Schedule Spring 2023
For Fall 2023:
Workshop with Cort S. strategies for disabled writers with broader implications for all writers: · looking anew at proofreading, at AI for planning, for Grammarly in shaping style, for voice-to-text training in Eng. 383.
Week of Jan 9: "Academic" Writing
Day One: What is academic writing? What isn't? Some collaborative writing. Meet with your pandemic partners for today. Collaborate on a joint Google document (keep it SHORT...no more than a short paragraph about each question) and post it to the draft exchange folder in Google Drive. I prepared a brief sample response there in the folder as well, and it may be worth your while to read it. Title your efforts "Group # Date" and answer these questions.
What are some common characteristics of academic writing you all agree upon? Why? (might be a bullet list)
Where do members of the group disagree? Why?
Finally, where did you each learn these things? How?
Here are my class notes for today.
Day Two: Do not write commentary but instead, Read "What if Drugs Were Legal?" (make notes about the writer's priorities for revision to bring to class, but there is no need for formal commentary yet). With the same groups from Day One, collaborate on a Google Document to answer this question:
"You get 'Nancy's' draft in the Writing Center. You don't have time to write commentary, but clearly she needs a sense of priorities. What are three things (and no more than three)for her to address when she revises this? And what is a positive aspect of her draft that your group could agree merits cautiously directed praise?"
NOTE WELL: You'll learn from me that the words and phrases such as "excellent," "good job," "great," "perfect," "strong thesis," "clear understanding of the material," and similar are forbidden, because only professors can make such judgments. Instead, as a reader, react personally. What did you like, what did she teach you, and WHY?
You can find LeMoult's original op-ed here.
Week of Jan 16: Voice, Style, Audience
Day One: Glaser, Ch. 3. "Voices You Want to Listen To." Just read it; no need to do any of his exercises. Style presi
Day Two: Bring in a short piece of your writing that you are willing to share; it should reflect your own sense of your stylistic habits as a writer. We will do some work with them together.
Week of Jan 23: Voice, Style, Audience
Day One: "Voices That Put You Off." Reading from Glaser, J. Ch. 4, Understanding Style. Don't do the exercises (as with the earlier chapter) but do glance at them, because in class we will apply some principles to your partners' writing.
First short graded response due by class time. Upload it to the draft exchange. Topic:
In no fewer than 500 and no more than 1000 words, share how you have you encountered at UR (perhaps earlier) voices that put you off, as Glaser describes. Have you felt forced into those voice? If possible, reflect on how academic writing has worked against your own development as the sort of writer you'd like to be. No professorial names, please, but you are invited to make this personal and "I" is most welcome.
Audience: me and your classmates (we'll share in class and do some checks for focus and evidence):
Secretly record your own bias about the topic. Did writing about it disturb you? Bore you? What could make you write less than objectively about this?
Now read your partners' responses.
Find what you think to be the most important point made by your pandemic partners.
Match that up with their intentions. Do they match what you found to be most important? If not, find out why.
ID any digressions, any taint from what could be a bias about the topic. Then find out your partners' biases.
Note the stylistic characteristics of the partners' prose, such as: Do they use sentences with many breath units? Do they vary sentence lengths? Employ too many (or too few) Latinate terms? Strings of "-tion" words or repetition of the same words overmuch? To many is/are/was/were verbs? As you read, take care as to where emphasis falls in words (see Glaser 69). Here's Lanham's Paramedic Method.
Day Two: Bartholomae, D. "Inventing the University" (at our e-reserve). Workshop with some FYS examples.
First up: What commentary from day one was most helpful?
As we read the students' work, think about it: Do you find yourself using terms that Glaser would describe as "professional professional," such as "in today's world" or "the world of technology" or "everyday person"? Think for a moment why they make no sense. So why do writers use them?
Before the workshop, we'll discuss your reactions to that prompt (no need to write anything to turn in) as well as these questions about "Inventing the University":
How is writing an "act of aggression" (Bartholomae 10)?
What is at least one "commonplace" you use (Barthomae 7,11)? One of my favorites to use is "critical thinking."
What CAN a student writer produce that truly could be called "new or original" (Bartholomae 10)?
Have you experienced this? Bartholomae reminds us that "students who can write reasonably correct narratives may fall to pieces when faced with more unfamiliar assignments" (18).
Friday, noon: Revisions to the response from Day One due. I'll begin grading then.
Week of Jan 30: A Pedagogy of Error
Day One: Bartholomae, D. "The Study of Error" (at our e-reserve), my The Art of Good Commentary, and this essay for this workshop:
Planning to write commentary: an in-class workshop.
Keep in mind that you would, in an actual conference, give written comments to a writer in person (or via e-mail / Google Doc) only when you meet. Never beforehand! These comments provide both a script for the most important issues and a reminder of tasks for the writer to take home. My comments, as a professor, tend also to justify a grade: you need to concern yourself there! In class:
As a group, decide on no more than four priorities for revision. Any tie votes? Then ask me to break the tie. Perhaps you might begin by each stating her or his biggest priority for John. If you agree, great. Then do another.
Next, collaborate to write a short reflection (a paragraph should do) about any patterns of error you spot with John, any extra things you'd keep in private notes to guide you during the conference with John, such as ("I'd get to his overuse of is/are/was/were if we have time!") or that you'd bring up if John engaged well in the meeting and understood what he needed to do.
In that paragraph, also speculate why John's patterns of error might have occurred. Remember, you would not know for certain until you met him to ask why (using Barthomae's error-analysis technique).
Next, in a separate paragraph (as if written directly to TO John) compose together an introduction like the one I wrote for "Nancy" at "The Art of Good Commentary." You can begin writing margin notes.
We will reconvene as a group to discuss where the three groups found priorities and how they employed a voice professional but friendly enough to win John's confidence without giving him a false sense of security about his work (thus no "great work!" or "clear understanding of Neil Armstorng" that only a professor could make. Instead "I learned a lot about..." provides your perspective, as John's reader).
You'll have until the second day of class next week to collaborate on one set of comments, in the margin and at the end, on John's paper. I will grade that; expect to have to re-do it until everyone gets things right :)
Day Two: White board image with priorities from the last class. Workshop for "John Doe" continues.
Week of Feb 6: Why a Writing Center? Where Do We Start?
Day One: North, S. "The Idea of a Writing Center" (via JSTOR--if you are off campus, you must connect via VPN to see this piece) . We will discuss, as a group, perceptions of our Center. "Thinky-Thought " question: how does the perception of the Center at UR fit (or not) that of North's ideal Center? What can we do about that?
Cady Cummins, my Consultant for Eng. 215, will visit class to talk about her work with you starting Sunday.
Day Two: Group Commentary Due by END of class for John Doe. Put the reflective paragraph (Steps 1-3 in last week's instructions: audience, me) in one Google Doc and the commentary to John (Steps 4 & 6 in last week's instructions) in another.
Here is yet another strong model of how the commentary part might look. Ellie's commentary for Connie lacks the reflective bit we are doing, and it also shows my reactions to earlier work on it that I wanted revised.
Begin observing Cady Cummins' work with my SF Fantasy Class: Sunday through next week. Apprentice Sign-up is here.
Week of Feb 13: Why First-Years Stumble Out of The Gate
Day One: Read this excerpt from Hjortshoj, K. The Transition to College Writing. You can also review our notions from Day One about what makes writing academic. Group discussion to return to our staring point: Are you an Eduardo or Marie? What is academic writing? Has your definition changed since 383 began? If so, how? What was the most important lesson you learned between high school & college?
Day Two: Essid, J. Chapter one from Governing Claims.
In class: Bring a piece of your writing that was "thesis-based" to share with your partners. Open an individual document in our Draft Exchange folder and each student will do exercises 1, 3, and 5 (We may return to Exercise 4 in a later class). No need to do the others, but read them over to learn some tips you can use with my Eng. 215 class.
I welcome any feedback on the technique or the entire chapter, too!
Week of Feb 20: Setting Priorities in a Session begin observations at Center next week Here's the apprentice schedule
Day One: Essid, J. "Extending An Alternative: Writing Centers & Curricular Change" (download from WLN archives here) & Shaparenko, B. "Focus on Focus: How to Facilitate Discussion in a Peer Group" (at our e-reserve). Brief discussion about what a Center can and cannot be.
Roleplaying exercise: Bob X comes to the Center with this paper, marked by Doctor Horrible. Your groups should collaborate on a few ideas for helping poor Bob, who is enraged (rightly) regain focus and find some way to move forward. I won't grade your notes, but keep some to share with the class. This sort of situation was once far more common than it is today. May you never encounter it!
Day Two: Sherwood, S. "Apprenticed to Failure" (at our e-reserve) & Santa, T. “Listening in/to the Writing Center: Backchannel and Gaze.” https://wlnjournal.org/archives/v40/40.9-10.pdf (look for pages 2-9). Parsons, K. “Just Say 'No': Setting Emotional Boundaries in the Writing Center is a Practice in Self-Care.” https://wlnjournal.org/archives/v44/44.5-6.pdf (look for pages 26-29).
For class, bring notes on each article, in your groups, you will brainstorm a response to share with the entire class in open discussion. Questions:
How does each article challenge a notion you or those you know have about the mission of writing tutoring?
How does each article provide you with a resource to use with your own work or when helping others?
Week of Feb 27: Failure, Attentiveness, Technique
Day One: Chapter four from Governing Claims provides information on how to help writers who struggle using sources. Also we have a Writer's Web page on this topic.
Workshop in class with exercises 1 and 5. We will do them as stated in my chapter, but I also hope that in class, as time permits, we can compare Carrie's and Rita's uses of sources and transitions for Essid's 3 Es, "backward glances," what a reader still needs to know, and more. This all will help you in the Center, mightily!
Day Two: Class visit by Dr. Cort Schneider, Director UR Disability Services. Thompson, J. “Beyond Fixing Today’s Paper: Promoting Metacognition and Writing Development in the Tutorial through Self-Questioning.”https://wlnjournal.org/archives/v23/23.6.pdf (look for pages 1-6).
Week of March 6: Spring Break
Week of March 13: Failure, Attentiveness, Technique
Day One:Murphy, S. “Dyslexia in the Writing Center: Multimodal Strategies.” The Peer Review, WordPress, 10 Sept. 2020, https://thepeerreview-iwca.org/issues/issue-4-0/dyslexia-in-the-writing-center-multimodal-strategies/ & Sexton, A. “Assisting All Students in the Writing Center.” Purdue University Global Resource Center, Purdue Global Academic Success - Writing Resource Center and Blog, 16 Dec. 2014, https://purdueglobalwriting.center/2014/12/17/assisting-all-students-in-the-writing-center/
In-class workshop to reflect on our practices.
Day Two: I uploaded to our server Dr. Schneider's presentation from last week. You can review it here.
Rafoth, B. et. al. “Sex in the center: Gender differences in tutorial interactions.” https://wlnjournal.org/archives/v24/24.3.pdf and Johnson, M. “Different Words, Different Worlds.” Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 24, no.5, Jan. 2000, pp.14-16, https://wlnjournal.org/archives/v24/24.5.pdf In class, we will work on a document together about gender & writing teaching/tutoring on campus.
Week of March 20: Failure, Attentiveness, Technique
Day One: Special workshop with visiting novelist Fran Wilde, in the Humanities Commons. Class will meet there.
This event is optional, but you need to e-mail me with your decision to attend or not. We need numbers as we'll serve a light breakfast. The topic is "Writing Across Genres and Ages." It's a workshop, so you shoud bring with you a piece of short fiction you are working on, preferabley one in SF, Fantasy, or Horror. You can bring something mainstream, too, especially if you are struck. Participants will workshop their stories and get advice on audience and voice.
Day Two: Roleplay workshop with a "difficult student." Details:
In each group, one of you will roleplay our writers.
Meet the "writer" on your pandemic team, who has been briefed in secret. The other two team-members will work as a team a the Writing Center, with no advance warning about the paper or assignment.
After helping with the paper for 30 minutes, spend 15 composing an online summary with me noted as Professor.
Read these short pieces to prepare: Moore, A. “’But I’m Already Done:’ Early Closure and the Student Writer.” https://wlnjournal.org/archives/v38/38.7-8.pdf (look for pages 14-15) & Janney, A. “Flexing Nonverbal Muscles: The Role of Body Language in the Writing Center.” https://wlnjournal.org/archives/v36/36.1-2.pdf (look for pages 14-15).
Week of March 27: Diversity & Inclusion in the Writing Center
Day One: Lee, K. "Black in the Writing Center" (at our e-reserve) and Davila, B. “Rewriting Race in the Writing Center.” https://wlnjournal.org/archives/v31/31.1.pdf (article begins on first page).
We will first consider how the Center might become a more inclusive space for students of color, generally.
We will begin work with a paper on a sensitive topic.
Day Two: Continuing work on sensitive paper commentary.
Week of April 3: Diversity & Inclusion in the Writing Center
Day One: Workshop on DEI and micro-aggressions with Raven Baugh, former UR Writing Consultant, currently Campus Engagement and Education Abroad Coordinator for the MSU Writing Center. You can see the presentation here.
Day Two: Blackmon, E. "I Just Need a Green Sheet: Generating Motivation for Required Visits" (scroll down to page 11 in the WLN Archive issue). Also review "The Fix-it Shop" from Training for Tough Tutorials. Read Siobhan's paper and watch the videos (click a flow-chart box to watch each short segment; they are laid out by good/poor choices).
Consider what other courses of action might have been open to Luke, as well as how our readings so far could apply (such as exercises to give Siobhan, ways to make a representative correction, words to use in replying to her requests).
In class, we'll collaborate in groups on a response (don't fill out a response form until we meet in class). Jane Smith (Sensitive paper topic) Commentary due as well by class time!
Discussion of final paper topics.
Week of April 10: Intercultural Rhetoric
Day One: Devet, B. "When Classmates Know You're a Writing Center Consultant" (find here). Roleplay exercise! Don't forget the conference summary.
Day Two: Harris, M, & Silva, T. "Tutoring ESL students: Issues and Options" (at our e-reserve) & Enders, D. "The Idea Check: Changing ESL Students' Use of the Writing Center." https://wlnjournal.org/archives/v37/37.9-10.pdf (look for pages 6-9). Read Rita Chen's paper but no need to do more than take a few notes about it before doing group work in class.
Day Two (afternoon): Drafts of papers from Eng. 215 will arrive in your in-boxes. NOTE: you must submit your commentary to me for review before meeting the writers, to avoid some issues that cropped up last time with poor work that did not follow our usual practices. You will give your writers the commentary when you meet them, not before. Cady will prepare comments too, but you are to be "lead Consultant" this time around. Meetings will start on Sunday.
Friday April 14, noon, by e-mail: Final reflective essay due. This will give you a chance to sum up what you have learned and what remains your biggest concern as you begin the job in the Fall. No panic attacks. It's a small document and should be fun to write, from your point of view and using our sources.
Conferences with Eng. 25 students start Monday: here is the schedule.
Week of April 17: Intercultural Rhetoric
Day One: Mosher, D., Granroth, D., Hicks, T. "Creating a Common Ground with ESL Writers" https://wlnjournal.org/archives/v24/24.7.pdf (starts on page 1) & Sullivan, P, Zhang, Y,, and Zheng, F. "College Writing in China and America: A Modest and Humble Conversation, with Writing Samples." https://www.jstor.org/stable/43490754 (dial in via VPN if you are off campus to see this piece).
In class, I want you to return to the work done last time for Rita Chen's paper. Add to your group document notes about how Mosher, Ganroth & Hicks and Sullivan, Zhang & Zheng's articles might influence the way in which you write commentary for Rita. We'll work on that together in the next class.
Day Two: Commentary workshop for Rita Chen. We'll focus on her difficulty with transitions in particular, using materials from Writer's Web and The Purdue OWL.
In particular:
Find a pattern of error in using transition words that Rita makes. Using Writer's Web and the Purdue OWL, point Rita to resources where she can go for more help. Then flag one other similar error and have it point to the SAME end note.
Do the same thing where a "pointing word" (This/that/these/those) would strengthen how Rita connects her ideas, adding a margin note that points to an end note. For instance: This shows us --> This concept shows us.
If you see Rita repeating herself poorly, do what you just did again, finding and fixing an instance where she can repeat herself "with a difference" (and flag another you don't fix). Give her a few synonyms.
Rita Chen commentary Due Friday April 21 by noon
Final Day of Spring Classes, Friday April 21 : No observations after Friday shifts at Center (we close then)