYork: Bedford/St. Martins.
Ball, A., & Lardner, T. (2005). African American Literacies Unleashed. Illinois:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the World: Cultural Issues in Academic Writing
Ratcliff, K. (2005). Rhetorical Listening: Identification, Gender, Whiteness.
Carbondale:Southern Illinois University Press
Grimm, N. (1999) Good Intentions: Writing Center Work for Postmodern Times. NH:
CrossCurrents.
Corder, J. (1985) Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love. RR4. p. 16-18
Gonzalez, V. El Camino Real: Where Culture and Academia meet. Diversity Digest. 12, 2 http://www.diversityweb.org/digest/vol10no2/gonzalez.cfm
Bizzell, P. (1997) The 4th of July and the 22nd of December: The Function of Cultural Archives in Persuasion, as Shown by Frederick Douglass and William Apess. CCC 48.1, 44-59.
A series of topics surrounding relationships between cultural communities and academia are the premise of this ESL/Cross Cultural conversation group event. A total of 3 conversation groups will take place in multiple locations across campus during the semester. The following topics are suggested as conversation themes to begin Fall 2008 conversation groups: Contact Zones & Safe housing , Whiteness, Assimilation & Acculturation: Negotiating Culture and Standard English, Material Culture & Globalization and Popular Culture Music, Movies & The world wide web. Although the themes outlined may seem abstract, we hope to narrow content and revise themes so that specific subjects are clear and direct. Such workings will take place during event planning which will begin the week of August 25th. Given the deserve to provide a comfortable setting that enacts the professional yet, eclectic communicative feel of a coffee house or guest room, I outlined on-campus spaces that took on characteristics, or could take on characteristics of what I saw as a visual reenactments of a Burkean Parlor room. Kenneth Burke’s Burkean Parlor room had much influence on the designated location and characteristics of a space that would fuel assorted dialog. Most importantly, advocating and promoting various participants to enter and exit an ever evolving and continuous conversation at their own well, surrounding the above listed themes along with need based themes that participant’s suggest is the means of this conversation group. A conversational space that allows for listening, talking and re-inventing world views allow for critical consciousness, one’s ability to see him/or herself outside of their selves. Corder (1985, p. 16, 31) contends that “we are more particularly narrators, historians, tale-tellers”. As such, language creates recognitions and representations of world views, “creating a world full of space and time that will hold our diversities”.
Project Narrative
University Apartments service a large population of International Students and their families. Additionally, Michigan State University (MSU) is renowned for its Study Abroad programs. The International Center on campus is recognized for it’s plethora of resources made available to all students who seek collaborative affairs abroad. According to Resident Life community assessment survey in the fall of 2007 7% of students living on campus were International students. In partnership with Resident Life, The Writing Center, Writing, Rhetoric & American Cultures and the International Center ‘s TA program this event seeks to extend connections and cultural awareness through the exchange of pertinent conversations surrounding popular culture. This event also seeks to initiate cross-cultural partnerships and construct literacy communities amongst students of diverse and multi-ethnic backgrounds. As stated earlier University Apartments houses a number of International families, It is our goal that the ESL & Cross-Cultural Conversation groups will not only bridge the barrier between families and schools where husbands, mothers, sons and daughters “go away to college” to fuel intellectual and economic status in isolation from their families. Particularly families play a major role in many cultural communities, at best some cultural community members distrust academic spaces, thus offering as many family members as participants see fit welcomes an outlet of diverse world views and epistemologies that go across age, gender and nationalities. It is my hope that inviting family members of students will better prepare marginalized students for entering classrooms where their private or home vernacular, language or dialects are asked to be altered, divided, transformed, separated or negotiated given the dominance of Standard English.
The Writing Center staff like Resident Life seeks to advance cultural connections amongst the MSU campus community by creating a space that advocates collective conversations and cross-cultural learning. The Writing Rhetoric and American Cultures (WRAC) department has implemented shared learning goals to increase the number of cross-class conversation and collaboration amongst students and instructors in Tier-One writing courses. This event will allow WRAC students the opportunity to talk through writing assignments, campus frustrations or misunderstandings of various contact zones. Students who enter the conversations groups or leave while the conversation is still going on may find value in the themes and topics discussed. Arnetha Ball and Ted Lardner (2005) argue that conversation has become a significant part of student learning. TA’s should find value in suggesting that students attend the events to compliment readings and writing assignments.
Conversation like knowledge and writing is a process and whether it is formal or informal in context there will always be “pressure” to perform orally. At best the pressure to perform is normal and in many ways healthy, social awkwardness will be discussed and approached during the first conversation group, it is in this first conversation group facilitators (writing consultants and volunteers) will act as guiders, rather then authorities or experts. Facilitators will be asked to only enter and interrupt conversations when they see appropriate and removing themselves in ways that allow natural evolving conversations where in many cases a leader or facilitator of the conversation is created within and on its own terms amongst participants. The theory set behind developing a cross-cultural conversational group disagrees heavily with North’s (1984) argument that “…we are not here to serve, supplement, back up, complement, reinforce, or otherwise be defining by any external curriculum. We are here to talk to writers.” Because students are here, within the University for purposes other then being a better writer.
Paul Kei Matsuda (2006) contends that oral dialog is key to learning the lexical concepts of the English vocabulary for ESL students. This event will do more than just provide lexical and communal ways of knowing, it is expected that this event will allow participants the opportunity to dispel stereotypes and come to an understanding that “differences are not necessarily signs of deficiency” (Matsuda and Cox).
Thus, when facilitating the ESL conversational group it is our goal to pursue the following:
1. Encourage questioning which will foster further growth and understanding of multiple literacy practices within different cultural groups and communities.
2. (Taking a Post-structionalist Position) Utilizing Krista Ratcliff’s ideals of Rhetorical Listening-which advocates for an analysis of dominant cultural norms and an understanding that although we might not agree with each other, we should still value and validate another’s opinion or understanding of the world-by laying another person’s epistemologies in front of us, rather then beneath us.
3. Promote cross-cultural collaboration and foster friendships and professional partnerships.
4. Broaden world views surrounding popular topics or cultural concerns in America and abroad.
5. Promote a consciousness of multi-cultural understanding, language diversity and American writing standards and writing proficiency.
6. Share multiple alphabetical symbols of recognition; writing your name in multiple languages or writing the same sentence in multiple languages, viewing and critiquing the same commercial advertisement in multiple languages and for multiple racial/cultural communities, exploring global markets e.g. material culture & popular artifacts.
7. Frequently challenge understandings and ways of knowing regarding communication, survival, identity and politics.
References
Matsuda, P.K, Cox, M.,Jordan, J.,Ortmeier-Hooper, C., et al. (2006). Second-Language
Writing in the Composition Classroom: A Critical Sourcebook. NewYork: Bedford/St. Martins.
Ball, A., & Lardner, T. (2005). African American Literacies Unleashed. Illinois:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the World: Cultural Issues in Academic Writing
Ratcliff, K. (2005). Rhetorical Listening: Identification, Gender, Whiteness.
Carbondale:Southern Illinois University Press
Grimm, N. (1999) Good Intentions: Writing Center Work for Postmodern Times. NH:
CrossCurrents.
Corder, J. (1985) Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love. RR4. p. 16-18
Gonzalez, V. El Camino Real: Where Culture and Academia meet. Diversity Digest. 12, 2 http://www.diversityweb.org/digest/vol10no2/gonzalez.cfm
Bizzell, P. (1997) The 4th of July and the 22nd of December: The Function of Cultural Archives in Persuasion, as Shown by Frederick Douglass and William Apess. CCC 48.1, 44-59.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
My Admin Project
My administrative project has one goal: to make the entire Alma College population more aware of the Writing Center and our purpose. As I mentioned in class, I feel that much of the campus has a serious misunderstanding of what we do. Although our numbers have increased (which is a good thing, right!?) I know there is so much more that we can do. My hope is to increase awareness and, eventually, increase projects and tutors and money and purpose...
So I have three paper documents: bookmarks, a flyer, and a pamphlet (or brochure, if you prefer). The bookmark is simple, containing just enough info to remind people that we exist and to lead them to the wiki or the website. The bookmarks are the only thing that will cost me any money, since I have free access to a color
printer, so the others are free. But the bookmarks need to be on card stock so they will last. The copy center at the college can do these, and they are pretty cheap. For the $50 we had to spend, I can get over 1700 bookmarks (which is way more than we would need), so money has not been an issue here. The bookmarks will be placed in the library at the front desk, in all the academic bays, in the computer labs, and at other various strategic locations. Hopefully students and faculty will stick these in books, leave them lying around, take them home, and circulate them everywhere.
The flyer is meant to be more informative than the bookmark, serving as a reminder and a source of info. Yet it is still relatively simple, since most students won't stop to write anything down or look carefully at the flyer. However, there is a long-standing tradition of posting flyers at the end of all the stairwells in the academic buildings, and students do stop to read these. So I wanted it to at least mention briefly our purpose. Faculty will see these as well, so the idea is to spark their interest and get them thinking, maybe even asking questions about their own assumptions about the ACWC.
The brochure (pamphlet) is meant to be much more informative and detailed. These would not just be placed about, but would be in the provost's office, the registrar's, admissions, etc. They are meant to inform any interested party about the ACWC and our purpose, how we approach the tutoring session, and what other services we offer. I decided I liked the gas station metaphor and put it on the back, but I'd love your input on this before I print them. These were kept general so that they will useful for years to come, as staff changes.
Thus the beauty of the wiki I made. I don't have access to the WC website that is attached to the college, and to get this changed is rather a pain. Besides, we only have the one little space and very little room for creativity. So I made a wiki. Please visit--there you can see everything I've done (on the "readings, etc" page, the "etc" part is the bookmark, the brochure, and the flyer for y'all to see) . The URL is acwritingcenter.wikispaces.com The homepage is meant to be a thorough explanation of what we do, including the basic info like how to sign up and when we're open. Again, I included the gas station metaphor, but could chuck it if you don't think it works. The second link (on the left in the purple box) is a schedule for the tutors. They work on a specific weekly schedule. The schedule posted is pasted in there from last year, so it is irrelevant at this time, but this will eventually be hyperlinked to the tutor's pages so interested people can see who these tutors are. Which brings me to the next link: staff. I just have a brief blurb about myself there because I linked to my own website. But each tutor has a page, and during our workshops each of them will come up with a statement about themselves as a tutor and will write a blurb about themselves on their page. This can help clients choose a tutor if they want to. Then next link (readings, etc) is for the workshops and for you to check out. I will probably take a lot of this down later. The last link is a schedule for people to sign up. This is a new idea, and I'm kind of excited about it. I've been trying to think of a way to have people sign themselves up without all the emailing and calling or having to actually go to the center to see when there are free times. This solves the problem! Any of us can update this from anywhere, as can clients. I'm hoping it works...
The only part of my project I have not completed is a new sign for the ACWC. Right now we have some purple letters cut out of construction paper and taped to the wall. It's very sad. I am going to ask the art department if they would make me a sign that repeats some of my advertising elements and can be a permanent fixture to hang. I also used to be a wood crafter and could do it myself if I have time this summer.
With all of these elements--the bookmarks, the flyers, the pamphlets, and the wiki--I am hoping to peak the curiosity of the AC population who is not familiar with the Writing Center and to get people looking and thinking about what we do. At the beginning of the year, I plan on an aggressive classroom visitation schedule and am going to ask if I can speak to the freshmen at orientation (where there will be faculty too!). I hope that the language of these documents conveys a writing center that is meant for all writers and does more than "correct papers"!
So I have three paper documents: bookmarks, a flyer, and a pamphlet (or brochure, if you prefer). The bookmark is simple, containing just enough info to remind people that we exist and to lead them to the wiki or the website. The bookmarks are the only thing that will cost me any money, since I have free access to a color
printer, so the others are free. But the bookmarks need to be on card stock so they will last. The copy center at the college can do these, and they are pretty cheap. For the $50 we had to spend, I can get over 1700 bookmarks (which is way more than we would need), so money has not been an issue here. The bookmarks will be placed in the library at the front desk, in all the academic bays, in the computer labs, and at other various strategic locations. Hopefully students and faculty will stick these in books, leave them lying around, take them home, and circulate them everywhere.The flyer is meant to be more informative than the bookmark, serving as a reminder and a source of info. Yet it is still relatively simple, since most students won't stop to write anything down or look carefully at the flyer. However, there is a long-standing tradition of posting flyers at the end of all the stairwells in the academic buildings, and students do stop to read these. So I wanted it to at least mention briefly our purpose. Faculty will see these as well, so the idea is to spark their interest and get them thinking, maybe even asking questions about their own assumptions about the ACWC.
The brochure (pamphlet) is meant to be much more informative and detailed. These would not just be placed about, but would be in the provost's office, the registrar's, admissions, etc. They are meant to inform any interested party about the ACWC and our purpose, how we approach the tutoring session, and what other services we offer. I decided I liked the gas station metaphor and put it on the back, but I'd love your input on this before I print them. These were kept general so that they will useful for years to come, as staff changes.
Thus the beauty of the wiki I made. I don't have access to the WC website that is attached to the college, and to get this changed is rather a pain. Besides, we only have the one little space and very little room for creativity. So I made a wiki. Please visit--there you can see everything I've done (on the "readings, etc" page, the "etc" part is the bookmark, the brochure, and the flyer for y'all to see) . The URL is acwritingcenter.wikispaces.com The homepage is meant to be a thorough explanation of what we do, including the basic info like how to sign up and when we're open. Again, I included the gas station metaphor, but could chuck it if you don't think it works. The second link (on the left in the purple box) is a schedule for the tutors. They work on a specific weekly schedule. The schedule posted is pasted in there from last year, so it is irrelevant at this time, but this will eventually be hyperlinked to the tutor's pages so interested people can see who these tutors are. Which brings me to the next link: staff. I just have a brief blurb about myself there because I linked to my own website. But each tutor has a page, and during our workshops each of them will come up with a statement about themselves as a tutor and will write a blurb about themselves on their page. This can help clients choose a tutor if they want to. Then next link (readings, etc) is for the workshops and for you to check out. I will probably take a lot of this down later. The last link is a schedule for people to sign up. This is a new idea, and I'm kind of excited about it. I've been trying to think of a way to have people sign themselves up without all the emailing and calling or having to actually go to the center to see when there are free times. This solves the problem! Any of us can update this from anywhere, as can clients. I'm hoping it works...
The only part of my project I have not completed is a new sign for the ACWC. Right now we have some purple letters cut out of construction paper and taped to the wall. It's very sad. I am going to ask the art department if they would make me a sign that repeats some of my advertising elements and can be a permanent fixture to hang. I also used to be a wood crafter and could do it myself if I have time this summer.
With all of these elements--the bookmarks, the flyers, the pamphlets, and the wiki--I am hoping to peak the curiosity of the AC population who is not familiar with the Writing Center and to get people looking and thinking about what we do. At the beginning of the year, I plan on an aggressive classroom visitation schedule and am going to ask if I can speak to the freshmen at orientation (where there will be faculty too!). I hope that the language of these documents conveys a writing center that is meant for all writers and does more than "correct papers"!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)