IMPORTANT UPDATE

In my meeting this morning this Mr. deGarcia we worked on a number of new issues relevant to our planning both for the Facilitator training (June 14 - 21) , and for the Studio program (June 28 - August 5).

1. Location(s) for Facilitator Training. I have reserved CAS 118-120 (the conference room across from the Writing Center) & two computer labs on the third floor of CAS, 303 & 307, for the Facilitator training spaces. CAS 118-120 is all one room and will easily serve the entire group; it is available for us every day except June 21. I am still working on the choosing + reserving the Studio Spaces.

2. Delayed delivery of netbooks. The netbooks will not be available for the first week of Facilitator training, and may not be available for the first one or two weeks of the Studio Program. This means we need to have fallback print versions for the two programs. As noted above, the Facilitator training has the choice of a print space or a tech space.

3. Schedule for Studio Program. The studio program will unfold within the following schedule:

Facilitators schedule:

3-4: Facilitators prepare for studio sessions, work one-on-one with students, misc programmatic work

4-5: Facilitators participate in planning sessions with Mentors

5-6: Dinner

6-8: Facilitators conduct Studio Sessions with students

8-9: Facilitators record data, write log entries + de-brief with Mentors

Mentors' schedule:

4-5: Mentors facilitate planning sessions with Facilitators (4 hours/week)

5-6: Dinner

6-8: Check in on facilitator groups, collect data, perform responsibilities, meet as a group to share reflections + make revisions to program (7 hours/week)

8-9: Work with Facilitators on de-briefing + data documentation (4 hours/week)

3. Responsibilities List. As discussed in class, I have drafted a "Responsibilities List." This list designates the person who will oversee, coordinate, make decisions & solve problems with respect to designated areas of responsibility. The specific responsibilities may or may not be self evident - so we will discuss this list in more detail in class. As you can see I have made tentative assignments to specific tasks/responsibilities. I tried to correlate inclinations & interests with responsibilities. If any of you feel you have been inappropriately assigned - the assignments are not set in stone; they were set forward as a way to estimate whether we had a reasonable plan to cover this list of programmatic needs. In class we will talk some more + clarify exactly what responsibilities belong with which title.

Sam: Space + scheduling + enrollment + group assignments
Ryan: Netbooks (distribution issues, passwords, wireless glitches, other tech blinks)
Jessica: Dinner = choosing menus – circulating among participants + making pickups
Vanessa: MC whole group introductions/meetings (oversee master schedule)
Angela: Data collection
Musheerah + Eric: Program interface: Updates + announcements +training&studio site for facilitators (Should include the Responsibilities list!)
Dane: Counselor liason
Marie: Classroom liason

Ricardo: Facilitator liason

4. Creation of Mentor-Facilitator groups: Hopefully, by Thursday, I will have a list of all the Facilitators who will be participating in the Studio Program. I plan to designate 2 to 3 Facilitators to each Mentor (8 of you, excepting Ricardo & Vanessa - who have other roles). These Facilitators will be the group you work with.

I will keep you posted on any news as we move closer to getting this show on the road! I'm looking forward to seeing your presentations on Wednesday.

Monday, June 7

Tonight's class started out with me "modeling" a studio session. I talked about ways to handle the deciding who will present issues (going to the left, discussing topics + deciding on a logical order; going with the person who is the most talkative or most eager; etc) and then did a session with Ricardo (thank you). We noticed language patterns (the use of questions, invitations,"saying back," validations and other facilitator moves) , that there were silences, and that the computer could make communication more difficult.

You then facilitated some sessions. I was impressed both with the quality of the sessions - and with the intentional "experimentation" you engaged in to explore conversation dynamics within studio work.

In general - your pattern (and what I see as best practice for studio sessions) was to establish audience, purpose, form for the presenter's writing (if the presenter doesn't state this information, you will need to get it out there through questions/talk with the other group members), make sure to establish what the presenter wants feedback on; observe what is working; facilitate; make sure the presenter gets the feedback s/he needs; and then wrap up the session with some reflection.

These sessions were kind of in a vacuum - in that we didn't do the whole group opening, closing & transition talk that lets you move from presenter to presenter.

You then worked with your team to develop Project 2.

For Wednesday: Turn in your complete program as an electronic document (folders in files either at a web site, as google.docs, or on a usb.

This program will include: the timeline with the day by day schedule with all documents necessary for presenting the day-by-day schedule. Please use some kind of file/organization system to make program implementation as easy as possible.

In class on Wednesday, each group will present its version of the training program, day by day. We will all read along and at the conclusion of both presentations - we will consoldiate the best from both - and create the actual program you will implement on beginning June 14.

On Thursday, at 4:00, we will meet with the counselors at the LAC for on overview of the Summer Program by the Director of EEO, and for introductions. We will then return to the writing center to finalize plans for Facilitator Training.

I will ask about the Grand Study Hall on the third floor of the Library.

Thank you for your awesome participation in this project. The success of our new studio program is truly going to be a reflection of this good work. See you Thursday.

Class June 2

We began class with a review of the brainstorming documents you have posted on your blogs. I have emailed each of you individually with comments, and class discussion (really it was sort of me clarifying and deepening the directions for how to develop these brainstormy posts into the actual Design Plans you will create for Project 1 (the Studio Program) and Project 2 (facilitator training). For an overview of the comments on the brainstorming documents, see the Comments on Blog Brainstorming (at link in right panel).

Next we worked out a conceptual timeline for the overall Studio Program (linked in right panel). We noticed that there is TOO MUCH material in the first week, and that the program is going to require the creation of (or at least agreement upon) protocols/practices for certain activities. So - as you develop your timelines - you are definitely going to want to find ways to consolidate activities (so, for example, reflection on discourse & learning the software + protocols might all be folded into a single "icebreaker". . . yeah, I know that is pretty wishful thinking , but you get what I mean?), and you will want to identify activities that you feel might need written (not in stone but out there as a guide) protocols. And you will probably want to write them as part of the training program.

Next we discussed Gutierrez. My primary purpose in assigning this reading was to heighten our awareness of how our language choices can structure the spaces we teach in. I was hoping it might prompt us to work on a collaborative "semiotic toolkit" (Gee's term) - a set of language patterns that allow us to be received by our listeners. My hope is that we will model this language for ourselves, for the facilitators and for students - and that in some cases we might call attention to our choices - so that all of us can make more effective - more openly communacative choices in how we talk to one another.

Language choices called attention to in class were: modals, questions, volitional directives, verbs as evidentials, direct directives, conceptual metaphors.

Gutierrez also calls for the use of "code-switching" and for the use of metaphor. These moves, coupled with reflective talk, support students in moving from one system of meaning to another => thus helping them to become full participants across multiple discourses.

After the Project 2 presentation (posted at google.docs) and a brief but important discussion about professional dress -( no dress code but a strong recommendation that dress be "respectful" and "mindful" of your roles in the program) you worked in groups on Project 2.

For Monday:

1. Facilitator training planning document 1: List of training objectives (this should be a collaborative document)

2. Training design document 1: Conceptual timeline (this should be a collaborative document)

3. Come to class with two pieces of writing to present for a Studio session. These pieces could be protocol sheets, a data collection plan, a set of writing prompts, descriptions of reflective exercises or other interactive activity=> in other words, they should be the "sections" you are writing for the Facilitator training program. Prepare to present these pieces in Studio by 1) stating your audience, purpose, focus; 2) stating what you have done so far; 3) providing a copy of the piece you want to group to review as a google.doc; and 4) preparing a statement of the kind of feedback you are looking for.

Great class tonight! Have a great weekend and see you on Monday.

May 26, Part II: What to do for Class June 2

Important Dates:

Final class meeting on June 10, in the Writing Center, 4:00. We will use this meeting to make consolidate final plans for the Facilitator Training Program, which will begin Monday, June 11.

Meeting with EEO Counselors on June 7, in the EEO Learning Assistance Center.

1. Read:

1. Handout on content of EEO Counseling program.

2. Gutierrez (handout)

2. Blogs:

Program design document(s) 4: Protocol sheets for Studio sessions specific to the study/writing issues students will bring to Studio meetings. These should be similar to the Reading Protocol (draft proposed on Google.docs), and to the point by point descriptions in Grego & Thompson delineating how to conduct studio sessions. These protocols would be classified as falling into categories 1 & 2 ( listed in the May 26, Part I blog).

Planning document(s) 4: as you read Gutierrez, create a list of facilitation plans ( to respond to "what ifs) to provide rehearsed language for use in activities and interventions in Studio sessions. These protocols would fall under category 3 (in the May 26, Part I blog).

3. Write: With your group, organize the project so that each of you can started on writing for on particular section. Bring writing for your section to class. In class, you will work in Studio groups (not your own group) to develop your section. You will use an approximation of the Studio protocol for presenting writing suggested by Grego & Thompson (and posted on Google.docs).

-------------------------------------------------------

What we will do in class on June 2

We will begin by mapping out an agreed upon conceptual timeline (yes, I know, we were supposed to do this during last class) for the program, and placing the different activities required in the program planning document within that timeline.

Then we are going to do some specific work on discussing how to integrate the counseling/work with netbook work into the sequence of studio sessions.

I will then give a presentation on developing the Facilitator Training Program.

The rest of class time will be devoted to reflective-practice of Studio work on sections for Project 1 (see Protocol for bringing Writing Projects to Studio).

Developing the documents and practices for the Facilitator training program is a challenging task given our timeline - but I am confident we are going to come through with an outstanding product. Thank you for your excellent work so far in this course - and I am excited to dig into the facilitator training program!

May 26, Part I

This discussion of tonight's class got so long I published it as two posts; I am hoping this part sums up the insights we came to through our work in class. In many ways = we "enacted" exactly the concepts we were working on! Great class!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

We began class by talking over some of your reflections on your first "studio" session. As I read through your comments, I noticed points of agreement - as well as some differences in perspective. One particularly important point which the most everyone seemed to agree on were that facilitators would do well to hold back on judging, or interpreting what participants "mean." I read your comments as emphasizing the importance of what we might call reflective listening => taking in what speakers say and listening for a number of possible ways to understand what is said before coming to conclusion.

In our discussion we talked over situations where it might be particularly important not to come to a conclusion about what a student is doing or saying: when students' comments seem to be "off topic" or not making sense it can be useful to ask them to talk a little more, or to place their comment in context (make it more specific or concrete), to connect it to the topic in a different way or say it in different words - before assuming that they didn't understand. Your discussion contributed other, useful ways to respond to behaviors, comments, and interactions that might seem "wrong" but which if received with a thoughtful, open response = can lead to the creation of stronger - and perhaps more conscious & intentional - patterns for communication.

An important point where we noticed different perspectives centered on the use of "scripts". One point at issue was what we mean by the term "script" - and there was general agreement that the term script implied something too set or fixed to be useful for our work. Alternative language included: protocols, "what if" language, information or activity banks or resources. I am going to use the term protocol - which isn't perfect either, but protocols are generally understood as general approaches that are responsive to particular situations, whereas scripts are often thought of as word-for-word directions for what to say/do.

---------------------------------------------------------------

To further clarify this discussion we observed that we were talking about protocols - some sort of rehearsed language or a general approach - for three different kinds of situations:

1. General protocols for studio meetings. These include the what happens in what order, bullet-pointed descriptions in Grego & Thompson; and a plan for the overall arc of our studio program (where we want to start, what kinds of activities we want to get through during each week of the six-week program, and where we want to end).

2. Protocols for facilitating particular activities (a suggested approach to make the process concrete and clear). These protocols describe roles & language moves for facilitators & for students. They might include protocols for the introductory/getting-to-know one another session, for the session where the netbooks are distributed; for presenting new applications or software; for boundary setting & conflict resolution; for presenting reading assignments, writing assignments, content assignments, and so on.

3. Protocols (rehearsed language) for responding to difficult or unanticipated group dynamics.

Each of these protocols has a different form & function. Our first discussion more or less lumped all "scripts" together - but we our assessment of when and how to use protocols became more nuanced as we moved through the class. In the first discussion we identified drawbacks both to too strict adherence to protocols, and to not identifying protocols. Too strict adherence protocols limits opportunities to respond to the particular learning dynamics generated through group interaction; no statement of or invocation of protocols causes problems for providing students & facilitators with a clear idea of what they are doing, group accountability & meeting programmatic goals.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The in-class experience conducting studio group style discussions during the next section of class demonstrated that - in practice - facilitators moved between invoking formal expectations for "correct" studio discussion, and responding to the particular dynamic of the group's conversation.

In our discussion of what "worked" in these discussions, Eric's group reported that the facilitator's move to initiate discussion & then withdraw was what supported in-depth talk by "students" in their group (this is more or less the "scripted" role for the facilitator in studio sessions); while Dane's group reported that the invested participation of the facilitator was a strength in their discussion (not the "scripted" role for facilitators). While Dane opened discussion and responded to the questions/interests of participants - he took part in the analysis as a discussant. This seems to point back to our discussion of scripts v not-scripts and suggests that in some very real sense - good facilitation consists of making a series of reflective decisions about when to draw from the agreed upon forms - and when follow or lead participants in departing from those form (and perhaps create new ones).

Important reflection (note to self): As we plan training for facilitators - we need to create activities that will give them experience identifying and using appropriate protocols - as well as appropriate experiences to help them make decisions about when to abandon those protocols.

For the "reading" studio experience you worked in the same groups you will work in to develop your Studio Program Plan. These groups are:

Dane

Jessica
Marie

Musheerah
Ryan

Vanessa

Angela

Eric

Ricardo

Sam

Studio - not Studio?

In reflective talk following the studio reading-group exercise, we talked about what was studio-like about this group work, and what was not.

Studio-like=> comprehensive discussion in small groups; included interactional inquiry, everyone had an equal say

NOT Studio-like=> not "outside-alongside"; participants were equals (in Studio sessions within Grego & Thompson's book - facilitators are faculty or graduate students, and participants are "struggling" students); no "artifacts"

For me the discussion of whether it mattered that sessions were studio-like or not studio-like circled back to considerations of "scripts". While mandating "scripts" may not be useful - noticing which script you are in - and whether and how it is working - IS important. Because this training - and the training you will provide for facilitators - AND the work students will do with their facilitators - is all about being aware of conversation dynamics/rhetorical positioning (and the accompanying power dynamics and outcomes) that are associated with different patterns for talk.

The remainder of the class was devoted to going over what to do for next class (the subject of May 26, part II).

Class May 24

We are starting to move from theory to practice!

We began class with an in-class exercise conducting studio sessions on the assigned reading. I meant to allow some time for each "student" to present the overall focus of his/her assigned section as a way to ensure that you got the necessary theory out of the reading - but as you noticed we were a little pressed for time. We used google.docs to provide the directions, to develop the criteria for evaluating the activity, and for you to complete your reports and reflective assessments (check the BLUE directions inserted in the document just before you began your group reports; you should complete this exercise for homework).

After your break, Dr. Sutton gave a presentation on the composition courses for the EEO Summer Program. The handouts will be useful references for planning the overall studio program (Project 1) and for developing the training program for the facilitators (Project 2).

During the last section of class we summed up some of the concepts the course has emphasized so far (note that the terms Discourse, reflection, awareness, ethics, and interactional inquiry all appeared prominently in our list), touched on the list of studio spaces list, reviewed the mentors' responsibilities list, and went over the Project 1 Assignment Sheet & the Blog assignments for Wednesday.

Also - just in case you haven't already noticed - we are using the course blog & google.docs in ways that you might want to consider integrating into the training for the facilitators, and into the actual studio work (protocols for facilitators and EEO students). Think about what works in these practices - and what doesn't; & think about what the facilitators & the students will need support for as they get started.

For Class Wednesday:

Complete the evaluation + reflections associated with the In-Class Studio Exercise on Reading.

Continue to discuss + add to the list of spaces. Vanessa is in the process of transferring our discussion of spaces to a spreadsheet where we can actually rank and choose the spaces where groups will meet.

Read: Grego & Thompson Chapter 3

Blogs: We talked over expectations for these posts in class; if you have questions send me an email.

• Program Design Document 3: Conceptual timeline
• Planning Document 3: Brainstorm list of activities/practices to support different kinds of work in the conceptual timeline.

What we will do in class Wednesday.

We are going to begin with another studio session for reading. I will post a protocol for students who want to work on reading. You should each choose a section of the reading that you want to work on, and prepare to "present" at your studio group by using the protocol.

After evaluating and reflecting the studio sessions, we will talk through the timelines and come to some overall consensus for the general content and sequence for what will take place in studio sessions. Then we will turn our attention to Project 1 and do some whole group brainstorming for what needs to go in each section for the Program Design.

As we discussed in class, you are going to work in groups of 3 on this project. I am still agonizing over how to divide you into groups - but promise to have made a decision by class Wednesday. During the last hour, you will work in your groups both to brainstorm various sections for the Project 1 Document, and to develop a Studio protocol for working on brainstorming.

So far so good! And I'm looking forward to Wednesday's class.

What we did May 19 - what to do for May 24

We began by telling stories about who we are as students and writers. These stories were told to help us put some of the experiences that influenced our attitudes toward writing and school "out there" so we could reflect on what our (unconscious) assumptions about how to be a student and how to write. These assumptions can drive our response to other students and writers - and make us blind to the fact that there are lots of different Discourses that shape both writing and relationships to "school." Within our group there were both positive and negative associations with writing, there were assumptions that education was both "first and most important" and that "family is first," and there were multiple particular feelings about school. If someone took down the list from the board - post it!

The purpose of this discussion was to engage us in reflecting how our assumptions might affect our teaching - and (through hearing the stories of others) to illustrate some of the (many) possible relationships individuals have to writing, school, and Discourse. Cultivating this awareness of how your assumptions, values & beliefs connect to the Discourses of the facilitators, the students, and Kean University is important to your role as a Studio mentor.

At the end of this discussion I asked you to do some writing where you characterized and reflected on your home discourse - and asked you to pay particular attention to (to flag or note) how your home discourse might affect your work as a Studio Mentor.

We discussed the introduction to Grego & Thompson (with multiple digressions) - with particular focus on space - both the physical structures & the social/discursive structures - relevant to studio spaces. As part of our analysis of the discursive space (& power relationships) structured into the EEO program - we analyzed the way EEO students are described in the literature describing the EEO program. Language is always chosen - even if unconsciously - and the program description draws from "deficit" models for students in this program - and poses a hierarchical relationship not only of who has valuable knowledge and who does not - but of who has the ability/power to change this unequal distribution of knowledge Part of the role of Studio support programs is to take apart this construction of power by enabling students to make informed (powerful) choices within academic spaces.

We read through (quickly) the description of what happens in Studio sessions - and we discussed which practices we thought we might change (particularly the role of faciliators as mediating communications between students & instructors).

During the last hour of class we generated a List of Objectives for the Studio Program, and we started work on a collaborative list of necessary documents/information for designing Studio Support for the Kean University Studio Program.

For Monday

Read: Grego & Thompson, Chapters 1& 2 (Sam please return my book by Monday AM so I can review).

I know I said I would copy a document on coaching readers - but I didn't get to it so I will distribute that in class.

Post to your Blog:

Design Document 2: define/list mentor & facilitator responsibilities. This is a different kind of a list than the one provided in the Draft EEO Summer Program Document (though that is a good place to start). You need to think about what in particular mentors and facilitators have to do; this list is a brainstorming document - and we will compare lists to ensure we have a clear idea of these responsibilities.

Planning Document 2: Identify possible meeting spaces. I have set up the google.doc and you are expected to contribute spaces on that document. If you find you cannot edit - let me know and I will fix it. For this planning document - you should do some analytic writing about which spaces will work best and why. You might want to include some conceptual analysis - will classroom spaces work as well as spaces in the UC? in the library? What about the conference rooms? Study space in the dorms? Spaces associated with administrative spaces (meeting rooms associated with departments or administrative services) - or support services (in the EEO space, the writing center, CAS tutoring spaces, for example)? This way - once we have the list - we will have a basis for ranking & choosing the particular spaces we will request.

In class we will go over Grego & Thompson (hopefully quickly) => come to class with questions about one particular section. Be prepared to participate in a proto-type Studio Session to support reading questions. Yes, we will be making this up. After we have some practice, we will take a shot at a script for facilitating students who come to studio with requests for assistance with reading.

I will give a presentation on the assignment sheet for Project 1: the Studio Program Design and we will talk through the headings for the program design. Hopefully you will have some time to do some brainstorm writing.

Dr. Sutton will give a presentation on the Writing content courses during the second half of the class.

Have a good weekend, and see you on Monday!