Response to K. Alexander's article

[Roger C Graves]

In the latest issue of the Inkshed newsletter, Kathryn Alexander notes how she and others at the SFU Centre for Writing-Intensive Learning have worked against the label "writing-ladies": "As mentioned earlier, another strategic approach is to align our work with newer and more academically prestigious frameworks that link teaching, writing-intensive learning, or the study of writing in the disciplines more closely to scholarship on or in the disciplines. For instance, our unit was recently publicly acknowledged at an international conference as providing cutting-edge models for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Finally, at an individual level, in order to raise our individual and collective profiles as scholars within our institution, we have decided to list our scholarly publications and disciplinary credentials on our Centre’s web-pages. This need for active re-writing of our positioning suggests that the struggle over the meaning and value of teaching, researching and implementing writing in the academy is problematic, leaving much room for exploration and redefinition."
I'd like to know if others have engaged in similar or other tactics to define their work as writing instructors on their own terms, and what those terms might be.
Roger Graves



Dr. Roger Graves
Director of Writing and Technical & Professional Communication
University of Western Ontario
London, ON N6A 3K7
519.661.2111x85785

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to
***@UNB.CA or, if you experience difficulties,
write to Russ Hunt at ***@stu.ca

For the list archives and information about the organization,
its newsletter, and the annual conference, go to
http://www.stu.ca/inkshed/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Rob Irish]

Interestingly, a similar discussion about positioning has been occuring on
the Engineering Communication Listserv. Below is an excerpt from Linda
Driskill's post that started it. I think it is to the point you are seeking
response to.

For my own part, I made note of Cathy Scrhyer's valuable reclamation of the
idea of "techne" as incorporating both "skill at" and "savvy about" -- sorry
Cathy, I know that's a dumbing down, but a quick e-dialogue makes it
difficult to capture the richness. Somehow, many of our colleagues remain
blind to the latter, yet we must position ourselves in that intellectual
space. I noticed myself trying to move in precisely the ways Linda
describes below in a meeting with an Engineering department chair just this
week. I think I was somewhat successful.

Rob


----- Original Message -----
From: "Linda Driskill" <***@rice.edu>
To: <***@listserv.it.northwestern.edu>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 12:28 PM
Subject: Terminology we use to discuss engineering communication

Because of the history of the word "skills," many faculty apply a
cognitive definition to what we teach that severely limits their
conception of what we do. Unlike other skills that can be sharpened by
repetition alone, such as putting a ball through a hoop or swatting a fly
on the first blow, communication's success seldom depends primarily on
scribal fluency, spelling, or pronunciation. Audience analysis and
adaptation, selection and organization of information, persona, using the
conventions of a discourse community and its genres, recognizing cultural
values--those are the types of knowledge that affect success, or in the
equally ambiguous phrase, communication's effectiveness.
I think it's time we stopped talking about training students in
communication skills and emphasized the knowledge of communication
practices and strategies in professional situations.
Engineering communication studies the ways that engineers in the various
branches and industries formulate problems in language and interact with
others to solve them. We have theories and methods that help us create new
knowledge and prepare students for professional responsibilities (and to
critique practices).
I've noticed that some deans and administrators align their vocabulary of
training/ learning and non-tenure/tenure as well.
I invite your comments.
Linda driskill

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to
***@UNB.CA or, if you experience difficulties,
write to Russ Hunt at ***@stu.ca

For the list archives and information about the organization,
its newsletter, and the annual conference, go to
http://www.stu.ca/inkshed/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Emmy Misser]

Thank you for the last couple of postings on the popular understanding of
communication skills. This is exactly the kind of ammunition I know I will
be needing in upcoming budget negotiations and in future discussions with
administrators who have no idea what we do. The Linda Driskill quote really
puts it well.

Emmy

Emmy Misser, MA
Manager: Writing Centre
Wilfrid Laurier University

75 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
N2L 3C5

[phone], ext. 3339
-----Original Message-----
From: CASLL/Inkshed [mailto:***@LISTSERV.UNB.CA] On Behalf Of Rob Irish
Sent: February 2, 2006 4:22 PM
To: ***@LISTSERV.UNB.CA
Subject: Re: Response to K. Alexander's article

Interestingly, a similar discussion about positioning has been occuring on
the Engineering Communication Listserv. Below is an excerpt from Linda
Driskill's post that started it. I think it is to the point you are seeking
response to.

For my own part, I made note of Cathy Scrhyer's valuable reclamation of the
idea of "techne" as incorporating both "skill at" and "savvy about" -- sorry

Cathy, I know that's a dumbing down, but a quick e-dialogue makes it
difficult to capture the richness. Somehow, many of our colleagues remain
blind to the latter, yet we must position ourselves in that intellectual
space. I noticed myself trying to move in precisely the ways Linda
describes below in a meeting with an Engineering department chair just this
week. I think I was somewhat successful.

Rob


----- Original Message -----
From: "Linda Driskill" <***@rice.edu>
To: <***@listserv.it.northwestern.edu>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 12:28 PM
Subject: Terminology we use to discuss engineering communication

Because of the history of the word "skills," many faculty apply a
cognitive definition to what we teach that severely limits their
conception of what we do. Unlike other skills that can be sharpened by
repetition alone, such as putting a ball through a hoop or swatting a fly
on the first blow, communication's success seldom depends primarily on
scribal fluency, spelling, or pronunciation. Audience analysis and
adaptation, selection and organization of information, persona, using the
conventions of a discourse community and its genres, recognizing cultural
values--those are the types of knowledge that affect success, or in the
equally ambiguous phrase, communication's effectiveness.
I think it's time we stopped talking about training students in
communication skills and emphasized the knowledge of communication
practices and strategies in professional situations.
Engineering communication studies the ways that engineers in the various
branches and industries formulate problems in language and interact with
others to solve them. We have theories and methods that help us create new
knowledge and prepare students for professional responsibilities (and to
critique practices).
I've noticed that some deans and administrators align their vocabulary of
training/ learning and non-tenure/tenure as well.
I invite your comments.
Linda driskill

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to
***@UNB.CA or, if you experience difficulties,
write to Russ Hunt at ***@stu.ca

For the list archives and information about the organization,
its newsletter, and the annual conference, go to
http://www.stu.ca/inkshed/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to
***@UNB.CA or, if you experience difficulties,
write to Russ Hunt at ***@stu.ca

For the list archives and information about the organization,
its newsletter, and the annual conference, go to
http://www.stu.ca/inkshed/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Kathryn Alexander]

At 06:00 AM 2/3/2006, you wrote:

Thanks Emmy and Rob,

This discussion is timely. As of Fall 2006 the new undergraduate curriculum
requirements that all students must enroll in 6 credits of
writing-intensive learning courses in their program will be in effect. SFU
is currently developing a student Learning Commons with writing
support, hiring a Learning Commons Director, and a Writing Services
Coordinator, planning a staffing model for the Foundations Academic
literacies program and there is a possibly a new class of
"writing-teaching-discipline specialists" entering professional and
academic department structures. This curriculum initiative has given rise
to proposals about every possible configuration of academic identities -
from adoption "Writing limited term lecturers," uber-TA's, to dedicated
faculty as early adopters and integrating the writing-intensive approaches
into their courses with great results.

How do we not repeat the patterns and mistakes of the past 20 years, (i.e.
separating writing and composition as distinct from research, learning to
write and think in a discipline or program) and instead develop best
practices and models for research faculty and teaching faculty, TAs and
sessionals to recognized for their contributions to the advancement of
scholarship, teaching and learning?

I keep on saying that writing is the core activity of the academy and
therefore it cannot be relegated as a "service" activity - but it is
difficult for faculty and administrators to see writing this way, and
specifically to see how integral the teaching of writing is to the teaching
of content.

Kathryn

Post by Emmy Misser
Thank you for the last couple of postings on the popular understanding of
communication skills. This is exactly the kind of ammunition I know I will
be needing in upcoming budget negotiations and in future discussions with
administrators who have no idea what we do. The Linda Driskill quote really
puts it well.
Emmy
Emmy Misser, MA
Manager: Writing Centre
Wilfrid Laurier University
75 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
N2L 3C5
[phone], ext. 3339
-----Original Message-----
Sent: February 2, 2006 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: Response to K. Alexander's article
Interestingly, a similar discussion about positioning has been occuring on
the Engineering Communication Listserv. Below is an excerpt from Linda
Driskill's post that started it. I think it is to the point you are seeking
response to.
For my own part, I made note of Cathy Scrhyer's valuable reclamation of the
idea of "techne" as incorporating both "skill at" and "savvy about" -- sorry
Cathy, I know that's a dumbing down, but a quick e-dialogue makes it
difficult to capture the richness. Somehow, many of our colleagues remain
blind to the latter, yet we must position ourselves in that intellectual
space. I noticed myself trying to move in precisely the ways Linda
describes below in a meeting with an Engineering department chair just this
week. I think I was somewhat successful.
Rob
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 12:28 PM
Subject: Terminology we use to discuss engineering communication

Because of the history of the word "skills," many faculty apply a
cognitive definition to what we teach that severely limits their
conception of what we do. Unlike other skills that can be sharpened by
repetition alone, such as putting a ball through a hoop or swatting a fly
on the first blow, communication's success seldom depends primarily on
scribal fluency, spelling, or pronunciation. Audience analysis and
adaptation, selection and organization of information, persona, using the
conventions of a discourse community and its genres, recognizing cultural
values--those are the types of knowledge that affect success, or in the
equally ambiguous phrase, communication's effectiveness.
I think it's time we stopped talking about training students in
communication skills and emphasized the knowledge of communication
practices and strategies in professional situations.
Engineering communication studies the ways that engineers in the various
branches and industries formulate problems in language and interact with
others to solve them. We have theories and methods that help us create new
knowledge and prepare students for professional responsibilities (and to
critique practices).
I've noticed that some deans and administrators align their vocabulary of
training/ learning and non-tenure/tenure as well.
I invite your comments.
Linda driskill

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to
For the list archives and information about the organization,
its newsletter, and the annual conference, go to
http://www.stu.ca/inkshed/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to
For the list archives and information about the organization,
its newsletter, and the annual conference, go to
http://www.stu.ca/inkshed/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

_________________________________________

Kathryn Alexander, Ph.D.,
Writing-Intensive Learning Office WILO
Learning and Instructional Development Centre LIDC,
Simon Fraser University,
Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6
Office: AQ 6207
Website: http://www.sfu.ca/cwil

Tel: (604) 268 - 6799 Fax: (604) 268 - 6915
email: ***@sfu.ca

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to
***@UNB.CA or, if you experience difficulties,
write to Russ Hunt at ***@stu.ca

For the list archives and information about the organization,
its newsletter, and the annual conference, go to
http://www.stu.ca/inkshed/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-