GC Composition & Rhetoric Community (GCCRC)

Group logo of GC Composition & Rhetoric Community (GCCRC)

GC Composition & Rhetoric Community (GCCRC)’s Docs GCCRC Meeting Notes fall 2012

Access this document here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14Bp66d86fYkiXCRzEpmojveotDTOYcjI5XsL6K0hY90/edit

GCCRC Meeting
10 September 2012

Attendance
Andrew Lucchesi
Amanda Licastro
Nolan
Erin
Shawn
Dave
Mark McBeth
Paul Hiebert
Andrea

Agenda
1. Introductions and Interviews
2. Announcements and Updates from the Co-Chairs
3. Reports on current projects
4. Reports on journals
6. Review of meeting schedule

  1. Introductions and interviews –
    1. Have everyone pair up with someone they have not met or have not talked to in a long time.
    2. Ask each person their name, specialty, what they are currently working on (course work, orals, dissertation).
    3. Ask each person what they have gained as being a part of GCCRC or what they hope to gain by participating this year

Wants and goals:

  • build a community/family/anchor
  • talking about  comp/rhet that DON’T have to do with the classroom
  • compare and contrast across the campuses: saviness, admin literacy
  • Workshop and strategize conference proposals
  • Journal submissions
  • HD workshops–course sites
  • publications of student (web) papers
  • CCCs presentations as a genre
  • assignment/practice swapping
  1. Review the website (AML), mailing list (AML), teaching orientation (AJL), this semester’s course offerings (AJL),
  2. Recap developments in CCRC and WPA-Metro affiliate (Ben), current projects we are working on (All), and briefly discuss the upcoming conferences in the field.
    1. Conference should include:
      1. CCCCs
      2. WPA
      3. CUNY IT conference
      4. Making Space (gdoc shared with you to print)
      5. The Summit, in honor of the 45th anniversary of the original 1966 Dartmouth Seminar (will forward the email)
      6. Computers and Writing
  3. Reports from JITP (Ben and Amanda) and JBW (Dom). Any other journals of interest?
  4. Review our meeting schedule and CUNY events.
    1. Include CCRC and WPA-metro affiliate conference.

We should also email Jason Tougaw to confirm and clarify his talk on the 24th.

Hi Andrew and Amanda. I’m writing with a little information about my upcoming visit to the GCCRC. I’ve decided to focus on the interplay of conscious and unconscious thought in the writing process–putting a couple of contemporary writers into dialogue with a couple of contemporary brain researchers and using William James’s concept of “the fringe” as a lens. Ultimately, I’d like to move the discussion toward pedagogy–considering what kinds of classroom work might make the most of the interplay of what’s conscious and what’s not, as described by the writers and brain researchers we’ll be discussing.

Do you need a title? If so, I’ll come up with one.

I’m attaching a PDF of a review article I published recently, “Brain Memoirs and the Neuroscience of Self.” In the final section, pp. 187 -190, I discuss some of what I describe above. I’ll use this to make the discussion concrete, and I’ll offer some context with regard to the work of the brain researchers, Antonio Damasio and Michael Gazzaniga. I’ll probably put together a Powerpoint demonstration or handout including a few passages from their relevant work.

I’m not sure how much you usually read for a session. If it’s not too much, I might also add a chapter from a recent book of Gazzaniga’s. Let me know what you think. If it seems like too much, I can just quote from it.

I’m imagining my presentation will be pretty brief and informal, and I’ll think about ways to make things as interactive as possible.

All best,
Jason

September 23 – Jason Tougaw – Writing and the “Fringe” of Consciousness

In Attendance:  Andrew Luchessi, Amanda Licastro, Dominique Zino, Ben Miller, Sean Molloy, Paul Herbert, Erin Anderson, Robert Greco, Mark McBeth, Gloria Fisk, Jason Tougaw

Opening announcements:
1) our next meeting will be a proposals workshop; bring CFPs and works in progress, for conferences and/or article special issues
2) come to DHI event 10/4 to hear about the Writing Studies Tree

Many examples taken from the reading previously circulated (Brain Memoirs, Neuroscience, and the Self).
Jason shows David B Epileptic 2005
Have students draw their writing process.
Brain Memoirs are an exploration of self-hood – the interplay of conscious and unconscious
Siri Hustvedt in The Shaking Woman calls this “a preconscious world”
Most of us are familiar with this from whenever we’re trying to write; students aren’t always very articulate about this.
Amanda asks: why preconscious, and not unconscious? Jason: probably because she wants to avoid the Freudian overtones. Mark: also because of the coming-into-awareness, writing-into-awareness. Andrew: Yes, I was hearing Sondra Perl’s Felt Sense all over this. Mark: and Eugene Gendlin, from whom the term comes.
Jason:  Two neuroscientists Hustvedt is referencing are Jaak Panksepp and Antonio Damasio, in part when she talks about “a timeless core sensorimotor affective self” (vs. “the fully self-conscious, reasoning, and/or narrating linguistic cultural self”; she sees imagination as a bridge between these selves).

Jason notes this would be a difficult passage for students, but a concept many of us are familiar with in our own struggles with writing.

Damasio argues that consciousness is rooted in the brain’s proprioception of the body, in the brainstem; this is contra the usual understanding, i.e. that consciousness is a function of the more evolutionarily advanced high-functioning frontal cortex. Jason explains this via Henry James’ The Turn of the Screw (does the governess see the man, or is she hallucinating?) — consciousness involves the creation of an image in the exchange between the organism (the governess) and the object (the man on the turret).
Damasio writes: “There is no dichotomy between self-as-object and self-as-knnower; there is, rather, a continuity and progression. The self-as-knower is grounded on the self-as-object.” (Self Comes to Mind, 2011, p. 10)
Or again: “A most interesting tension is at play […]: very conscious creators consciously seek the unconscious as a source and, on occasion, as a method for their conscious endeavors.” This “underscores [… the degree to which we have] “remarkable hybrid and flexible… mental lives” — which what we are often hoping to harness in our students.
How does writing help us bridge the gap between our conscious and unconscious self

Andrew: I just keep thinking of Temple Grandin, who sees writing process as different from her mental process. Jason: yes, but. Grandin, too, talks about the writing as changing her relationship to her symptoms. But yes, she sees writing as something separate (and subsequent) to what she’s already figured out.

Jason quotes from Alix Kate Shulman To Love What Is: A Marriage Transformed (2008) to explore what self remains when memory is lost. Shulman writes about her husband before his accident while dealing with the person he husband is after his accident.

“I banish the real Scott in order to entertain the virtual one,” writes Shulman (116). Jason notes: a new object is created through the writing, which then impinges on the author’s relationship with the first one. She continues: “With five focused hours a day of aesthetic relief, I have my life again, with enough satisfaction to carry me through the entire day, and in the evenings back to the world, no longer alien” (165). Jason again: the act of writing, which she also calls “trancelike,” is a way of creating agency — but, interestingly, through approximating the state of [unawareness/focus] experienced by her husband, who has lost his capacity for forming new memories.
Much later, in a callback, we (well, mostly Jason) realize that not only is Shulman creating a new Scott — she’s also creating a new Alix, a voice on the page that was not there before.

Another “brain memoir” by Jill Bolte Taylor, My Stroke of Insight (2006) is unique because she is a brain physiology who experienced a stroke. She can write as both a scientist and a victim or patient. She uses a theory that the right brain collects data and the left brain processes it.
“[T]his story-teller portion of our left mind’s language center is specifically designed to make sense of the world outside us, based on minimal amounts of information” (143)… yet this same adaptive behavior also produces some false assumptions. As Taylor writes, “I need to remember […] that there are enormous gaps between what I know and what I think I know” (144).

Gloria adds that when we ask our students to do reflective writing about their writing process they are often trauma narratives.

 

Mark notes that a value of the humanities is that science claims hard truths that the humanists then push back on citing human experience (often found in writing). Uses the Handmaiden’s Tale as example.

 

Jason points out that when scientists talk to other scientists, they acknowledge and even emphasize the limitations and contingency of their claims; but when they write to outsiders — and perhaps especially to students — that contingency tends to fall away. Damasio and Paksepp are pretty good about noting when they are speculating; Gazzaniga less so.

Just to show that this is nothing new: William James, “The Stream of Consciousness” (from Talks to Teachers, 1892)
James uses the phrase “premonitory perspective” for this “preconscious” thought before it is articulated.

Jason draws our attention to James’s emphasis on the productive creativity of cutting, as well as the ways in which the chaotic “third” of our minds that happens on “the fringe”

Michael Gazzaniga, Who’s In Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain (2011): “Once you put consciousness in the loop, your conscious self-monitoring of the speed takes longer, because consciousness works at a slower base speed.”

Jason: one part of our jobs is to help students figure out when it’s time to work consciously, and when it’s time to let the unconscious do its thing.

This concept reminds us of muscle memory – we want students to form a practice that they an rely on and work unconsciously, but then we ask them to slow that process down and work consciously. It is hard to slow down muscle memory, especially with the goal of correction.

Remember that we no longer try to find the part of the brain that houses consciousness; we now believe that consciousness is a product of the interplay between complex systems. It’s similar to how we no longer believe in a single, unified self, but rather that the self is a product of a complex interplay of relations.

A brief bibliography of cognitive composition studies and the writing process:

Andrea Lunsford, “Cognitive development and the basic writer” (1980)
Mina Shaughnessy, Errors and expectations: a guide for the teacher of basic writing (1979)
Linda Flower and John Hayes, “The cognition of discovery: defining a rhetorical problem” (1980)
Mike Rose, “Narrowing the mind and page: remedial writers and cognitive reductionism” (1988)
Patricia Bizzell, “Cognition, convention, and certainty: what we need to know about writing” (1993)

Peter Elbow, Writing with power: Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process (1998)

Sondra Perl, Felt Sense: writing with the body (2004)

Patricia Dunn, Talking, Sketching, Moving: Multiple Literacies in the Teaching of Writing (2001)

Classroom implications:

Draw their writing process

Give students quotes from writers about their writing process

Have the students create a dialogue between writers talking about writing

Write a dialogue between “your conscious brain” and “your unconscious brain” demonstrating how the process goes

Describe what writing flow or writing stuckness is like (via metaphor/simile/analogy)

    Andrew’s follow-up: What’s left out in that description? What can’t you represent?

Turn to unconscious-releasing processes, like freewriting, at particular moments of cognitive challenge (cf. Nate Mickelson’s digication site: https://ncc-cuny.digication.com/nate_mickelson_faculty_portfolio/Writing_at_Transitions)

Robert: I’ll give students a piece of (published) writing that’s not so great, and tell them so. And they’ll ask, “then why are you giving this to us??” And I say, “well, let’s make it better.” And the point is that they can learn that it’s not just them having to work on their writing; everyone works on their writing.

Mark reminds us of the National Writers Project “slow reading” activity. Read one word at a time and write all that is in your head as you are writing about.

Write for a specific length or amount of time to get through the pain of writers block.

Write what’s in your mind right now. Try. Now let’s talk about how that’s impossible, and why: language is linear, and what’s in your mind is not linear.

How do we encourage the “habits of mind” that are part of the “framework for postsecondary success in writing”

trauma more salient than success — and if you’ve been told over and over again that your writing is bad…

Robert: students need to buy the idea that there are habits, that writers have habits. they’re generally quite invested in the opposite idea that writers are writers and non-writers are non-writers.

Try this fun game online:

http://reverent.org/sounds_like_faulkner.html

 

November 12, 2012 — Jessica Yood, The Relationship between Informal Writing and Scholarly Writing

Jessica’s blog is https://jyood.commons.gc.cuny.edu/author/jyood/

Three other blogs people may want to browse to prepare for Monday are:

1.  Michael Berube’s.  He no longer blogs, but has archived all posts through his
website. Berube is the author of many books (scholarly and popular presses),
writes for magazines and academic journals alike, and is the current President of
the MLA:
http://www.michaelberube.com

2. Elizabeth Losh: http://www.virtualpolitik.org
Losh is the Writing Director of the Humanities Core at UC Irvine and recently
published a book called Virtualpolitik: An Electronic History of Government Media-
Making in a Time of War, Scandal, Miscommunication, and Mistakes.

3.  J. Rice’s: http://ydog.net/?page_id=2

Rice is professor of writing, rhetoric, and digital media at the University of
Kentucky and the author of a few books (my favorite is The Rhetoric of Cool).

The relationship of informal to formal writing, says Jessica, is “the whole problem of freshman comp.” So “my sabbatical year is like my own, personal, freshman comp.” Am I producing something scholarly? Or am I just reading? Is writing the same as published? Is published the same as scholarship?

Two minutes of writing: If you had to pick describe the thing you really want to write — and I don’t mean the thing that’s due, the thing you have to do (although it could be) — but rather the big problem, the thing that only you can really do or say or know about.

Amanda’s answer: I want to write about why it is essential to understand how writing on/in/though/with new technologies changes the writing and reading process. First, what are these major shifts? How do the technological shifts manifest in changes in form and content? Authorship and genre? Access and comprehension? Why is it important to teach writing differently to adapt to these shifts? How can we effectively adapt to rapid changing technology? How does the definition of writing change? How does the definition of reading change? How does this definition apply across disciplines? What is the value in teaching students about these changes….

Follow-up question: So what are you gonna do about it?

We all have a reason we got into this whatever-it-is-we’re-doing, but we don’t always get to say it or do it.

Jessica, starting her sabbatical, turned to the blog — as a beginner to blogging — and now wants to think about what blogging does, as a genre, as a medium, to the process of writing, formal or informal.

2 rules for the blog:
1) It must be about scholarship

It did not have to be scholarship, but it did have to be about scholarship. Why? Because the pull of life (outside of scholarly life) would be too strong. Life (as politics, shoes, children) can creep in next to that; scholarship first, not life with a text now and then.

Writing becomes like a classroom in which she must communicated complex/complicated ideas and make them understandable.

2) Must write something new every week. Then she changed to writing once a month.

Insight the first: Writing a lot (once per week) and then not writing as much (switching, in August, to once per month) helped Jessica realize what writing a lot is for. Frequent informal writing “is another brain. Blogging made me remember to forget.” What does that mean? Think about when you leave behind a long project in the middle of a thought. When you come back, you have to pick up at that point in the thread, and that can be incredibly painful. On the blog, by contrast, each new post can start from scratch… but then, once in a long while, you can find the connections between these separate posts. “And I rediscovered that I had a working brain.”

Insight the second: writing on a blog is the anti-freewriting. As a student of Peter Elbow, Jessica found it hard to admit that freewriting hadn’t been useful for her for a long time. There is an enabling constraint — you have to write something — but it has to be somewhat better than a freewrite: more accessible, and more reuseable, because someone will actually be reading it. (Even if that someone is just your mom or your kids.)

Insight the third: The blog can be a way to retreat, contrary to the usual understanding of blogging as an almost primarily social medium. Why? The purpose is not to get yourself out there — though it does that — but rather to think. BEN NOTES: JESSICA COULD WRITE ABOUT THIS FOR JITP.

Video from Liz Losh: http://virtualpolitik.org/ … do we have a direct link?

How do you turn informal writing into a line on your CV?
1) Blogging is a way to introduce yourself to people at conferences: I’ve written about X, so I wanted to ask you Y. Also an excuse to ask people to join you on a conference panel. No more intimidations.

2) Working backwards: I take a really scholarly piece I’ve been writing and I try to put them into blog form, making them more informal and understandable. You discover not only what you wanted to say, but also the “other parts of it,” the parts you skipped because you were trying to stay linear. Try grabbing three paragraphs or so from the middle (not the beginning, which may well be more polished).

3) It already is! When you propose something to a journal editor, often you’re proposing something in the future; but the blog is a body of evidence that you can already point to, and say, it will look like this, only more so.

Fulwiler, Toby. “Provocative Revision.” The Writing Center Journal 12.2 (Spring 1992): 190-204.

Q&A
What were the stages of developing an audience for your blog? Did you actively promote the blog, or mention it casually, or…?

Tweeting a new post; getting picked up by other bloggers (like Liz Losh or Alex Reid); getting picked up by the CUNY Academic Commons community wranglers (like Brian Foote)

Is there anything specific about the way you write your blogs that makes them more productive for you than freewriting?

It’s more polished. I actually go back and revise and craft a bit, even when it starts out a little looser. But even when it’s loose, it starts out more conversational, because I know I have an audience. My freewrites more often fixate on blocks, the why-I-can’t-do-this writing. It’s an affirming space, even if I’m writing about a writing failure: it’s up there, evidence that I can write. A freewrite about writer’s block often stays as a block when it’s done. A blog post is out there.

 

(Later addition) I also find that the idea of having an audience, even if it’s one person, means I have to have a more authentic writerly self; I have to be more myself, more even than in private writing, strangely enough.

Isn’t it scary, too, to always have an audience?

Amanda: For me, it’s hard to always play the believing game, but as someone hoping to get into the field I don’t want to slam someone. What I end up doing is saying what’s there: reverse outlining, or says/does outlining: start from description, move to evaluation only afterward. Dialogic notebook.

 

Andrew:

 

Jesse: I think there’s also a way in which the most important thing is being who you are, so you can successfully read back through what you’ve written. Even if you are always positive, you can still find connections.

Had you used blogs in your classrooms before this? And as a follow-up: has this year of blogging changed how you would want to use blogs moving forward?

Well, I’d had students read blogs a lot — especially if I could point individual students toward the blogs of authors whose formal writing they’d liked — but I hadn’t made the writing of blogs very important in my courses. I do think I will foreground that more in the future, to see if it can be as helpful for my students as it has been for me.

At the recent CUNY-wide WAC training, there was a lot of momentum for the idea that we wouldn’t want to be held accountable now for what we wrote when we were 18 years old; do we owe it to students to protect them from themselves by keeping course blogs private?

Jesse: if students are going to learn about the power of rhetoric, don’t we owe it to students to talk about what they’re doing, and what consequences it might have down the road?

Amanda: and they already are posting all over the place; to believe otherwise is naive.

Melissa: And giving them a private practice space in which to generate teachable-moment failures can sometimes lead to better work in public, even within the span of a semester. It’s worth noting that writing for class is different, and writing ability is not blogging ability; and it’s worth discussing the differences between these things with the students. For example, sometimes the screen adds a useful distance. For example, there’s a way in which a comment can feel more ephemeral than a paper that you hand in to a teacher.

Amanda: Yes, even though, ironically, the paper has a much shorter life-span than a tweet or a facebook post. Twitter is archived by the Library of Congress; the Wayback Machine keeps track of just about everything. Most of the time you can’t delete online.

Andrea: All of this is making me realize that for people like me who don’t blog should blog, because it’ll have more value for the students if I can talk about this.

What if our authentic personae are negative people we don’t much like?

Ben: write pseudonymously?

Amanda’s classblog structure: 5 students per week write a post; everyone else comments on at least 2 posts. Amanda waits until a post has at least 3 comments before she comments on it. And she has seen students begin to model their comments on her comments.

Dominique points us toward a recent issue of The Atlantic, on the writing revolution: studies of evolutionary benefits of writing about yourself. teasing apart writing informally for writing personally from writing about yourself: these are three different things. you can write formally about yourself in an impersonal way.

Is this it? http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/10/the-writing-revolution/309090/?single_page=true#

It all comes back to learning new genres; it comes back to our writing questions and problems as freshman comp questions and problems. Being a student is radically important.

But there are also many different subgenres that emerge within the blogging world.

December 3, 2012 – Amy Wan: Basic Writing, Public Missions, and the Urban Institution

From Amy: “For Monday’s session, I share with you the beginning of the first half of an article that is very much in progress on the public mission and the teaching of writing in urban public institutions. The article draft and two other readings will serve as a springboard for a conversation that can cover the following: 1. the content of the article draft (I’m happy to talk about how the project has developed so far but I’d also love feedback from the group); 2. how to start refining a visceral response to an academic conversation and the different ways you can stake out your territory; and 3. the idea of institutional categories within higher education like “urban public” and how that might relate to graduate education.
Reading is encouraged but not necessary to join the conversation. I’ll begin with a short presentation on the article draft and how the project has developed. Please feel free to skim any of the readings in preparation for Monday’s discussion. The article began as a response to Kelly Ritter’s book, Before Shaughnessy, so I’ve included the introduction to give you a sense of context. Mark McBeth’s book review is also available (http://www2.widener.edu/~cea/382mcbeth.htm) if you want a quick sense of the conversation around basic writing and institutional types.“

The article began as a reaction to Ritter’s Before Shaughnessy book which focused on private elite institutions when Amy comes from CUNY, a large public institution.

It lived a first life as a CCCC talk, written in 2011 and presented in 2012.

Added “benefit”: it wasn’t the book manuscript, which was feeling like a slog. (Though Amy notes that in February before CCCC, having two projects to work on felt like the opposite, i.e. a bit crazed. But hey, it worked.)

Amy wants to remind readers that they should look at basic writing across institutions – and what these categories mean. Public institutions encounter different issues and perhaps it would be useful to look at how similar types of institutions face similar issues. i.e. Sure, there are differences between beginning writers at Harvard and Queens and BMCC, as Ritter argues, but there’s still some value in maintaining the mission implied by the label “basic writing.”

The relationship between literacy and gatekeeping.

Thinking about the social and economic implications of basic writing.

In particular, teacher training offers a space where attention to (basic) writers’ needs can still be engaged, despite the increasing “banishment” of remediation from 4-year colleges.

Amy’s challenge in moving from a conference presentation to an article — which is important for tenure — was that she didn’t have a study examining teacher training at different schools; she didn’t think she had the evidence to support the claims she wanted to make after the presentation when considering turning this into an article. The aha moment came when she realized she could use historical / archival evidence, much like Ritter’s book (and her own).

The next section looks at 3 different sites:
1. Truman report, 1946 (??) (articulates the relationship between education and democracy)
2. Histories of education in the 60s and 70s, esp. at Univ. of Chicago
3. Also the histories from early 20th century

Is it moving too far from Ritter’s argument? Does that even matter? i.e. if Ritter sparked the conversation, does she need to stay in it?

Options toward a plan for tonight:
1. feedback for Amy on the article so far and where it might go next
2. meta-conversation about how to stake out territory in an academic conversation
3. discussion about the idea of institutional categories in education, and how it might relate to graduate education — how it might prepare you for certain jobs, or leave traces on how you conceive of the roles and missions of composition/rhetoric

Gloria: the rhetoric of advocacy for writing/writers has to vary based on the local community
Sean: “basic writer” was coined as an alternative to terrible labels, but in some contexts it has become a terrible label itself.
Gloria: I sense from Amy that part of [turning to her] your reason for defending institutional labels is that we have to have a rhetorical logic / set of terms to use in advocating for the study of writing at our institutions.
Amanda: it would be interesting to do a text-mining of Dan Cohen’s “1 Million Syllabi” to find out what terms correlate with “remedial” or “basic” or “introductory” or “developmental” and “writing” — and to compare syllabus language with language used on other administrative documents

Amy: in some ways, I feel like I’m having a conversation that’s pretty insular, i.e. within the field, because of the way the term “basic writing” has had meaning in our disciplinary history. My worry with the Ritter book is that if everyone is introductory, it loses the ways in which basic writing is tied to a mission and a set of students we tend to think of.

Rebecca: Ira Shor, in “Our Apartheid,” JBW 1997, argued that basic writing courses unfairly held students back from full college participation

Amy: “Introductory” does not equal “basic.” The former, sure, happens everywhere – there always needs to be some way of adjusting to the local contexts, so everyone needs an introduction. “Basic writing” has other connotations: it’s more political, more cognizant of socioeconomics, prior schooling, etc.

Rebecca: in working on the book with George, we weren’t able to satisfactorily answer the question “who is the basic writer?”

Bruce Horner, “Relocating Basic Writing,” first presented to the Council of Basic Writing [name?] and now a JBW article.

Amanda transitions us to the “meta-conversation about how to stake out territory in an academic conversation,” pointing out that in addition to all of the above, Kelly Ritter is an editor of College English, so there’s that thorniness to work through…

Dominique: Amy’s treating Ritter’s argument as generative of a conversation, rather than as the end of conversation. So there’s a way to frame that as an extension of Ritter’s work, rather than a refutation of it. But at the same time there is a push-back, which is that you’re doing research through an attention to institutional categories, rather than assuming institutions are radically individualized, totally unique. We can see categories, and the question then is which categories do we need, and what do institutions within those categories ask of their basic writing courses? What you’re offering is “species of basic writing.”

Gloria: Ritter is asking, How do institutions control access? and Ivy League schools are in some ways the epitome of controlling access. So contra Mark’s review, it’s not about the “plight” of Ivy League students.

Is it a problem to be CUNY-centric?
cf. Review: Looking Locally, Seeing Nationally in the History

what are the categories? what’s in it, what looks like it should be in it, but isn’t? cf. e.g. Pittsburgh, maybe some of the UCs.
maybe a definitive feature is that it reflects the local community — a commuter college, say.

Gloria: if we have the same goals for students at Harvard and at CUNY, they may still be coming to college from a very different place, and they will therefore need very different teaching to get them there.

a literature MA cohort at Binghamton that ended up in comp/rhet:
Amy Wan 1994-1996
Liz Clarke
Mike Salvo
Cathy Chaput
Carlos Hernandez
all teaching in the Educational Opportunity program under WPA Steve Duarte, who came from UCLA (a very political program, perhaps overlapped with Mike Rose while there)

Gloria took her first practicum at Kingsborough with Bonne August

Teacher training is an important part of helping graduate students or high school teachers think about literacy studies in broader and long-tail ways that just designing assignments may not.

Providing graduate students with a balance of theory and practice in a course like the “practicum.”

Discussion (0)

There are no comments for this doc yet.

Comment posting has been disabled on this doc.

css.php
Need help with the Commons? Visit our
help page
Send us a message