Symposium highlights views on writing, diversity

How does a university encourage high standards of academic literacy while embracing a diverse population of varied linguistic traditions?

That question was at the heart of the 2004 University Writing Center Symposium on Literacy. Held at the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum on October 8, the symposium marked the inauguration of Texas A&M’s new writing-intensive course requirement for undergraduates. The symposium was held as part of Literacy Across Cultures, a two-day celebration of literacy with presentations by both local and visiting scholars.

Dr. James Anderson, Vice President and Associate Provost for Institutional Assessment and Diversity at Texas A&M

Dr. Nancy Grimm, Associate Professor of Humanities at Michigan Technological University and director of MTU’s writing center

Dr. Beverly Moss, Associate Professor of English and Director of the Center for the Study and Teaching of Writing at The Ohio State University

 “The UWC Symposium on Literacy presented a great opportunity to bring together faculty and administrators from across campus to explore our assumptions about literacy, particularly as those assumptions relate to diversity,” said Dr. Valerie Balester, Executive Director of the University Writing Center.

“The three scholars we invited to speak,” Balester continued, “share a belief that when a university community embraces cultural diversity, it enhances the development of critical literacy by broadening perspectives and challenging assumptions. These speakers also share a commitment to the idea that writing must play a fundamental role in undergraduate education in every discipline.”

Dr. James Anderson, Vice President and Associate Provost for Institutional Assessment and Diversity at Texas A&M, addressed the need for university leadership to embrace diversity by creating an environment that supports cross-cultural dialogue and critical thinking. Anderson, who came to Texas A&M in November of 2003 after serving as the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Affairs at North Carolina State University, stressed the importance of preparing students to be effective in a pluralistic society. Asked after the conference to reflect on the topic, Anderson observed that it’s not enough for a university to establish literacy requirements; it must foster an institutional respect for literacy.

“It’s the responsibility of TAMU,” Anderson stated, “to help students to devalue the notion that they are taking writing and speaking courses to simply fulfill a requirement. Instead they should assertively choose to engage in writing that is embedded in the disciplines and that signals that the student must account for different contexts, audiences, and purposes.”

“Writing and speaking across the curriculum,” noted Anderson, “should be supported with appropriate resources and linked to initiatives that promote cognitive outcomes like critical thinking and active learning.”

Active learning is also a key concept for Dr. Nancy Grimm, Associate Professor of Humanities at Michigan Technological University and director of MTU’s writing center, who reflected in her presentation on the idea that true learning is less about “covering” material than about giving students the opportunity to engage with subject matter in a way that transforms them. Grimm’s view is in some ways at odds with the desire to hold students accountable to conventional standards.

“Our ideas about literacy are haunted by the assumptions of a monolingual society,” said Grimm. “Too often the word ‘literacy’ is used to signify competent practice of the standard (or dominant) code or the ability to read and write in error-free and ‘coherent’ ways. Literacy is imagined as something that seamlessly transfers from one classroom to another, just as words are imagined as little boxes or containers used to convey meaning and teaching is imagined as covering material.”

For Grimm, that limited view of literacy has little to do with genuine learning.

“For real learning to occur, learners need to travel through the mess of incorrectness and experience the internal incoherence that results when we discover that our current model of the world is inadequate,” claimed Grimm. “Teachers need to distance themselves from a model of literacy that expects just-in-time correctness and coherence.”

In an email interview, Grimm expanded on her idea of the need for a new model of literacy, noting that “lots of traditional writing assignments have functioned as ways to rank or evaluate students by catching errors in their thinking or errors in their language. These are rarely empowering or engaging activities for students (with the exception of the very gifted students who can display their excellence). If faculty can design writing assignments that have a purpose beyond the classroom or that allow students to play with ideas without fear of being ‘wrong,’ then writing will be a way of exerting the power of a new way of thinking.”

Dr. Beverly Moss, Associate Professor of English and Director of the Center for the Study and Teaching of Writing at The Ohio State University, focused her talk on the ways in which a university writing center can meet a diverse population’s need for literacy instruction. The issue of diversity and the need to communicate effectively in a variety of contexts are very real concerns for Moss, since the OSU center she directs not only serves university students, but also conducts community outreach literacy projects.

One of the problems Moss works to overcome is having a writing center staff that is overwhelmingly white and middle class serving a population that is significantly more diverse. While Moss actively seeks to hire a more diverse staff, she also trains all of her staff members to appreciate the linguistic strengths of those who speak other varieties of English (Spanglish, Ebonics) or languages other than English.

In an interview after the conference, Moss had advice for those teaching writing in multicultural settings.

“Look for the meaning first,” Moss advised. She encouraged both students and faculty to give priority to understanding a writer’s message. Her reasoning was as straightforward as her advice: “I think if we focus on the academic conventions, we might miss something wonderful that a student is trying to communicate.”

Moss also encouraged those teaching Texas A&M’s new W courses to realize they know more about writing than they may give themselves credit for.

She also encouraged faculty members to think “about how writing can work in the service of what they do in a class. Maybe there’s something they’re doing where writing might help the students learn the content more thoroughly.”

Moss spoke as well about the role that a writing center can play in the university’s drive to improve literacy. While she noted that the role of a writing center is different at every institution, she believes one of a writing center’s basic functions is to help faculty deepen their understanding of literacy in all its forms.

“Writing centers need to provide places for instructors to talk—that doesn’t happen very often,” said Moss. “People don’t have time to talk to each other. Sometimes just being able to have a conversation can make a difference.”

The 2004 UWC Symposium on Literacy was just that—a chance to have a conversation.

“In a way,” said Balester, “the papers presented at this symposium were the opening remarks in what we hope will be an ongoing and spirited discussion of what it means to be literate and what role culture plays in literacy. The UWC hopes to foster more such discussions in the future.”