Opening Remarks

1. Opening Remarks • Thank you for coming out on a Sunday morning • Kate Thirolf via Skype • Overlap and texturing • We welcome questions, feedback, and suggestions at the end.

2. “Critical Inquiry and Critical Exchange” Understanding Situated Pedagogies and Practices of Community College Instructors of College-level Writing

3. Overview • Review of Literature: Two Narratives • Two-Year Professional Identity Conversations within NCTE • Research Rationales • Discussion of Pilot Study and codes • Refocus of Research Question • Snapshot of Current Research • Informed by literature in Higher Education and in Composition Studies

4. Scholarly Literature offers Two Narratives of Community College Faculty Narratives about what community college faculty do can be polarizing

5. Narrative #1: Anti-Intellectual • “Practitioners’ culture,” (McGrath and Spear, 1991) • “Community college people have lived reasonably comfortably in a culture of anecdote. Those anecdotes are important parts of the culture of our institutions, but by and large, they are stories about the best student experiences rather than the typical student experiences” (McKlenny, 2004, p. 14).

6. Narrative #1: Less Capable • Research in higher education suggests that professors at CCs are often seen as less capable than their peers at four-year institutions (Kelly-Kleese, 2001). • Negatively stereotyped in the literature (Townsend, 2007)

7. Narrative #2: “Knowledge-Makers” • Community college instructors of writing have contributed heavily to the shaping of the field of composition (Reynolds, 2005). • These contributions to scholarship either go unrecognized or, due to the informal and unpublished aspect of their work, unseen(Reynolds,2005; Tinberg, 2005).

8. Community College Professors Describe Themselves • Overloaded and “invisible” (Grubb, 1999) • “Disrespected” by those at 4-year institutions (Townsend, 1995; Townsend and LaPaglia, 2000) • Overlooked in the research (Townsend, 2007; Twomblyand Townsend, 2008) • Writing instructors, specifically, described themselves as positioned between “public pressures” they perceive and “good” pedagogy (Lewiecki-Wilson and Sommers, 1999).

9. Professional Identity in NCTE conversations

10. NCTE and Two-Year Faculty (TYCA) • Formally created in 1997, TYCA set the goals to • increase “visibility” (p. 350) of writing instructors at community colleges within the profession of English Instruction, and • to “provide two-year college English faculty with a ‘more precise identity‘” (Andelora J. , 2008, p. 354). • In 2004, NCTE’s Two-Year College Association published guidelines for the expectations of scholarship and research from two-year college faculty. • Drew on Boyer’s (1995) expanded definitions of scholarship • Encouraged faculty to share their work through publication and presentation for the purpose of gaining feedback and growing through “critical inquiry and critical exchange” with colleagues. • “Teacher-scholar”

11. NCTE and Two-Year Faculty (CCCC) • CCCC 2010 workshop on preparing community college writing faculty underscored the need for a greater disciplinary focus on preparing writing instructors for the unique and specific demands of community college teaching. • Also gained attention from mainstream press.

12. Limitations to Teacher-Scholar • Perceptions in the field: • Teaching at community colleges often positioned as “back up” employment, and those hired to teach writing in community colleges are often trained in English fields other than composition pedagogy (Ching, 2010; Jaschik, 2010).

13. Limitations to Teacher-Scholar Identity • Material: Teaching loads and expectations from administrators may discourage instructors from participating in their scholarly communities (Prager, 2003) • Cultural: Some evidence suggests that the inquiry and exchange that informs teaching practice happens informally and interpersonally. “oral culture” over “anecdote.” (Kelly-Kleese 2001, 2004). • Identity: Generalists not specialists, English writing instructors may underestimate or overlook their own importance in the field(Tinberg, Reynolds, 2005).

14. In Conversation with 100thNCTE Panelists • Cathy Leaker discussion of adult students / professionals • changing landscape of identities • The dominant and the “nons” • Need to establish positive identity over ‘non’ identities • Ann Penrose’s discussion of contingent, part-time faculty noted that • Identity dynamic, developing through participation and exchange • Participating in scholarly conversation is a way of claiming identity membership to that group; • Identifying as a member motivates one to participate. • I engage these by asking • Question: Does identifying as “outsider”motivates non-participation. • What identities, then, do professional “nons” take up? • (Panel B.50)

15. Research Rationales

16. Premises • Identity as Situated: Instructional experiences, contexts, and perceptions shape teaching practice and are likely to vary across individuals, institutions, and communities • Identity as Institutional: Institutional variation may contribute to variations in how instructors perceive, identify, and respond to issues central to the teaching of writing to first-year students. • Identity as rationale: Teachers have reasons for why they do what they do.

17. Premise and Problem • Failure to understand the reasons for teaching variations may contribute to • a misreading of the professional identities and the pedagogical approaches of CC instructors, • contradictory narratives about the role of these instructors, • and perpetuating polarizing descriptions of community college instructor, which, in turn, • has the potential to stall or leave invisible advances in disciplinary understanding of teaching first-year writers (in particular those with non-traditional characteristics)

18. Stakes are High • Understanding how experiences, contexts, and perceptions shape community college writing professors’ identities is a critical step for understanding institutionally-based, student-centered instructional teaching choices

19. No, Really: The Stakes are High • 50% of composition courses are taught at community colleges (Reynolds, 2003). • Research suggests that community college faculty grow increasingly removed from their professional communities over time (Cohen and Brawer, 2008)

20. Orienting Questions for the Pilot Study

21. Questions • How do community college instructors of college-level writing describe their experiences teaching at community colleges? • How do they position themselves in relation to their identified field? • How do they describe the goals of community college education and the needs of community college students

22. Codes Overview of codes (handout)

23. The Interviews Three kinds of interviews conducted in the orienting phase of this project. Each approach helped me to hone my understanding and to generate more specific steps and focus for final, three-phase research project • Judy: Nearing retirement, full-time, Caucasian • Open-structured interview, informal, untaped • Field notes and member-checking by written correspondence • Patricia • Early career, experienced, full-time, Caucasian, female • Recorded and transcribed • Delaney • First-year at community college, Caucasian, female • Interview by email in concert with task-based analysis of syllabus

24. Explicit Tension: College Mission and Course Objectives • Instructors Celebrated • Open-Access Mission • Diversity of curricular pathways • Curricular turn towards academic literacy (2) or genre (1) • But also described challenges • Teaching to the various diversities represented in each classroom • Balancing teaching students how to attend college and how to write for academic audiences and purposes • Teaching responsively to students who enroll out of sequence, despite college and course policies.

25. Explicit Tensions:Resources: Space, Faculty, Millage • Physical Space • Classrooms • Outreach locations • Enrollment increases, hiring, and support • High reliance on adjuncts with limited time to support • Budget cuts for student supports, e. g. tutoring • Tuition subsidies / tax support • The ‘millage’ vote as an important contextual factor

26. Explicit Tension: Ideal Pedagogy vs. Real Students • Teaching approaches offered in the professional community may not work for “my” students, due to geography, student attitudes, lifestyle needs • Participation with profession may complicate ideal / real pedagogy.

27. Implicit Tensions: Autonomy vs. Conformity • All instructors described having agency over course design. • Influence remained through document histories (“the common syllabus”) • “Much of the approach is in the delivery and asides, in my opinion. I do not feel that this syllabus is entirely representative of my teaching style.”

28. Implicit Tension: Participation in Scholarship • All three cited scholarship that informed their teaching • The scholarship for all three participants came from outside the discipline of composition studies • Educational engagement (Marzano) • Academic literacy (--) • Learner-centered teaching (Weimer)

29. Initial Assertions • These tensions seem to support Holladay-Hicks argument that community college teaching varies in “distinct and significant ways” from instruction at 4-year institutions. • These ways operate at the center of the field, not the margins • Making visible the complex positions these instructors occupy in the discipline of composition is an important step into establishing the kinds of disciplinary, pedagogical, and material supports for them to do their best work. • A more situated understanding of the teaching decisions and rationales of these instructors has the potential to improve both instructor preparation, writing pedagogy, and disciplinary understanding.

30. Current Study • Extends participation: • Three community colleges (urban, suburban, and rural) • Three different community profiles (in terms of degree attainment, employment, and socio-physical demographics) • 4-phase collection and analysis of task-based protocols tied to teaching philosophy, course design, lesson enactment, and student assessment.

31. Current Study • Investigates the explicit and implicit situational tensions identified in the pilot study. • Three spheres of social context for evaluation: • Students: experiences, perceptions, adaptations for • Professional colleagues: experiences and perceptions • Professional colleagues in direct conversation • Professional colleagues in published conversation • Public sphere: experiences and perceptions with public opinion, debate, and discussions about community college education

32. Research Question • How do community college instructors of college-level writing describe their interactions with students, professional colleagues, and public perceptions about community college education? • How do these instructors articulate their rationales for their decisions in relation to these interactions (with students, with professional colleagues, and with public perceptions)?

33. This study is in its early stages. I look forward to responding to questions, and to hearing your comments and suggestions at the end of our presentation This study is in its early stages

34. Thank you! Brett Griffiths Doctoral Candidate, University of Michigan, Joint Program in English and Education bgriff@umich.edu