The final assignment in my first-year composition course is a multi-step rhetorical and linguistic analysis of an argument: We first read to learn about key terms used in analysis We annotate an argument together Students compose a multimodal piece to illustrate analytical terms Students annotate another argument in small groups We jointly create a thesis, outline, and sample paragraphs of an analysis essay Students annotate an article of their choosing and draft a working thesis Students draft their papers in class before attending a conference with me Students revise their work for the final portfolio   I’d like to describe how two “students” (also enrolled in a 1-credit corequisite support course) worked through this assignment.    Both students—whom I’ll call Marvel and DC—selected an essay about texting from the online collection Bad Ideas About Writing (2017). Marvel never misses class; she completed the initial steps energetically, leading her small group not only to find examples of key strategies in the text but also to discuss why those strategies made sense (or didn’t).  On the first day of individual work, Marvel arrived with a printed copy of the article with copious marginal notes and color-coded highlights.    She was also ready to talk: “It looks like the writer puts every possible counterargument in the first two pages—and if you aren’t paying attention, you actually start thinking he’s making a completely different point. Then bam—right in the middle of page two, he totally shifts and you get his real point.” I asked what she thought about this strategy. “I don’t like it. I guess I see why he did it, but he spends so much time on the evidence for the other side that it kind of weakens his argument.” A thesis was born. Marvel made a bulleted outline from her thesis and annotations.   DC, on the other hand, had a slow start. She missed class when we discussed the key analytical terms—she couldn’t find a ride that morning. I posted a recording of class online, but on the morning of our first annotation practice, she had not had a chance to watch it. In her small group, DC was told to look for examples of pronoun use that indicated the writer’s presence or the reader’s presence. I explained what that meant and gave her some examples, and then she set to work: She looked for pronouns in the argument much the way we search for Waldo, without any understanding of why she was looking. I urged her to watch the video from the class she missed. On the first individual workday, she admitted she had not yet watched the video—but she had a thesis ready: “This essay says that texting makes you a terrible writer.” The essay, of course, said exactly the opposite, but the student had not made it past the first two pages in her reading. I urged her to finish reading the essay, and then we’d identify the writer’s claim. Her own thesis for the analysis could wait.    During conference week, Marvel arrived with a full draft—a draft she herself had revised at least twice. After discussing the writer’s approach, we addressed some focus shifts in her paragraphs and talked about word choice—she tested out options to see what my reaction was to each. She left confident about her paper.   DC arrived for her conference 20 minutes late, flustered because she did not remember where my office was located. She brought no draft, but a revised thesis and detailed outline. The wording of her thesis sounded familiar:  she had taken a sample thesis from class along with an outline we created together for a different essay. Neither fit her chosen article. When I pointed this out, she answered, “That’s what the writing fellow told me to do.” (It was clear from the writing fellow’s notes that this was not the case.)   We began again to discuss options for a working thesis for the essay. She ultimately created a thesis, a reasonable outline, and a very rough draft of the essay, which was submitted in the final portfolio. “Rough” in this case means that she had not edited for conventions, and in a couple of paragraphs, she offered just a bulleted list of anticipated points. The works cited list contained only a link.   The Marvels in my classes earn As and Bs consistently, and I enjoy teaching them. Some tell me they have started to love writing again. But the DCs are much more often on my roster (not always in my classroom), struggling with transportation, internet access, lack of familiarity with academics and formal literacy. Some arrived in the US during the final two years of high school; they are still learning English.   Both Marvel and DC deserve an education; they deserve my attention, my best effort.  Marvel will earn a passing grade and move on. But what about DC?  One could say she has “earned” an F grade:  missing class, coming late, showing up unprepared. She just needs to take responsibility, right? But… she cannot access internet regularly at home.  The Wi-Fi hotspots in the campus parking lots will not help her. She is frequently late to class, at the mercy of someone who gives her a ride. While I cannot in good conscience move her to the next class, an F seems like an undeserved insult. What she needs is more time, more resources, and (perhaps) a little encouragement to continue. I would love her grade to be “making progress,” because she is. But our institutions aren’t designed with DCs in mind—we ask DCs to become Marvels in order to succeed, and we ask our corequisite faculty to make sure this transformation happens. If it doesn’t, we all get Fs.    I guess we need a superhero.      Want to offer feedback, comments, and suggestions on this post? Join the Macmillan Community to get involved (it’s free, quick, and easy)! ... View more

  We live in disheartening times when disinformation is disseminated as if it were truth. And millions of people accept it as truth because they want to believe it. Disinformation is fueled by pathos, building on negative emotions like anger, hatred and even fear. Although pathos is an instrumental tool in argumentation, solely relying on pathos in arguments can create a skewed perception and spark horrifying (and even deadly) events like the Capitol Attack of 2021.  Recent findings by the January 6th Committee prove that the disinformation spread by Russia allowed former President Trump to breed distrust in the validity of democracy and attempt to unlawfully deny his successor his presidency. While here in America we are dealing with that truth, we see in Russia an autocrat set on denying his people the truth. President Putin has stopped the publication of reports about what is really going on in Ukraine. Hitler used the same tactic to hide the truth of what he did in Germany. At that time, it was possible to hide the facts from the world in a way that is no longer possible. Now we have social media to fill in the gaps when all journalists except those sympathetic to the Kremlin have been silenced. We have reporters on the ground in Ukraine to report firsthand on what is happening as it happens. Putin is so afraid of the truth that he wants to control the language used to describe what Russian troops are doing in Ukraine. To do so, he has imposed a fifteen-year prison sentence on those who call the attack on Ukraine what it is: a war. One Russian journalist, Maria Ovsyannikova, an editor and producer at Russian state broadcaster Channel One, was brave enough to storm her own news network during broadcasting with a sign that read "Stop the war! Don't believe propaganda! They're lying to you here!" Ovsyannikova told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, "I have been feeling a cognitive dissonance, more and more, between my beliefs and what we say on air." In a statement prepared before her protest, Ovsyannikova said, “Unfortunately, I have been working at Channel One during recent years, working on Kremlin propaganda. And now I am very ashamed. I am ashamed that I’ve allowed the lies to be said on the TV screens. I am ashamed that I let the Russian people be zombified.” Ovsyannikova was released after fourteen hours of interrogation with a small fine but could still face harsher consequences. She argues that half of the Russian people disapprove of the war in Ukraine. Another term that Russians are using to distort reality is "Nazi.” They are trying to justify their attacks on Ukrainians by saying that they are Nazis. There is no explanation of why they think that is true, but it is a term that connects the Ukrainian people with a known evil, so the use of the term is another strategy to hide the truth of what they are doing—massacring civilians. There can be no validity to any argument that is not based in truth. No conclusion is valid if it is not based on facts or inferences grounded in reality. That is, unless acceptance is based on fear or unquestioning allegiance.   Photo: "Russian TV protester opens up about stunt"  by Just Click's With A Camera is licensed under CC BY 2.0 ... View more

If you are following developments in AI technology, you may have read a long essay in The New York Times Magazine called “A.I. Is Mastering Language. Should We Trust What It Says?” by Steven Johnson. And if you missed this article, I recommend taking time to read it. It’s a page-turner, or at least it was for me, providing a brief history of AI along the way but concentrating primarily on Generative Pre-Trained Transformer 3 (GPT-3). GPT-3 is part of a “category of deep learning known as a large language model [LLM], a complex neural net that has been trained on a titanic set of text: in GPT-3’s case, roughly 700 gigabytes of data” that include Wikipedia, large collections of digitized texts, and so on. GPT-3 “learns” by essentially playing a “what’s the next word?” game trillions of times, using its database to hypothesize answers. (Johnson points out that most of us have encountered LLMs at work in apps like Gmail, with its autocomplete feature, which works on the same principle but at a much more basic level.) Most experts seem to agree that GPT-3 is not sentient—it is not (yet) thinking as a human would do. But it is demonstrating amazing abilities to generate unique answers to complex questions. For example, Johnson reports asking GPT-3 to “Write an essay discussing the role of metafiction in the work of Italo Calvino.” Here’s (the beginning of) what GPT-3 had to say: Italian author Italo Calvino is considered a master of metafiction, a genre of writing in which the author breaks the fourth wall to discuss the act of writing itself. For Calvino, metafiction is a way of exploring the nature of reality and the ways in which stories can shape our perceptions of the world. His novels often incorporate playful, labyrinthine structures that play with the boundaries between reality and fiction. In If on a winter’s night a traveler, for example, the reader is constantly interrupted by meta-level discussions of the act of reading and the nature of storytelling. . . . Johnson could give GPT-3 the same prompt over and over and get a different unique answer every time, some that may strike you as more accurate than others but “almost all. . . remarkably articulate.” As Johnson puts it, “GPT-3 is not just a digital-age book of quotations, stringing together sentences that it borrowed directly from the internet.” Rather, it has learned to generate fairly proficient arguments—ones that could seem to have been written by a fairly competent high school or first year college student—by endlessly playing that “predict the next word” game. LLMs are also gaining ground in reading comprehension, scoring about the same as an “average high school student” on exam questions similar to those on the reading section of the SAT. Johnson poses questions all writing teachers will have about LLMs: are deep learning systems capable of true human thinking and human intelligence? If so, what will that mean for teachers of writing and reading? NYU emeritus professor Gary Marcus argues, “There’s fundamentally no ‘there’ there,” noting the apparently stunning language skills of GPT-3 are just a smokescreen that obscures the lack of generative, coherent human thought and that “it doesn’t really understand the underlying ideas.” In any case, this research is of tremendous importance to those of us devoted to writing instruction and writing development. The systems now developed, for instance, can use their vast database to answer questions like “how many ingredients are in paella?” faster and more accurately than any search engine now available—and this fact could change our ways of teaching research. But they will also challenge us in new ways to deal with plagiarism, if plagiarism even continues to exist as a viable concept in terms of machine-generated text. To refer again to the Italo Calvino essay: it was written by GPT-3 in half a second. And just take a look at what GPT-3 came up with when asked to “write a paper comparing the music of Brian Eno to a dolphin,” a nonsense prompt posed by Johnson that elicited a pretty amazing “essay.” Oh, brave new world indeed! I know that many of our colleagues in writing studies are paying very close attention to AI research and development, and for them I am grateful. As always, our technical abilities outstrip our ethical understanding of them by light years. That’s only one of the reasons that scholars of rhetoric and writing need to be part of this exciting, and concerning, conversation. Image Credit: "Machine Learning & Artificial Intelligence" by mikemacmarketing, used under a CC BY 2.0 license ... View more

In his lecture “The Artist’s Struggle for Integrity,” James Baldwin begins with a list of words that, for him, hold unclear meanings, words such as: artist, integrity, courage, nobility, democracy, peace, peace-loving, and warlike. He writes:  And yet one is compelled to recognize that all these imprecise words are attempts made by us all to get to something which is real and which lives behind the words. … The terrible thing is that the reality behind all these words depends on choices one has got to make, for ever and ever and ever, every day. (63)    Each time I teach Baldwin’s lecture, I try to create new lenses for reading, writing, and discussion. This process reminds me how students struggle with the long sentences, dense paragraphs, and often, as Baldwin suggests, “imprecise words” that help to make meaning for readers. Because the words are imprecise, new meaning can be derived from them each time, and so I struggle along with students to find new meaning.    In a recent semester, after listening to audio of Baldwin reading his lecture, my students found a connection that was new to many of us. In his lyrics for “Shattered Dreams,” the American rapper Earl Sweatshirt samples Baldwin’s phrase “imprecise words.” The imprecise words of the early 1960s brought immediate connection to the “terrible…reality of all these words” for the late 2010s.    Connections across generations are crucial for me in teaching and learning Baldwin’s work. Imprecise words cannot possibly encapsulate or pin down to the unspeakable realities of everyday life. “Artist’s Struggle” offers a means of connecting one’s own struggle to the suffering of others. In bearing witness to struggle and suffering, perhaps one comes to understand how imprecise words cannot possibly describe the “terrible…reality.” As Baldwin suggests, the artist’s struggle for integrity, truth, and honesty, imprecise as those words might be, “is almost our only hope” – and for Baldwin that hope is writing (67).   As our class has passed the midterm mark, I decided to try a thought experiment to learn which “imprecise words” stand out in Baldwin’s lecture, in my writing assignment about the lecture, and on students’ self-assessment of their own writing on Baldwin’s lecture. I used Data Basic.io Word Counter because, in addition to a word cloud similar to Wordle, Word Counter would give me quantitative data of how often specific words were used and the context in which the words were used. Following are the word clouds generated by Word Counter, as well as the word most often in each text. The website for quantitative data is linked after each word cloud.    “Artist’s Struggle” 3503 words Most common words: One and People, tied at 23 occurrences each  https://databasic.io/en/wordcounter/results/6257233ef83b9c09cb6ed389?submit=true    While People was used 23 times, the word does not show up in any of the phrases in the quantitative data. One occurs most often with the verbs “is” and “has.” My interpretation here is that these two words  are interchangeable. Baldwin wants to gain the support of his audience and to invest in their own struggles for integrity and truth. If the audience can bear witness to their own struggles and their own suffering, then perhaps they can also come to a stronger place of empathic action in the early 1960s struggles for Civil Rights.   Assignment for Writing Project 1, 981 words Most common word Baldwin, with 30 occurrences  https://databasic.io/en/wordcounter/results/62572437f83b9c00eab72202    Baldwin was used most frequently with “respond” and “response.” The purpose of the assignment was to offer students an opportunity to think through their interpretations of Baldwin’s work, and how Baldwin might respond to their interpretations.   A sampling of approximately 20 students’ self-assessments for Writing Project 1 7662 words The most common word is writing, with 124 occurrences https://databasic.io/en/wordcounter/results/62570d68f83b9c098ad24f9f    Writing  is used most often by students as both an adjective, as in “Writing Project,” and as a noun, “high school writing,” “college writing,” and composing writing. Students were responding to the following self-assessment prompt: Self-Assessment: At least 3 paragraphs that respond to these questions What did you learn from preparing for and composing this writing project?   What were your struggles with this writing project? What might you do similarly and differently moving forward? For example, how might journals be useful to free writing your ideas? What differences do you notice between high school and college writing?    From this prompt, it seems clear that students were using the words I provided to respond to the questions. This past academic year, I have noticed that students are asking for more explicit directions for each assignment, and are taking care to follow the directions exactly as written. My hope in teaching Baldwin is to present another view of writing, that the tools at writers’  disposal are “imprecise words.” From those “imprecise words,” Baldwin suggests, writers must attempt to struggle with integrity, to imagine themselves as artists.    In his conclusion, Baldwin asserts to the audience, “It is time to ask very hard questions and to take very rude positions. And no matter at what price” (69). Hard questions and rude positions remind me that, as a teacher, I want to do more assigning students to follow explicit directions. In fact, my hope is that students will come to question the purpose of the directions, and if the directions might not be revised to create a more inclusive atmosphere for students to grow as writers. Directions themselves are imprecise words, which is why the outcome often differs from the initial expectation. In this way, one might learn to bear witness to difference, and to  “get to something which is real and which lives behind the words.” In this way, perhaps, one can grow as a writer.     Baldwin, James. "The Artist's Struggle for Integrity." The Cross of Redemption: Uncollected Writings, edited by Randall Kenan, Pantheon Books, 2010, pp. 63-70.    ... View more

The following interview with Haleh Azimi and Elsbeth Mantler, Co-directors of the Community College of Baltimore County’s Accelerated Learning Program, focuses on professional development for faculty teaching corequisite composition and was conducted via email in December of 2021. This is the fourth of four parts. David Starkey: What are some of the biggest differences between the faculty development you do at CCBC and the development you do for external audiences? Haleh Azimi: Whether we are addressing faculty development for CCBC or external audiences, we always conduct some sort of needs assessment to collect information about what is needed. Who is participating in the session? Where do they see a gap or a need for information or a conversation? This applies to external colleges that may be brand new to acceleration or internal, specific workshops, such as the remote synchronous workshop mentioned earlier. We always try to ground our workshops in data and research, while also providing practical and tangible examples for practitioners to use. DS: And what do you teach that practitioners really seem to love? HA: It’s really exciting to work with external practitioners when we are sharing our ready-to-use thematic units, which are essentially our fully developed teaching materials. These materials include all scaffolded activities, including readings, writing prompts, and any alternative activities. Sharing this with other practitioners helps them conceptualize the way we approach our students through our curriculum. In our program, we are fortunate enough to have a bank of ready-to-use culturally relevant thematic teaching units for faculty to use. This is especially helpful for adjunct faculty who may not have the time to create a brand new curriculum every semester. DS: I imagine that you’re also working with multiple stakeholders when you’re doing professional development. HA: We typically host faculty and those in student development, such as advisors and the registrar. Deans and others in senior-level leadership positions, such as provosts, also attend external consultations. We think it is important that all stakeholders have a working knowledge of the program—especially when they are new to institutionalizing ALP. DS: If you had unlimited resources, what would your ideal faculty professional development program for ALP look like? Elsbeth Mantler: What would be really cool is if we had an opportunity to provide a true learning community for faculty involved with ALP so that we could dig deep, be collaborative, and share ideas. Teaching can be isolating, especially during the pandemic. There is also a lot of emotional stress that can come with working so closely with students especially since we really emphasize addressing non-cognitive needs. In my courses, especially since the pandemic, I always start classes with a brief and informal check-in with my students. For example, prior to finals week, I’ll say something like, “Hi, everyone! This could be a stressful time as you prepare for exams in your other classes. Is there anything that is causing you to not be able to do your schoolwork? You can share openly or grab me privately if you would like….” I say things like this and frontload these sorts of comments at the start of each class to build community with my students. They share their comments with their classmates, and I create an environment where students know they can come to me for support. I also work to build in student voices during these informal check-ins. My students have a wealth of knowledge and experiences. The peer-to-peer input is often more useful than what I can offer to them. I want students to know that they can connect with me and with each other. Sometimes students share very difficult issues with me, such as homelessness, food insecurity, and mental health struggles. DS: Students’ struggles can also weigh heavily on their instructors. EM: Faculty really need each other to share the burden of issues like these sometimes. Building a strong community that meets often would help faculty feel connected. HA: Elsbeth and I also would love to see an increase in monetary support for ALP adjunct faculty involvement with PD sessions. ALP is truly a unique program. The configuration and concentrated effort to meet students’ non-cognitive needs are areas that require significant professional development, and we want to support adjunct faculty for their time and commitment. We both started as adjunct faculty working multiple jobs. We understand how thinly stretched people are, so allocating a significant amount of resources toward adjunct faculty involvement in PD is something we both find important.   DS: Wow, I learned a lot! Thanks to both of you for taking time out of your extremely busy schedules to talk with me. HA: Thanks so much for the opportunity to share! EM: I've enjoyed the conversation! Thanks. ... View more

Today's Tiny Teaching Story is by Jennifer Gray, Professor of English and Director of the Writing Center at the College of Coastal Georgia.   Video Conference The student requested a video conference on Easter Sunday at 4pm. I said yes, because it was what he selected. I grumbled privately, as it was the only day without something work-related scheduled. I left celebrations at my neighbor’s house, much to our dismay, and logged in, expecting a blank black box. Instead, there he was, with a smile, a Zoom wave, and his Walmart uniform and nametag, calling from the front seat of his car on his break during his shift on a holiday. We talked about our assignment. He revised his citing practices, and I revised my negativities.     Submit your own Tiny Teaching Story to tinyteachingstories@macmillan.com! See the Tiny Teaching Stories Launch for submission details and guidelines. ... View more

Chris Rock's calamitous misfire at the 2022 Academy Awards ceremony wasn't the only joke to run off the rails during that now epic evening—though it was, of course, the most consequential. But there was another gag, performed by Oscars co-host Amy Schumer, that also raised a bit of a ruckus when Schumer stepped out into the front row seats (well, tables) and pretended to mistake Best Supporting Actress nominee Kirsten Dunst for a "seat filler" while bantering with her partner Jesse Plemons, who was also present as a Best Supporting Actor nominee. Dunst fans erupted in such fury over this "insult" that Schumer felt obliged to explain that it was all a kind of skit that had been "choreographed" in advance with both Plemons's and Dunst's knowledge and cooperation, which settled the matter amicably.  But from a cultural-semiotic perspective, there is a lot more to the story than the uproar it briefly inaugurated, a significance that goes to the heart of one of America's most cherished cultural mythologies. This mythology is reflected in the belief that America, due to a history of social mobility as enshrined most powerfully in the American dream, is effectively a classless society. Of course, Americans know perfectly well that America is structured along class lines, but they tend to believe that class identity is not fixed at birth and that anyone can move up the social ladder—which is one reason why many middle and working-class Americans oppose increasing taxes on the very rich: they hope to "arrive" there themselves some day. And this takes us to the Schumer/Dunst/Plemons skit, because the whole point of the joke was entirely at the expense of those plebian "seat fillers" who are hired to keep the chairs of Academy members filled when those honored few go off to take a bathroom break. So when Plemons told Schumer that Dunst was his "wife," Schumer's punch line—"You’re married to that seat filler?"—expressed disbelief that a member of Hollywood royalty could possibly be married to a commoner. This was expected to be funny, but the uproar that followed was motivated not by the actual insult to commoners but by the perceived insult to an upper-class actress who failed to be recognized for who she was. Thus, while the incident itself was trivial, what it reveals is not, because if Americans are ever going to understand just what is tearing their country apart at the seams these days, their inattention to, even denial of, America's social class divisions will deprive them of an essential insight into what is going so badly wrong.   Image Credit: "Red carpet at 81st Academy Awards in Kodak Theatre" by Greg in Hollywood (Greg Hernandez) is marked with CC BY 2.0. ... View more

Twenty years ago, I was up to my academic ears in The Stanford Study of Writing, a longitudinal study that followed a large cohort of students through their college years and one year beyond. I was reminded of this study and of how much it meant to me and my teaching when I sat in on a discussion with Karen Lunsford, Carl Whithaus, Jonathan Alexander, and other colleagues about their Wayfinding Project, now well under way. This team of researchers has written widely about their meticulous planning, their extensive piloting, and the initial phases of the project, as well as about preliminary findings. This longitudinal study seeks to track the ways writing is used by college alums, with a focus on everyday writing and social media, and on what writing means to the participants involved. In this discussion I attended, they described asking participants to describe a “most meaningful” piece of writing and they got a wide array of responses, such as one from “Benjamin,” who told them about a social media message he had posted to a small group, one that was then forwarded to a much larger Facebook group—and then turned up on the front page of Reddit, garnering some 10,000 views. To Benjamin, reaching this very large audience, albeit unintentionally, was deeply meaningful because of the sheer reach and scope. He seemed not so much interested in the content of the post—indeed, he didn’t want to talk about that—but in the number of readers he contacted. AWESOME, he thought. The researchers reported that talk of such social media writing often emerged at or near the end of interviews, after participants had told the team what they thought they wanted to hear about “official” writing—when, in this instance, it was the “unofficial,” social media writing the research team was vitally interested in! Again, this story took me back to the Stanford Study of Writing. In interviews, I often had a hard time getting students to talk about their in-class writing at all. With one student in particular, I remember asking about writing in her humanities course, which she said she “adored.” Adored, maybe, but she didn’t want to talk about it. Every time I asked a question, she would begin to answer but then quickly veer to out of class writing, especially for a campus activist group she was working with. Writing for her classes, she said (with emphasis!) was JUST writing. Writing for causes she cared deeply about, well—that was REAL writing. Such experiences helped us focus on extracurricular writing, and indeed the students’ attachment to and identification with such writing was one of the major findings of our study. So the Wayfinding team’s focus on “most meaningful” writing seems spot on and one reason I am following this fascinating project so closely. We need to know more about what students find meaningful in writing—and in what modes of delivery they choose to deliver such writing—and why. And we need to know much more about the relationship students have with their audiences (up close and personal to completely distant and disembodied, like Benjamin’s) and to their subject or content (again, up close and personal, like the obituary for a dog that one student described to the Wayfinding team, to the almost-beside-the-point content of Benjamin’s original message). What ratios could be drawn among these elements in the age of digital platforms and social media posts? What are the gradations of distance between writer and audiences, between writer and topic or content? And how do these ratios relate to writing satisfaction, to writing that is meaningful to students? Alexander, Whithaus, and Lunsford are helping to ask and answer these questions, and I am all ears to hear more about their findings. Image Credit: "Social Media" by magicatwork, used under a CC BY 2.0 license ... View more

I tried a new assignment this spring, inspired by the electrifying writer, Rebecca Solnit. I can’t stop thinking about it, and my students can’t stop talking about the way it has changed the way they see — and map — their environments. In particular, it has led them to appreciate the power of language, and sparked a desire to research and revise place names all around them. Solnit, as you may know, is a lover of maps. She captures the ways they make meaning in her wonderful collection, Nonstop Metropolis: A New York City Atlas, co-produced with a geographer. In her "City of Women" map, for example, she provocatively reimagines the New York City subway system, with women’s names marking places we mostly know from historical men: Washington, Hudson, Frick, Rockefeller. Solnit says of her map that it "was made to sing the praises of the extraordinary women who have, since the beginning, been shapers and heroes of this city that has always been, secretly, a City of Women"— think Woodhull, Sanger, Chisolm. After reading Solnit’s essay, I invited students to apply her method to a location that means something to them, and to investigate place names and propose alternatives that would make hidden histories visible. I have rarely seen students so energized to revise existing texts, nor so inspired to propose alternatives. Some students discovered the place names in their hometowns only celebrated the white men responsible for the genocide of indigenous peoples. Some found street names in their neighborhood ignored the Black residents who profoundly shaped the community. Hardly any found women’s names on street signs, stadiums, or parks. Armed with scholarly research on the power of naming, and their own passions and perspectives, students re-wrote area maps and designed keys with biographies that explained their newly proposed place names. We all learned a lot as they celebrated local suffragists, ballplayers in the All American Girls Professional Baseball League, Black reformers, women schoolteachers, Indigenous peoples, and grandmothers who they believe deserve to be celebrated as community-builders. I have never seen a group of students so jazzed about sharing their work, nor an assignment that students were still talking about months after they turned them in. My students’ projects have reminded me of the unexpectedly emotional response I had to visiting the Women's Rights Pioneers Monument last summer. Meredith Bergman’s sculpture was installed in Central Park on August 26, 2020, to commemorate the passing of the 19th Amendment and is one of the few monuments of historical women in the city. As I lingered over the details in the strong, bronze faces of Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, other passers-by stopped to marvel at the significance of seeing women honored this way, to name them, and recognize their work. A mother with tears in her eyes patted her young daughter’s back, and a pair of white-haired women clutched one another’s hands, saying, “This matters. This matters so much.”   Image Credit: Photo of the author at the Women’s Rights Pioneers Monument in Central Park, New York City, provided by the author. ... View more

Spring in North Georgia is lovely—the azaleas and ornamental pear trees are blooming, and the green of new leaves creates contrast against the deeper hues of magnolia leaves and our ubiquitous pines. Those pines are also a primary source of the layer of yellow pollen now coating porches, cars, benches, and sidewalks (no need for sidewalk chalk these days—we can just inscribe a quick note in the pollen).   This spring has also marked my return to in-person conferences. On March 18 and 19, I was in Atlanta for the NOSS conference—the National Organization for Student Success; I left from there for Pittsburgh and the American Association of Applied Linguistics annual event. I had hopes of attending the CCCC virtual event and TESOL—but I found myself on information overload. I returned from Pittsburgh to the final third of our spring semester, and I realized I could not divert any further time away from my classes. I did make space for a plenary and a couple of sessions this past weekend from the Southeastern Conference on Linguistics (SECOL) virtual event, but even then, I found my head spinning as I processed a wealth of information.    I am acutely aware of limited resources at my university; no one faculty member can expect to receive funding for more than one or (at most) two conference presentations. Making the most of those limited funds means we need to target proposals to attend just the conferences most relevant to our research and pedagogy interests.    And therein lies the challenge: My primary area of interest is metalinguistic development and writing pedagogy with multilingual and corequisite writers. That area—and the questions it raises—crosses several disciplinary boundaries, including basic writing, composition/rhetoric, applied linguistics, educational linguistics, translingual studies, and L2/Lx writing. Conferences in these disciplines abound—along with journals and edited collections and webinars—at the international, national, regional, and state levels. This year, I chose NOSS (close to home) and AAAL (a good fit for a current project analyzing student work in online discussions); within those two events, I could only visit a fraction of the sessions offered: research on embodied and multimodal representations of grammatical concepts, discourse analysis of online misinformation, a thematic corpus analysis related to mental health, research into speaking aloud to process feedback on writing, tough questions about corequisite success data, a program to jump-start corequisite success with a boot camp, multimodality and standard concepts of academic writing for ESL students, virtual reality to teach pragmatics, a personal ethnography of code-switching choices. I collected as many resources as I could, and I began to build a reading list for the summer.    Another challenge: Each conference session represents both theoretical and empirical research traditions that I may not be familiar with. Some terms (stance, metalinguistic, agency, translingual) are used across disciplines, but not always with the same definitions or foundational texts. At times differences between the disciplines can be contentious (see Hall and Atkins et al.) As much as I can, I want to appreciate and understand the disciplinary histories informing the work I do, even if I cannot be as fully immersed in those histories as others are.   Over the past month, the return to conferences—and the resulting flood of new reading—has felt both energizing and  overwhelming.  How do I process all the concepts, the data, the possibilities presented at these conferences? Where do I begin? And that takes me back to pollen. For right now, those of who live in Georgia know we are just going to have to sit in the pollen for a while; it cannot be tamed. But in a few weeks, the pollen will dissipate, and we’ll be left with the blossoms, the greens of summer, fresh vegetables, and vaulting shade.    And maybe that’s what I will do with my return to conferences—just sit in the information this while—and see what grows this summer.   Have you been back to conferences this year? How do you process what you are learning?  ... View more

In 1987 the United States celebrated the 200th birthday of the Constitution. In a famous speech included in Elements of Argument, Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to serve on the Supreme Court, explained why his celebration of the anniversary was reserved. He wrote, “I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the Framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today. When contemporary Americans cite ‘The Constitution,’ they invoke a concept that is vastly different from what the Framers barely began to construct two centuries ago.” He concludes, “Thus, in this bicentennial year, we may not all participate in the festivities with flag-waving fervor. Some may more quietly commemorate the suffering, struggle, and sacrifice that has triumphed over much of what was wrong with the original document, and observe the anniversary with hopes not realized and promises not fulfilled. I plan to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution as a living document, including the Bill of Rights and the other amendments protecting individual freedoms and human rights.” Thirty-five years later, we sometimes hear the term “constitutional crisis.” The term refers to a problem that arises within the government that the Constitution is not able to resolve. The inability of the Constitution to handle every situation that arises is exactly why Marshall celebrated it as a “living” document, one that has been revised as necessary to keep up with the changes that over 200 years of national history have brought. Some of these changes were the inevitable result of positive societal change. The Civil War was fought to prove that we were no longer a nation that defined some of its citizens as only three-fifths of a person. Marshall writes: Along the way, new constitutional principles have emerged to meet the challenges of a changing society. The progress has been dramatic, and it will continue. The men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 could not have envisioned these changes. They could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed by a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman and the descendent of an African slave. ‘We the People’ no longer enslave, but the credit does not belong to the Framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of ‘liberty,’ ‘justice,’ and ‘equality,’ and who strived to better them. Nothing has revealed more clearly “outdated notions of ‘liberty,’ ‘justice,’ and ‘equality,’” and the political split that exists in our country, than the confirmation hearing of Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson.  There was a time not all that long ago that a well-qualified candidate could be approved by a large majority in Congress across party lines. The Framers did not intend for an individual to be elevated to our highest court and to serve there for life on the basis of his or her position on a single issue nor did they intend for a nominee to be approved or not by a vote along party lines. Short of a constitutional change, legislation that would change the makeup of the Court would allow the party in power to “pack” it—in this case, to increase the number of justices from nine to thirteen to allow Democrats to balance the conservative justices appointed under former president Donald Trump. However, in April of 2021, President Biden put in place a commission made up of law professors to study how to make constitutional changes in the Supreme Court. Perhaps the Framers did not foresee the power of partisanship as it has evolved over the intervening years. The policy change that our nation seems headed toward is a major constitutional change in our country’s highest court, the type of change that Marshall celebrated as evidence that our Constitution is a living document. Photo: “Constitution"”  by EpicTop10.com. is licensed under CC BY 2.0 ... View more

The Stanford Study of Writing—a five-year longitudinal study of writing development throughout college—is almost twenty years old now, and it’s interesting and gratifying to note that I am still in touch with some of the participants. They are now well into adulthood, with families and into their (sometimes second!) careers. When I occasionally speak with one of them, what I can say is that being a part of this five-year study is something they remember well, something they still say had an impact on their lives. This makes me wish that all student writers could be part of carefully designed longitudinal studies: simply being in the study, I think, has a strong effect. Because of that experience, I’ve been following research based on longitudinal studies ever since, most recently in Dana Lynn Driscoll and Wenqi Cui’s “Visible and Invisible Transfer: A Longitudinal Investigation of Learning to Write and Transfer across Five Years,” published in the December 2021 issue of College Composition and Communication. In this study, the authors “tracked students’ writing knowledge, skills, and strategies as they engaged in undergraduate writing experiences over five years.” They considered their findings to be surprising: While students do transfer a considerable amount of knowledge, 78% of transfer that occurs is often “invisible” to them, or they may re-attribute where knowledge comes from over time. Further, higher rates of transfer are correlated with learning that is expanded or reinforced at multiple points in students’ education, including in FYW and disciplinary writing. Our range of findings suggest wide-ranging implications for writing instruction and assessment, including articulating the importance of reinforcing and expanding prior knowledge both in FYW and disciplinary writing, the complexity that genre forms and genre knowledge play in learning transfer, the unseen nature of transfer of different writing skills, and the issue of invisibility . . . . (230-31) This study is well worth reading in its entirety, especially for the rich case study of one particular student. And the findings are certainly important and deserving of additional research, though to me they were not at all surprising. In fact, they corroborate some of what I saw in the Stanford study and, moreover, my own experience in almost fifty years of working with undergraduate college writers. Much of what any of us learns remains “invisible,” below the level of consciousness, but operative, nevertheless, in important ways for further learning and for everyday life. That is not to say we shouldn’t follow the advice of Driscoll and Cui and work hard to make the invisible visible—to focus on opportunities for ongoing student reflection and to focus on reinforcing and expanding writing knowledge, skills, and strategies well beyond FYW and indeed throughout the undergrad curricula. We should do all we can to advance these goals. But we should also recognize, as these authors do, that learning will always be messy and difficult to track and that invisible, sometimes increasingly tacit, knowledge will always mark processes of learning. So thanks to researchers like Driscoll and Cui, we have new questions to ask and new goals to pursue. Here’s to more and more good, solid longitudinal research on writing. Image Credit: "Lake Street Transfer (early 1940s)" by Chicago Transit Authority, used under a CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 license ... View more

The following webinar was presented as part of Bedford’s 5th Annual WPA/Writing Director Workshop.  This year’s theme was Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in First-Year Composition.  The workshops focused on best practices for incorporating diverse, equitable, and inclusive practices into your course.  Learn more about the overall event.  Steve Schessler English Department Chair and Instructor, Cabrillo College Dr. Steve Schessler received his Ph.D in English from Emory University and then an M.A. in Education: Instructional Technology from San Francisco State University. He is an experienced English Composition instructor and current department chair with more than fourteen years teaching English, nine of those at Cabrillo College. He uses Achieve to teach a college composition class contextualized for STEM majors. Dr. Schessler divides his time between duties as chair, instructor, and faculty co-lead for Guided Pathways, a statewide initiative focused on equity and access.     As part of Bedford’s equity-focused Fall 2021 WPA / Writing Director Workshop, I discussed challenges for equity and access in intro composition classes from my perspective as an instructor at a federally-designated Hispanic Serving Institute and a researcher of improving equity in the online classroom - with lessons applicable to the face-to-face classroom, too. In this workshop, we looked at some of the current challenges for advancing equitable outcomes in my classroom as well as those of participants. You can review your own program policies and classroom practices through an equity lens and join in our conversation about ways to improve the student experience - and results. Watch the Webinar: ... View more

Bedford/St. Martin's is pleased to announce the participants in the 2022 Bedford New Scholars Advisory Board! Advisory Board members are:   Olalekan Adepoju   Olalekan Adepoju (recommended by Andrea Olinger) is a doctoral candidate in the University of Louisville’s Rhetoric and Composition program. He teaches a variety of courses in writing, including first-year composition and intermediate college writing. He also serves as the assistant writing center director, where he works with international/multilingual students as well as graduate students and faculty writers. Currently, Olalekan is an executive committee member of the Non-native English-Speaking Writing Instructors (NNESWIs) in the United States. His research interests lie in writing studies, intercultural rhetoric, ESL teaching, and discourse analysis. He has continued to write about these interests and published in both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed journals.   Dilara Avci   Dilara Avci (recommended by Dev Bose) is pursuing her MA in Teaching English as a Second Language at the University of Arizona. She has taught writing and literacy across diverse backgrounds and age levels, from elementary school to college. She is currently teaching First-Year Composition. Her research interests are the role of individual learner differences such as language aptitude and anxiety in writing and material design with a focus on digital literacies and critical pedagogy. She believes in the importance of sharing experiences and creating an inclusive learning environment and has been involved in a variety of Teaching-as-Research Projects, Faculty Learning Communities and conferences on writing and teaching practices. Noah Bukowski   Noah Bukowski (recommended by Scott DeWitt) is pursuing a PhD in Rhetoric, Composition, and Literacy, specializing in Disability Studies at The Ohio State University. Noah attempts to foreground accessible pedagogies and collaboration in all of his work on teaching writing. He has taught First Year Writing, Introduction to Disability Studies, and co-taught Introduction to Teaching First Year Composition as a Graduate Writing Program Administrator. Ever since his undergraduate degree and into graduate school, Noah has worked in the writing center as both a tutor and administrator. In 2019, Noah co-authored a chapter in Theories and Methods of Writing Center Studies with Brenda Brueggemann titled "Writing Center Research and Disability Theory." Noah is currently most interested in the work of finessing accessible pedagogies during the pandemic.   Brittny Byrom   Brittny M. Byrom (recommended by Michael Harker) is a PhD student in Rhetoric and Composition and serves as the Associate Director of Technology and Finance of the Georgia State University Writing Studio. Her primary research focuses on the intersection of theories of rhetorical empathy and beauty and justice. Her work in writing center research concentrates on developing balanced practices between tutor emotional labor and collaborative learning environments. Brittny began teaching in 2017 and began working in writing centers in 2015.   Antonio Hamilton   Antonio Hamilton (recommended by Kristi McDuffie) is pursuing his PhD in Writing Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He teaches first-year composition courses and is a member of the Rhetoric Advisory Committee. His research interest focuses on how writing is remediated and potentially restricted in online writing environments, such as Automated Writing Evaluation software and Language Models. He is specifically interested in writer agency when writing with these programs, and what forms or styles of writing are prioritized. His research draws on intercultural rhetoric, algorithmic knowledge, and rhetorical genre studies perspectives to assess how writing is digitally transformed.   Laura Hardin Marshall   Laura Hardin Marshall (referred by Paul Lynch and Nathaniel Rivers) is a PhD candidate at Saint Louis University, specializing in Rhetoric and Composition. Her research focuses on the response practices of writing instructors and consultants, examining what feedback we offer to students, how we offer it, and what students then do with that feedback as they work through their revisions and future assignments. She has taught courses on basic writing and college preparation, introductory and advanced composition, and writing consulting and has published articles on writing program and writing center administration.   Rachel Marks   Rachel Marks (recommended by Angela Rounsaville) is pursuing her PhD in Texts and Technology with an emphasis in Digital Humanities at the University of Central Florida, where she expects to defend her dissertation “On your Left!”: Exploring Queerness, Masculinity, and Race in the Marvel “Captain America” Fandom in May 2024. She currently teaches the first-year writing course Composition II: Situated Inquiry of Writing and Rhetoric and has taught Composition I: Introduction to Writing Studies in the past. She has also served as a consultant at the University Writing Center and as a student editor on Stylus: a Journal of First-Year Writing. Her research focuses on LGBT representation in popular media, fan interaction and critique on social media platforms, and how fans respond to representations of queer characters in the media.   Madhu Nadarajah   Madhu Nadarajah (recommended by Nick Recktenwald and tia north) is pursuing her PhD in English with a concentration in Cultural Rhetorics at the University of Oregon where she is researching the discursive practices within the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora. She is currently serving as the Assistant Director of the Composition Program where she worked on redesigning the Composition Policy Handbook, helped with graduate teaching instruction, and facilitated the annual Composition Conference. She is also a Culturally Responsive Teaching Fellow in which she draws on her work in Cultural Rhetorics to provide anti-oppressive teaching principles for the wider Composition community in the classroom. Lupe Remigio Ortega   Lupe Remigio Ortega (recommended by Mary Fiorenza) is a dissertator pursuing her PhD in English, Composition & Rhetoric at the University of Wisconsin- Madison. She currently serves as the Senior Assistant Director of English 100, the first-year writing/freshman writing requirement at UW-Madison. In this position she works mentoring first-time English 100 instructors, which includes leading fall and spring orientation, teaching a first-year writing proseminar, and organizing and leading professional development workshops. Previously she has taught English 100 at UW-Madison as well as first-year writing at California State University Fresno and the first-year writing equivalent at Reedley College in Reedley, California. Her research focuses on transnational literacies, indigenous literacies (oral and spiritual), and the impact of migration on Mixtec literacy practices in the US and Mexico.   ... View more

Today's Tiny Teaching Story is by Lisa Lebduska, Professor of English and Director of College Writing at Wheaton College.   Observations As a grad student adjuncting at 3 schools, I always ran late. One rainy day, I flew into my office, changed into dry shoes, then rushed to class. When class ended, a student was waiting for me. "We just wanted you to know," she said, "that we noticed you are wearing two different shoes." I looked with horror from the beige wedge on my left, to the black pump on my right. "Why didn't anyone say anything?" "We thought it was another one of those exercises where you were trying to see if we were paying attention to details… We were."   Submit your own Tiny Teaching Story to tinyteachingstories@macmillan.com! See the Tiny Teaching Stories Launch for submission details and guidelines. ... View more