|
Articles Conference Reviews |
G.30 Undergraduate Research at the National ConventionG.30 Contesting CCCC Spaces: Undergraduate Research at the National Convention Session G30 comprised five undergraduate students from two institutions that have undergraduate composition majors. In this session those undergraduate students (two students were from Pennsylvania State University – Berks and three were from Oakland University) reported on individual research projects. The session was co-chaired by Gregory Giberson, from Oakland University, and Laurie Grobman, from Penn State – Berks. Some 20 audience members convened in 507 on the lobby level of the Marriott to listen to research reports at perhaps the first-ever undergraduate writing majors’ CCCC panel. The first speaker, Jacob Matthews (Oakland University), whose talk was titled “Facing Fear: A Systemic Approach to Writing Anxiety in the Writing Center,” spoke of his primary research project on writing anxiety. He surveyed three Composition I classes about writing anxiety, interviewed several of the some 50 students surveyed, and ultimately completed a case study with “Sam” (only one interviewee was willing to participate). Jacob, a second-year Writing and Rhetoric major and Writing Consultant in the Writing Center, completed three 40-minute tutoring sessions with Sam, then re-surveyed her and the original group. Jacob’s data and observations document a significant decrease in Sam’s writing anxiety level (15% compared to a negligible decrease of 3% for the group); he was also able to move from directive to non-directive tutorial strategies by the third tutorial session, as she became a more confident writer. Jacob situated his research project in his own experience with writing anxiety and spoke appreciatively of his faculty mentors’ support for the design, execution, and interpretation of his research. Amanda DesChamps (Oakland University), spoke on “Writing Undergraduates in the Writing Center: The Reconciliation between Writing Center Pedagogical Beliefs and the Study of Writing as a Discipline.” She framed her work with OU’s major course requirements, specifically the course on tutoring required for the Writing in the Discipline track and a pre-requisite for serving as a Writing Center Consultant. Amanda used herself as a case study for how Writing Consultants can move from disciplinary theory to practice and understanding of “writing center lore.” Specifically, she described her initial lack of success using non-directive tutoring strategies, her move into directive strategies that clients initially preferred, and then her “asymmetrical” movement back into non-directive approaches. She concluded that her Writing and Rhetoric coursework gave her the flexibility essential to succeed as a writing consultant. Angina DeLeon (Penn State-Berks), a senior Professional Writing major, described her work as an insider/outsider looking at discrimination in a website focused on Hispanics. After situating her work in the context of a community-based research class, Angina examined her fundamental disagreement with Linda Alcoff’s “The Problem of Speaking for Others.” Angina concluded that “the whole topic of speaking for ‘others’ is one-sided. . . . It’s predominately being lead by those who are privileged.” As an “other” investigating her own community, Angina found herself “speaking for my own group of people.” The fourth speaker, Alyssa Williams from Penn State–Berks, spoke of her experiences in the above-mentioned community-based research, working on a research project for an African-American museum. Alyssa described her research into oral histories for an area farm that was part of the Underground Railroad, contrasting these histories with the work of a team of archaeologists who studied the farm searching for evidence that many underground tunnels existed to support escaping slaves. The archaeologists, who were from Franklin and Marshall University, found no hard evidence of the existence of tunnels, leading Alyssa to conclude that “contrasting belief systems affect the author’s voice.” The final presenter, Jacob Carabelli of Oakland University, began by comparing his experience at 4Cs 2011 with his first 4Cs in 2010 (as an observer), noting that both have “helped [him] frame his undergraduate experience” (although he found most attendees took him to be a graduate student rather than an undergraduate). He presented survey results about who undergraduate majors in Writing and Rhetoric are, what they understand about the discipline, and how they comprehend their local degree program. Generalizing from the survey results (including comments), Carabelli concluded that undergraduate writing major faculty should emphasize disciplinary knowledge for this major, which he spoke of as “more practical than English.” Finally, Jason left the appreciative audience pondering whether “undergraduate research [has] a place at national conventions such as 4Cs.” Altogether, the session was enjoyable, with mature professional presentations of undergraduate research experiences from students at schools with undergraduate writing and rhetoric majors. If these students are our future, we have much to be proud of. As for myself, the question of whether undergraduate voices should be heard at 4Cs is answered with a resounding “YES.” |