How do the ways in which faculty members write/imagine themselves as writers connect to writing pedagogies?
…is there a connection between how GMU WI faculty describe their writing processes and how they describe the writing assignments in their WI course?
Findings: Figures, Statistics, Graphs
Figure 1: Out of 27 WI faculty members studied–
Faculty Writers: 18.5% Reluctant; 48% Practical; 33% Integral
Assignments: 3.7% Reluctant; 59% Practical; 37% Integral
Figure 2: All faculty, regardless of identity categorization, assigned a majority of Practical Assignments.
There were three surprising results:
- One Reluctant Writer described an Integral Assignment.
- Of the assignments described by Practical Writers, the Integral and Practical Assignments were assigned nearly evenly (54% Practical Assignments; 46% Reluctant Assignment).
- Of the assignments described by Integral Writers, however, two-thirds were Practical Assignments (66% Practical Assignments; 33% Integral Assignments).
Therefore, these very limited findings suggest that Practical Writers are more likely to assign Integral Assignments than Integral Writers.
Recommendations: Create Community & Foster Pedagogical Growth
Writing workshops improve and enrich the ways in which faculty identify as writers and understand writing as a process (meaning making), which can lead to improved and sustained teaching of writing as faculty, through mindful practice, develop and continuing writing pedagogies.When writing faculty view themselves as good writers and are supported as writers in concrete ways they can transition from faculty who teach writing to faculty that develop and continue writing pedagogy.
find out why Practical Writers assign more Integral Assignments than Integral Writers.
[p.s. thanks to Bree and Jacob, who inspired this visual presentation]