Writing to and from the CSU:
A Proposal for Graduate Writing Workshops
While walking with a classmate to an
off-campus restaurant that hosted our paper presentation for our class, she
explained that she and other students met there to write.
Shocked
and intrigued, I asked her: “Wait, how can you drink and write? That would be
impossible for me.”
“No, we don’t really do revising while
we’re here. We talk about ideas, try to help each other figure out what we’re
trying to say in our papers.” Working almost forty hours a week, I was very
envious of the time these students had to get together and discuss their ideas.
However, I am not the only graduate student of English who works full time and
takes on a full course load. We attend a state university; a university
intended for and built around the working class. Unfortunately, the English
graduate department at CSULA, as well as other graduate programs in the CSU
system, does not provide us working students with time or space to work
together on our writing.[1]
In 2001 Mike Rose and Karen A.
McClafferty address the problem of not providing graduate students with a place
to discuss and work on their writing in their article “A Call for the Teaching
of Writing in Graduate Education.” They argue that university departments make
the assumption that a writing workshop is “remedial” and graduate students do
not have a need for this type of “intervention” (28). As a result of this
attitude toward graduate writing, many universities do not provide students
with adequate writing assistance. This especially appears to be the case in
English departments, as well as in other humanity and social science
departments, where students are expected to have a breadth of writing
experience from their undergraduate career. Consequently, universities fail to
acknowledge that graduate students share similar struggles that basic writers
have when trying to adopt the professional lexicon. As Rose and McClafferty reveal, most graduate
students “have not had the kinds of education that require extended writing
about scholarly texts coupled with systematic feedback.” And as Lyn Z. Bloom
reveals in her research (twenty years before Rose and McClafferty’s work),
“some graduate students want—and need—more help than others” especially because
“graduate theses and dissertations perforce involve varying mixtures of
dependent and independent research performed by students of varying levels of
capability and sophistication” (108). Bloom’s research displays a history of
graduate students whose programs failed to provide them with adequate writing
assistance. While it seems as if these departments are negligent towards their
students, this issue is also a result of graduate students not calling
attention to their need for writing assistance. As Bloom significantly notes,
many graduate students are ashamed of their writing because they believe it
will not meet their professors’ expectations (105). Because of this fear, too
many graduate students shy away from seeking assistance and usually
procrastinate with their writing projects. Working graduate students especially
procrastinate their writing and avoid seeking assistance because they simply
cannot manage any more work into their tight schedule. Since graduate programs,
as well as the students in them, avoid addressing the issue of graduate writing,
universities must provide a time and place for graduate students to work together
on their writing.
A writing workshop tailored to meet the
needs of working graduate students would not only improve the students’
writing, but also help students finish their thesis projects and complete their
program in a timelier manner. While advocating a new program during an economic
recession seems impractical, a student facilitated program would not only be
cost effective, but would also help students initiate one another into the
larger academic community.
Accessibility
While more graduate writing assistance
programs have emerged over the last decade, it appears that they primarily
exist at the PhD level, and little is offered to MA candidates at the state
college level[2].
UCLA, for example, established their Graduate Writing Center in 2006 which
hosts numerous writing workshops and boot camps for graduate students while
CSULB’s University Writing Center (similar to most other CSU writing centers)
hosts writing workshops catered to undergraduate students[3].
More specifically, CSU English MA programs only offer one writing class which
is usually research based. CSUF’s English department website describes the
course entitled “Introduction to Graduate Studies in Literature” as one that
teaches students “research techniques, analytical approaches, and theories of
literature” and serves as a “basic orientation in graduate literary studies.”[4]
This description is exemplary of most CSU graduate research methods courses.
Margret Salle, Ronald Hallet, and William Tierny in their article “Teaching
Writing in Graduate School” argue that these graduate courses “focus on the
best way to teach research methods” and give “less attention to how to teach
writing” (67). Since these research methods classes mostly focus on research
and are only required to be taken once in a graduate program, students leave
the class with many questions pertaining to their writing.
While professors are almost always
willing to attend to their students’ needs, many students at state colleges
have full time jobs preventing them from meeting with professors during
scheduled office hours. As Bloom reveals in her research, “conflicting demands
and priorities—always problematic—are more likely to impinge on graduate
students” (109). This seems to be predominately the case in state colleges
because of the influx of working class students who attend these schools
because of their flexibility and affordability[5].
Since these students are only offered one class on writing and struggle to meet
with professors outside of class meeting times, state colleges should provide
their graduate students with supplemental writing assistance catered to their
schedule and individual needs.
Graduate Student Writing
The issue of providing a time and place
for graduate students to work on their writing, however, only addresses half
the problem. There are specific issues that graduate students have when
learning to write as a professional that often go unattended.
Something significant that graduate
students learn entering into their introductory research methods class is that
they are no longer writing what they once mastered as undergraduate students.
During my two to three years of undergraduate coursework, I was taught to write coherent essays that obey the
commands of a clear, concise thesis statement. In addition, I was taught to not
use an overly subjective “first-person” point of view, avoid the passive voice
at all costs, not to get too involved with literary criticism, and to stay within
the range of five to seven pages. Some are surprised by the usual length
limitations of undergraduate essays. However, professors who require smaller
papers argue that this method teaches students to write “leaner,” more
carefully focused papers. While these writing conventions are useful (and
perhaps mandatory) for developing effective analytical skills, we learn that we
have to adapt these methods, and leave some behind, in order to discuss larger
research based topics. Unfortunately, we are offered merely one class to learn
how to do so.
While attempting to write more advanced
papers, graduate students struggle to develop a style to fit this new academic
language. During my first quarter as a graduate student, I became aware that my
writing did not sound like the professionals whom I was referencing in my
research papers. I expressed to several of my professors about my concern and
asked if they could recommend any books on style to help me develop my own.
Most told me that they could not think of any worth using and recommended that
I read through the work of literary critics that they believed had an effective
style. When doing so, I noticed these
critics break most of the rules that I learned during my undergraduate and
graduate coursework. I along with my peers was left wondering when it is
appropriate to break these rules. My conditioned fear of using incorrect
language, however, caused me to avoid taking any risks in my writing.
In addition to learning how to craft
arguments that deal with a larger body of research, graduate students also
struggle when using larger theoretical concepts that they are expected to know,
apply, and respond to in their work as professionals. Because many professors
have varying opinions on how to appropriately use theory (and some argue that
it should not be used at all), graduate students have conflicted views on how
to use theory in their writing. Because graduate students are not used to utilizing
these theoretical concepts, they often encounter problems that basic writers
have with their writing. As David Bartholomae explains, students develop their
academic voice by “assembling and mimicking” its language with the limitations
of their personal language (590). When doing so, they often produce awkward
“syntax” and murky diction (613). Even though Bartholomae primarily addresses
this issue concerning new students entering the university, this same process
occurs with graduate students. While beginning writers struggle between using
their “personal language” and the language of the “university,” as Bartholomae
explains, students entering graduate school are struggling between the language
learned at the undergraduate level and the language of the professional
discourse community.
Because of their lack of confidence in
using this advanced language, graduate students often find it difficult to
assume an authoritative voice when arguing a claim. The “voice” that graduate
students need to form as professional writers is one that allows them the
authority to speak to and from the larger discourse community by using the
language offered in that discourse. I am not proposing that graduate students
use a voice that represents an authentic self. Instead, I am arguing that
graduate students need to relearn how to take an active role in shaping their
voices to construct the “self” that they wish others to read in their writing.
As Joseph Harris argues, “voice” in writing should be viewed “as a way of
speaking that lies outside a writer,
and which she must struggle to appropriate or control” (34).
These issues cause much anxiety for
graduate students, and unfortunately, many are forced to work through their
complex ideas in their writing on their own. And even some, as Bloom reveals,
succumb to “abandon[ing]” their projects and their programs all together (107).
However, providing a space for graduate students to discuss these issues
amongst one another would help relieve this burden while helping them finish
the program at the same time.
The Workshop
In order to meet the needs of busy
graduate students and to help advance them in their program, a writing workshop
should be a required course taught co-currently with a research methods class. As
Sallee et al. reveal in their study, most students feel that they would have
benefited from taking extensive writing courses initially in the program (71). During
the first group meetings, students new to the program should have a moderator,
ideally a veteran graduate student, to help organize the group and provide
students with materials (feedback guidelines, schedules, questionnaires etc).
These materials should be available via a website similar to Stanford’s Hume
Writing Center website[6].
As the Stanford model recommends, during the first meeting both advanced and new
workshop students should designate the members in the groups, meeting times,
and location before the next session (5). Students also would be advised to
determine their groups based on writing subject matter, time, location, and
overall convenience. This allows students to determine from the beginning what
would benefit the needs of their group. Since the purpose of this workshop is
also to encourage students to have confidence in their writing and to become
active members of the scholarly community, advanced graduate students would
facilitate their workshop without the need of an initial moderator. The goal of
these workshops, as Rose and McClafferty explain, is to foster an “ideal
scholarly community” allowing students to discuss their writing without the
presence of an authority figure (31).
The purpose of this workshop in
comparison to others is to also fit the needs of the busy graduate student.
Therefore, students who cannot attend all the workshop meetings due to a
demanding job or domestic responsibilities should have access to the group
through an online space. If there are enough of these students, then they could
develop an online workshop that would allow them to communicate solely through
the website. Students who are physically attending meetings will also benefit
from an online space because they can still comment on each other’s writing outside
of the workshop. Students could also utilize an online calendar to keep an up
to date schedule of their meetings.
All graduate students, regardless of their
enrolment in the course, should have access to the writing workshop. However,
as the Stanford model suggests, the writing group should democratically decide
on who can join the group so that they can maintain efficiency (5). In
addition, the graduate program should allow students to continue to earn units
from these workshops, similar to direct study/thesis units so students can
advance towards their degree while attending these workshops. At the same time,
there should be a minimum workshop unit requirement so that students can be
encouraged to gain assistance and help others with their writing.
While students should earn credit for
their participation, this course should not burden them with the stress of grades.
I recommend that students should receive credit/no credit for the course based
on a portfolio of their progress.[7] During
the workshop, students should keep a journal in which they write reflections of
each session to show how their writing has progressed. This would also allow
students a way to keep track of what has been effective in the workshop.
Students should also provide copies of drafts that they used to provide
evidence of their progression. In addition, they should conduct a final
evaluation of how the workshop helped improve their writing. The goal of the
workshop is not to burden students with more coursework; instead, it is to
provide students with a place to help improve their writing that time
constraints would otherwise prevent.
Practices that Foster
Effective Writing
An effective graduate writing
workshop must foster an atmosphere that allows students to speak comfortably about
their writing. Rose and McClafferty’s proposal and the Stanford model serve as
effective models for creating this ideal environment. However, certain
practices must be used in order to establish this type of open discussion that
would help students develop their ideas, and more importantly, help students
develop an authoritative voice in their writing. These practices must also be
time efficient in order to accommodate graduate students’ tight schedules.
Following the steps of the writing
process, the workshop sessions would begin by discussing the larger issues of
content and purpose in the students’ writing. These discussions of writing
would hopefully allow students to become comfortable sharing their writing
amongst one another. During later workshop sessions, the writing should be more
focused, and students should be more comfortable with giving and receiving
feedback; and therefore, the group can then begin discussing issues of style
and usage.
In order to create an environment
for open and honest conversation about writing, the initial workshops should be
steered away from becoming a typical discussion of mechanical error. While
useful in some cases, a workshop that primarily focuses on grammar and usage
does not help solve larger developmental issues (just as some instructor
feedback tends to do). As I and my other fellow students have experienced in
the past, during peer review students usually take on the role of being the
“teacher with the red pen” and assume that they are supposed judge another’s
work based on writing conventions rather than discuss ideas, purpose, and
development. As Peter Elbow explains, a writing workshop should function as a
“support group” where students can work out their writing problems together
(239). In order to create this “support group” environment, students must be
willing to share their writing (often in its rawest stages), and accept and offer
honest feedback.
Most graduate students, however, are
intimidated by their “expert” peers and are resistant towards this vulnerable
position. At the same time, students also do not want to offend their
classmates. Salle et al. describe how in their graduate writing class, “few
students shared their first paper with their peers” until they received
“extensive and honest feedback” from the instructor (68). However, Salle et al. express that when the
students did give feedback to their peers, it mostly focused on “typos” (69).
To resolve this issue, they provided students with a “model of how to peer
edit” so that students could learn to help one another with their writing.
While Salle et al. demonstrate the usefulness of showing students how to give one
another useful feedback, they pay little attention to how to create an
environment that would encourage students to be willing to share their work.
Having students reading their work
out loud serves as the most crucial practice for creating a comfortable
environment. At the same time, this practice helps students gain a better
understanding of what they wish to communicate.
As previously noted, most graduate students are struggling with their
awkward sentence structure and diction because they are working with an
unfamiliar discourse. Even though Mina Shaughnessy primarily addresses the
issue of novice student writers, she argues that “even accomplished writers,
deep into the sense of their subjects doubt at moments the worth of what they
are saying and wait uneasily to be judged by their readers” (80). Instead of
having students try to develop their ideas alone, they should actively engage
with other students to flesh out their ideas. Rose and McClafferty explain how
students can learn to become comfortable using a new discourse in their writing
by having students read each other’s work to achieve development and clarity
(29). In doing so, they explain how students are also able to work through the
issues of “audience awareness” and develop a voice “to write more effectively
and more authoritatively” (29-30). Therefore, a successful graduate workshop
will foster discussions that allow students to work through complex ideas
together (rather than critique them) and ultimately improve students’
confidence in their writing.
Graduate students (or most writers in general)
must have trust in their readers in order to be willing to share their work.
According the Stanford model, the “relationship…buil[t] amongst the members
should be one of trust, respect, and engagement” (20). In order to do so,
feedback should be “supportive” by being “delivered in a non-threatening,
encouraging manner.” In order to create this supportive atmosphere, both the
Stanford model as well as Elbow encourages timid students to begin sharing
their writing without having their listeners/readers offer any feedback (Lee
& Golde 16, Elbow 24). While this would help students become more comfortable
with allowing others to become engaged in their writing process, this ideal
practice would not necessarily be time efficient. Instead, students should
begin by reading their work to one another and have the listeners/readers write
notes and summarize what they believe the writers’ main ideas are. Elbow
describes this type of feedback as “reader-based” in which listeners/readers
tell the writer how their writing made them “feel” (249). Since Elbow’s
description of “reader-based feedback” is directed toward creative writing instead
of research essays, this type of feedback is more useful for graduate students
when listeners/readers repeat back to the writer what they believe the writer
is trying to communicate.
In order to do this within a timely
manner, students should provide their peers with copies of their writing for
them to follow as they read their papers out loud. Readers would outline the
specific arguments they believe their peers are making. Doing so allows writers
to test the effectiveness of their voice and argument. If the reader does not
provide the anticipated meaning they gained from the text, then the writer can
learn to adjust his or her writing to clarify their arguments. Readers can also
have the writers repeat or clarify their meanings verbally to help articulate
their arguments. Through the “give-and-take of discussion,” as Shaughnessy
explains, writers “see” their “experiences in larger contexts,” and “what
seemed obvious now be defended”(180). Therefore, students gain a larger scope
of the content of their writing because they are actively engaged in their
argument. More importantly, actively engaging with others about their ideas
also allows students to gain a better sense of their voice as a writer. As
Shaughnessy describes, through these discussions a student experiences “what
seemed inexplicable” in their writing to “begin to make sense.” Having a better
sense of their argument helps students gain confidence in their use of language
that had previously limited their imagined possibilities. These discussions can
also give birth to new insights that the writer might have been otherwise
unaware of.
This type of feedback eliminates the
harsh critiques that insinuate “wrongness” in one’s writing. Instead, it
encourages writers to take control over their argument. In doing so, as Elbow
suggests, this type of feedback should not skew what the writer wants to say, but help strengthen
development, clarity, and voice (268).
Once students become more
comfortable sharing their work with their peers and feel that they have
established a clear argument in their papers, they can begin to offer each
other more critical feedback focused on structure, logical development, and
usage. Elbow describes this type of feedback as “criterion” because readers
follow a set of guidelines when commenting on one’s writing. Because this type
of feedback responds to specific questions, it is also the most time efficient.
This type of feedback is also useful when attempting to submit papers to
journals or conferences because writers must follow certain guidelines in order
to have their work accepted.
Students should come prepared to
these sessions with specific questions that they wish to ask their readers
about their papers. The Stanford model provides a set of questions asking
students what goals that they have for improving their writing while in the
workshop (8-9). In addition, this questionnaire asks students to explain what
specific problems they find in their writing as well as what others have said
about their writing (8-9). While many students receive the same paper comments from
instructors, not all students know how to fix these addressed issues. Having a
reader who is aware of these issues will most likely be able to help the writer
work through these blind spots. As Shaughnessy explains, student writers
sometimes cannot “‘see’ the parts
within” their “sentences that need reworking” because they do not understand
what particular mistake they are making (78-9). While instructors are almost never
there to assist students while writing, others in the writing group can help
each other identify these issues during their writing process. As Elbow
explains, this type of feedback helps students to eventually identify those
problems in their own writing and self correct these issues in the future
(243).
Beginner students in the writing
workshop may not have specific questions about their writing. In that case,
students can use a guideline handout that provides readers with a set of
questions to have while reading their peer’s paper. These questions can include
ones that ask if the paper clearly states a topic and if the ideas follow a
logical order. The guideline may also ask the reader to circle grammatical
errors and underline awkward sentences. This will help efficiently pinpoint
issues in students’ writing that they may not have been aware of. Doing so
helps the students make the most use of their time while developing their
skills for giving feedback.
While criterion-based feedback helps
the graduate writing workshop work more efficiently, it also serves to open up discussions
concerning style and usage. Elbow describes how these discussions can turn into
“brief instructive discussions” concerning the “conscious craft in writing”
(244). For instance, peers can discuss issues such as “what makes a good
introduction?” Ideally, students will be able to discuss and share different
methods and approaches that they particularly find useful. Students can
identify words or phrases that they find awkward or unfit and ask their peers
to suggest a different wording. This would not only improve the writing of the
particular student, but these discussions would broaden the vocabulary and
language usage of the entire writing group because they would be working out
these rugged pieces of writing together.
The discussion of usage and style
also helps students become more comfortable using a discourse that requires a
more advanced language to make an argument. As previously noted, graduate
students, especially in the humanities and social sciences, deal with higher
theoretical concepts and have trouble getting used to speaking in highly
abstract terms. Often students dealing with complex ideas use unfit words or
have trouble massaging out the syntax in their writing because they are
restricted by the limits of their own language. As Shaughnessy explains, when a
student lacks the “ ‘right’ word, he often cannot collapse sentences or clauses
in ways that preserve his meaning and must thus choose a circuitous syntactic
route to his meaning” (73). Even while a student may have a convincing
argument, he or she may lack the language to articulate that claim and produce
an awkward phrase. Reader-based feedback can help to solve issues concerning
awkward phrasing due to a lack of purpose. Shaughnessy argues, however, that sometimes
the “difficulties” occur from a lack of vocabulary or grammatical knowledge.
Therefore, correcting grammatical issues can also lead to solving syntactical
issues.
Since all of these activities involve a
certain writing process, students would also benefit from sharing their writing
processes with one another. While most graduate students, especially in the
humanities, are involved in much more writing activities than other
disciplines, some still lack an efficient writing process method. As outlined
in the Stanford workshop model, students should log their process into a
“writing inventory” to keep track of how they prepare for their writing and even
evaluate their methods (9). This activity would help students become more aware
of their own writing process. At the same time, they would discover what
methods they benefit from and how to make the most of their time while writing.
Even though writing outside of a group is almost always a solitary process,
these activities will expand a student’s writing skills and strengthen their
confidence as a writer.
Working
Toward Beginnings
While many writing workshops similar to
the one I have proposed already exist within and outside campuses across the
nation, little is offered to accommodate working class graduate students
attending state colleges. The current economic crisis, however, hinders the
possibilities of producing new programs. Last April, UCLA’s online campus newspaper
published an article discussing how the university would have to cut funds from
their writing center[8]. A
student facilitated workshop, however, should not burden the university with
additional costs. Since graduate students applying to PhD programs are almost
always willing to participate in anything to include in their CVs, many graduates
students would be pleased to voluntarily moderate a couple of workshop
sessions. This program would also benefit the university’s budget by increasing
the number of students who would graduate on time. In any case, a student’s
potential should not be jeopardized because of a lack of resources. Instead,
graduate departments, especially the humanities and social sciences, should be
working to rear students who will continue to support their academic community.
Works Cited
Bartholomae,
David. "Inventing the University." Writing on the Margins.
Boston: Bedford/St.
Martin's, 2005.
589-619. Print.
Bloom,
Lynn Z. "Why Graduate Students Can't Write: Implications of Research on
Writing
Anxiety
for Graduate Education." Journal of Advanced Composition 2nd ser.
2.1 (1981):
103-17.
JAC Online. Web.
“Course
Descriptions.” California State
University Fullerton. Department of English,
Comparative
Literature, and Linguistics, n.d. Web. 9 Jun. 2013.
Elbow,
Peter. Writing with Power: Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process.
New York:
Oxford
UP, 1998. Print.
Harris,
Joseph. “Voice” A Teaching Subject: Composition Since 1966. Upper Saddle
River, NJ:
Prentice
Hall, 1997. 23-43. Print.
Lee, Sohui, and Chris Golde. “ ‘Starting an Effective Dissertation Writing Group’: Hume
Writing Center Graduate Student Workshop.” Hume Center for Writing and Speaking.
Stanford University, n.d. Web.
Rose, Mike, and Karen A. McClafferty. “A Call for the Teaching of Writing in Graduate
Education.” American Educational Research Association 30.2 (2001): 27-33. JSTOR.
Web.
Sallee, Margaret, Ronald Hallett, and William Tierny. “Teaching Writing in Graduate School.”
College Teaching 59 (2011): 66-72. Taylor and Francis. Web.
Shallert, Amanda. “Graduate Writing Center May be Forced to Cut Staff, Reduce Services.”
Daily Bruin. University of California, Los Angeles, 22 Apr. 2013. Web. 8 June 2013.
Shaughnessy, Mina P. Errors and Expectations: A Guide for the Teacher of Basic Writing. New
York: Oxford UP, 1977. Print.
Works
Consulted
“Course Descriptions.” Cal State L.A. University Catalog, n.d. Web. 9 Jun. 2013.
“Graduate
Course Descriptions.” California State
University, Long Beach. Master of Arts in
English.
n.d. Web 9. Jun. 2013
“Graduate
Courses.” Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo. Department
of English. n.d. Web. 9 Jun. 2013.
“MAlit
Degree.” Humboldt State University.
English. n.d. Web. 9 Jun.2013.
“Requirements
for the Master of Arts Degree in English.” California
State University,
Northridge. Department of
English. n.d. Web. 9 Jun. 2013.
Salas, Alexandra. "Graduate Preparedness
Strategies for Graduate Writing." The Hispanic
Outlook in Higher Education 19.13 (2009): 24-30. ABI/INFORM. Web.
Shields, Patricia M. "Getting Organized: A Pragmatic Tool for Writing Papers." The Journal of
Graduate Teaching Assistant Development 7.1 (2000): 5-17. University of Georgia
Interlibrary Loan. Web.
“Thesis/Project Writing Groups.” Sacramento State. Writing Across the Curriculum. Web. 9
Jun.2013.
UCLA Graduate Writing Center. The Graduate Writing Center at
University of California, Los
Angeles, n.d. Web. 9 Jun. 2013.
[1] This information was
gathered from the following California State University websites: Fullerton,
Humboldt, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Northridge, and San Luis Obispo.
[2] While Sacramento State offers a
program called “Thesis/Project Writing Groups,” the web page does not provide
many details about these writing groups.
[3] For information on these
programs, see UCLA’s Graduate Writing Center website and CSULB’s Writing Center
website.
[4] While most CSU courses
had similar titles and descriptions, Fullerton’s course description served as
the best example of a typical research method course. See consulted CSU websites
for these course descriptions.
[5] For information on the increase of
graduate students, see Alexandra Salas "Graduate Preparedness Strategies
for Graduate Writing.”
[6] See the Stanford University Hume
Writing Center website
[7] For a more detailed explanation
of a research portfolio, see Patricia M. Shield’s "Getting Organized: A Pragmatic Tool for
Writing Papers."
