Group items tagged

The Journal of Response to Writing is an international, peer-reviewed journal for writing theorists, researchers, and practitioners of Second and Foreign Language Instruction, Applied Linguistics, and Composition to make quality contributions to the study of response to writing.  While we value traditional forms of response, including marginal notes, face-to-face interactions, electronic feedback, self-reflection, and peer review, we also value and encourage the research of alternative response methods, purposes, and practices. The journal is open-access This journal responds to a growing need and interest for additional scholarly venues to publish articles about writing theory and response practices that allow for a cross-disciplinary discussion of response to writing. The focus on response is intentional since nearly all forms of writing benefit from response, and responding to writing is perhaps the most time-consuming responsibility of a writing teacher. Therefore, understanding the theory and best pedagogical practices for response can benefit the writer while maximizing a responder's effectiveness and efficiency. This journal is meant to fill these needs by crossing disciplinary divides and providing an additional publication venue for writing theory and response practice.

The Journal of Response to Writing publishes papers based on research, theory, and/or practice that meaningfully contribute to an understanding of how response practices lead to better writing. JRW has three purposes: 1. Provide a venue for theorizing and reporting ground-breaking research on response to writing 2. Invite writing theorists, researchers, and practitioners to a venue to share their work with one another and colleagues in adjacent fields, most notably Composition, Applied Linguistics, and Foreign Language teaching viz a viz L1 and L2 writing 3. Provide new or inexperienced teachers with immediate suggestions for use in giving, encouraging, or managing responses to their students' writing

Present Tense: A Journal of Rhetoric in Society is a peer-reviewed, blind-refereed, online journal dedicated to exploring contemporary social, cultural, political and economic issues through a rhetorical lens. In addition to examining these subjects as found in written, oral and visual texts, we wish to provide a forum for calls to action in academia, education and national policy. Seeking to address current or presently unfolding issues, we publish short articles ranging from 2,000 to 2,500 words, the length of a conference paper. For sample topics please see our submission guidelines. Conference presentations on topics related to the journal's focus lend themselves particularly well to this publishing format. Authors who address the most current issues may find a lengthy submission and application process disadvantageous. We seek to overcome this issue through our shortened response time and by publishing individual articles as they are accepted. We also encourage conference-length multimedia submissions such as short documentaries, flash videos, slidecasts and podcasts. In order to foster dialogue, our journal features a Reader Response section in which both contributors and readers are welcome to discuss the publications' content in a public, digital space.

Faculty and writing center tutors bring expertise to writing as practice and pro-cess. Yet at many institutions, the two groups work in relative isolation, missing opportunities to learn from each other. In this article, I describe a faculty de-velopment initiative in a multidisciplinary writing program that brings together new faculty and experienced undergraduate tutors to workshop instructors' com-ments on first-year writing. The purpose of these workshops is to assist faculty in crafting inquiry-driven written responses that pave the way for collaborative faculty-student conferences. By bringing together scholarly conversations on tu-tor expertise and the role of faculty comments in student learning, I argue for the value of extending partnerships between writing centers and programs. Such ac-counts are important to the field for challenging what Grutsch McKinney (2013) calls the "writing center grand narrative," which limits the scope of writing center work by imagining centers primarily as "comfortable, iconoclastic places where all students go to get one-to-one tutoring on their writing" to the exclusion of lived realities (p. 3). In this case, I describe a writing center where tutors bring their expertise outside the center and into the faculty office, consulting in small groups with faculty with the aim of enriching the quality of instructor feedback in first-year seminars.

"The Citation Project is a multi-institution research project responding to educators' concerns about plagiarism and the teaching of writing. Although much has been written on this topic and many have expressed concerns, little empirical data is available to describe what students are actually doing with their sources. At present, therefore, educators must make policy decisions and pedagogy based on anecdote, personal observation, media reports, and the claims of corporations that sell "solutions." The Citation Project begins the process of providing descriptive data. Our research team systematically studies randomly selected, source-based student papers from a range of different institutions. Our purpose is to describe how student writers use the sources they cite in their papers. With this information, educators will be able to make informed decisions about best practices for formulating plagiarism policies and for teaching rhetorically effective and ethically responsible methods of writing from sources. Preventing plagiarism is a desired outcome of our research, as the subtitle above indicates, but the Citation Project research suggests that students' knowing how to understand and synthesize complex, lengthy sources is essential to effective plagiarism prevention. If instructors know how shallowly students are engaging with their research source-and that is what the Citation Project research reveals-then they know what responsible pedagogy needs to address."

discussing disclaimers that cover student responsibility for course work and grading

crowdsourcing a list of rights and responsibilities of peer tutors

survey data with written responses covering administration, budget, programming, physical space, and many more topics

The present study aims to investigate the extent to which L2 learners' individual differences (field dependency and writing motivation) predict their retention of a teacher's written corrective feedback (CF) in the short and in the long run. Using Ellis's (2010) theoretical framework, the study examines the issue from cognitive and affective perspectives. Data was collected from 127 intermediate-level university students through written essays, a field-dependence/independence (FDI) questionnaire, and a writing motivation questionnaire, which were analyzed through t test, ANOVA, and multiple regression. The results reveal that there is a strong relationship between field independence (FI) style and the students' successful short-term and long-term retention of corrections in the subsequent writings. Writing motivation, however, influences the short-term retention of CF only.

responses from many WCs regarding regularly scheduled hours

"Evaluation/Accountability for the Writing Lab" (on assessment, usage data, student grades, faculty response); "Do We Need Materials for ESL and Engineering Students?" (self-instruction materials); "A Note on Lab Layout" (space design); mailing list

This article presents three case studies that closely examine various types of inter-actions taking place in writing center tutorials involving newly arrived pre-ma-triculated ESL writers. By learning what strategies tutors commonly use and how successfully the ESL writers negotiate their goals for the visit and the form and meaning of their text through this sample, this study aims to help identify what characterizes successful tutorials and what unique challenges English language learners might face when interacting with tutors. Results from these case studies show that it is not how many corrections tutors make or suggest for the students' papers, but how much the tutors engage their tutees in a meaningful dialogue that brings satisfaction to the ESL students. Findings also suggest that deliber-ate efforts should be made to equip ESL writers with necessary metalanguage to communicate their goals for their visit.

"This statement responds to the growing educational concerns about plagiarism in four ways: by defining plagiarism; by suggesting some of the causes of plagiarism; by proposing a set of responsibilities (for students, teachers, and administrators) to address the problem of plagiarism; and by recommending a set of practices for teaching and learning that can significantly reduce the likelihood of plagiarism. The statement is intended to provide helpful suggestions and clarifications so that instructors, administrators, and students can work together more effectively in support of excellence in teaching and learning."

discussing the unique responsibilities of the receptionist in a WC/LC setting

This spreadsheet presents the years that over 1,000 writing center were founded. It may be of interest to those doing historical research. You'll note that the spreadsheet lists about 3,000 centers in total, many of which don't have founding years listed. If you know of a founding date that's missing, please submit it here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1CAMEiTQaiAUCDG5s7ImJVtfbHpvuPtVvS0tjq7rmRA4/viewform. And if you'd like to see some data visualizations of these dates, visit https://suemendelsohn.wordpress.com/.

discussing undergrad tutors who hold administrative responsibilities

report on SIG on serving ESL students; "Dealing with Criticism" (on helping students--includes "A Model for Reader Response" based on Bruffee's "The Brooklyn Plan"); "The Case for Faculty Workshops"; mailing list