A revisionary approach to cross-curricular literacy work

2013

Call for Submissions 100 2 These authors are represented in two of the required texts for the course, The Norton Book of Composition Studies, and A Guide to Composition Pedagogies. sional writing majors to each group of middle school writers (an initial set, a set after switching groups, and a final set tallied by clickers); we also draw on anecdotal evidence from class discussions of these scores (and the similarities and differences among them). Third, we analyze the actual feedback the groups posted to the wiki for each student writer. Throughout our analysis, we include excerpts from the reflections composed by the college students at the end of the process. In addition, one middle school student's writing, in particular, serves as a provocative point of intersection across the stages of this process. Reframing Responses to Student Writing Paper Jellyfish and Raisin-y Babies: Initial Perceptions of Student Submissions Ted was surprised by the remarkable quality of the writing from the Pennsylvania students. Students submitted detective fiction, dream sequences, fantasy and futuristic fiction, as well as sophisticated memoirs. For example, one student, Grace, from whose text we have permission to quote, submitted a memoir about adjusting to moving and to changes in her family. Her text demonstrates originality and humor as well as trust in her readers. Everyone loved [baby brother]. When we brought him home from the hospital a bunch of people came to see the bright blue eyed baby boy with a crop of pale blond hair and my exhausted mother. Ignoring me in the process, naturally. Just like people always had since they had brought [younger sister] home from the hospital when she was a baby. I didn't care for hospitals. That's where all the babies came from. Some babies were cute and very pretty to look at and adore, like dolls. Others had red, raisin-y, faces and cried too much. They smelled especially undesirable when they needed changing. I never quite understood why my mother loved babies so much. Still don't. She also demonstrated excellent control of syntax in constructing a sophisticated authorial voice: "Later, when I got to Pennsylvania it was still hot but there it was very humid. Sticky hot. Hard-to-breathe-in my-chest hot. Help me, the sun is beating down on me to kill me hot." Most of the texts from this group revealed students who seemed to enjoy writing and who were writing to engage and entertain their readers, not just to earn the approval of a teacher. One student created adult characters of all of the other students in the group and wrote a fictional story of a class reunion gone awry. Another piece ended with a sophisticated reprisal of a beautifully described image from an arts festival of handcrafted jellyfish with candles inside floating up into an evening sky. As one college student would later write in a reflection on the experience, Some of [the students' stories]...I could never think of even if I tried. [One] boy wrote a science fiction short story in which he made up words and mentioned hilarious details that made me chuckle. One writer played well with dialogue and demonstrated its importance in storytelling in general. Another writer used absolutely stunning imagery and captured a scene that I can picture looking at through a photograph from a polaroid camera. In all, Pennsylvania demonstrated some excellent storytelling. The overall quality of the student writing would, we hoped, reframe teacher candidates' idea of what eighth grade writers are capable of, and encourage them to respond to these students as "real writers." NCTE PROMISING YOUNG WRITERS PROGRAM HOLISTIC WRITING EVALUATION SCALE Submissions that receive a 3, 2, or 1 should meet a certain level of effectiveness with regard to organization, content, style, usage, and writing process. Submissions that do not meet this level should receive a 0. 3 Submissions scored as a 3 tend to employ an organizational framework that is especially effective for the topic/genre. The content is particularly effective throughout the piece because of its substance, specificity, or illustrative quality. The work is vivid and precise, with distinguishing characteristics that give the writing an identity of its own within the conventions of the genre/medium, though it may contain an occasional flaw. The work is polished and impressive for the eighth grade. 2 Submissions scored as a 2 are organized effectively for the topic/genre. The content is effective throughout the piece, though the paper may lack the substance, specificity, or illustrative quality of a 3. The stylistic/surface features of the genre/medium are consistently under control, despite occasional lapses. The potential in the writing is realized, though not to the degree that further revision would allow. 1 Submissions scored as a 1 show evidence of the writer's attempt at organization. Content, though effective, tends to be less consistent or less substantive, specific, and illustrative than that found in papers scored as a 3 or 2. The writer generally observes the stylistic conventions of genre/medium but unevenness suggests that the writer is not yet in full command of his/her voice. Some errors are usually present, but they aren't severe enough to interfere significantly with the reader's experience. The potential in the writing is evident, but the work would clearly benefit from further revision.

1992

The chair of a newly-formed Committee on Writing, whose charge it was to define writing-intensive courses and make recommendations on a college-wide writing program, was forced to examine her own beliefs and priorities about language and learning. The committee had at least one member from each academic division, met weekly during the semester, and communicated during the week through memos, shared readings, and informal conversations. Even as the committee members read about forndering or defunct writing-across-the-curriculum (WAC) programs, it soon became clear that the committee itself was a living example of the deep philosophical differences that had haunted pioneering WAC programs. Despite their differences, committee members did share common purposes, including the desire to improve writing and learning, to make students, experiences more productive, and to help students become more self-reflective writers and more critical thinkers. A confrontational approach to disagreements cam be destructive of what could be challenging and productive relationships between people in diverse fields with diverse views. (RS)

2008

Reproduction of material from this publication, with acknowledgement of the source, is hereby authorized for educational use in non-profit organizations. Copyright © 1996 Plymouth State College Printed by Pegasus Press

Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies, 2015

TEACHERS AND TEACHING …, 2008

2012

My parents, Donald and Carmine Stewart (without whom neither I, nor this work, would be possible) certainly deserve top billing. You made me believe from a very early age that I could do anything. Your belief carries me when my own belief falters. Your love and support is immeasurable, and greatly appreciated. I could not have accomplished any of this without you. My daughter, Azariah, who has inspired, loved, and supported me throughout the dissertation journey. You were my main motivation for even pursuing this degree. I wanted you to see what a woman can accomplish when she makes up her mind! Your words of encouragement when things got really rough sustained me. What you sacrificed for me to earn this degree…..I promise to pay it all back. My brothers Ace and Desi, my brother Romelle, and my sister-in-love Lisa have contributed so much to helping me to develop personal strength. Ace, you have been my biggest supporter when it comes to educational pursuits. Thank you for always believing in me. Romelle, Desi and Lisa, thank you for your continued prayers, love, and support. Thank you also for my nieces and my nephew, Kynnedy, Desi Jr, and Brooklyn. Their love, hugs, and kisses were a healing balm when the journey got rough. My aunts, uncles, grandparents and cousins, whose expectations of excellence continue to push me beyond my limits. Uncle Fred, thanks for reminding me that I'm……you know. To adult literacy students, and adult literacy educators everywhere…. My journey into the field of adult literacy began because three women, Louisa Oliver, Terry Moore, and Ellen Barrett from the Heights Parent Center thought of me (a former volunteer and part time staff member) when they needed a GED teacher. They set me on a course to discover my passion and purpose in life, and I will be forever grateful for that. Many thanks to my faculty members and committee members, for the hours, days, weeks, months, and years spent guiding, challenging, and directing me. I have to acknowledge the enormous contribution of my Co-chair and Methodologist, Dr. Joanne Goodell, whose questions helped me to focus my research, and whose feedback from start to finish was invaluable. Thank you for making me feel like a top priority among a million priorities, and for pushing me through in this last year. Dr. Brian Harper who was the first professor I had in the program, served on my dissertation committee, and conducted crisis intervention in the years between; I thank you. Your ability to redirect my entire thought process by asking just one question still astounds me. Dr. Anne Galletta introduced me to participatory methods of inquiry, contributed much to my choice of methodology and to my development as a scholar. Dr. Cristine Smith provided a wonderful research basis, and sage advice on how to conduct my focus groups. Dr Graham Stead and Joshua Bagaka's, who served as Directors of the Program and, Dr. Frank Aquila; all three of these men challenged me to focus on the relevance of my study, and to think about what I wanted to contribute to the body of research. I have to thank Wanda Pruett-Butler. You are so much more than the Program Assistant to those of us who enter this program. Wanda knows the protocol, and the "who-to-call," and keeps us all in line and out of trouble, always with the cheeriest disposition. Your assistance, guidance, and quiet assurances mean more than you know. I also have to thank my siblings from Cohort XXII, especially Dr. Jessie Guidry Baginski and Dr. Sashelle Thomas Alexander, my unofficial committee members. Your time, your tips, your critique, your friendship: priceless. Craig and Glenda Cotner, and Christopher E. Lewis, your encouragement has meant so much. I'd be remiss if I failed to acknowledge vanessa jones (my sister in the struggle), Norina Columbaro, Andrea Moss, Rosary Kennedy, and Leslie Cohen, who have all provided guidance and support along the way. I must also thank Jonathan Berry for his love, support, and friendship through the years, particularly in the last few, stressful months of writing and editing. Thank you for providing safe space, physical and mental, and for helping me to maintain the proper perspective. Thank you also for bringing the world's greatest study buddy, Abbey Gail Berry, into my life.

Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 2016

Scientific literacy, marked by the ability and willingness to engage with scientific information, is supported through a new genre of citizen science—course-based research in association with undergraduate laboratories. A three-phased progressive learning module was developed to enhance student engagement in such contexts while supporting three learning outcomes: I) present an argument based on evidence, II) analyze science and scientists within a social context, and III) experience, reflect upon, and communicate the nature of scientific discovery. Phase I entails guided reading and reflection of citizen science–themed texts. In Phase II, students write, peer-review, and edit position and counterpoint papers inspired by the following prompt, “Nonscientists should do scientific research.” Phase III involves two creative assignments intended to communicate the true nature of science. Students work collaboratively to develop public service announcement–like poster campaigns to debunk a...

Natural Resources and Environmental …, 1998

The objective of Writing across the Curriculum (WAC) in the School of Forestry is to build critical thinking and writing skills throughout the duration of a student's program. The program, as it has evolved over the last four years, has resulted in more writing assignments in classes where previously little had been required, a movement from descriptive to analytical writing by the students, and finally, a demonstrable improvement in student writing abilities. Success has been due primarily to four key features: (1) a revision of the Forestry Professional Program prerequisites, (2) revising the Forestry curriculum both to increase the amount of writing required as well as a logical progression in the types of assignments, (3) faculty development seminars and assistance provided by the English Department's Composition program, including tutoring students and providing them workshops, and (4) an assessment of faculty and student attitudes towards writing. Student and faculty attitudes towards writing and opinions about effective strategies to improve writing were assessed through the use of surveys. The results showed that while there was broad support for writing among faculty and students, the amount of writing assigned was fairly minimal (particularly in the lower-division courses), and that while students, on average, felt their writing was successful, faculty though that it was not. The two strategies that were considered most effective were student revision after faculty comment and peer revision among students. Because evaluating and grading was viewed by the faculty as the primary factor limiting their assignment of writing, a standardized grading score sheet ("rubric") was developed. The net result of the writing across the curriculum program in the School of Forestry is that faculty are assigning more writing, providing opportunities for revision after their comments, and standardizing evaluation and grading criteria. Our strongest partner in this effort has been the English Department and its Composition program in particular. The results of our collaboration have demonstrated-albeit not statistically significant-an improvement in our students' writing abilities.

2006

assumed responsibility. Therefore, we want to begin by thanking Patricia Linder for agreeing to a new model for the editorial team. She had previously served as a co-editor for 2 four-year terms and agreed to stay one more year in order to ease the transition. We are so grateful for her willingness to continue to serve and for her expertise, dedication, and commitment to CRA and the CRA Yearbook. You may notice that Pat's initials are not listed at the bottom of the Acknowledgements nor the Introduction. There is a reason for that omission-we did not send a pre-publication copy of either to her for approval because we knew she would not want a public acknowledgement. However, we want to say-Pat-Thank You!!!! As always, we are grateful to all who gave both their time and expertise to make this yearbook possible. The authors of the manuscripts expended energy, thought, and patience as their manuscripts progressed through the time and labor intensive process from submission to publication. The CRA Yearbook would not exist without our authors' knowledge, commitment, and continued dedication to excellence. In addition, we are very thankful for and to the Editorial Review Board members who conduct peer reviews and facilitate the selection of manuscripts. Their contributions are critical to the quality of the Yearbook and we are grateful for the expertise and perseverance they continually demonstrate. We also value the support of the CRA Publications Committee, which is chaired by Timothy G. Morrison of Brigham Young University. In addition, we are grateful to the members of the CRA Board of Directors who have continually supported the editorial team and the publication of the CRA Yearbook. Regardless of the composition of the editorial team, every year seems to be a year of transition for many of the people who are involved in the process of making the yearbook a reality. We are indebted to Carlyn Ross Schlechter who designed a cover which we think captures the multiple literacies' theme of this volume and is also visually intriguing. As co-editors, we thank her for her willingness to share her creativity and talent. In addition, we have had three outstanding editorial assistants who dealt with the infinite details involved in the complex procedure of producing a yearbook. Blake Bryant was our CRA editorial assistant at the beginning of the process and when he graduated we split the position between Margie Adams and Mario Campanaro. They all demonstrated dedication, expertise, enthusiasm, intellect, and commitment which facilitated a smooth transition and resulted in what we believe is a quality yearbook. We applaud all three for their willingness to go above and beyond the job description and invest long hours xi in tracking and reading manuscripts in addition to communicating with reviewers, authors, and managing editors. We are very fortunate and grateful for the ongoing support of scholarship and the CRA Yearbook provided by our universities.