Post here your observations about Rhet/Comp Conference opportunities. Take the opportunity to discuss your plans for submissions.
Pay particular attention to the CCCC site, looking at the workshops and categories for presentation.
http://www.unm.edu/~sromano/english640/conferences.htm
Also post here comments on your meanderings through the listservs. Be sure to do key-word searches for your areas of interest to see what turns up. Report in on successes.
http://www.unm.edu/~sromano/english640/listservs.htm
Here's a link to the 2008 ATTW conference site, which will eventually get corrected on the assignment page. ATTW meets nearly concurrently with CCCC. You can submit a single proposal to both conferences, or could last time I heard, thus doubling your chances. We need to investigate this possiblity. Do look at the presentation titles closely for matches with your interests.
http://cms.english.ttu.edu/attw/conference/conference
Friday, February 8, 2008
Conferences and Listservs
Posted by Susan Romano at 2:02 PM
Labels: Conferences and Listservs
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
I've been doing a a little roaming on the listserves and have a few observations.
For DigiRhet and H-Rhetor (which belong to the same H-Net system), archives are open (no need to join). You can certainly browse by month, but if you want to use search terms, be sure to choose "keyword" if one word, or "phrase" if 2 or more words. You also need to choose from a menu bar the precise list you want to search in, e.g., H-Rhetor. As with most searching protocols, you need to try out several words in order to get what you want. For example, when I searched for the phrase "community memory" I got one hit only. But when I searched for "public memory" I got a whole bunch.
TechRhet wants you to join up before looking, so just go ahead.
WPA-L is quite viewable.
The workshop at CCCC I was interested in is the one on Grounded Theory as a research method for composition studies. Yet the workshop description doesn't give you a single clue about what grounded theory is! So I went to Wikipedia to confirm that it indeed is what I think it is; still, WikiP makes it sound here much less exciting than it really is. Here's Wikipedia on grounded theory:
"Grounded Theory (GT) a systematic qualitative research methodology in the social sciences emphasizing generation of theory from data in the process of conducting research.
It was developed by two sociologists, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss. Their collaboration in research on dying hospital patients led them to write the book Awareness of Dying. In this research they developed the constant comparative method later known as Grounded Theory; see The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). When the principles of grounded theory are followed, a researcher using this approach will formulate a theory, either substantive (setting specific) or formal, about the phenomena they are studying that can be evaluated. This contradicts the traditional model of research, where the researcher chooses a theoretical framework, and only then applies this model to the studied phenomenon."
So it's a method used within the big rubric of qualitative research. If you're interested, I have a terrific book recommendation (title = _Unbound_ and I'll have to try to remember the author--can be done--ah--something like Burowoy). Anyway, the book is a set of chapters composed by the author's graduate students (in Education), who began the semseter by studying various theoretical approaches FIRST (contrary to the above), then going into the field and revising this theory according to what they observed. So in other words, they created a kind of dialogue between theorizing from the top down and theorizing from the bottom up. The examples are amazingly interesting--I particularly recall one where a student goes into a HS or middle school classroom where the special ed assistants outnumber the teachers--a very chaotic environment. I won't spoil it for you by saying more--but note well:
If you are interested in ethnographic or qualitative research to understand a particular classroom dynamic (or other in the trenches pheonomenon, then read this book.
Looking forward to hearing from you all.
Note that I redirected your CCCC adventure to the 2008 program. If you already did the 2006 program, that's fine but the 2008 interface is superior, allowing you to search the program in various ways. Do what you want, but I suggest for starters choosing a term from the "area clusters" and searching that term. YOu'll get not only titles of presentations and speaker names, you'll be able to read the 2-sentence overview of the panel, which was submitted with the proposal. Looking at these texts should give you ideas for your upcoming CCCC proposals in April.
Wow--take a look at the web design of the Computers and Writing conference site. What's interesting to note is this: Kairos, the journal supporting online everything, does NOT require such technical expertise, but instead makes room for the less technically adept.
I spent a lot of time digging through past threads on the H-Rhetor listserv. I found some interesting topics like a discussion of word play in article and book titles--most of the posters were not in favor of them, which surprised me. You'd think that a bunch of people interested enough in language use to post on H-Rhetor would enjoy some word play. I guess some of them thought it was pretentious. Too bad...I really enjoy them (that is, when I get the joke...)
I found a link to a newly published book on Kenneth Burke's Shakespeare criticisms--I found it amusing that the British press that published the book called Burke a "maveric American intellectual." Maveric?! The book contains annotated versions of Burke's well-known works on W.S. as well as some previously unpublished notes and lectures. It sounds like an interesting read--it might be fun to see how readable Burke is when he's not writing about rhetoric.
I also found some information about a blog that Stanley Fish publishes. I'm a fan of Fish, so I was intrigued, but the comments were mostly criticism of a recent piece he published on the blog. In it, Fish argues that Aristotle has no use for persausion. His critics are saying that he just didn't dig deep enough in Aristotle's Rhetoric.
It was interesting to see posts on the listserv from names I recognized, including such notables as Jan Swearingen, Susan Jarratt, Carol Poster, Richard Johnson-Sheehan, and Chuck Paine!
I conducted a search on the word Montessori and unsurprisingly, came up with nothing, but when I typed in progymnasmata, I got two pages of comments, including a defense of the progymnasmata exercises from Swearingen and a recommendation of a couple books that take them seriously and have attempted to adapt them for modern classrooms.
In Swearingen's post, she mentioned (not in complimentary terms) the influence of Dewey on removing memorization and declamation from our modern education system. This interested me because I've read a few articles contrasting Dewey's education theories with M. Montessori's, which I've found useful in my work. I'm also in the process of reading a book on American pragmatism as anti-philosophy that devotes a chapter to Dewey. I'll have to see where this leads...
Thanks for the explanation of grounded theory, Susan. I noticed that workshop as well, but had no idea what grounded theory was. Based on your description, it sounds like what I've been thinking about doing since our last meeting. Last week, we talked about conducting an informal survey of people in the department to find out about their experiences with and perceptions of Montessori education. Since then, I've been thinking about doing something a little more formal. I'm thinking of creating a questionnaire to distribute both to everyone in the department and to the 80+ sets of parents at the school my daughter attends. Then I can use the results to add to my argument for the connection between (and value of) rhetoric, Montessori, and the progymnasmata. Or something like that...
In the last few weeks, I've spent quite a bit of time exploring the RSA website and looking at information on the RSA conference. This is a biannual conference--the next one is in May, and the submission deadline was last Sept, so it will be a while before we could submit something. However, they do have a work in progress option that sounds pretty good. If accepted, you submit your work (by April 15) to a group of 5 of your peers and one scholar (list on website), who will review your work and provide you with feedback at the conference. It sounds great, especially if you're planning to go to the conference anyway.
I also came across a links page from the International Society for the History of Rhetoric that has some good information including a link to Burton's Silva Rhetoricae, and links to full-text versions of classical rhetorical works and collections of works online. The page is at http://ishr.cua.edu/resources.cfm.
I spent some time at the CCCC website, too. Looking through the program, I found lots of topics that sounded interesting, but when I searched some key terms related to my topic, I found almost nothing. The best I could do was a list of several sessions related to the term democracy, but only two of those sounded like they would pertain to what I'm working on, and then only slightly. They were Establishing Reality: Role-Playing Democracy through College Rhetoric and Adaptation IS Reality: The Search for Truth in Student Writing through Adaptation and Antilogy.
I looked through the archives of all the listserves and found almost nothing on the topic of teaching media rhetoric, or the rhetoric of media, or anything closely related. I did find some interesting threads on teaching skills, rhetorical theory in general and of course lots of calls for papers and job postings.
The problem I have with most listservs, is that so many of the conversations (outside of the CFPs and job postings) seem secondary or tertiary to the purpose of the listserve itself.
As an expirement, I'm going to post a question on the H-Ret and the WPA sites asking about my particular interest and see what kind and quality of responses I get.
If I can't find the conversation I need, I might as well start one.
On the conferences, as Tim pointed out, the ones most likely to be interested in my topic are closed for the year (or two). However, I want to submit this paper topic to the 2009 CCCC. I'll keep an eye on the call for papers sight and develop the paper with an eye to both publishing and presenting.
I have been very disappointed with the listserves. Some require subscription, and yet have not accepted my subscription in a timely manner. Others, I haven't found ongoing discussions but only initial posts. And, like Greg, nothing has seemed relevant to what I'm doing.
Last week, Candice and I were paired to discuss our work and share ideas. As we talked, we briefly considered planning a panel for the Thomas Watson Conference, whose theme is "The New Work of Composing." As we talked, I believe we concluded our work was too far apart to successfully blend into a panel, but as I researched the conference separately, I concluded that a)I might want to submit a proposal myself and b)doing so would help me to better narrow down the idea of my paper/chapter.
Among the questions asked of potential presenters: "what is the relation between new and old media? between textual, visual, and aural modes?" These questions are certainly a part of what I am studying as I work on my book. But perhaps for this chapter I am looking at one aspect too closely--the issue of the movement of churches out of buildings in the 80s. While I do believe this is an important issue in the overall construct of the chapter, I probably would be better served to use is as a point on the timeline--an historical footnote to the bigger, more immediate issue of moving a community of use--a faith community--into a new rhetorical space--the internet.
Wow. How's that for stream of consciousness?!
Anyway, here is what I am thinking for a presentation at Thomas Watson--focusing on the new use, while highlighting its difference from the old use. That would mean examining the set of rhetorical spaces in which the emerging church has, well, emerged: blogs, web site articles, and discussion forums for the most part. Then I would compare this new composition, perhaps specifically focused on theology, to its former rhetorical place in the pulpit and, secondarily, in publication.
Where does the movement of physical church from "church building" to strip mall come in? I think it was a logical, pre-internet progression as churches attempted to both pay their bills and find relevance in their communities.
I just want to add that I am uncertain about the plenary sessions, which seem to be the only "workshop" type offerings at this conference. The titles are extremely vague!
However, the list of speakers is impressive. Just last week I commented here on an interview with Andrew Feenberg, who is the first speaker on the list. His session is entitled "New Perspectives on Technology, Media, and Communication." I wish there was more information, but I would attend it for the simple reason that I am now familiar with him as a rhetor and a scholar.
I hope that more information becomes available as the conference nears.
I thought the CCCC call by Charles Bazerman was interesting. He wanted the speakers to address the following:
• to inquire how writing reveals our histories, inscribes facts, and makes realities available for thought and deliberation;
(We have talked about this very much and it ties into the pieces we read in CE and CCC (obviously!)).
• to examine how writing creates accountability for truth and evidence, establishes responsibilities to act on what we find, and develops our communal responses to those realities;
(Reminds me of the article in the WAC journal about objective/subjective evidence)
• to consider writing in relation to the complex realities of contemporary society;
(Connects to many things we have discussed)
• to attend to the realities of teaching and learning writing in our changing world;
(Application to teaching, careerism)
• to contemplate our role as teachers of writing in preparing citizens who can responsibly represent, reflect on, and act in the worlds they inhabit and rebuild;
(paideia)
• to propose actions by which writing and our profession may make and sustain this world as a more habitable place
(careerism and paideia)
And like Sarah, I was impressed by the number of speakers and the variety of subject matter.
I was looking forward to searching through the listserves but after looking at a couple of them H-Net DigiRhet/ H-Rhetor and WPA I was quickly turned off. There was too much there and I didn't think the whole discussion was being moderated. People were not talking to each other, but rather at them. And many calls for conferences (this would make sense) but maybe I just feel overwhelmed on sites like this. I also probably would join the H-Rhetor one and if I could keep up with the conversations, that would be the one I would be most interested to follow and even post to.
The thread on Anti-semitism was interesting, a bit difficult to read initially, but I caught on after reading awhile. Maybe it is a good way to clarify big picture things in place that has scholars posting (good answers to your questions presumably) but not the stress of publishing a paper on it.
It seems the the 2 important things to post about are teaching questions/practices/etc. or calls for conferences/papers.
On the H-Rhetor site I did a search for 'Community memory' and 'public memory' and found a least a couple interesting posts.
Rhetoric of space, community memory, rhetoric/political space and professional rhetoric/space were some of the nicer posts I found on Community memory.
When I searched 'public memory,' I found several articles on the Holocaust memory, public history in general and media in community memory. All could tie in nicely to my piece.
I went into the CCCC site for 2008, and searched first for composition with two-year colleges and found a few things of interest. Then I searched using ESL as a keyword, and I found some very interesting things.
• “Taking Responsibility for Recreating,
Renewing, and Sustaining Writing Centers”
Like most of these presentations, several people are presenting together. The most interesting part of this for me would be the second speaker, who will discuss how “open admissions schools can meet the needs of developmental and ESL students.
• “Academic Gateways VS. Academic Gatekeepers….”
This presentation will mainly focus on how students gain fluency in academic English, which I think is a very difficult thing for both developmental and ESL students. I’m not sure this one plugs into my conversation, but I think as background it would be helpful to know about what is being said about academic English.
• “Adapting Writing Center Pedagogy to Fit the Needs of Second Language Writers”
This is really something that fits into my interests, except that it is writing center and not writing classroom pedagogy. Still, as a framework it is very interesting because it sets it up in the following way: this is how we’ve done it, and this is how we are going to have to change if we are going to serve second language writers.
• “At Home and in the World: Negotiating Global Perspectives in the Writing Classroom”
I like the term “global discourse”, and I would like to know more about how that term differs from, or is similar to, world Englishes. This presentation also has identity as a central concept, and I wonder how student identities are impacted by learning another language or entering a new discourse.
• “Rebuilding Pedagogy for Realities in Composition Classes: Working with Students at HSIs and Other Non-traditional Sites”
This presentation will focus on Hispanic Serving Institutions, but only a third of the presentation is related specifically to ESL students. Still, I really think the ideas brought up about adjusting pedagogy to meet the needs of the students in our classrooms are exciting.
• “Adjusting the Lens: Reading L2 students and their Texts in College Composition”
I like the use of the term “multi-lingual writers” rather than ESL writers. By using the term multi-lingual writers I sense a positive connotation rather than a stigma. The presentation will focus mainly on reading and assessing L2 student writing. This is really something I am interested in. It seems like the writers are going to make an important distinction between a focus on global or local aspects of student writing. Focusing on lower order concerns (if I understand the abstract clearly) is not the best choice when reading L2 writers’ work.
• “Writing Communities Re-conceptualized: Designing a Stretch Program to Replace Basic Writing”
I had never heard of the idea of a “Stretch Program”, but after reading the summary it sounds like an interesting idea. Basically, the stretch program is designed for basic writers (including multilingual students), and it takes a group of writers and puts them, and an instructor, together for two semesters rather than one. I’d like to learn more about this. Greg Glau from Arizona State (???) is cited in the summary, so I think I need to look at his work and Arizona State’s stretch program.
• In Transit: Practices, Pedagogies, and Realities of Enabling Academic Persona”
Speaker two, out of six, will talk about helping ESL students become initiated into the academic community.
Below is a copy of my final conference proposal for the Watson Conference. It's too late to change, but I wanted to share it.
The Effects of Participatory Media Websites on Composition Theory and Practice.
The impact of new media technologies and rhetorics on composition pedagogies is permanently altering our classroom practice. Scholars (Brown, Freeman, Williamson) argue that composition programs that do not address the form and quality of persuasion in new media are flirting with anachronistic pedagogy. Pedagogies inevitably lag behind technology, but the speed at which technology and new media has changed in the past decade has created a chasm of difference between how students access and process information and how teachers approach analysis, rhetoric and composition studies. The solution is to help connect composition teachers to the media literacy of modern students and develop new pedagogies that take advantage of the primary medium through which students access the world. This paper positions the first-year writing classroom as a space to capitalize upon students’ new media literacy skills for innovative composition practices. It will also examine the impact of participatory media websites like YouTube on the social community of college freshmen and present examples of how this new media offers opportunities for expanding students’ understanding of composition rhetoric.
I looked over H-Rhetor and DigiRhet and was more successful (somewhat) with H-Rhetor. It wasn't until I plugged in AI's and several discussion logs came up. Most were posted by the same individual?? Most centered on varous issues with AI's, but really couldn't find anything on composition and the "native." As for DigiRhet, every keyword I plugged in, came up negative - somewhat depressing.
Post a Comment