IWCA Collaborative @ CCCC, 2014Sep 7th, 2013 | By IWCA Web Editor | Category: Conferences & Institutes
IWCA Collaborative @ CCCC Overview
The all-day IWCA Collaborative @ CCCC is an independent, annual IWCA event and will not appear on the CCCC program. The Collaborative @ CCCC focuses on providing an interactive, informal, and invigorating day for all comers.
This year the event will take place from on Wednesday, March 19, 2014, from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. at the Hyatt Regency Indianapolis, a five-minute walk from both CCCCs hotels. The day will be well worth the registration fee, which will include breakfast, lunch, and an evening reception. Registration information will be posted on the IWCA website as it becomes available. We look forward to joining you for a great day in Indianapolis!
Proposals were due by October 25, 2013. The following CFP is included for archival purposes.
Writing centers have long had a complex relationship with the idea of “openness.” The open admissions movement in higher education in the United States is often intertwined with the disciplinary history of writing centers, as Peter Carino (1996) and Elizabeth Boquet (1999) pointed out. More recently, Jackie Grutsch McKinney (2013) challenged us to rethink our story of openness. She posited a “grand narrative” for writing centers—“Writing centers are comfortable, iconoclastic places where all students go to get one-to-one tutoring on their writing” (p. 3)—and then troubled that narrative to account for some of the complexities it smooths over. For example, as Grutsch McKinney problematized our grand narrative of writing centers as “comfortable,” she evoked Nancy Grimm’s Good Intentions, reminding us that comfort is a cultural construction that assumes that students are “of a certain class (upper or middle class) and cultural background (white American)” (p. 25). Several scholars have urged us to expand—blow wide open, even—notions of “idealized” or “normative” written texts, writers, or writing centers (Canagarajah, 2006; Denny, 2010; Young & Martinez, 2011); others have called the writing center community to be more mindful of global contexts for writing center work (Chang, 2013; Tan, 2011), recognizing that writing center pedagogy, practices, lore, and disciplinary history may differ from one nation to the next.
Additionally, in pointing out how the “grand narrative” foregrounds the work of tutoring all students, Grutsch McKinney cautioned us that thinking of ourselves as open to all students does not necessarily translate into all students visiting or working in the writing center—nor are we open to doing all that all students want.
Other questions about openness and inclusion remain in our field, particularly when thinking about whether writing center practitioners have an imperative to push boundaries, extending writing centers’ spheres of influence to revise institutional practices and policies.
We invite proposals for the 2014 IWCA Collaborative @ CCCC that are open for interaction and risk-taking, considering questions like the following:
- In writing center lore, writing centers are often positioned as self-described institutional provocateurs, upending traditional learning models. But, to what degree are writing center staffs open to taking risks? Do tutors and writers challenge one another in tutorials? Are writing centers open to dissensus, or does consensus shut down the possibility of authentic dialogue? How might writing center staff education promote openness to risk as we undertake conversations about race, ethnicity, religion, gender identity, and other differences?
- How open are our individual writing centers, our home institutions, our writing center journals, and our professional organizations? How can the writing center community create more open spaces for tutors to talk back?
- How successful is the writing center community in opening up its work to the gaze of those beyond our discipline? How much time do we spend on distilling writing center pedagogy and clarifying to others (e.g. administrators, legislators, the wider public, education policy wonks) what we do? We have a long history, but to those outside our discipline, we still seem new. How do we introduce ourselves to new audiences? Which secrets should we keep? When is it strategic not to be wide open?
- When we have writing center job openings, just how open are they? How transparent are writing center hiring practices? To what degree are we—as a writing center community—asking ourselves hard questions about the ways tutor selection processes might replicate or diversify the types of tutors hired? In the United States, what are the experiences of historically underrepresented groups when applying as writing center tutors or writing center directors? Beyond the United States, how do national labor contexts inform hiring practices in writing centers?
- To what degree are writing centers open to linguistic diversity—among staff and among writers? During tutorials and in written texts? How can tutors identify openings for talking about students’ rights to their own language? How can administrators identify openings for hiring linguistically diverse writing consultants?
While some traditional formats, such as roundtable sessions, are available, traditional conference papers and panel presentations will not be included. Instead, proposals that explore new modes of collaborating and making meaning will be given priority in the review and selection process. All proposals, regardless of format, should attempt to ground the work within writing center scholarship and/or scholarship from other disciplines.
Workshops: Facilitators lead participants in a hands-on, experiential activity to teach tangible skills or strategies related to writing center work. Successful workshop proposals will include reflective elements—either at the end or throughout—time for playing with theoretical ideas/reflection about the activity (large- or small-group discussion, written responses).
Roundtable Sessions: Facilitators lead discussion of a specific issue related to writing center praxis (that is, the intersection of theory and practice); this format might include short remarks from between 2-4 presenters followed by active and substantive engagement/collaboration with attendees prompted by guiding questions.
Collaborative writing circles: Facilitators guide participants in a group writing activity intended to produce a co-authored document or materials (e.g. mission statements, petitions, position statements, letters to the administration, surveys, etc.).
Fishbowl Conversations: Unlike Roundtable sessions, which are highly structured and are guided primarily by a few facilitators, Fishbowl conversations are decentralized. Facilitators initiate a large-group discussion, and then rotate off the panel to allow other attendees to shape the discussion. Successful Fishbowl conversations will set aside time at the end for individual or group reflection. If you would like to talk about possible configurations for a Fishbowl conversation, or if you have any questions about this unconference format, please contact Collaborative Co-Chair Nicole Kraemer Munday, firstname.lastname@example.org, for more details.
Round Robin Discussions: Facilitators introduce a topic or theme and organize participants into smaller breakout groups to continue the conversation. In the spirit of “round robin” tournaments, participants will change groups after 20–30 minutes to extend and expand their conversations. After at least two rounds of conversation, facilitators will reconvene the full group for a concluding discussion.
Works-in-Progress Workshops: The IWCA Works-In-Progress Committee and the editors of The Writing Center Journal are planning the 2014 offerings of these workshops. In general, participants present in-progress research and receive feedback from colleagues in attendance in response to questions posed by the researcher. Proposers typically include a set of questions in the proposal, and the questions should help the respondents to provide useful feedback to the writer/researcher. Please contact The Writing Center Journal Co-Editor Steven Price, email@example.com, for more details.
Other new and engaging models! Have a format in mind that we haven’t included? Propose it (and be sure to include a description and rationale)!
This year’s chairs, Nicole Kraemer Munday (Salisbury University) and Katie Levin (University of Minnesota), and a committee of reviewers will select proposals based on their relevance to the theme, their contribution to writing center work, and their articulated plan for participation and collaboration with attendees. This is a competitive process; not all proposals will be accepted.
Submissions should be no longer than 500 words, and they should include the following:
Presenter contact information: Please include name, title, institutional affiliation, phone number, and email address of all presenters, specifying a primary contact.
Format of session: Specify session type (e.g., laboratory, collaborative writing circle, roundtable) from the above list, or name a new model.
Abstract of session: 70–100 words for inclusion in the program, if accepted.
Description of session:
Please include a) a description of the session topic and its importance and anticipated appeal to participants; b) each presenter’s (and participants’) anticipated contribution(s); and c) detailed information on how presenters plan to allocate time during their 75-minute session. Proposals for the Works-in-Progress Workshop should describe the nature of the project, methodologies used, anticipated stage of completion by the conference date, and types of feedback (specific questions) desired.
Rationale for session format:
Please include a brief description of the interactive nature of your session, including a rationale for the session format you’ve chosen. Identifying the activities, specific questions to prompt discussion, or breakdown of time spent with facilitator remarks versus group discussion/activity will be useful. Please note: no proposals for traditional presentation formats (i.e. papers, PowerPoint presentations, or panel presentations) will be accepted.
Email proposals (WORD DOC) by 11:59 pm EST on October 25, 2013 to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Proposers will be informed of their program status by December 15, 2013; we intend to finalize and publicize the program by February 1, 2014. As you prepare your proposals, we encourage you to contact the chairs with any questions or concerns you may have.
Boquet, E. (1999). “Our little secret”: A history of writing centers, pre- to post–open admissions. <i>College Composition and Communication</i>, 50(3), 463-482.
Canagarajah, S. (2006). The place of world Englishes in composition: Pluralization continued. <i>College Composition and Communication</i>, 57(4), 586-619.
Carino, P. (1996). Open admissions and the construction of writing center history: A tale of three models. <i>The Writing Center Journal</i>, 17(1), 30–48.
Chang, T. (2013). The idea of a writing center in Asian countries: A preliminary search of models in Taiwan. <i>Praxis: A Writing Center Journal</i>, 10(2), 1-9. Retrieved from <a href=”http://projects.uwc.utexas.edu/index.php/praxis/index”>http://projects.uwc.utexas.edu/index.php/praxis/index</a>
Denny, H. (2010). <i>Facing the center: Toward an identity politics of one-to-one mentoring. </i>Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
Grutsch McKinney, J. (2013). <i>Peripheral visions for writing centers</i>. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
Tan, B. (2011). Innovating writing centers and online writing labs outside North America. <i>The Asian EFL Journal</i>, 13(2), 390-417. Retrieved from h<a href=”http://asian-efl-journal.com/”>ttp://asian-efl-journal.com/</a>
Young, V. A., & Martinez, A. Y. (2011). <i>Code-meshing as world English: Pedagogy, policy, performance.</i> Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.