Use this space to provide an overview of how you are reading your own work and what you want your other readers to know about where your final project is at. 

Please post your response to these questions no later than Friday. Relatedly, make sure you've gotten your draft to your readers by that date as well. 

1.  What are you trying to prove in your paper--what is your argument and how are you proving it?
2. What do you feel is working well in your paper and why?
3. What are you less confident about in your paper and why? What feedback can we give you that will help you to approach a final revision?
4. Are there things that you know you want or have to do in this draft but are not done yet that you think we should know about as we read?

Your answers to these questions will guide the workshop. So try to be as thoughtful and as complete as you can be. 

AND ONE FINAL NOTE: Make sure you get your draft to your readers no later than Friday so that folks have time. Please know that your draft doesn't have to be totally finished, that's what that last question allows for. The more complete it is, the better the feedback you'll get, but don't let not being totally done prevent you from getting your draft to your colleagues. 

A refresher: here are the reading groups for next week's class.
Sara: Dawna & Kasey
Kasey: Cassie & Peyton
Peyton: Nick & Devon
Devon: Peyton & Nick
Nick: Kasey & Cassie
Cassie: Sara & Dawna
Dawna: Sara & Devon

ON THE NIGHT OF OUR WORKSHOP:
We will be meeting in person, so, if possible, you can bring a hard copy of the paper and the comments to give to the writer. You can choose to do this electronically, but make sure you are able to talk about the feedback you have for them. 

Final papers are due to me no later than 6:00 on 6 May 2024. 

I encourage you to read my Monday Update for this week at some point, because there I talk about my own limitations in this field as well as offer some updated theory/pedagogy from the field. 

I know that in our class conversations many of you have talked about the linguistic diversity in your classrooms--some have it; some don't. It's also my sence that most of the conversation is in a deficit context--not because you see multilingual writers as less than, but that the classroom makes it nearly impossible to value their considerable linguistic skills. 

For today's post, I invite you to imagine writing assignments not managed by policy, tests or administrators, that would value and celebrate linguistic diversity in a classroom--whether you have multilingual students in the class or not. As you conceive of your idea, please identify the parts of the reading that support your idea. If there is some kind of technology (tonight's other theme) that might help you to do this, write about that as well. 

As usual, after you've posted, please read and respond to your classmates--critique, expand, change their ideas. But, remember, no groaning about what's not possible. Think only about some edenic classroom where all things are possible and the supply closet is endlessly stocked. 

So far this semester we've considered who the writer is  and the what the process of production looks like for different writers at different inflection points in their lives (our own included). This week, we are looking more directly at the texts that get produced, which leads us to a discussion of genre.

Bartholomea's central argument is that school writing is a very particular genre--that, in fact, school, the university, is a genre of behavior--and  that, for many students, it is like another language. We can see this as the next step in the evolving effort in the discipline to understand who our student writers are, what they need. 

Bartholomea is old school about it. Adler-Kasner/Wardle come at it from a very different perspective--genre is a threshold concept because if we understand genre as a writer, we will learn the characteristics of that genre regardless of what kind of genre are writing in. 

For tonight's post, please trace how each other contributes to a useful definition of genre. Once you've posted that, read through your colleague's post and respond in writing about how you see or don't see or wish you saw genre functioning in your own classroom with your own students. 

Due to the limitations of time this class, I'm hoping to have both a theoretical and a pedagogical conversation all at once. 

Just to center us: a return to some history. Roughly 100 years before Villanueva publishes the article we read for this evening, Harvard starts English A. English A, with its emphasis on error correction, is pretty much the standard intro composition course for almost 75 years. In the next century, the GI Bill in the late 40s and then, the biggy, Open Admissions in 1970 drastically alter who is going to college. 

1975, the backlash of Why Johnny Can't Write and the whole back to basics movement. 1980, Mina Shaughnessy publishes Errors and Expectations. The first PhDs in the field are granted in 1984. Sharon Crowley puplishes Composition in the University in 1998. 

So by 1998, not quite 30 years after the field "started" in the modern iteration that we know it, we see in Crowley and here in Villanueva a critique of the field. That speaks to the health of this area of study. It was secure enough in itself to think about what came next. Fifteen year's after that (a little more), we have Inoue. 

For this post, trace a line between what you understand from someone like Shaughnessy, through Villanueva, to Inoue. You are welcome to use the Clark reading on audience as well as the reading from Wardle/Adler-Kasner. Frame your discussion using the lens of identity--how has the field's relationship to a writer's identity shifted over time? Make sure your focus is on what Villanueva in particular contributes to our thinking here, but situate him in the wider history we've been exploring. And consider this as well: we've identified ways that historical and cultural forces outside the academy have made big impacts in the field. In fact, you could even argue that the field exists solely because of a wider movement in education and literacy instruction specifically. What forces are impacted by or impacting Villanueva? Inoue? 

Once you've posted, read your colleague's material and respond--add to their ideas, challenge them, make connections between colleagues. As we enter the last month of thinking about the field, I want us to continue to see how the field acts on and is acted upon by cultural forces beyond the academy. 

Picking up on the themes of our reading this evening about audience, identity, ideology, and the way writing constructs, imagines, shapes, and changes all three, I'm asking you to write about and respond to each other about your own writing/reading classroom. 

In what ways are our classrooms colonizing spaces? Thinking back to Inoue, what policies, practices, people enforce ideologies and direct identities for our students--and for ourselves as educators? Try to think of something very specific and, if possible, try not to repeat what you see in your colleague's post. Because, after all, we could all talk about what standardized tests do to us, our students, and our classroom spaces all day long. We've sort of already done it. Of course, please don't stress yourself out over overlap, just try your best. 

Once you've identified a colonizing aspect of your classroom, can you think about ways, manageable, realistic ways, we. can counteract that force?  Write about that as well. And, again, try to be as specific as possible--can you imagine a specific assignment, a specific revision of a policy, etc? 

Finally, once you've posted your own work, read through your colleague's work. Respond authentically with other ideas that might counteract colonizing forces in our classroom. Challenge them. 

Let's all help each other have the most thoughtful, engaging, humanizing classroom spaces we can in a world that can feel like all three are unimportant. 

It's a bit serendipitous that our readings tonight speak to identity, identity formation, and ideology. One thing the reading from this evening is trying to do is make visible the way these things are often seen as invisible in spaces where writing is happening--and in the writing produced in these spaces

For this asynchronous class post, I want to help you to make visible who you are as a researcher and who you are researching. And I also simply want to help you draft your ethnography/case study.

Please post roughly 500 words that positions you as the researcher in your study AND positions the students and their writing. Think of this demographically--age, race, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic background. That's the kind of thing that applies to both the observe and the observed. 

But, from your end, who are you or who do you think you are as an educator in the classroom? What are your values and biases that you bring with you as you try to observe the writing space and writing activities that fill it? In other word, what is your identity as you enter into this project and what is your ideology you are operating under? 

This material may not appear in the lump it will appear here in this space, but hopefully you'll find ways to use this material in your paper. 

No need to respond to each other. This is a space for me to read and respond. Much like we did outloud in class last week, I'll try to give feedback and ask questions meant to help all of you as you move through the project. 

FOR NEXT WEEK: Continuing our trend of sort of pre-drafting as we go, please be ready to post and/or discuss what preliminary things you are noticing about your site of writing. 

Hello All--
In lieu of a synchronous online class for 26 March 2024, I'm hosting this asynchronous space for asking questions about the two upcoming projects: the ethnography/case study and the pedagogy presentations. 

You don't have to have questions if you don't have any questions, but feel free to ask if you do. Pedagogy Presentations start next week (3 April 2024), and the workshop draft of your ethnography/case study is due the following week. 

I'll be on the look out for questions and try to answer as quickly as I can over the next week. See you in-person on the 3rd. 

And on the other end of things: Revision
It doesn't feel like a new observation now, but in 1982, what Nancy Sommers said about revision was revelatory--in part because it was the first time someone actually paid attention to revision strategies as something that defines a good writer: ​

How Sommer's came to this place, is outlined in the opening from another of tonight's reading's "Concept 5: Writing is (Also Always) a Cognitive Activity. This is the kind of early research in Composition where folks trying to work with new students in the university (via open admissions) were, as Dryer says mapping "mental processes" of writers.

For Tonight's Prompt: CONSIDER EITHER INVENTION OR REVISION from tonight's reading. Then identify one or more ideas from Threshold Concepts in writing  "Concept 5" that helps you to think about what you aren't doing/are doing/should be doing in a writing classroom to help students understand themselves as writers and understand their process better. 

Once you've posted your response, read your colleague's responses, and be ready to have a discussion about what you find interesting across these discussions. 

These are versions of the questions you asked last week about Asao Inoue's Work (these are repeated in the Monday Update): 

Questions We Want Answered from Antiracist Writing Assessment:

• What does “antiracist assessment” look like in an actual classroom? 
• What does “sustainability” look like to him?
• How do you antiracist grade an assignment? 
• How do you encourage other teachers to try antiracist assessments? 
• Do you think teachers who have taught in the current system/structures can/would be willing to learn this other way? 
• What should we do to reframe our ideas about good/antiracist writing practices
• Where is the resistance to race and racism? And why do you think it happens? 
• What skills should we prioritize our students having when leaving our classrooms? 
• What do students think about these antiracist ecologies? 
• ​How do we create these sustainable places for living and learning? 

Take some time to consider what you read in Inoue, what we all read in the introductory chapter, and what you heard from your colleagues. Feel free, of course, to look back to the text itself. Try to answer one to three of these questions now that you are more familiar with the text and with Inoue's argument. As you answer, if you can, try to reflect on your own practice in the classroom. 

Rather than respond to responses in writing, let's come back to our zoom space and talk about what you had to say. 

OVERVIEW: Process Pedagogy is something to consider both historically and theoretically. Historically and Theoretically, it is one of the very first moments when people who taught writing thought about what we actually do when we try to write and thought about the implications--of that process--for writers. 

It comes at a particular historical moment in literacy education. And the theories of process have forever shaped the writing classroom experience from K-12 through graduate education. As scholars of Rhetoric and Composition (or writing studies) have moved beyond process, the practice of process still remains. Not one of us in this class today is not a product of process pedagogy.  And, further, process has been challenged, critiqued, returned to, and critiqued again as a foundational concept in the field, as the readings tonight should indicate. 

TONIGHT'S PROMPT: From our Post-Process perspective, and considering the readings from tonight, can you identify some concepts and/or practices discussed that are a part of your own practice as a writer? As a teacher? Further, as a working professional in a classroom, what commentary or critique do you have about the legacy of process pedagogy? 

RESPOND TO THE PROMPT IN ROUGHLY 250-300 WORDS. Then, read the responses of your colleagues. Identify places of agreement and disagreement and respond accordingly in writing. Once we've spent some time writing and reading silently, we can return to a class discussion about key ideas.