Enos, Theresa and Shane Borrowman, eds. The Promise and the Perils of Writing Program Administration. West Lafayette: Parlor Press, 2008.
This post contains information about three different narrative essays in Section 6: Tenure, Promotion, and the WPA.
Langston, Camille. “A New WPA at a Small Private School with Large Public(ation) Expectations.” 182-190.
Langston’s story is like many other jWPA horror stories: eager to serve as WPA, she was asked in her first year to direct the program in her 2nd year. Her time, though she was supposed to focus on publication, was quickly eaten up with writing an official job description for the job (which was not recognized as a university administrative position but rather a department appointment), defending the English Department’s right to teach comp during core curriculum committee debates, and conducting a self-assessment of the program.
Peguesse, Chere L. “Fit for an Unfit Fittedness: National Writing Project Site Directors as WPA.” 190-203.
WPA positions don’t have to be internal (WPAs, WAC directors, writing center directors); Peguesse, in her personal narrative, explains how the work of a National Writing Project director is also WPA work, and like WPA work, is unrecognized by other faculty at the university as merit for tenure. She cites Burke in her title and her introduction, drawing on his argument that sometimes it is your training (in her case, focus on WPA work as internal) that becomes an incapacity for you. Her NWP work required her to coordinate with the public school system, run summer sessions, and write extensive grants (which she argued should be counted as peer-reviewed publications, but didn’t.) She also experienced a great deal of friction with the previous, untenured, part-time instructor who ran the program. She was initially denied tenure, but when she proved to the dean that her necessary publication was accepted and being printed, her dean wrote a letter that should give her tenure. She is not directing the NWP after another year, when she will train someone else.
Reid, E. Shelley. “Will Administrate for Tenure, or, Be Careful What You Ask For.” 203-211.
When hired, Reid was told her tenure case would be decided 1/3 on scholarship, 1/3 on teaching, and 1/3 on administrative work. That promise, though, was not upheld at tenure-time, because though some department members believed in it, it was not a belief held by the rest of the university faculty. She was told to couch her administrative work as pedagogical, which gutted her case for tenure.
“Handing around copies of WPA statements, smart as they are, may have no more lasting effect than passing out handbooks to first-year composition students.” (211)
Murray, “The Listening Eye”
Tags: comments, conferences, DonaldMurray, drafts, faith, generative, listen, MajorComposition, narrative, non-directive, pedagogy, questions, reading, response, students, teaching, TheListeningEye, under-teaching, UNH, writing, WritingTeachersSourcebook
Murray, Donald M. “The Listening Eye: Reflections on the Writing Conference.” In The Writing Teacher’s Sourcebook. 96-101.
In this essay, Murray reflects on the writing conference, a particular pedagogical technique he developed at the University of New Hampshire, where instead of holding formal classes, he meets weekly with his students in conferences, where students come to discuss their writing, talking about what they learned from their drafts and their plans for their next drafts and projects. He admits to feeling like he’s doing less teaching than when he lectured, but he believes – and he’s told and shown by his students – that his students are learning more and writing better when he takes this non-directive, writer-to-writer approach. Now, instead of telling them what they need to know, they discover it, and Murray then points out to them what they just learned and discovered.
Quotable Quotes
“I expect them to write writing worth reading, and they do – to their surprise, not mine” (99).
“I’m really teaching my student to react to thier own work in such a way that they write increasingly effective drafts” (99).
“I began to learn something about teaching a non-content writing course, about under-teaching, about not teaching what my students already know” (97)
Notable Notes
the conferences are writer-to-writer, generative, full of comments, and lead to more drafts
the subject of the composition class is the students’ own drafts
narrative style of writing by Murray and Elbow (and focus on the art of teaching) isn’t prevelent in current composition reasearch
conference questions are generative and open-ended: What did you learn from this draft? Where’s this taking you? What will you do next? What surprised you? What do you like best? What questions do you have?