WIC Newsletter Spring 2015

Spring 2015 | WIC Program Newsletter | 1

WRITE TO LEARN, LEARN TO WRITEWRITING INTENSIVE CURRICULUM PROGRAM NEWSLETTER

SPRING 2015

IndexWriting Together, Teaching VerticallyTanya K. Rodrigue, PhD 3

Public Health Nursing Professional Poster Presentations: Writing for the DisciplineBarbara A. Poremba, EdD and Kathleen Keough Adee 7

Less Groaning, Better Feedback: Get the Scoop on Productive Peer ReviewKelly Drummey 8

Spotlight on Faculty: Cindy Vincent, PhDKelsey Alcantara 10

Please Mark Your Calendars!The Second Annual Salem State University Writing Pedagogy Conference, hosted by Professor Tanya Rodrigue and Professor Alexandria Peary, will be held Thursday, May 14 from 8 am-2:30 pm. Salem State faculty and graduate students will discuss the teaching of writing on panels and in roundtables, and Keith Hjortshoj, PhD, from Cornell University, will give the keynote talk on writer’s block. More details will be available in April.

WelcomeThank you for reading the debut issue of Write to Learn, Learn to Write, the Writing Intensive Curriculum (WIC) Program newsletter! This newsletter is part of the larger university WIC initiative that supports faculty teaching writing in the disciplines, especially those teaching W-II and W-III courses, and provides occasions for faculty to share ideas about writing pedagogy.

Since the WIC program was initially created as a response to the new general education curriculum, much of the first issue addresses

questions and concerns I’ve heard from faculty across campus about the new vertical model of writing instruction. This issue provides support to W-II and W-III faculty by offering information, strategies and ideas about how to propose and develop a course that meets W-II and W-III course goals and criteria. In “Writing Vertically, Teaching Together,” I describe the vertical model of writing instruction and respond to three common questions: 1) why are we using this model?; 2) what are the similarities and differences among W-I, W-II, and W-III courses?; and 3) what might a W-II and W-III course look like? This article combined with “Insight from WIC Seminar Program Participants” on what comprises a “meaningful writing assignment” may provide guidance in developing and creating effective assignments in a W-designated course.

One similarity among all W-designated courses is the criterion—“students receive and respond to feedback from peers and instructor during the drafting and/or revision stages of the writing process.” Many Salem State faculty have expressed concern about the quality of feedback students give one another during peer review sessions, namely that students often focus on grammar rather than ideas and content. In “Less Groaning, Better Feedback: Get the Scoop on Productive Peer Review,” Kelly Drummey, WIC graduate assistant and English master’s candidate, presents two peer review models that have been proven successful in Salem State college courses.

Tanya K. Rodrigue, PhD

continued

2 | WIC Program Newsletter | Spring 2015

Write to Learn, Learn to Write is a newly launched newsletter sponsored by the Writing Intensive Curriculum (WIC) program. It will be published in the fall and spring of each academic year. The newsletter functions as a site for faculty to both acquire and share ideas, insights and practical experiences about the teaching of writing. In light of this purpose, we are actively seeking article submissions for upcoming issues on various topics related to writing pedagogy. Some possible topics are: an effective or challenging student writing activity or assignment; the process of designing a W-designated course; the benefits and challenges of teaching a W-designated course; the function and purpose of writing in a field or discipline; and the role of writing in careers related to a discipline. Articles should be approximately 750-1,200 words. Please send ideas, drafts, or polished articles to professor Tanya Rodrigue at [email protected]. All submissions will be considered, yet given space limitations, not everyone will be asked to further develop their drafts or ideas. I look forward to hearing from you!

WIC Programmatic Goals:

• To support instructors teaching Writing-II and Writing-III courses

• To contribute to the successful implementation of the new general education curriculum

• To promote the use of writing and the teaching of writing in all classes at the university

• To foster and nourish a university culture that values and supports writing and writing pedagogy

• To strengthen the faculty culture at the university

“Public Health Nursing Professional Poster Presentations: Writing for the Discipline” by Barbara Pombera, EdD and Kathleen Keough Adee, is the featured article in this issue of Write to Learn, Learn to Write. Pombera and Adee, faculty in the nursing department, discuss the design of an assignment that prepares nursing students to communicate effectively in their careers. They emphasize the importance of providing such opportunities for nursing students.

Our Spotlight on Faculty section features Cindy Vincent, PhD, an assistant professor in communications. She discusses the value of the teaching of writing in her discipline as well as the new vertical model of writing instruction in an interview with English major Kelsey Alcantara, the fall 2014 WIC undergraduate intern. Vincent also talks about her participation in the WIC seminar program, a yearlong program comprised of seven seminars on writing pedagogy topics for faculty teaching W-II and W-III courses.

I hope you enjoy reading the first issue of Write to Learn, Learn to Write. If you are interested in writing an article for the newsletter, please email me at [email protected]. |

Sincerely,

Tanya K. Rodrigue, PhD WIC Coordinator Assistant Professor in English

• For existing courses, reflect on what you already do in relation to the W-II or W-III goals and criteria.

• For new courses, reflect on how you can both integrate writing into your courses for purposes of achieving course learning goals, and how you can incorporate instruction into the classroom via discussion, homework and in-class work.

• Be certain your course achieves CID goals and criteria.

• In course descriptions, be sure to include W-I and/or W-II as prerequisites and to identify the course as a W-II or W-III course.

• For W-II courses, carefully consider how other prerequisites may prevent students from

across the disciplines from taking the course.

• Use language from the W-II or W-III CID in the course proposal, and be very clear as to how you’re seeking to achieve goals and meet the criteria. The emphasis in the W-II course is on providing students with opportunities to write for various purposes and audiences, while the emphasis in the W-III course is on disciplinary writing. Be sure this is clear in your proposal, and be sure to define the purposes and audiences.

• Try to incorporate writing into the topics and/or subtopics, course goals, and course objectives in both the W-II and W-III course. |

Welcome cont.

Strategies for Composing W-II and W-III CIDs


Writing Vertically, Teaching TogetherTanya K. Rodrigue, PhD, WIC coordinator, assistant professor in English

The vertical model of writing instruction (in various shapes and forms) is used at many institutions of higher education, and many consider it to be the most effective way to help students become stronger writers. The reason why this model is deemed effective is because it is informed by research in writing studies, and it reflects best practices to date in the learning and teaching of writing.

Here is a glimpse of some of that research:

• Writing promotes learning and critical thinking, thus the integration of writing in any class provides a rich educational experience for students.1, 2

• Writing is positively associated with high-impact learning practices. The more professors assign writing tasks, the more students perceive them to be emphasizing higher-order learning, and reflective and integrative learning.3

• Students become strong writers when they have multiple opportunities (in different classes throughout their college careers) to learn about writing; to practice and revise writing; and to reflect on writing and themselves as writers. Contrary to popular opinion, students cannot “master” writing in one or two courses.4, 5, 6

• The teaching of writing can foster eight habits of mind identified as essential for success in college and beyond including curiosity, openness, engagement, creativity, persistence, responsibility, flexibility, and metacognition.7

• Students learn and perform better when they are intrinsically motivated.8 Thus students taking a writing-intensive course in their major, minor or simply a course that interests them, will likely be more engaged, learn more and better retain knowledge.

Question #1: Why Did Salem State University Adopt the Vertical Model of Writing Instruction?

Salem State University has undertaken significant changes during the past several years. Our core curriculum (now called the general education curriculum) has been completely revamped, giving way to exciting pedagogical opportunities for professors and learning experiences for students. One significant change at the university is the vertical model of writing instruction. The two-course composition sequence (ENL 101 and ENL 102) housed in the English department has been replaced with a three-course sequence (W-I, W-II and W-III). As the Writing Intensive Curriculum (WIC) program coordinator, I have engaged in a multitude of meaningful conversations with faculty about the vertical model. Faculty have voiced different opinions, ranging from excitement to anxiety to uncertainty about teaching writing in their disciplines. Many have asked questions and expressed concerns related to the writing-designated courses. In this article, I will address some common questions to provide information about the vertical model and prompt more conversation about writing and writing pedagogy at Salem State University.

1John Bean, Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking and Active Learning in the Classroom (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2011).2Michelle Cox et al. “Statement on WAC Principles and Practices,” The WAC Clearinghouse, February, 2014, http://wac.colostate.edu/principles/.3National Survey of Student Engagement, “A Fresh Look at Student Engagement—Annual Results 2013,” (Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, 2013).4Brent, Doug, “Transfer, Transformation, and Rhetorical Knowledge: Insights from Transfer Theory,” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 25, (October 2011): 396-420.

5Cox, “Statement on WAC Principles and Practices.”6Council of Writing Program Administrators (CWPA), National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), National Writing Project (NWP), “Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing,” Council of Writing Program Administrators, January, 2011, http://wpacouncil.org/files/framework-for-success-postsecondary-writing.pdf.7Ibid.8Elizabeth Barkley, Student Engagement Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010.)

continued


Question #2: What are the Commonalities and Differences Among the Three Writing-Designated Courses?

Commonalities in W-Designated CoursesThe courses work together to help students accumulate and enhance transferable knowledge related to writing and writing practices. As a result, particular content is consistent in all W-designated courses.

All courses in some form:

• Count writing assignments for at least 40 percent of students’ grades

• Integrate writing for the purpose of learning

• Teach students: writing process(es); writing strategies for different kinds of writing; the relationship among writing, audience, purpose and context; feedback practices and revision strategies; and the value of reflection for writers

Differences In W-Designated Courses

Although the courses have commonalities, they also have differences. Each course plays a distinct role in helping students become effective writers. The most important differences are:

• The W-I course introduces students to our university writing curriculum and equips them

with foundational knowledge about writing and writing practices. Students will encounter the kinds of writing experiences common in the vertical model: writing activities that help students learn, and writing in different forms for different purposes and audiences. Students also learn a language to talk about writing—concepts and terms such as rhetoric and the writing process. Such vocabulary is instrumental in helping students understand the role and function of writing in college, in the workplace and in their personal lives.

• The W-II course broadens students’ experiences with writing. Students have opportunities to continue practicing writing in a variety of forms for different purposes and audiences. Such practice helps them strengthen their writing abilities and develop a strong awareness of what they need to think about and do when approaching a new writing task.

• The W-III class focuses on teaching students how to write the various kinds of writing that are common in a discipline. These writing opportunities prepare students with the skills and abilities they will need to write in their future careers.


Question #3: What Does a W-II and W-III Course Look Like?

Faculty have taken up the goals and criteria of the W-II and W-III courses in various ways. Below are two examples. (If you are interested in viewing more examples, please email me at [email protected].)

W-II Course:

The world language and culture department’s “Italian Composition through Film” class (ITL354) was approved as a W-II course last year. The description of the course is as follows:

In this course, students will further develop proficiency in writing Italian. Selected Italian language films and literary excerpts will generate topics for composition in Italian, as well as broadening students’ understanding of Italian culture, geography, and history. Focus will be on developing writing skills acquired at the intermediate level appropriate for tasks such as: describing, narrating, summarizing, or expressing an opinion. Three lecture hours per week, plus required viewing of films outside of class. Conducted entirely in Italian. Prerequisite: ITL202 or equivalent and WI course.

The course goals and outcomes reveal the various ways faculty in this department will achieve W-II goals and criteria. The course has several goals:

• To write in Italian for informative and creative purposes with an emphasis on simplicity and clarity

• To continue the study of grammatical fundamentals

• To further develop skills in reading, composition and conversation

• To explore Italian contemporary themes as described in Italian films, newspapers, articles, literature, songs, and art

• To foster opportunities for collaborative work and stimulate students’ critical thinking process

• To encourage students’ understanding of other people and other cultures and, by extension, of their own culture

The course has four outcomes:

• To demonstrate improved writing skills in Italian by completing a portfolio of revised writing assignments in a range of formal and informal pieces

• To identify conventions of writing, effective writing strategies and effective writing processes To give constructive criticism of others’ writing and articulate ways to improve writing

• To explain how their writing has improved and why

In ITL354, faculty will provide students with several opportunities to practice writing for various purposes and audiences. Such assignments may include: a book review; a film review; letter writing; an autobiographical essay; a short story; and a critical essay.

W-III Course:

The history capstone course “Research and Writing in History” (HST 505) was approved as a W-III course last year. The course description is:

The seminar will involve examination and analysis of professional materials in journals and books of primary and secondary sources that deal with the process of research and writing a formal history paper. Faculty and peer discussion will also consider analytical and methodological points. Required of all History majors. Three lecture hours per week. Not open to students who have received credits for HST 405 or HIS405A. Prerequisites: W-I, W-I and HIS 290, or HST 200 (WII).

The department positions the class as one that introduces students to “historical writing and research.” Again, the course goals and outcomes give a good idea of how faculty will achieve W-III goals and criteria.

The course seeks to accomplish three goals:

• To offer a capstone experience for history majors that engages them in original research that results in the production of an article length essay

• To provide a forum for students to methodologically formulate, develop and execute historical research plan

• To provide a structured, supportive environment that engages students in the questions of methodology, analysis and interpretation that are central to historical research and writing

continued


The course has seven outcomes:

• To write an article length essay based on original research

• To demonstrate engagement with the historiography of their subject in their formulation of their research question, the conduct of their research, and the writing of their final article

• To provide one another with peer review of research and writing projects, and in doing so become more reflective about the process of historical research, the methodologies used, and the viability of specific claims

• To prepare a research plan and specific proposal for the project

• To publicly present their research and outcomes to an audience of their peers and their professor

• To reflect critically on the process, method, content, analysis, and interpretation of their project as they conduct it

• To engage in the constructive writing practice of drafting and revising their work

Historians who offer this course will help students gain an understanding of the writing process of historical papers as well as what they need to do to effectively write in historical genres.

In addition to the above three questions, faculty have expressed common concerns about teaching W-designated classes. Some are worried that they

Bibliography

Barkley, Elizabeth. Student Engagement Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010.

Bean, John. Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2011.

Brent, Doug. “Transfer, Transformation, and Rhetorical Knowledge: Insights from Transfer Theory.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication. 25 (October 2011): 396-420.

Council of Writing Program Administrators (CWPA), National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), National Writing Project (NWP). “Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing.” Council of Writing Program Administrators. January, 2011. http://wpacouncil.org/files/framework-for-success-postsecondary-writing.pdf.

Cox, Michelle et al. “Statement on WAC Principles and Practices.” The WAC Clearinghouse. February, 2014. http://wac.colostate.edu/principles/.

National Survey of Student Engagement. (2013). “A Fresh Look at Student Engagement—Annual Results 2013.” Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. 2013. http://nsse.iub.edu/NSSE_2013_Results/pdf/NSSE_2013_Annual_Results.pdf

do not have the expertise to teach writing in their disciplines while others fear W-II and W-III courses will yield an unbearable workload. Some faculty are also concerned about balancing content and writing in a W-designated class. In the WIC Seminar Program, I offer a series of seven seminars that will support teachers in designing and teaching W-II and W-III courses and address the aforementioned concerns. During the semester, I will email all faculty information on the WIC Seminar Program and instructions on how to apply to the program. If you have any general questions about the program, please visit the WIC website (salemstate.edu/wic),the informal WIC Seminar Program website (tanyarodrigue.com/ssuwic), or contact me directly at [email protected]. I am also available for individual and departmental consultations about anything related to writing pedagogy. |


Public Health Nursing Professional Poster Presentations: Writing for the DisciplineBarbara A. Poremba, EdD, professor of nursing and Kathleen Keough Adee, assistant professor of nursing

For a practice-focused discipline like nursing, what exactly does writing in and for the discipline mean?For years, NUR415 Public Health Nursing was the writing-designated course for the major. Since its placement in the curriculum was the last semester of the senior year, the writing assignment was referred to as the “Capstone Paper.” To meet this objective, students wrote a 35-page paper that required them to collect, analyze and synthesize data for the purpose of assessing and diagnosing a community for its health needs/problems. Students then identified solutions that a public health nurse could provide. Over time, as the field of public health nursing expanded, more content was added to the course to meet the Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria. The large amount of new material made the required public health writing assignment more difficult to complete within the time constraints of a 7-week course; faculty and students both found the 35 page paper requirement unmanageable. Since the assignment accounted for 60% of the total grade, a disproportionate emphasis was focused on producing the paper rather than on mastering the application of concepts required to practice public health nursing.

Although the paper was unwieldy, the process involved in completing it was crucial for student learning. Students learned how to review literature; assess, analyze and synthesize data; and create solutions for a problem. While the process was instrumental, the product—a 35 page paper—was not. Thus faculty were faced with the challenge of creating a new assignment—one that retained the core objectives of the former assignment and enabled students to learn and practice written and verbal communication that nurses use in the profession. Such communication skills include clear, accurate and concise presentation of salient points that reflect an understanding of scientific evidence and application to practice. Taking all of this into consideration, Poremba created the “Professional Public Health Poster Presentation.” Like the former assignment, the poster presentation calls for students to synthesize complex concepts yet asks them to do so in a creative presentation. This professional form more accurately reflects how practicing public health nurses present evidence-based information. Students present a visually-engaging final poster of their findings using graphs and charts in small groups to their classmates. Afterwards, some of the posters are shared

with outside agencies that put them on display. The project demonstrates students’ ability to gather, critique, and analyze data, as well as verbally and visually present data in a manner consistent with the professional nursing role, specifically in forums or at conferences.

Feedback from both students and faculty on this assignment has been overwhelmingly positive. Students leave the course with greater self-confidence in the communication skills they will need as professional nurses. Although the course no longer retains the “W” classification, it continues to meet many of the overall objectives of writing for the discipline of nursing in the form of a meaningful discipline-specific assignment that demonstrates critical thinking in written and verbal communication skills.

Yet there are a number of challenges for the ongoing prospect of this assignment. The presentations, averaging 20 minutes each, require a number of additional faculty for evaluation and take up valuable class time, forcing further squeezing of the necessary course content. The course requirements also include a clinical practice component as well as a midterm and final exam, a community assessment Powerpoint project and on-line graded discussions. Of greatest concern is the workload imposed on the faculty; the time necessary for faculty to provide guidance and feedback to students, each of whom have a different public health topic, is extremely laborious in such a short period of time. The project works well when class size can be limited to 25. However, as class size continues to incrementally increase (up to nearly 50 students per quarter for only 2 full-time faculty), the viability of this activity is threatened. Hopefully, if writing for the discipline is truly valued, solutions will be addressed. | Bibliography

American Nurses Association (ANA). Public health nursing: Scope and standards of practice. Silver Springs, MD: Nursesbooks.org, 2007.

Callen, Bonnie et al. Essentials of Baccalaureate Nursing Education for Entry-level Community/Public Health Nursing. Public Health Nursing. 27 (4) (2010): 371–382.

Committee on Educating Public Health Professionals for the 21st Century Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies. Who will keep the public healthy? Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2003.


If you’ve heard your students groan, moan, and sigh at the mere mention of peer review, only to realize you’re feeling the same way, don’t worry, you’re not alone. Orchestrating productive peer review sessions are a challenge for most professors. Salem State University English assistant

professor and WIC coordinator Tanya Rodrigue, who has taught college writing for more than ten years, explains some of her challenges:

I’ve tried and designed all different kinds of peer review but I’ve never really been satisfied with the kind of feedback students give each other until very recently. The majority of students have always found a way to bring their comments back to the sentence-level despite my repeated attempts to get them to focus on ‘big-picture’ things like idea development.10

Despite these challenges, many professors know that peer review has potential to be tremendously valuable for students. Yet the question remains: how can instructors facilitate sessions that yield good revision advice?

Amy Minett, an assistant professor in the Salem State University English department who specializes in multilingual writing and writers, uses a method that she describes as traditional, yet her guidelines for composing and sharing feedback fortify her method. Her workshop model begins with the writer, or a volunteer designated by the writer, reading the paper aloud. The class reflects and prepares four written comments based on guided criteria and then shares their feedback with the writer. The writer listens silently to all of the comments and is allowed to ask clarifying questions only after all feedback has been shared. Minett notes that engaging in structured peer review not only sharpens writing-related literacies, but also helps students develop their intercultural literacies. She explains:

For multilingual writers, we can infuse language as well as content objectives into a [peer review] workshop model like this. Students not only learn about giving feedback,

Less Groaning, Better Feedback: Get the Scoop on Productive Peer ReviewKelly Drummey, Salem State University English master’s candidate

collaboration, reading, and writing, but they also focus on grammatical forms of statements, questions, hedging, etc. This focus on form also leads to important discussion of cultural conventions related to pragmatics: praise, hedging, politeness, etc.11

Minett emphasizes the importance of modeling the workshop process with the whole class before the students workshop in groups.

Like Minett, Rodrigue has discovered the writer/reader/listener dialogic model is effective. She has recently adopted Professor Peter Kittle’s “gossipy reading” technique for peer review as described in his National Writing Project article “Reading Practices as Revision Strategies: The Gossipy Reading Model.” The activity, which she refers to as “gossipy peer review,” calls for students to get in groups of three. One student writer silently observes while peers read and discuss his/her work. At the end of the session, the writer joins the conversation, asking for clarification, advice or posing questions. Kittle, who is a professor at California State University, Chico, describes his experience executing this activity: “What happened in practice was remarkable… Gone was the burden, so often foisted upon members of peer revision groups, of suggesting ways to ‘fix’ the paper. Instead, group members simply had to read the piece aloud, interrupt whenever they had comments, and talk about the ways that they made sense of the paper's ideas.”12

Kittle describes one gossipy session where two students immediately expressed confusion about their peer’s essay. The dialogue that followed helped the writer revise his essay. Kittle writes: “As a result of this interchange, Louis was able to focus on the way he began his paper. He not only knew that the introduction needed work, but he also knew what effect its original form had on readers. The process had shown him what he had to do to meet his readers' needs.”13

Footnotes10Tanya Rodrigue (Assistant Professor and WIC Coordinator) in discussion with the author, November 2014.11Amy Minett, email message to author, January 20, 2015.12Peter Kittle, “Reading Practices as Revision Strategies: The Gossipy Reading Model,” The Quarterly 25, no. 3 (2003), http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/resource/871.13Ibid.

Kelly Drummey


Rodrigue found similar success when she used it in her own classroom, so much so that she shared the activity with faculty in the WIC Seminar Program. One of these faculty members, Salem State University political science professor Elizabeth Coughlan, has used it in several of her classes and her satisfaction with the outcome parallels Rodrigue’s. During my recent visit to Coughlan’s undergraduate European politics class, her students’ enthusiasm about the activity was plainly evident and their feedback on the activity supports Rodrigue’s sentiments. Emory Paine, a senior communications major, says, “It was very helpful. I always try to imagine how others would read my paper, but here I was able to experience the reader’s process for myself. It allowed me important insight that’s difficult for me to think through on my own.”14 Paine also found value in discussing his peers’ work. He continues: “[The activity] gave me an interesting chance to read another classmate’s paper in depth. I gained interesting insight on how other people interpret assignments and write papers differently from myself.”15 Another of Coughlan's students points to a different reason why the gossipy peer review was successful. Ayan Green says, “I thought it was less judgment, but more conversation like.”16

Coughlan’s students confirm Rodrigue’s theories that the peer review activity is successful in part due to its social nature. It relies on a conversational style of communication, which many college students feel comfortable with. Rodrigue says: “[gossipy peer review] helps students understand writing as a social act. They don’t have to worry about things like complete sentences or grammar or ‘sounding academic.’”17

It is worth noting that the reliance on spontaneous conversation between students about their writing as they read is the clearest distinction between the gossipy peer review and Minett’s method, whereas peers do not share feedback with the writer spontaneously, but rather take time to reflect and compose thoughtful, guided reactions. This calls attention to the fact that different peer review methods will be more or less appropriate and comfortable for each student based on various factors such as learning styles, cultural backgrounds, and personality. Taking this into consideration is another way of increasing the chances that peer review will be successful. Minett accommodates and respects student preferences in her classroom by having students choose the peer review method that works best for

them: “I use differing peer review workshop formats for the first half of the semester, reflecting on effectiveness with students after each one. By the second half of the semester, I let students in groups negotiate the model to use based on their experiences.”18

Possessing audience awareness is critical for students to gain good writing skills that will serve them well not just in the academic setting but throughout their lives. Suggesting a potential audience when assigning a writing assignment is helpful, but giving students the chance to share their writing with an actual audience is likely to be more impactful, and this can be accomplished with effective peer review. Gossipy peer review brings students face to face with their audience. Rodrigue notes: “It gives the writer the opportunity to hear exactly how the audience is engaging with his/her writing, how they’re making sense of it, and how or if they’re understanding it. In literally hearing how an audience receives one’s writing, the writer is able to determine whether or not they made good rhetorical choices and were successful in achieving their goals.”19

The gossipy peer review is one peer review strategy that has been used successfully in undergraduate classrooms here at Salem State University. With this method, students witness their writing being read, comprehended and appreciated by a genuine audience: their peers. Through these strategic, productive communication sessions with their classmates, they gain a clearer understanding of how an audience is responding to their writing and a more tangible motivation to write effectively. |

Bibliography

Kittle, Peter. “Reading Practices as Revision Strategies: The Gossipy Reading Model.” The Quarterly 25, no. 3 (2003). http://www.nwp.org/cs/ public/print/resource/871.

Footnotes14Emory Paine (student) in discussion with the author, January 2015.15Ibid.16Ayan Green (student) in discussion with the author, January 2015.17Tanya Rodrigue, discussion.18Amy Minett, email.


Cindy Vincent, PhD is an assistant professor in the communications department and has been teaching at Salem State University for two years. Most recently, she has taught Introduction to Communications (COM 201); Mass Media and Society (COM 206); Principles of Public Relations (COM 349);

and Public Relations Writing (COM 351). Vincent is also a public relations consultant and currently works with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In the past, she has worked for the California State Department of General Services.

Vincent’s most recent publications include: “Change.org” in the Encyclopedia of Social Media and Politics ; “POOR Magazine and Civic Engagement through Community Media” in Race/Gender/Media: Considering Diversity Across Audience, Content and Producers and “MACBETH: Development of a Training Game for the Mitigation of Cognitive Bias” in International Journal of Game-Based Learning. Kelsey Alcantara, the intern for the Writing Intensive Curriculum program, sat down with Vincent in mid-September (2014) to discuss the vertical model, her burgeoning W-II course, and her experience in the WIC Seminar Program.

KA: What do you think of the new vertical model at Salem State University, specifically the W-II and W-III courses?

CV: I’m not that familiar with the old model since last year was my only year working in it, but the new model seems to be an improvement, especially in my field. I teach public relations for the university. My students have to be good writers. It’s imperative for them to get a good job. The vertical model will help them become better writers because they’ll have more opportunities to focus on their writing. To be honest, we were already doing this in our department anyway. I think it makes sense that all university students should have opportunities to strengthen their writing skills.

KA: What course will you be transforming into a writing intensive course?

CV: So we have already applied for and been approved for two courses. Our basic public relations writing course (COM 351) will be a W-II course and our advanced public relations writing course (COM 450) will be a W-III course.

Spotlight on Faculty: Cindy Vincent, PhDKA: How do you think the redesign of this work will benefit your students?

CV: In filling out the paperwork (Course Information Document (CID)) for the W-II course, you have to identify how your course fits the writing criteria designated by the university. I like how this forced me as a professor to think in terms of writing processes, writing assignments, and writing activities. To be honest, prior to last semester, I never thought of myself as a writing instructor. So redesigning the course forced me to rethink how I approach the class entirely. I would have to say that my first semester teaching PR writing probably didn’t go as well as it could have, which is why I’m participating in the WIC Seminar program. I’m really excited to learn strategies that I can use to get at the W-II CID goals and criteria. From my own professional experience, I never spent much time doing a meta-analysis of the writing process. It’s more, ‘do your job and do this within this deadline.’ It’s more about writing in a fast paced world rather than meeting certain expectations and requirements. But I never stopped to think about, okay so what’s the process involved in this? How does the draft phase and revision process really affect the outcome of what I’m sending out into the world? I really like how the goals and criteria of the W-II course have forced me to rethink the classroom design. And now my students this semester are really working on the revision process, talking about it, talking about their writing, and talking about themselves as writers. In PR, we don’t think of ourselves as writers, but we are. And so I think the W-II course will benefit our students in that way.

KA: What kinds of struggles or obstacles might you face in teaching the course?

CV: The obstacles I’ve been facing are really my own personal struggles. Like I said before, I never really thought of myself as a writing instructor, so I’ve had to overcome that. I’ve had to think to myself, ‘what do I think of when I think of a writing instructor?’ Personally, I think of my high school English teacher. She taught in a very specific way, but it was very effective. I look at her as a model and try to emulate her. I ask myself: ‘how can I embody that?’ I sort of have to get over my own maybe inadequacies or self-consciousness with regards to that.

I also have to think of ways to effectively apply those practices. I spent my whole summer researching, and it’s funny because some of the resources Tanya has given us so far I ran into over the summer when I was doing my own research about best practices. I was

Cindy Vincent, PhD


Insight from WIC Seminar Program ParticipantsIn the WIC Seminar Program, participants engaged in discussion about effective writing assignments. They were tasked with reflecting on past writing experiences in an effort to think about what makes for a strong assignment. They responded to the following writing prompt: describe your most meaningful writing experience during your education or in your professional life. Discuss why you thought it was meaningful.1 Professors identified meaningful writing assignments as those that: fostered personal growth; related to personal interest; offered opportunities for feedback; fostered a new learning experience; provided preparation for the future; and were flexible. Selected reflections are below:

Personal Growth

• “This was meaningful as it led me to reflect on those who inspired me and those I might have had a hand in inspiring. It prompted a sense of gratitude for the small and large gestures that have shaped the woman I have become.”

• “We spent the semester doing research on campus sub-groups and presented our findings in a final paper. My research was used to help make changes to improve race relations on campus the following year. It felt good contributing to positive changes on campus.”

• “What is most meaningful to me is not a single writing assignment but the manner in which I have playfully used it throughout my life…I wrote a research paper as a play; a set of poetry as a science paper; and 5 pages of faux-art criticism that said nothing while mimicking the language of the field. Words are play, they are design, they are fun.”

Opportunities for Feedback / Revision

• “[Writing multiple drafts of a paper] taught me that writing was not an innate skill but something that could be acquired through applied effort.”

• “The feedback I received from my group was very helpful for clarifying my argument.”

• “A professor helped me edit and revise my draft multiple times—this was the first time I went through many drafts of a piece of writing.”

Preparation for the Future

“Not only did the project open up a particular field of inquiry that I pursued (in my career), it changed my sense of self and my possibilities. Entering academia was not an obvious choice given my class background and a thesis made it clear that I nevertheless could aspire to this.”

Flexibility

• “It was meaningful because we as students chose to collaborate and the professor had complete confidence in our ability to produce something good (which made us work harder).”

• “I appreciated the opportunity to write on an issue that affected me.” |

1This writing activity was inspired by Neal Lerner, Anne Geller and Michelle Eodice’s research project, “The Meaningful Writing Project.”

looking for resources from not just a PR perspective but from a writing perspective. I don’t know these practices because I never had to learn them before. So those are my obstacles right now. It’s just how to best teach the course.

KA: How do you think the WIC Seminar program will help you with the course?

CV: So far, it has really helped me sort of think of myself in terms of that role—how to be a good professor of writing. Tanya’s really forced me to look at the way I respond to and give feedback to my students. I really have an obligation to encourage and support them and ignite passion for writing. As opposed to some professors they may have had in the past who did anything but that, who

have sort of slammed them down and told them they’re terrible and that they’ll never be a writer. That’s terrible. She’s doing a great job of teaching us how to really support our students, to really take care with them, to make sure that they feel confident, because they’re new at this. The question becomes: ‘how can we help instill confidence in them to go into this profession or use these writing skills in the future and feel like they can succeed?’ We’re just at the beginning of the program, but I’m hoping we are going to get more into techniques and strategies to use in the classroom.

KA: Great. Thank you for your time.

CV: Thank you. |


Eighteen Faculty Complete the WIC Seminar Program and Participate in Salem State University’s First Annual Writing Pedagogy Conference, Writing VerticallyThe first cohort of WIC participants completed the WIC seminar program last May. All participants participated in seven seminars on writing-related topics including the purpose and function of w-designated courses; using writing to support learning; teaching genre conventions; using digital and multimodal writing in the classroom; responding to student writing; and evaluating student writing. WIC faculty also helped kick off Salem State University’s first annual writing pedagogy conference in May, Writing Vertically. Conference participants gave presentations or participated in roundtable discussions on topics including: “Teaching Writing from a Genre Perspective;” “Teaching Writing from a Rhetorical Perspective;” “Teaching the Writing Process;” “Incorporating Low-Stakes Writing in the Classroom;” “Proposing, Designing and Teaching

a W-Designated Course in the New Gen Ed;” and “Teaching Digital Writing.”

WIC participants were: Pamela Leong (sociology), Michele Louro (history), Krishna Mallick (philosophy), Francesca Pomerantz (literacy, counseling and learner development), Eric Yitzchak Metchik (criminal justice), Elizabeth Coughlan (political science), Joseph Kasprzyk (computer science), Jennifer Jackman (criminal justice), Margo Shea (history), Li Li (history), KC Bloom (sports and movement science), Guorong Zhu (business), Peter Kevtko (music), Christopher Schoen (sport and movement science), Kimberly Poitevin (interdisciplinary studies), Sami Ansari (criminal justice), George Abbound (sport and movement science), Jennifer Robinson (criminal justice). |

Documents

WIC Newsletter Spring 2015