NEWCA 2011: Not Your Garden Variety Conference

This weekend, I spent time in lovely New Hampshire at the Northeast Writing Center Association Conference at Southern New Hampshire University. The theme of the conference was writing centers as community gardens, a metaphor that inspired a great deal of thoughtful discussion and insight.

It was a great experience! As a first time conference goer, the relaxed atmosphere and the friendly conference attendees took off much of the pressure I was feeling. It was a mix of writing center directors, faculty, tutors, and graduate and undergraduate students. I met up with some old friends from the Montclair State University Center for Writing Excellence, forged stronger bonds with my current St. John's University Writing Center community, and met some interesting new folks along the way. Throughout the day, conference goers were tweeting about the panels they were participating.

The day kicked off with a keynote by Harry Denny, our own St. John's University Writing Center Director and all around rockstar educator. He spoke about the need to be conscious of the ways in which we interact with others, to remember that what we say does affect others. His biggest concern was for those who become marginalized by what he calls "clubhouse" behavior in our writing centers and elsewhere. As writing centers, it is our job to set the standard and treat each other in ways that encourage growth rather than force exclusion.

With the keynote said, we were off to our first sessions. The panel I chose bridged a broad span of topics. It started with Patrick Ryan who spoke about encouraging creativity and showing students that creativity is part of expository writing. His tutors couldn't find funding to make it to the conference, but did but together a great video about the ways in which they encourage creativity. Underneath all of their different methods, one idea seemed to ring out: helping students write is often about enabling them to discover interest in their writing and removing their fears.

Janet Dengel and Jennifer Ferreira, my pals from Montclair State University, talked next about ways to encourage outreach with other departments. It sparked some discussion about WAC and how we can form relationships with other departments that are mutually beneficial.

At the end, we also came to a discussion about the gap between spoken and written language. One audience member said that she believed the gap was widening and asked the rest of the audience whether or not we believed it was true. It lead to some discussion about the rapidly changing nature of the spoken word, but the static nature of academic writing, which tends to lead towards a conventional middle class ideal. There was no real consensus made, but certainly food for thought.

Can you tell that we were the digital literacy group?

During lunch, we watched a video about community made by some of my fellow tutors from the St. John's University Writing Center. I was really proud of what they produced, though I can claim no part in its creation. I would definitely recommend that everyone watches it!

After lunch, there were two more sessions. The first one I attended was about online tutoring and online discussion forums. A tutor from Long Island's Aldephi University talked about their new online tutoring program. There was discussion as to whether writing centers should be using submission forms for their synchronous and asynchronous tutoring sessions. Do these questions stop students from using online services or weed out lazy students?

A second tutor from University of Connecticutt talked about students' experiences with online postings (such as Blackboard). He reminded us that not all attempts at creating a community through online discussions are successful. Directed questioning seemed to help students find value in online posting. Students found things most valuable that were not simple added work, but that were incorporated into their class. Students from the audience expressed a distaste for anything that felt separate, purposeless, or extra. Community building really seemed to be about finding a shared passion, something a professor couldn't necessarily make happen.

our opening slide

For the last session of the day, it was my turn to present, along with fellow tutors from the St. John's University Writing Center, both from the Queens and Staten Island campuses. Our presentation was called Branching Out: Digital Literacy and Writing Centers. As usual, I was super nervous, but I think the panel was successful. We tried to cram a lot of information into a 75 minute panel, ranging from what defines digital literacy to how our composing process are affected by technology to the politics of digital literacy to using digital literacy to enhance our writing centers. Our audience really picked up on issues of access and social justice. There was also great conversation about how to address the challenges of tutoring students who are participating in digital writing. Harry left us of with a reminder that, though many of us take for granted how digitally literate we are, we should recognize that it's not universal and that in the moments where we come across someone who is not digitally literate, we must use it as a teachable moment, not one for ridicule. (At some point this week, I will post more about our panel.)

I heard a rumor that next year the NEWCA Conference will be held at our very own St. John's University. Whether it's true or not, I do hope to attend next year. It was obvious that the participants all had a passion for what they do and desire to learn more.

Saying Good Bye and Moving Forward: Lessons from My Grandfather

Early Thursday morning, my grandfather passed away at 74 years old. It was not a shock; he had been battling cirrhosis for months. Nothing, however, could soften the blow of seeing the casket shut for the final time, knowing that we would never see his face again. Of course, even in times of tragedy, we learn, and we grow. I know my grandfather would not want me to mope and mourn. Even on his death bed, he never shed a tear for his own mortality. He was a man who believed in loving life and humanity and was satisfied to pass on knowing that he was loved.

My grandfather was a good man. Though he was a skilled furniture maker in Greece, he moved to America with very little money and no knowledge of English to take advantage of the Land of Opportunity and became a union worker, doing construction jobs. He worked in Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love, for six months, living in a small apartment with several other men, until my grandmother and my father came over to join him unexpectedly. He took things in stride, found a place, and moved them to Brooklyn, where he slowly built his living and watched his family grow. My grandfather truly loved America and the things for which it stands. He told me that he would never have moved back to Greece. 

Though he worked hard, my grandfather never cared about money. He believed that if he worked with integrity, more would eventually come his way. He loved his craft, and he could be found whittling sculptures out of wood or carving masterful clocks and chests in the garage for many years until age took away his dexterity. At his funeral, I learned that some of his woodwork had been featured for several months in the Whitney Museum. He was contacted by artists and buyers who wanted him to do more work, but he refused. He never wanted fame, recognition, or money. He was an artist in the truest sense of the word. It was about loving his art and valuing his work. It was about making others happy.

Though he had very little education, leaving school in the middle of what we would call elementary school, my grandfather was a wise man. For one, he pushed my father and aunt to pursue higher education, though he had done fine without very much formal education. More importantly, though, he knew how to enjoy life. He held no grudges, was generous perhaps to a fault, and held animosity for no one. Every one remembers him dancing and smiling, always the life of the party. And he was a great story teller. He knew that the secret to happiness was not in possessions, but in connections, not in receiving, but in giving.

Sadly, I cannot bring back my grandfather, but in keeping his memory and his lessons alive, I believe that I can honor his life and do better in my own. If I can remember each day to appreciate life, to smile a bit more, to be good to my neighbor, and to write and teach well simply because those are my passions, I know that he will be looking down and smiling. If we all lived a little bit more like my grandfather, the world would be a better place.

Rubrics: Letting the Students Decide

When I began teaching, I decided that I would let my students take the wheel when it comes to designing rubrics. I think that students look to the professor as the container of all knowledge, especially when it comes to writing. Letting them design the rubric helps them to see that I'm not the only one who knows what makes good writing. (Plus, they find it harder to claim they are being graded unfairly when they have chosen the criteria)

To design the rubric, we start early in the semester with George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language," which talks about what makes bad writing. That conversation is followed by a discussion about what makes good writing. As students share their thoughts about the elements of good writing, I write their ideas on the whiteboard. Later, I copy these down.

The next step in this process is giving them a voting sheet. I lay out a spreadsheet of their ideas, along with SAT writing standards for a "6" essay, good writing techniques from "The Cognition of Discovery: Defining a Rhetorical Problem" by Hayes and Flower, and my own two-- addressing the assignment, turning work in on time. Next, I have them label the options 1-5. For every #1, I give two tally marks. For every #2, I give one. Then, I pull the top five to create the rubric. I'm sure there are other ways to do this, but this is what has worked for me best so far.

This semester, I think my students did a great job of choosing criteria. They will be graded on the following (listed in order of priority):

• Effort (addessing the assignment, word count, drafts on time)
• Create understanding for your reader (logical reasoning, good support, analysis)
• Flow (organization and transitions)
• Establishing a relationship with the reader (word choice, tone)
• Formal/conventional features (format, genre, grammar, spelling)

Last semester, the rubric was different. They wanted to be graded by these criteria:

• Followed instructions 
• Affected the reader (strongly supported ideas, deep analysis)
• Built a coherent network of ideas (well-organized, clearly stated thoughts)
• Aware of audience (consistent use of tone, word choice, formal/conventional features)

Interestingly enough, though the students in the classes and the dynamics of the classes are completely different, you can see that both classes chose similar goals for their writing. Their objectives are also similarly prioritized. 

I think student-lead evaluation is one of the most effective means of teaching writing. Students are asked to assess themselves and also writing in general. They become more conscious of not only what is wrong in their writing, but also what works. Of course, the rubric is just one way of doing this. 

Literacy Narratives: Why I Think They Need to Be in My FYW Syllabus

Literacy narratives are seemingly simple assignments. How hard is it to write the story of how one learned to use language, read, and/or write? I think, however, that the literacy narrative is a crucial part of my first year writing syllabus. There are many benefits to this assignment for both the students and the teacher.

For the students,

the literacy narrative feels like an easy task. They don't feel the pressure of more "serious assignments" and are, therefore, less likely to be hung up on writing perfect sentences or making sure they have hyperintellectual words (incorrectly applied by right-clicking for the thesaurus in word). They are simply more genuine. At the same time, without the pressure to sound academic, students are able to practice necessarily skills like idea development, organization, and using supporting evidence without even realizing it. 

On a mental level, it also amps up the confidence of novice college-level writers. Reflecting back on the hardships that they have overcome to learn to read and write gives them a sense of accomplishment and purpose. It can also remind those who hate writing now of a time back in their youth when perhaps this was not the case. By the time they have come to a final draft, there is usually a well-polished piece that they can be proud of and reflect back on. They may also come to see shifts in the way they thought about writing at the beginning of the semester versus the end of the semester.

I also ask my students to identify the themes they hear in one another's work. I am always interested in the themes I see emerging in my students' narratives, and I think they can learn things about themselves that they did not know before. Last semester, for instance, when I was asked to write my own literacy narrative for a graduate course, I learned that my story about moving from writing lyrics to writing research papers about literature was actually revealing a struggle to find self-confidence and to declare my self a Writer. It made me change the way I thought about writing and how I was writing. I also had students reflect that they didn't realize how far they had come from learning English as a second language to being a college level writer.

For teachers, 

the literacy narrative is a great opportunity to get a feel for the real voice of the student early on, which helps tip them off later if students are confused or (hopefully never the case) plagiarizing.

Knowing about the literacies of the students in a class also helps teachers to teach more effectively. Right from the start, most students will identify if they struggle with writing, if they learned English as a second language, and their views on writing, whether positive or negative. It will also reveal whether students think about writing as a tool for communicating or simply an evaluation method that teacher's use to grade them.

It's also an great way to teach students about developing their ideas, providing necessary detail, and learning to cut out fluff.

I have really only seen positive things emerge from this assignment.

Additionally, reading literacy narratives can be a great way to teach students about the power of language. Some of my favorite pieces to assign are Richard Wright's "The Library Card," David Raymond's "On Being 17, Bright, and Unable to Read," Malcolm X's "Coming to an Awareness of Language," and Fan Shen's "The Classroom and the Wider Culture."

This semester, I will also be including Chimamanda Adichie's "The Danger of a Single Story." It is a beautiful and funny talk about how Adichie learned to read, came into her own as a writer, and about the dangers of tokenism.




For a sample of the literacy narrative assignment I pose, see here: http://livebinders.com/play/play/52779.