Tue, 16 Jan 2024 19:12:06 -0800WeeblyTue, 14 Jan 2014 13:38:41 GMThttp://berlinproject.donaldunger.com/notes/january-9-meeting-agenda-and-notes Discuss Berlin Readings – All
    1. How does Berlin position writing instruction in relation to cultural studies? What does cultural
    studies do for Berlin? What are his goals in bringing together composition and cultural studies?
    2. What do you make of Berlin’s acknowledgement that cultural critiques are often difficult—even
    painful—for students? And what do you make of his concession that students often resist this
    leftist critique? Cf. “Composition and Cultural Studies,” p. 53.
    3. What resonated with you from the Alcorn and/or the Sanchez critiques? What appeals to you
    about Berlin’s approach even after reading the critiques? Also, in light of them, what would you
    change or jettison from Berlin’s pedagogy?
    4. What can we do in the contemporary classroom to achieve similar goals to Berlin’s description?
    Also, how might those goals change?

Narrative Description – Don
    1. Overall Course
    2. Unit Topics
    3. Assignment Process

Contacting Former Mentees – Don
    1. Finalize narrative description
    2. Folks to contact: Lisa L, Libby M, Kris B. and Bruce M.
    3. What should go in the email? (Narrative, website, password, looking for critiques, etc.).
    4. Who will contact whom?

IRB Application – Kyle
    1. Application and consent form done
    2. Submit to Pat (P.I.) and then submit to IRB

CWPA – Kyle
    1. Acceptance, dates, and other logistics

Proposal for Faculty Grant – Don
    1. Submitted

Timeline – All
    1. Phase I Focus Group:
    2. Participants will need assignment sheet and have not taught the unit yet

Methods – Don & Kyle
    1. Negotiate Journal Requirements
        i. Information on every week of Berlin unit
        ii. Information on the flow of the unit
        iii. Information on student reactions
        iv. Frequency or minimum requirements for each entry?

Project Teams – All
    2. Traditional Article: Kyle, Sherri, and Nick
        i. Berlin bibliography; critiques bibliography; articles that do something similar; or talk
        through ideas for traditional article.
    3. Web-Text: Jeff and Amelia
        i. Example web-texts with accompanying traditional article; researching Kairos’ submission
        requirements; or talk through ideas for web-text.
    4. Coding: Don, Dan, and Jon
        i. Articles about focus groups; start to look at software on grant budget; tracking down
        resource room computer; or how we are going to record focus groups.

]]>Thu, 09 Jan 2014 14:05:17 GMThttp://berlinproject.donaldunger.com/notes/cwpa-2014-proposalWe received an expedited acceptance for CWPA 2014. Below you'll find the full text of the proposal.

Revisiting James Berlin’s Cultural Studies Approach to Writing Instruction

Amelia Chesley, Sherri Craig, Jeffrey M. Gerding, Daniel Liddle,
Nicholas Marino, Don Unger, Kyle P. Vealey, and Jon Wallin

Purdue University

2014 CWPA Conference
Proposal for Panel Session

    In keeping with the 2014 conference theme of evaluating the hidden complexities undergirding WPA work, this panel presentation revisits James Berlin’s cultural studies approach to writing instruction. However, this presentation does not focus on how this approach has been represented and critiqued through published works. Instead, it examines Berlin's approach as an ongoing negotiation of the classroom as a site entangled in university missions, disciplinary values, and local issues, which includes individual attachments. This process of negotiation guides both writing program administration and teaching. In that sense, this presentation gets at how Berlin's approach represents a work-in-progress—a work inexorably bound to his experience as the director of the University of Cincinnati's introductory writing program from 1981 until 1985 and his experiences mentoring graduate teaching assistants in the introductory writing program at Purdue University from 1987 until his untimely death in 1994.
    In attempting to tease out the in-progress nature of his work some twenty years after his passing, this panel presents the initial results of a semester-long project aimed at adapting Berlin’s pedagogy to the dynamics of the contemporary classroom. To do so, we developed a three-phase project spanning eight sections of introductory composition with the objective of teaching one of his assignments in each section. The first phase involves a reconstruction of his teaching materials; this reconstruction moves beyond descriptions provided by published works and draws from a collection of Berlin’s papers housed in the Virginia Kelly Karnes Archives and Special Collections at Purdue, as well as email interviews with former colleagues and mentees. The second phase of the project documents how participants adapt Berlin's materials to their curricula. Finally, the third phase addresses the challenges, breakthroughs, and more subtle results that emerged from adapting and carrying out these assignments. Through this project we seek to commemorate Berlin's work as well as raising pragmatic questions about how his work might have changed shape over the past twenty years. Furthermore, the lessons gleaned from this project extend beyond commemorating James Berlin's work and lead the panel to ask, how is pedagogy—the often-unseen work of graduate students, instructors, and faculty—remembered in constantly evolving academic, institutional, and disciplinary contexts?
    This panel consists of eight Purdue University graduate students, all of whom participated in the three-phase project. The panel presentation outlines each participant's approach to adapting and modifying Berlin’s teaching materials to meet their needs. The presentation also reports on the progress of creating a research database and resource for scholars interested in Berlin’s work. In addition to commemorating the work of a scholar whose influence can still be felt in our discipline, we hope this project effectively extends the tradition of critical and dialogic scholarship so strongly advocated by Berlin into programmatic contexts.

]]>Thu, 12 Dec 2013 03:27:21 GMThttp://berlinproject.donaldunger.com/notes/random-notes-based-on-scanning-berlins-syllabiUpon examining syllabi from 1987-1990 and 1993 seeing the obvious changes Berlin made between those two groups, it seems his cultural studies approach was very much a work in progress. The units we discussed in our meeting and that he discusses in chapter 7 of Rhetorics, Poetics, Cultures, aren't really there in the earlier syllabi. I'm curious how this shows that despite the fact that scholars like Alcorn and Sanchez critique his work as if it's a done deal, it was very much a work in progress at he time of his death. I just stated riffing on some more elegant way to say this, so I'm just reposting it here not to lose it...


It's interesting to look at someone's teaching documents in contrast to published works about those documents. It makes you realize how fragile and less static the former is compared to how academics deal with the latter. In academia, one's published work becomes their identity, particularly if they become known for the article or book and the methods described in it: it becomes a more critiquable doppleganger for the person and their investments. But, looking at teaching documents feels less final or finished. In documents written for use in the classroom, there's always something missing. Subsequent iterations of the documents give you some idea what the teacher thought was missing, or maybe if we read these documents not as having missed something but as reaching out to students, subsequent iterations point out the small changes the instructor or professor made to reach out further or better or differently to students--that is to say subsequent documents demonstrate the teacher's learning from students and desire to commune with students writ large. In examining teaching documents spanning multiple semesters or years, we can see the teacher's movement (if any) and their changing investments, which extend beyond a desire for disciplinary stability or teaching as an act determined entirely by one's content-area.

- Don
]]>Thu, 12 Dec 2013 01:02:39 GMThttp://berlinproject.donaldunger.com/notes/december-11th-meeting-agenda-and-notes Overview of the Project and Project Site – Don
    Berlin’s Pedagogy – Don
    6 Units – Advertising, work, play, gender, education, and individuality

Project Teams – Kyle
    1.   Data and Coding Team – Responsibilities will include research into qualitative methods, coding, and related empirical     topics as well as transcribing and coding data from focus groups and instructor journals. If you are taking empirical                 methodology in the spring, this might be a good option for you.
    2.   Traditional Article Team – Responsibilities will include gathering research on Berlin and related ideological critiques as     well as reporting on our teaching experiences as an empirical/archival study. If you are taking postmodern rhetoric in the         spring, this might be a good option for you.
    3.   Webtext Team – Responsibilities will include gathering research on teaching self-studies, pedagogical accounts and         similar works that have both a print and digital form as well as developing a webtext that includes a completed Berlin             bibliography and accounts of our teaching experiences. If you are taking Sam’s gaming course in the spring, this might be     a good option for you.

Establishing a Project Timeline – Kyle & Don
    1.   Readings for Winter Break – In order to prepare for this project, we’re hoping to all read 2 selections from Berlin and 1     critique from Raul Sanchez and/or Marshall Alcorn. These readings will provide an overview of Berlin’s pedagogy and its         limitations.
    2.   Pre-teaching Focus Group – On adapting Berlin's materials in spring course
    3.   Teaching Journal – During the unit sequence, we hope that we can all keep teaching journals to keep track of our             experiences in adapting Berlin’s pedagogy.
    4.   Post-teaching Focus Group – On teaching (adapted) Berlin’s materials in spring course
    5.   Project Team Meetings – Each project team will determine the frequency of smaller meetings throughout the spring         semester.

Tasks for Today
1.0 Schedule a face-to-face meeting for early January: Thursday, January 9, 2014 at 11 am
2.0 Create 3 Project Teams
    2.1        Data coding team: Jon and Dan
    2.2        Traditional article team: Kyle and Sherri
    2.3        Webtext team: Jeff and Amelia
    Don and Nick?
3.0 Determine unit theme (we will need at least 1 instructor per unit):
    3.1        Advertising: Amelia and Jon
    3.2        Work: Kyle
    3.3        Play:  Jeff
    3.4        Gender: Nick?
    3.5        Education: Don
    3.6        Individuality: Sherri
    Dan?
4.0 Creative endeavor grant opportunity due January 15th
    4.1        1-page description of project: Dan and Jon
    4.2        Timeline and budget for project: Don
5.0 Council for Writing Program Administration (CWPA) proposal due January 1st
    5.1        1-page description of project: Kyle and Jeff
6.0 Venue options:
    6.1       CFP for Microhistories edited collection
    6.2       Kairos (digital heavy webtext) or Enculturation (not so heavy webtext)
    6.3       College Composition and Communication (CCC)
    6.4       Other venues?

Winter Break Tasks
1.0 Exempt Category 1 IRB Application: Kyle
2.0 Transcribe the rest of Berlin archive materials: Don and Sherri
3.0 Assigning folks to contact Berlin’s former mentees: Jon, Dan, and Amelia
Nick
]]>Sat, 30 Nov 2013 00:50:09 GMThttp://berlinproject.donaldunger.com/notes/moving-forward-over-winter-breakJust before Thanksgiving Break, Kyle sent an email to Dr. Tony Silva in an attempt to get ENGL 106i instructors involved in the project. In turn, Dr. Silva forwarded our email to 106i instructors.

We're hoping to finalize project team members before winter break and schedule a meeting before classes end in order to plan out and divide the labor for Phase 1, which includes:

• transcribing the rest of the materials we'll need for the project
• composing a narrative that describes Berlin's syllabus, assignment sequence, assignments, and 
  
• assigning responsibilities for contacting Berlin's former mentees with questions about our transcriptions and the narrative described above
  
• planning and writing the proposal for CWPA in June
• coordinating ENGL 106 and 106i schedules for the project in the spring semester
  
• crafting and submitting our proposal to IRB
• drafting a statement explaining the project to students (with permission forms)
• scheduling a face-to-face meeting for early January
• finalizing the Berlin's materials that we'll use to inform our work
• creating and distributing a short reading list that a theoretical background for our project writ large and for incorporating the "Berlin assignment" into our classes (This reading list should also include readings dealing with cultural studies approaches critiqued/enacted in L2 contexts.)
• creating an additional reading list for participants
• discussing the CFPs applicable to our project
  

We'd like to cap the project at 7 or 8 (at most) participant/researchers because we'd like everyone who is interested to play a role in writing and editing the articles (2) and developing/presenting at CWPA should we get accepted. At present, we envision two articles: a traditional text published in a flagship journal and a webtext that includes information we aren't able to reproduce in a journal article, such as entries from teaching journals, examples of student work, images of Berlin's documents, etc. As far as particular CFPs go, McComiskey's call for Microhistories of Composition looks promising for a print publication (though I'm not sure if folks would want to go with an edited collection or a journal). In terms of the webtext, Kairos or Enculturation may be good options. I am less familiar with SLA/SLS journals, but I am sure there are those we should consider as well.

- Don




 
]]>Fri, 15 Nov 2013 02:39:54 GMThttp://berlinproject.donaldunger.com/notes/meeting-with-pat Pat wasn't very surprised that we couldn't find assignment sheets. She said that Shirley played a role in establishing them as a norm aimed toward assessment. We may need to piece things together in order to move forward. She thought it was a good idea to contact former mentees. She suggested Libby Miles because she said Libby keeps everything and would have her papers, but I am almost positive that Libby was not one of his mentees.

Pat seemed to think we really should find 106i instructors to get involved. Based on the materials we looked at, Purdue seemed so vastly different then. We should ask the woman who's doing PW as a secondary area if she's teaching 106i next semester. Also, we should talk to Tony Silva about a few things: (1) who he would recommend contacting/thinks may be interested, and (2) to see if he has info or knows where to get info about the history of international students at Purdue. Alongside reconstructing Berlin's assignments via documents and conversations with former mentees, we might need to do a bit of historical work about the school itself. Along with this we will to get some idea what 101/102 were like and how and when they became 106. Also, at some point Purdue had a prep class for fyc (not everyone went directly to 106). This may have been 101. I'm not sure. This info is probably more important for an article, but might also help inform the changes we make to an assignment, readings, etc.

I found the Purdue newsreels, which give some info. It looks like 1987 (Berlin's first year?) was a big year for beginning steps toward getting more international students, particularly from China. It's mentioned in this newsreel video.

- Don

]]>Thu, 14 Nov 2013 02:58:11 GMThttp://berlinproject.donaldunger.com/notes/questions-from-first-day-in-archivesDid Berlin and mentees use assignment sheets?

Can we find more specific information about readings, particularly which essays,
chapters, etc Berlin used?

What did the grammar lessons look like?

Did Berlin/mentees teach genre? More specifically, where did discussions about
essay or research papers come in to the classroom as they are only superficially
mentioned on the syllabi and not mentioned in the weekly breakdown for the
course?

The syllabi mentions things in the weekly breakdown like, "Revise the first draft
after group discussion. Read the second draft in editorial groups. Revise and submit
the final draft." What did this process of drafting, critiquing, peer editing, and
revising look like?

"Final Exam Week": did it include a final exam?

Did Berlin use grading rubrics? What did they look like?

We found a mix of popular sources from magazines like Utne Reader and Time as
well as academic journal articles? What was the balance like in ENGL 101/102
reading?]]>Tue, 12 Nov 2013 03:02:09 GMThttp://berlinproject.donaldunger.com/notes/list-of-requested-archival-materialsHere's the list of stuff that I asked Michael Mahune to put aside for us for the first go round with the archive:

Series 2: Teaching Materials, 1980-1994
    Subseries 1: Prior to Purdue University, 1981-1987
        English 103, University of Cincinnati, Summer 1987
 
Box 3
Series 2: Teaching Materials, 1980-1994
    Subseries 2: Purdue University, 1987-1993
        Mentoring materials, 1987-1993
            English 102, 1988
            English 102CS, 1992-1993
        Cultural Studies readings, 1990-1992
 
Box 7
Series 2: Teaching Materials, 1980-1994
    Subseries 2: Purdue University, 1982-1994            
        Berlin’s teaching materials assembled and used by other professors after his death, 1982-1994
            Teaching materials—other cultural studies pedagogy, undated
            Mentoring, 1987-1991
                Sample student papers
                Teacher commentary
                Course calendars
                Syllabi
                Handouts and readings
                English 102 and English 101, 1994
                Berlin’s sample materials for mentor group

Evidently, archives don't quite work that way, so we received all of Boxes 2, 3, and 7.
]]>