I just returned from the 2014 IWAC (International Writing Across the Curriculum) Conference at the University of Minnesota, and I have to say it was one of my best conference experiences yet. The presentations were engaging, the people were open and friendly, and Minneapolis was a great city.
During my brief two
days there, I managed to sit in on 5 panels, one in which I presented, a
keynote, and an incredible plenary session. In truth, it made me a little sad
that I'm not a WAC WPA because I would have loved the opportunity to implement
some of the ideas that were discussed at the universities where I am involved
in writing pedagogy.
The Panels
Here is a brief overview of the titles of the panels that I attended:
- Role Reversal: When Students Teach Faculty in WAC Programs - Deanna Daniels & Brandy Grabow, Kate Ronald & Lucy Manley, and Greg Skutches
- Writing Beyond the Curriculum - Nicole Papaioannou, Dan Reis & Caroline Klidonas, and KaaVonia Hinton & Yonghee Suh
- Interrogating Disciplinarity in WAC/WID: An Institutional Ethnography - Anne Ruggles Gere, Naomi Silver, & Melody Pugh
- Teaching Meaningful Writing: What Faculty Say About Writing Assignments in Their Disciplines - Michele Eodice, Anne Ellen Geller, & Neal Lerner
- Multimodal Literacy: Writing, Reading, & Transfer - Andrea Glover, Maggie Christensen, and G. Travis Adams
- Does the campus culture empower students?
- How can on-campus organizations make use of student writers and also enhance student writing?
- How do we frame disciplines? Should we moving toward a theory of centers rather than a theory of boundaries?
- What makes a writing assignment meaningful?
- Should we shift to a WRAC model (writing and reading across the curriculum)?
The Plenary
The plenary session
focused on creating sustainable WAC programs and was led by an A-team of
scholars-- Chris Anson, Kathleen Blake Yancey, Chris Thaiss, Linda Adler-Kassner, and
Bob McMaster-- who role-played how they would deal with a failing,
under-resourced WAC program (a very cool divergence from the traditional
plenary talk). Anson would propose scenarios, building the complexities facing
the school bit by bit, and the 5 others would respond on the fly. They did not
know what they would be asked beforehand.
As some who hopes to
be a WPA one day, I was really intrigued by how the scholars embodied the different
thought processes, concerns, and strengths of each individual involved in a WAC
initiative, ranging from department chairs to WAC directors to provosts to
students. I thought, aside from having a bit of fun, they were incredibly
in-tune with those that they served and incredibly empathetic. It helped me see
what I might come up against should I someday be invited to try to enhance or
save a WAC program.
The speakers
reminded the audience that sustainability went beyond a current context and a
current moment and planned for the future. The solution also had to be built
within the framework of the local context with input from all stakeholders (as
much as possible, that is). Top-down initiatives would feel imposing and
oppressive and often fail to effectively use the strengths of the parties
involved. Collaboration, where possible, is a wonderful thing.
The most important
things I took away were:
- Understand the campus climate and be prepared to work within it, even if the aim is to change it. No model is one-size-fits-all when it comes to campus writing initiatives.
- Be sensitive to people's fears and frustrations. See challenges as moments for reflection, negotiation, or collaborative education.
- Bring joy into the work. Focus on the pleasures of learning from one another and the pleasure of writing.
I would love to hear
from IWAC-attendees about their experiences at the conference and from those
interested in campus writing initiatives what to make of some of these big
questions and themes.
No comments:
Post a Comment