Phelps, excerpt from "Matching Form to Function," 2002 consultation speech at Michigan State

Summary: A key concept Phelps advocates in this piece is that of "enterprise": "the characteristic mode by which intellectual work is accomplished and evaluated at a college or university." She argues to expand "intellectual work" beyond publishable research, but also cautions that it needs to "invoke ideas and explore their consequences" and "be open to public assessment by peers and beneficiaries." When applying this concept to MSU's writing program, Phelps states that "a university writing program must have a core research faculty to authorize its teaching mission. But that isn't enough. [...A] writing program itself needs to accommodate and facilitate the whole range of work encompassed in the university mission, including research, professional service, and engagement with the community." Phelps writes that the first component is very similar to other departments, but the second one is different from most others. Integrating the two will be a challenge.

Response: My first response to this piece was to want to read the whole thing, since I received my undergraduate degree and teaching certification from MSU, as well as working in its writing center (and presenting at conferences and writing two pieces with other people there). In terms of the content of the piece, though, I had a pleasant flashback to Productive Theory and our discussions of the affordances of concepts, the one in question here being enterprise. Enterprise suggests (affords) different things than department or program or division or group--productive things, including a way of blending the different roles of a writing program so that they do not compete with one another, but complement each other. I appreciate the public nature of the work done in an enterprise--it doesn't suggest a "live and let live" philosophy (which sounds great but results in a splintered program), but it does respect individuality. Again, I'd like to know more about how MSU realized these ideas.

Uses: Productive ways to conceive of a writing program.

Phelps, "Institutional Logic of Writing Programs," in _The Politics of Writing Instruction_, Bullock and Trimbur, 1991

Summary: Phelps problematizes the dichotomy inherent in the question of whether writing programs should be in English departments or autonomous. She advocates an approach she views as more productive (I use the term to mean not just "better," but to refer to the concept of production, or producing something useful). Phelps asks how writing programs might embody and encourage the types of change universities might need: how can universities support research while also focusing on teaching; how can they support individual creativity while also encouraging communal problem-solving; how can they realize departmental autonomy while also strengthening connections between disciplines. Phelps addresses some current critiques of academia (including ProfScam, which I remember reading during my undergraduate years and totally agreeing with, while now thinking it is incredibly reductive, mean-spirited, and misguided--interesting not only in terms of my own progression but as how the arguments in it might be understood from someone outside and inside academia). Phelps argues that writing programs have and do engage the types of questions universities at large should address, and that they can serve as heuristics for universities as they try to change. Phelps writes that "the most important contribution I think writing programs can make, though, with respect to higher education at large, is to exemplify the struggle to foster community in the face of the prevailing mood of skepticism, critique of all cultural institutions and their traditions, radical individualism, and loss of fellowship that troubles our colleges and universities" (167). She also poses a series of key questions for writing programs to engage.

Response: This article is twenty years old, and yet I see most, if not all, of the concerns Phelps raises as being still relevant (as well as her suggestions and questions). The piece mostly fits with the "where do writing programs fit in the university" theme, but as is apparent from the summary, it addresses much larger questions. It served to make me think beyond the writing program, which is not only part of what Phelps is advocating, but also necessary for designing a good program.

Uses: Designing a writing program (central questions); re-vamping the university.

Gappa and Austin, "Rethinking Academic Traditions"

Summary: This article provides a snapshot of the changing demographics of faculty and provides suggestions for how the academic workplace should change. The authors make the argument that "faculty members are an institution's intellectual capital. [...and] this intellectual capital is an institution's primary and only appreciable asset." (Amen!) Gappa and Austin note increases in women and people of color among the faculty and a decrease in full-time appointments. They also (this was news to me) note that "the academic fast track, or tenure track, at research-oriented universities is developing a bad reputation" for its lack of flexibility and overbearing workload. They suggest six "essential elements of faculty work": respect, employment equity, academic freedom and autonomy, flexibility, professional growth, and collegiality. They expand on these ideas in productive ways.

Response: This is a more complete and generalized exposition of the ideas in the Gappa and Trice piece, and similarly, the ideas are applicable for most faculty. The article provides some ideas for a WPA to think about--how the workforce is changing, job situations to fight for, etc.

Uses: It is quite up-to-date and provides a picture of the current professoriate and its concerns.

Gappa and Trice, "Rethinking Faculty Work and Workplaces for Women"

Summary: This short article discusses some of the changes in the academic workforce and environment over the past seventy years or so and suggests ways for academe to respond. As is suggested in the title, the focus is on women, but many of their suggestions make sense for men as well. The authors note the increase in women in academe and their challenges, such as balancing long work weeks with home responsibilities. Some women elect to avoid the tenure track for the promise of more flexibility, but then they face barriers to advancement, professional development, shared governance, and pay. Gappa and Trice suggest that academic institutions stress employment equity (for part-time faculty, clarity in hiring and firing, better compensation, better physical facilities), flexibility (for tenure-track faculty, flexible probationary periods and schedules), and collegiality (shared governance, abilities to use all campus facilities, etc.).

Response: As I mentioned above, these are good suggestions that apply to all faculty, not only women. However, I don't want to diminish the special concerns women tend to face more than men. For example, I have two young sons and am a very engaged father; however, I didn't notice my public identity changing upon their birth in the same ways my wife's did. Nor did I feel the same pressures to decide whether to go half-time, pursue further schooling, etc. as she articulated. Things have changed quite a bit since the 1940s, but some gender concerns and differences still persist.

I know that in our own PhD program, the issue of children/motherhood and how it may impact success in the program and academe is being discussed quite a bit. It has seemed, to me, to be a difficult discussion, with different parties feeling hurt or marginalized for their choices. This is simply not something that men have to deal with.

Uses: This article, as well as the one by Gappa and Austin, are very useful to give perspective on the changing workforce and some of the challenges faced by women who choose to be academics.

Phelps, "Fresh Eyes"

Summary: An excerpt from a keynote speech Phelps gave to the Syracuse writing program in 1999. This is a snapshot of the concerns and current issues of a writing program, and offers a different vibe and perspective than the other articles, although it touches on some issues common to the other articles. This address is actually "from the trenches" and offers an interesting case study of a writing program. Some of the issues covered in the speech are the constituent groups of the program (there are five major groups, all quite different, yet all deeply engaged in the program), the physical and financial space of the program, the curriculum, and the role of the director.

Response: I found the piece as a whole interesting, but there were several specific sections that particularly caught my eye. One was the diversity of the constituent groups in the program. This is different from my experience--at my school, we have full-time, tenured faculty, and part-time faculty. So I found this picture of how a program functions at a university very interesting. I also was struck by the amount of discussion of money and pay. Phelps discusses, for instance, the issue of the program controlling its own funds. That seems like a significant win (albeit one that comes with a headache). It frustrates me how composition is so frequently treated as a cash cow by the institution, yet we are so rarely put in charge of any of the funds it generates. I realize this speech isn't saying that the program would be in charge of all those funds, but the issue of funding and its connection to programmatic autonomy and respect is really significant. I was also struck by Phelps's statement that she disagrees with "the notion that the Writing Program is a zero-sum game in which benefits for one group will harm or take them away from another." Unfortunately, I think that negative perception is pretty widespread. (I know it exists at my school, and not just in the writing program.)

Uses: To provide a first-person, local perspective of a university writing program. Also, Phelps provides an outline of a possible role for a WPA.

Anson and Brown, "Subject to Interpretation," in Rose and Weiser _The WPA as Researcher_

Summary: This article portrays some of the challenges of the WPA through anecdote and analysis. I think the anecdotes are fictitious, but they ring true and are consistent with the other readings. The authors' focus is on the positioning of the WPA within the larger university context--they "want to explore the role of research in the work of WPAs from the perspective it its broader value and institutional legitimacy" (141). Anson and Brown write that "in order to represent themselves, their programs, their beliefs, and the products of their investigations, successful WPAs must critically read their institutions as complex educational cultures with powerful habits" (142). A WPA needs to navigate these currents. The authors focus specifically on WPAs attaining institutional authority (through research and publication), performing local research in the university, and interacting with other disciplines in the context of writing (such as what it means to other departments that we are "composition specialists" and how understandings of writing are discipline-specific).

Response: Interesting, as all the pieces are. This takes a middle ground between very local, specific narrative and more broad WPA concerns. The authors certainly expand beyond the narratives to make suggestions for what WPAs should engage at large. This piece didn't have quite the resonance with me that some of the other pieces did.

Uses: How the WPA functions in the institution. Also, to scare people, because the WPA in the anecdotes is denied tenure because the institution doesn't value her work. :) But she gets another job.

Shaw et al., "Analyzing Narratives," in Strickland and Gunner _The Writing Program Interrupted_

Shaw et al. "analyze the narratives of three writing program administrators (WPAs) of different rank and gender from the same institution who all held the same job. [...] Together, [their] narratives provide an institutional narrative about the program itself, a narrative that highlights the ways in which a writing program garners resources, support, and institutional prestige and status, while at the same time retaining many of the problems it has always enjoyed" (155). Winter was the first WPA--untenured, part-time for part of it, underpaid, advocating for a full-fledged writing program and a tenure-track WPA. Shaw was next, tenure-track, no budget, small support staff, still fighting for prestige, advocating the hiring of a senior professor. Then came Huot, professor in rank, larger budget and more support, greater hiring/firing privileges, greater curricular responsibility. The authors then analyze the narratives and draw several conclusions, such as the necessity of seizing upon institutional kairotic moments to make changes.

Response: This piece illustrates the power of narrative to represent a larger trend, and fits very well with the broader historical overviews I've read. It's the story not only of the people, but of an institution that began by exploiting its workers and viewing the WPA (and a writing program) as an afterthought to having a better job description and program. Yet the WPAs had to fight for every step. A chilling part of this article is that no one in the institution comes off as particularly "evil," just disengaged. I think this is probably much realer than a picture of a school where the administration and other faculty are anti-writing or anti-WPA; instead, they just don't care or think about it very much.

Uses: This is one of the best articles I've read for humanizing the process of professionalization of the WPA.

Heckathorn, "Moving Toward a Group Identity," in L'Eplattenier and Mastrangelo _Historical Studies_

Summary: Heckathorn uses text documents (publications, conference proceedings, interviews, etc.) to track the professionalization of the WPA from the 1940s to 1970s. She identifies two periods--Early (1940-1963) and Transitional (1964-1979)--that lead to the modern era. The Early Era begins to identify the WPA and engage compensation; in the Transitional Era, the identity of the WPA is more firmly established (the MLA job list features postings for WPAs, for instance), and journals begin to feature articles focusing on WPA issues more prominently. Heckathorn uses the advent of the WPA journal to mark the end of the Transitional Era. She writes that understanding the history of the WPA position means that "current and future administrators do not have to begin the fight for professional recognition at ground zero" (211).

Response: Heckathorn's article was quite interesting, especially as it tracked the growing self-identification of WPAs as WPAs, rather than as composition instructors with some administrative duties tacked on. It's a history of a field, but also of people trying to gain legitimacy in the university setting. She writes that "a professionalized identity was a critical step toward achieving other goals" (192), enabling WPAs to operate within their institutions from a position of (more) power. (However, as is seen in other readings, many WPAs still struggle for legitimacy within their institutions.)

Uses: To understand the early history of the field. This might work well paired with the histories and overviews of composition.

Phelps, "Composing Administration as a Writer"

Summary: Phelps discusses what it might mean to use writing as "a primary metaphor or source of administrative strategies."  She explores this idea in some detail. As a professional writer, a WPA might be predisposed to writing to learn and plan; to favor writing for those in the program to accomplish work; to "turn to writing experiences and writing theory for the metaphoric resources [necessary] to conceptualize and talk about administration"; to reflect through writing. Phelps gives and analyzes an extended example from her own time as WPA, pointing out how it reveals her "predisposition to think and act like a writer and to project the metaphors of writing and its theories onto administration." Phelps then lists "modes...for composing administration as a writer": making one's own writing the primary vehicle for administration, hosting a writing-intensive work environment, using writing as a metaphor to conceptualize administration, and writing about (and encouraging others to write about) administration.

Response: I find the idea of how metaphors influence how we see and operate as a powerful one. Related to Burke's terministic screens, this understanding of metaphor means that how we perceive administration (and a writing program, and a college, etc.) is filtered through how we conceive of it. Certainly our actions as an administrator are influenced by the same process. This article spoke to me on its face (I, too, conceive of myself as a writer, and it was interesting to explore how that might influence how I see my writing program and my role as WPA), but also on a more theoretical, generalized level. It suggests not only ways to act, but ways to perceive potential conflict in a program and college. (If I'm thinking of myself as a writer, what does that mean for my interactions with my colleagues and superiors who think of themselves as social scientists, or historians?)

Uses: To make you think! But also as a way to conceive of the WPA.

Gold, "Conclusion," from _Rhetoric at the Margins_

Summary: It is difficult to be sure (having only read the conclusion), but my guess is that Gold's goal is to establish a history of writing and rhetoric in higher education through the examination of three colleges' programs in the late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries. He draws from these histories to suggest ways we can "[recover] the full richness of the rhetorical tradition" (154). Gold suggests looking beyond English departments for rhetoric and integrating it more in many courses in the English department (not just FYC). He also suggests a stronger connection with students' lives, through the creation of "legitimate classroom communities" incorporating service learning, online forums, and other methods (155). He also suggests we acknowledge students' goals for personal and economic advancement instead of scorning them.

Response: This may be an article that could benefit from more contextualization in the classroom. It was difficult for me to see that he was saying much new. I'm sure this is in part because I haven't read the whole book. I think part of Gold's point is that when we push for a greater integration of rhetoric, we aren't doing anything crazy and new, but that we're actually returning to an established tradition. That's a useful thought.

Uses: Grounding the integration of rhetoric in history? Suggesting that WPAs try to advocate for rhetoric in other classes, not just those in English?

Valentine, "'Acting Out,'" in Strickland and Gunner, _The Writing Program Interrupted_

Summary: Valentine relies on Wenger's understandings of communities of practice to examine authority and agency in a writing center (and, by extension, in writing programs). She looks at three "disruptive" acts by graduate student consultants in the center and re-contextualizes them as examples of students trying to claim agency in an overly authoritarian environment. Valentine suggests that WPAs should attempt to structure programs to encourage agency from constituents (graduate students, in her examples, but her argument can be expanded to include pretty much everyone, especially those lower on the hierarchy such as part-time faculty). To return to Wenger, encouraging agency helps traditionally disempowered parties become more legitimate participants in the CoP.

Response: Valentine had me at her use of Wenger, whose concept of CoPs has been one I've found myself going back to a lot over the past year. I am surprised at how many of these readings have to do with writing centers--it reveals a blind spot I had prior to this course in that I had not conceived of writing-center directors as WPAs. This article (and the others I've read) was useful in opening my eyes to this bias. I think the argument is sound and necessary, especially for the newer WPA who might, due to feeling unsettled in the role, be over-authoritarian. This is similar to the new-teacher problem, where one feels as though one needs to hold on too tightly to one's authority and sees challenges everywhere. A key solution to both situations is a relaxing of the grip, as Valentine points out here.

Uses: Writing centers, WPA administrative structure and how our concepts influence our actions.

Liggett, "After the Practicum," Ch. 6 in Rose and Weiser, _The WPA as Researcher_

Summary: Many writing programs that employ GTAs have a required practicum in which those TAs learn the program and some writing theory. Liggett uses this article to explore what happens to the GTAs after the practicum--how their teaching changes, from whom they seek advice, and what impact keeping a teaching journal has. She gives a fairly detailed description of her methodology and results and finds that most teachers changed their pedagogy slightly to put their personal stamp on the course, and that they used the theory they got in the practicum to guide them (although few continued to read in composition studies). GTAs rely on a wide variety of people to get advice, although they predominantly rely on their peers. Many students kept journals and found them helpful. Liggett ends the article with a list of the changes she will make to her practicum based on her research findings.

Response: I find this piece interesting on two main levels. First of all, it is useful to see the aftermath of the practicum. I had one as an MA student (when I was a TA), and I found it very helpful for many of the reasons Liggett lays out, especially in forming the peer-to-peer networks I relied on through the program. Secondly, I thought this article modeled a WPA engaged in reflective practice. It took guts for her to research how useful the practicum was and whether the things she taught had staying power, and it took more guts to change her program based on what she found. This is the key value I see in the piece: Liggett serves as a model for aspiring WPAs.

Uses: Mostly for modeling, but also as a snapshot of how GTAs operate (and how a WPA should) at a university.

Durst, et al. "Portfolio Negotiations," in Huot and O'Neill, _Assessing Writing_

Summary: This article focuses on "the kinds of discussion and negotiation that take place around student writing in portfolio norming sessions" (219). The system at the school is that trios of teachers exchange portfolios and pass or fail each other's students (high stakes!). Before these evaluations, larger groups of teachers meet to norm. The authors provide transcripts of key conversations that took place during those norming sessions, illustrating the questions teachers had and the dissensus that often resulted. They see these conversations as productive and natural ("grading papers [is] another act of reading, as complex and varied as all acts of reading" (224)) opportunities for instructors to reflect on why they value what they do in writing and why they make the judgment calls they do. The authors examine the tension between trying to assure uniform standards and value the different perspectives in a group of teachers.

Response: This is another quite interesting snapshot of the realities of an assessment program. When the stakes are so high--students can pass or fail based on an outside reader--it's no wonder teacher tensions are also fairly high. There may be a bit of cross-over between this article and Martin's, so we may be able to cut one.

Uses: Assessment, but also professionalization of faculty.

Martin, "Outcomes Assessment," Ch. 4 in Rose and Weiser, _The WPA as Researcher_

Summary: Martin tracks the development of an outcomes-assessment program at her school. She argues that "outcomes assessment not only can help us to see what we are doing well and what needs attention, it can also help to increase the quantity and quality of faculty conversation about teaching and can provide opportunities for interested graduate students to participate in the design and execution of research with real-world significance" (41). Her group engaged the value of the FYC requirement, the value of the individual outcomes, and whether students were meeting them. She describes the evolution of the assessment program, from a relatively quick read of student portfolios with minimal norming or discussion. This resulted in highly divergent readings and faculty dissatisfaction. She then modified the program to include extensive norming and discussion and revised the assessment tools, resulting in better consensus and more faculty confidence in the process. She notes that the conversations were extremely productive and led the group to examine far more than just the essays at hand, but also the goals of the courses, the practices of the teachers, the relative value they placed on different writing issues, etc.

Response: This was an excellent and honest piece that not only provided a model of what (and what not) to do, but raised the point that good outcomes assessment, when undertaken not for compliance to some outside agency, but developed within a program, can spur really excellent conversations. I thought this piece was quite useful. It reminded me quite a bit of my own college's program, which I was strongly involved in starting and evolving. I've written about it here and here. (For some reason they yanked my byline in the second link, but the piece was originally published in Community College Week.)

Uses: This could be used to humanize the assessment effort and show that it can have benefits at the local class- and program-level if approached as a way to encourage dialogue and continually improve courses. It also has applicability to the professionalization of part-time instructors and developing cohesion in a department.

O'Neill, et al., Ch. 4 and Intro, from _A Guide to College Writing Assessment_

Introduction
Summary: The gist of this piece is that WPAs will have to come to terms with assessment, a major initiative at colleges nation-wide. The authors write that assessment often drives curriculum, and that a good WPA needs to take an active hand in developing and administering assessments to ensure that productive, research-based assessments are used, thereby improving the curriculum instead of taking it down a dark path to poor pedagogy. They encourage readers to see assessment as an opportunity. The authors also state that WPAs need to understand assessment so they can advocate for productive assessment to audiences--other administrators, the public, the state--that may be less versed in writing theory and practice.

Response: I agree!

Uses: It's a short read that makes a good point. It's also a necessary point (based on my experience), and one that WPAs should recognize. Of course, this could have a place in the assessment section. I wonder if the same points could be made in a different way--in class, or in a general post--but then, it's good to have a reading make that point. This is a possible one to cut, though. We would need some way to introduce assessment, if we did decide to cut it.

Chapter 4
Summary: This chapter focuses on the context of a writing assessment. By context, they mean the writing program itself--spatially, courses and curricula, students, faculty, administrators, etc. The authors give a series of questions to consider about many of these. The gist of the chapter is that an assessment program does not occur in a vacuum--if it is done well, it should be a local artifact, closely tied to its context. This is a very practical chapter that gives suggestions for how to analyze the context of a writing assessment to aid in its development.

Response: I would not get rid of this piece. It is easy to apply and makes an extremely good point. One can't just adopt an assessment program from another school or discipline and expect it to work. It needs to be grounded in the individual school. Still, I have seen people try to do just that--search the web for an assessment model and try to adopt it wholesale. So an article like this is needed.

Uses: The assessment section of the course. It also has some relevance to a basic understanding of a writing program and how the program itself is a local artifact.