3rd Annual Naylor Workshop for Undergraduate Research in Writing Studies

Given the growth in topics related to feminism, literacy, archival research, and other sophisticated rhetorical studies, we invited a leading scholar to act as our plenary speaker and workshop leader, Dr. Jessica Enoch, who could bring expertise in this area—and who also brought undergraduates to the workshop who had acted with her as co-researchers:

This Year's Keynote Speaker:

Jessica Enoch
University of Maryland

Jessica Enoch is an Associate Professor and Director of Academic Writing at the University of Maryland, College Park, where she specializes in feminist rhetorics and pedagogies, rhetorical education, histories of rhetoric and composition, and literacy studies. Enoch is the author of Refiguring Rhetorical Education: Women Teaching African American, Native American, and Chicano/a Students 1965-1991 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP), and editor of Burke in the Archives: Using the Past to Transform the Future of Burkean Studies (with Dana Anderson, Columbia: U of South Carolina Press). Her articles have appeared in places such as College Composition and Communication, College English, and Rhetoric Society Quarterly. 

Enoch has numerous awards and fellowships, including being named the winner of the Theresa J. Enos Award for Rhetoric Review’s Best Essay of 2012 and receiving the 2013-2015 CCCC Research Initiative Grant, a Lilly fellowship from the University of Maryland, a Triota Award for Feminist Excellence, and a Kathleen Ethel Welch Outstanding Article Award, to name a few.

Director, educator, and scholar, Enoch continues to impact the Academic Writing program and the department with dedication to her students and scholarship. 

Enoch brought to the Naylor Workshop on Undergraduate Research in Writing Studies expertise on both feminist and archival scholarship, assisting attendees with these areas of research.

In her keynote address, she was joined by undergraduate researchers from the University of Maryland who also spoke to their experiences as researchers under Enoch’s mentorship.

In 2016, we were joined by a group of dedicated students and faculty mentors including:

Undergraduate Researchers:

Kristen Boyle, Alvernia Univeristy
Angelica Brown, Christian Brothers University
Matthew Byrd, University of Indianapolis
Mackensie Crowley, Fairfield University
Luca Dembicki, Metropolitan State University of Denver
Maeve Dineen, Mercer University
Erika DiPasquale, Goucher College
William Epstein, Rutgers University - Camden
Kelsey Glennen, Alvernia University
Nathan Goudreault, University of Massachusetts - Boston
Jennifer Hindley, York College of Pennsylvania
McKynzie Inscho, University of Missouri - Kansas City
Logan Kline, University of Maryland - College Park
Elizabeth Krahn, Carroll University
Kara Lewis, University of Missouri - Kansas City
Hannah Locher, University of Wisconsin - Madison
Jamie May, York College of Pennsylvania
Christine Millar, University of California - Santa Barbara
Katherine Mims, University of Mississippi
Carly Moore, University of Maryland - College Park
Ryan Ninesling, University of Denver
Abigail Osgood, University of Missouri - Kansas City
Chelsea Otis, York College of Pennsylvania
Mary Pollard, Rutgers University - Camden
Michael Raup, University of Maryland - Baltimore County
Jessica Reed, Allegheny College
Cody Roane, West Virgina University
Briana Roldan, New York City College of Technology - CUNY
Olivia Sederstrom, York College of Pennsylvania
Chantel Vereen, York College of Pennsylvania
Michaela Wiehe, Univeristy of Missouri - Kansas City
Jessa Wood, Bloomsburg University

These students came with an exciting array of research topics, topics that both mirrored key issues in the discipline and pushed the disciple into new areas of study, including:

• I am studying narratives authored by women reflecting on their experiences with or about their body, particularly pertaining to reproductive wellness
  
   
• I am interested in of code meshing and sociolinguistics, I would like to have a more thorough understanding of how dialects form, how they enhance or hinder our ability to communicate, and what place dialects have in the academic community
  
   
• I want to find ways to improve the writing quality of transfer students so they can pass their required Writing Intensive courses and gain the writing competency needed for their careers.
  
   
• I want to learn if there is a proper mechanism for encouraging student tutors to submit their opinions, theories, and strategies to books and journals in order to incorporate their hands-on experience attempting to use various styles and theories.
  
   
• As a minority student, and a biology major experiencing a college education, I see the effect that high college tuition has on the dream of obtaining a college degree. In my research, I discuss the impact that this has on the middle class and the lower-middle class. This class is mostly made up of minorities, people that often dream of college, but in reality, have no way of achieving their dream. Schools are not able to offer them feedback on college applications, their parents are not able to help because they did not go to college themselves. It is a cycle that needs to stop. We, as a country would benefit from more minorities in college.
  
   
• My research goal is to analyze the function of questions in writing consultations and to discern how students and consultants can use them to enhance common understanding. I will draw on “Questioning in Writing Center Conferences,” an article published by Isabelle Thompson and Jo Mackiewicz, to establish my research methods as I explore this question. I will also build upon this preexisting work by focusing on "matched" consultations, in which a student is regularly paired with a single consultant, rather than the individual consultations analyzed by Thompson and Mackiewicz. Thus I hope to contribute my own conclusions about the function of questions in "matched" versus individual consultations and about the effectiveness of questioning in each met.
  
   
• I am trying to see if students and/or faculty are able to communicate or understand the discourse language of emojis/emoticons.
  
   
• I will explore how the Holocaust affected Jewish women's rhetorical practices within their families. I am approaching this topic through the study of my grandmother as, what Cheryl Glenn would term, the "rhetorical silence" at the center of my family's cultural identity. I hope to learn how rhetorical practices are passed from female survivors to their children, and connect my research to the wider conversation on the presence of the Holocaust in Jewish women's rhetoric
  
   
• I am interested in studying literacy sponsorship in community writing projects. Literacy sponsors are “any agents, local or distant, concrete or abstract, who enable, support, teach, or model, as well as recruit, regulate, suppress, or withhold literacy -- and gain advantage by it in some way.”(Deborah Brandt) For example, I will be looking at the ways community writing is supported in urban contexts and rural contexts, as well as how it is supported domestically in the United States and internationally.
  
   
• My research question stemmed from a course I took this previous spring semester, called Women & Rhetoric. I visited Special Collections, the archival research department of my institution's library, and found the diary of Georgiana Craven, a 19th-century English noblewoman. Upon noticing the pattern of Craven silencing her true emotions and thoughts, frequently using phrases like, "I cannot describe all I felt," I began to connect her rhetoric to the "rhetoric of silence" studied by scholars like Cheryl Glenn and Max Picard. My main research question is: How does the first volume of Georgiana Craven's diary reveal her utilization of a rhetoric of silence, and what motives could she have had for clinging to this rhetoric?
  
   
• I have noticed there are more and more charter schools growing in the southern region of the United States, with my research I would like to discover the pros and cons these school systems have on children, specifically children of color since the majority if not all are filled with black and brown students enrolled. It has been said that charter schools encourage post-secondary education, however they have a zero tolerance policy which affects students mentally and ultimately enrolled them into the school to prison pipeline system. Ultimately, does charter schools feed into the school to prison pipeline?
  
   
• I will attempt to understand what components of a prompt or rubric students comprehend verse where instructors must clarify or expand upon. Student input on this assignment will allow for professors to understand and adjust current parameters for any given assignment and tailor his or her prompts to the students’ needs. This research will enhance the overall efficiency of student progress as well as the instructor's development of assignments.
  
   
• My research looks at how tutors in the Writing Center currently interact with students that they presume have anxiety, how students with anxiety feel in the Writing Center, and how those students want to be treated when they are experiencing anxiety during a tutoring session.
  
   
• As behavioral science majors, we employ client-oriented techniques to assist our clients in reaching their goals. During a typical tutoring session, a similar approach is used to focus on the student and help them achieve their goals for writing. With similar end results in mind, my question regards the resemblance of the various techniques used in both counseling and tutoring. 
  
   
• My research investigates the impact of Twitter use on student writing. I want to see whether the use of social media, Twitter in particular, translates into better writing in the classroom and in everyday life. I would like to look into whether the 140 character limit set by Twitter is leading to better writing habits. For example, are students learning to be more concise with their written works or choosing their vocabulary more intentionally because of the limits Twitter places on their writing in that forum?
  
   
• I aim to compare the attitudes of student-athletes and non-athletes towards receiving feedback on their writing in the Creative Writing workshop. Based on the small sample size, I noticed that students’ previous positive or negative experiences receiving feedback elsewhere (athletics, dance, art, etc.) correlated with their attitudes towards feedback on their writing.
  
   
• I am primarily concerned with assisting to create a common curriculum for first-year composition (FYC) courses that encourages the transfer of writing knowledge and practices amongst beginning college students.
  
   
• My research asks the question “Does a gender bias exist in the Writing center?”, with a focus on technology Specifically, my research looks at both how students receive being taught technology by different genders, and tutor perception of their student. I would like to know if students believe they learn technology better from one gender as opposed to the other, and if tutors believe that same bias.
  
   
• Through my research, I am trying to learn how autobiographical writing can possibly act as a self-portal that empowers authors to gain a sense of conceptual self. Conceptual self, being defined as our acknowledgement that we are shaped by certain social and cultural standards based on our age, gender, race, social class, and other factors. Understanding our conceptual self is a key aspect of self-discovery, which is important in life writing. When writers have a sense of conceptual self and decide to resist silence on social norms we begin to understand what we don’t know about ourselves, and by doing this we construct an autobiographical text that is also a part of the larger history of humankind.
  
   
• It is my hope to learn through my research at the Naylor Workshop, the most poignant and relevant answers to questions regarding culturally responsive teaching methods and social justice in relation to literature, literacy, and learning. The premise of this research is not to advocate for any one type or genre of literature. Rather, its purpose is to advocate for the act of reading and understanding a wide range of diverse texts that defend human dignity, advocate for social justice in the classroom, and convey the importance of exposing young people to such texts. My assertion therefore, is to articulate reasons as to why I believe there to be great power - as well as responsibility - in choosing and teaching certain texts to students.
  
   
• I would like to study how writing centers have had an academic effect on first generation college students and students from low income backgrounds in their freshman year of college. I would like to investigate if the students from this population have needs that other students don’t have in academic writing and can the writing center meet those needs. We will look at (a) the student’s level of writing before receiving aid from a consultant and how they feel about their own abilities (b) what they look to gain from the session and (c) will consultations from our lab aid in their academic success and confidence in writing.
  
   
• My research question gravitates around the question: How can we alter our writing teaching and tutoring strategies to best serve the growing population of employed undergraduate students who seek to complete writing-intensive degrees? 
  
   
• I would like to find ways in which we, not only as a collective whole, but as educators, can help to close the increasingly alarming gap between the education of children in more affluent communities versus those in communities where poverty is prevalent.
  
   
• My research question is: How can writing and literacy studies serve as a discipline for identity negotiation?
  
   
• Through my research, I want to learn about how writing and other literacy practices create a space which allows one to discover and engage with aspects of their personal identity (or sense of self). This is founded on the interpretation of writing as the harmonization of one's subjective concerns with the objective conditions/ purpose of their writing. I anticipate that through this research I will gain a better understanding of how to educate and think about writing.
  
   
• What are University and College Writing Centers across the country doing to increase advocacy for students with learning disabilities? What methods can be improved on or changed to ensure these students get all the instruction they need? How wide is the bridge between the Writing Center and the Access Center? What methods of self-advocacy can be taught to these students to help them continue to grow and learn?
  
   
• My current research investigates the ways in which individuals react to and create meaning through language across communities and the barriers that separate groups. Through qualitative inquiries in my coursework for my Composition Theory and Practice class, I have studied how one relates to the social hierarchies in the groups in which they produce knowledge and act. I have gauged the initial perceptions of my two participants in my study concerning their composing practices, how they decide what to compose, how to compose, and what external mediators are ultimately most prescient in influencing their decisions.
  
   
• The use and abuse of trigger warnings and whether they are effective tools for classroom productivity and further learning. I want to see how the increase in the use of trigger warnings has either helped or hurt educational settings and the careers of professors. Through some previous research, I've found trigger warnings have blossomed in creating a larger culture across campuses where students are trying to dictate what they should be exposed to.
  
   
• Language used in the courtroom can be analyzed through rhetoric. This research project will focus specifically on how rhetoric affects the outcomes in the courtroom. Particularly, I will research interactions involving power and how the layperson interprets the “language of the law.” I first need to gain a foundational understanding of language in the courtroom. Then, I will explore how rhetoric may be manipulated.
  
   
• How do feminists embrace social media to heighten awareness for their cause? By studying the rhetorical composition used in socially mediated contexts (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram), the Coalition of Feminist Scholars in the History of Rhetoric and Composition (CFSHRC), the organization to be observed under case study, will gain insight on the best practices to approach social media, and online branding in general. I strive to learn how to design a marketing strategy rooted in rhetorical analyses of audience, context, purpose and feminist values to produce social media that captures the power behind the very roots from which it grows.
  
   
• Our research question was: “How is writing instruction affected by the discipline in which it is taught?” At Mercer, we have two tracks in which writing instruction with an aim toward general academic proficiency is supposed to be taught, and those tracks are the Integrative Track and Great Books.

Because of the growth in topic areas and sophistication level, the Naylor Workshop also sought mentors who might mirror this growth and development, and were pleased to welcome the following mentors for the 2016 Workshop:

Workshop Speakers and Mentor Faculty Members 2016

Professor Emily Cope

Emily Cope is an Assistant Professor of Rhetoric and Composition at York College of Pennsylvania, specializing in rhetoric, religion, and writing. She also serves as the coordinator for YCP's discipline-specific advanced written, oral, and visual communication courses. She love teaching writing and rhetoric and, while she teaches a variety of courses, in each class her goal is to empower students to make effective and ethical interventions in issues they care about. Her scholarly interests center on rhetorical education, pedagogy, public discourse, and religious rhetorics, and she is especially interested in American evangelicals' rhetorical practices and how those practices are shaped by their educational experiences. Her current projects include a qualitative study of evangelical undergraduates' academic writing and a mixed-methods study of writing teacher preparation.

Professor Katherine Cottle

Creating Your Own Search Engine: How do you begin/process/formulate/complete research for an area that does not have standardized searching venues? My recent book-length work, "The Hidden Heart of Baltimore: Remapping the City through Intimate Letters" required the use of established, experimental, and flexible research methods to locate, define, process, and include intimate letters by residential and visiting Baltimore correspondents. Researching "love" is very challenging and exciting!

Professor Cynthia Crimmins

Hello, Student Researchers, I am eager to work with you to help you create new knowledge to add to our discipline. My research experience is in writing center work, academic support programs (tutors, supplemental instruction), ELL, faculty development, and assessment. The methods I've typically used include artifact analysis, observations, interviews, surveys, and focus groups. My professional presentations have been about supporting writing center tutors, collaborating with units across campus, and creating frameworks for reaching goals. I hope you find some of my expertise useful to tap into as you develop your research questions and methodology.

Professor Matthew Davis

Professor Davis' research explores how we can better teach college students to learn to write and to create other kinds of texts (audio, video, web, etc.) that incorporate writing. To do this research, he focuses on three things: one, how students use and think about technology; two, how teachers and educators design courses and curricula; and three, how students take what they learn  and do in those courses and transfer it in other contexts. 

Professor Catherine DeLazzero

Catherine DeLazzero is a Ph.D. candidate in English education at Teachers College, Columbia University. Her research focuses on the “consequential validity” of writing assessments and diversity in students’ approaches to writing (using surveys, interviews, think aloud writing protocols, content analysis and other methods). She also leads writing workshops for families in her community, serves as a writing mentor for Pen America’s Prison Writing Program, and serves as a member of Community Board 7/Manhattan, where she coordinates a task force on inclusive playgrounds. Earlier in her career, she coordinated the Writing Center at The College of New Rochelle and taught writing at high schools in the Bronx and Cape Town, South Africa.

Professor Dominic DelliCarpini

Dominic DelliCarpini is currently the Dean of the Center for Community Engagement and The Naylor Endowed Professor of Writing Studies at York College of Pennsylvania. Before his current appointment, he served for 5 years as York College’s Chief Academic Officer, and 13 years as WPA, where he led a first-year curriculum redesign and developed a successful major in Professional Writing, now in its 12th year. DelliCarpini has served in a number of leadership positions within the national Council of Writing Program Administrators and other organizations in the discipline. He is currently an officer of the Conference on College Composition and Communication (Secretary), a WPA Consultant Evaluator, and serves on the CCCC Committees on the Writing Major and Undergraduate Research. He has also served as a WPA Executive Board member, and held leadership positions on initiatives such as the WPA Network for Media Action and the National Conversation on Writing. He also has twice led the WPA Summer Workshop, and acts as a reviewer for the WPA journal and CCC. DelliCarpini’s numerous publications and presentations have focused upon WPA work, civic engagement (including his book, Composing a Life’s Work: Writing, Citizenship, and your Occupation), writing majors, and undergraduate research in writing centers. DelliCarpini has also edited two composition textbooks: Conversations: Readings for Writers and Issues: Readings in Academic Disciplines, and is currently completing work on the 11th edition of the Prentice Hall Guide to Writin with Dr. Stephen Reid, to be published in early 2106. He serves on the Board of Directors for the York County Community Foundation and the Cultural Alliance of York County, and Chairs the Moving Plans into Action Advisory Board for Downtown, Inc. in York City.  

Professor Timothy R. Dougherty

I am interested in the ways that stories about the past are strategically created to do public work in the present. I am interested in the ways that rhetorical researchers can help to construct better, more complete stories of the past that will better serve social justice movements of the present. And I am interested in understanding the ways that (and perhaps the limits of) our work as scholars can serve both scholarly and activist communities.

Professor Jenn Fishman

Jenn Fishman is a rhetoric and composition scholar who keeps her plate full. Over the past fifteen years she has been involved in three longitudinal or multi-year studies of college writing: the Stanford Study (2001-6), the Embodied Literacies Project (2005-7), and Kenyon Writes (2011-13). Her scholarship includes those projects plus subjects like performance, intellectual property, and mentoring, and she has edited watershed issues of two online journals: CCC Online (2012) and, with Jess Enoch, Peitho 18.1 (Fall/Winter 2015). Last spring she started the Undergraduate Research Impact Project with Jane Greer and Dominic DelliCarpini, and she launched REx or the Research Exchange Index, a database where all writing researchers—including undergraduates—can report on their work. Currently she is the Immediate Past President of the Coalition of Feminist Scholars in the History of Rhetoric and Composition, Co-Chair of the CCCC Committee on Undergraduate Research, and Director of Marquette's First-Year English Program.

Professor William Fitzgerald

At Rutgers-Camden, I work in the areas of religious rhetorics and research-based writing, including as co-author of the new edition of the Craft of Research and the Turabian guides. I'm interested in the pedagogy of style and argument, in visual rhetoric, and in the introduction of research methods (e.g., archival, ethnographic) into undergraduate rhetoric/writing curricula. In my teaching, I work with students in all my courses to develop projects that have the potential to be shared with others in posters and papers and I have presented and published on research and mentoring.

Professor Mara Lee Grayson

I have been teaching composition, technical and creative writing, and literacy theory and pedagogy on the undergraduate and graduate levels for the past six years. I hold an MFA in Creative Writing and am a PhD candidate in the field of English Education. My dissertation  investigates socially conscious discourse practices in the FYC classroom. I have presented qualitative studies on composition pedagogy, creative writing, classroom culture, and racial literacy at NCTE, CCCC, and other national conferences. I primarily use case study and ethnographic methodologies because I believe that every classroom develops a unique culture.
Courses I teach emphasize writing and research as situated, hands-on, dynamic practices. When I teach methodology, I emphasize the need for the researcher to consciously select the approach that best suits the question(s) at hand and to modify as needed. While we cover archival approaches and literature reviews, my students also use participant observation and conduct interviews and surveys.

Professor Jane Greer

Jane Greer is professor of English and Women's & Gender Studies at U of Missouri, Kansas City, and she serves as UMKC's Director of Undergrad. Research & Creative Scholarship. From 2008 to 2014, she served as editor of Young Scholars in Writing. Much of Jane's research focuses on the history of women's rhetoric, and she is particularly interested in how voices from the past can help us understand our current moment as teachers, students, and activists. She has published on Marian Wharton, who taught English at a socialist correspondence school in the early part of the 20th century; on Myrtle Tenney Booth, a farm woman in West Virginia in the early 20th century who used her autobiography to insist on the value of her work to the community; and on the diary of Pat Huyett, a high school student who wrote extensively about her experiences in English classes in the 1960s. Jane supplements this historical work with mixed method research (e.g., focus groups, surveys, bibliometrics, content-analysis) about current trends in higher education, including concerns about access to college for students from under-represented groups &  high school/college transitions and about undergraduate research as a high impact educational  practice. Jane's focus as a teacher is on taking students into new spaces, such as archives, museums, and memorials, where they can make their own connections between the past the present. Her favorite classes to teach include  Women & Rhetoric; Rhetorics of Public Memory; True Lives:  Autobiographical Acts & Artifacts; and Girls & Print Culture.

Professor Alexis Hart

My most recent focus as a scholar has been military veterans and writing, with a focus on public advocacy for veterans in higher education in general and writing courses in particular. I conduct this research through surveys, interviews, archival research, and literature reviews. I have presented my research at CCCCs, the Thomas R. Watson conference, the Computers and Writing conference, and the International Writing Across the Curriculum conference, among others. My work has been published in Kairos, Composition Forum, Writing on the Edge (WOE), and several anthologies, including Generation Vet: Composition, Student Veterans, and the Post-9/11 University. I serve as an NCTE/CCCC Policy Analyst for Higher Education in Pennsylvania, and I am on the editorial boards of Kairos and The Peer Review.

Professor Ethna Lay

We are writing in a digital age—what some have termed the Late Age of Print.  I’m not nostalgic for the page—I still keep print texts about me—but I am enthusiastic about the possibilities that writing in digital spaces affords. I teach writing and history of the English language at Hofstra University. I am really intrigued by the changing nature of literacy during our digital times. Be prepared to experiment with (and investigate the effects of) new media composing and to use digital tools to help solve research problems if you research with me. Because blogging impacts writing in important ways, all of my students blog. My study of student writing on blogs and in a wide range of multimodal compositions results in some very convincing results (both textual and visual) about digital literacy. 

Professor Alison Lukowski

Assistant Professor, hails from the northern shore of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, and comes to CBU from Chicagoland and Northern Illinois University. She received her B.A. in English and Political Science from Alma College, her M.A. in English Literature from Loyola University Chicago, and her Ph.D. in Rhetoric and Composition from Northern Illinois University. She teaches first-year composition, business communication, and writing for digital media. Alison’s research focuses how rhetoric shapes the development of new media. Currently, she is working on an article about genre and gender in Wikipedia. She is also working on her book project about the rhetoric of revolution in new media discourse. Her research interests include: digital rhetoric, new media studies, history of rhetoric, women and rhetoric, and first-year composition.

Professor Jessie Moore

Jessie L. Moore is associate director of the Center for Engaged Learning and associate professor of English: Professional Writing & Rhetoric. She oversees the Center’s research seminars, which support multi-institutional inquiry on topics like undergraduate research, study abroad, internships, and learning communities. Her recent research examines transfer of writing knowledge and practices, writing residencies for faculty writers, the writing lives—and writing technologies—of university students, and high-impact pedagogies. She has conducted quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies, using research methods such as surveys, interviews, discourse analysis, focus groups, and meta-analysis.

Professor Lana Oweidat

Lana Oweidat is an Assistant Professor of English and  Director of the Writing Center at Goucher College. She has taught courses in writing, rhetoric, and women’s, gender, and sexuality Studies. Her research focuses on transnational feminist rhetorics and how they challenge and broaden the understanding of cultures, texts, and identities. She has presented at CCCC, The Thomas R. Watson Conference, Rhetoric Society of America, College English, Feminisms and Rhetorics, and is currently working on an article that tackles anti-Islamophobia rhetoric and pedagogy, utilizing feminist research methods. She is also conducting qualitative research on cultural negotiation and classroom legitimacy in relation to second language writing teachers.

Professor Barbara Roswell

For over thirty years, Professor Roswell has been teaching writing at Goucher College, where she has also directed the Writing Program, Writing Center, First Year Seminars, and WAC.  Much of the work she is most excited by engages (and connects undergraduates with) writers beyond the campus—in prisons, retirement communities, after-school programs, etc., and as editor of Reflections she enjoyed working with established and  emerging scholars to foster the "the public turn" in composition. In fact, Goucher College now teaches a full college curriculum in several nearby prisons. Her dissertation focused on the construction of authority in Goucher's peer-staffed writing center, and her early research focused on writing assessment and literacy and gender.  She finds there is nothing quite like the excitement of developing a research question, choosing a methodological approach, and beginning to see patterns and meaning in one's data. Barbara is the author of Reading, Writing and Gender (2002), Writing and Community Engagement (2010), and Turning Teaching Inside Out (2013).

Professor Deneen Senasi

I serve as Writing Program Director at Mercer University, where I work we have a program of embedded undergraduate writing tutors called preceptors.  I design and implement preceptors' training, and it is in this area that my work and research lies. Since many of our faculty aren't trained in writing pedagogy, our preceptors fill a crucial role in facilitating student writing in and out of the classroom. So my work focuses on ways to prepare preceptors—what they need to know and what they need to practice—to support writing instruction in the class and how we as faculty can learn from their unique perspective as we conceptualize our writing courses. In teaching preceptors, they continually teach me about what it means to teach writing. My current project looks at how re-imagining conventional classroom boundaries can create communities of writers across sections, offering students more feedback and support, thus enriching their study of academic writing.    

Professor Michelle Smith

I am a feminist rhetoricians who studies rhetorics of gendered work--the rhetorical construction of particular jobs, workplaces, and tasks as masculine or feminine. My book project explores how 19th century utopian communities revised gendered notions of work, relying largely on archival research from the communities themselves. I have also written about gender and work in relation to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and government efforts to recruit women into factory work in WWII. These projects often employ the rhetorical theories of Kenneth Burke and of material rhetoric—how rhetoric operates through spaces, bodies, time, and objects, not just through words. A second strand of my research addresses undergraduate writing. Specifically, I've written about the role of the undergraduate writing major and about how Learning Management Systems (LMSs) like Blackboard, Angel, Canvas, etc shape students' interaction with instructor feedback on their writing.

Professor Anissa Sorokin

I've always been interested in learning about people by looking at what they say and how they say it—that's why I decided to pursue graduate studies in sociolinguistics. In the past, I've examined how language serves as a marker of identity, particularly ethnic identity. I got to use my knowledge and skills first-hand when I worked for the Census Bureau, where I designed and tested survey question variations with people from different linguistic and cultural groups. More recently, since I began teaching college, my interest in multimodal composing has grown. In particular, I'm currently studying how music can be used to inspire written texts and become a part of compositions in the college writing classroom. My data comes from a class I taught, so I spent a lot of time collecting and coding student artifacts, interviews, and my own field notes. My dissertation is based on this research and focuses on the positive effects of using a music-centered English 100 curriculum. In the future, I'm hoping to publish a book or article with ideas for teachers who would like to use music in their own classes in creative ways.

Professor Kara Taczak

Kara Taczak is a Teaching Assistant Professor at the University of Denver. She has conducted several mixed-methods studies on the following topics: dual enrollment, reflection, first-year writing, and transfer of knowledge. Her research centers most on the transfer of writing knowledge and practices—the idea that knowledge and pracitces can move forward from one writing context to another—and strives to test the efficacy of a teaching for transfer curriculum in first year writing. The curriculum, called Teaching for Transfer (TFT), includes three signature components: (1) key terms; (2) systematic reflective practice; (3) and students' development of a theory of writing. Taczak’s current research project, The Transfer of a Transfer Curriculum, now in it’s 3rd iteration, seeks to move towards generalizability with the TFT curriculum by looking at five different kinds of campuses, including two four-year campuses and three two-year campuses. The aim of the project is two-fold: (1) to compare the TFT curriculum to more standard composition offerings across the five campuses and (2) to explore the efficacy of the TFT curriculum with a wider set of students, college courses, and writing situations. As a result of her work with transfer, Taczak has written and been awarded several grants, attended national and regional conferences, and published several articles and book chapters as well as the award winning book, Writing Across Contexts: Transfer, Composition, and Sites of Writing. 

Angela Glotfelter

I'm a graduate student in composition and rhetoric and Miami University of Ohio. I'm really interested in research in Professional Writing/Technical Communication, research in local communities, and feminist research practices.

Megan Schoettler

I am currently a Master's student in Rhetoric and Composition at Miami University, and a previous undergraduate research at York College of Pennsylvania. I work from feminist methodologies, and my methods include surveys, focus groups, discourse analysis, interviews, and archival research (almost always mixed-methods). My primary research areas are student dispositions (in first-year composition and the writing center) and imperial rhetorics and indigenous resistance.

• Mostly I just want to say thank you to Mr. Naylor for making this amazing opportunity possible. Thank you to all the organizers who invested time and energy into making the workshop happen and thank you to the amazing mentors who helped us advance our projects and were genuinely invested in us and our research. This was one of the most amazing experiences I've had and I learned more in one weekend than I would ever have thought possible.
  
   
• I have a greater understanding of how to design a research project. I also bonded with my Goucher mentors and am now comfortable consulting them about my research.
  
   
• This workshop was a wonderful opportunity to meet students from all over the country who have the same interests as you. Also, working with mentors from different schools was beneficial because I got to hear about other people's perspectives about my work.
  
   
• This October I will be applying to present at a regional workshop.
  
   
• My attendance has changed the way that I approach my research by blending quantitative and qualitative methods into a mixed method approach.
  
   
• I think the benefits include engaging in future conferences and publishing research in academic journals. It also is a great addition to a graduate school application.
  
   
• I am currently working to prepare a publication for Young Scholars in Writing in the distant future towards the end of the year, although I may miss their application deadline for this year.
  
   
• I think the benefits include engaging in future conferences and publishing research in academic journals. It also is a great addition to a graduate school application.
  
   
• I really enjoyed the collaboration with undergraduates and other faculty from colleges across the country. The discussions--in both formal and informal settings--were informative and inspiring. The undergraduate students were exceptional in their willingness to present, discuss, and revise material in the short span of one weekend. There was just enough structure and flexibility to keep the conference in that ideal area of balance.
  
   
• The mentoring examples of other faculty were especially beneficial, as I was a first-time mentor who entered the weekend with open eyes and unknown expectations.
  
   
• By presenting undergraduate researchers with professional/graduate level mentoring and presentation venues, they are able to sustain much higher levels of confidence, exposure, and feedback about their work. I am betting that most undergraduate researchers left the conference feeling energized, validated, and excited about their future/projects-in-process.
  
   
• I ended up having an informal grad school session with Megan, another grad student, and a few other undergraduate attendees. I think this would be a great session to incorporate formally in future workshops.
  
   
• I would suggest a session specifically tailored to those already drafting their projects that would allow them to get feedback and get writing done.
  
   
• The workshop is great for researchers who are just starting a project and who aren't familiar with research methods. For others, I think it's more useful to just devote time to continuing the work you're already doing, with the guidance of faculty mentors. (If you don't have a faculty mentor on campus, Naylor might help, but there's ultimately not that much that can be done in a weekend to bridge that gap.)
  
   
• It makes me feel optimistic about our field. Students deserve to be taken seriously, and have so much to contribute. These weekends are productive - students come up with great ideas, and everyone leaves inspired and even joyful about our work. Plus, this is good pedagogy that's being modeled - everything from the way the session is organized and facilitated to the content and approach. This isn't common sense in our field quite yet, so the workshop functions as professional development too. It the best our field has to offer - what's happening there in York, PA. I have definitely learned some practical things about research, too. Last year I changed the research design of a study after some conversations with one person in particular.
  
   
• Something new that made me happy: I realized that Dominic's articulation of/approach to undergraduate research combines student-centered, process pedagogy with sophisticated disciplinary content/methods. That's really smart. A lot of times these are positioned as being in conflict. UR is a useful response/solution for schools or programs that care about rigor and content, but struggle to engage students.
  
   
• I'd like to see some workshops focusing of specific methods of research—like surveys, interviews, etc. The qualitative/quantitative overview workshops are good, but we don't always have time to get into specifics of how to apply these ideas. Also, having faculty continue to present workshops on the kinds of methods/topics that they feel they specialize in is always great.
  
   
• Even though I was a presenter/mentor, I always feel like I learn something/catch a new perspective on an idea for my own work.
  
   
• One of the main benefits is being able to introduce Allegheny students to the broader world of writing centers and writing studies research. As a traditional liberal arts college, Allegheny does not currently offer upper-level courses in writing studies (rhetoric courses are taught in the Communication Arts department and are more speaking studies focused). Another benefit is having the opportunity to see the range of research being conducted by undergraduates in the field and being able to share what expertise and resources I can with these researchers, whom I consider potential junior colleagues. I have greatly benefited from mentoring throughout my career, and I very much value the opportunity to mentor others in the profession.
  
   
• Through my attendance at the Naylor Workshop and my good fortune to be able to bring undergraduate researchers to the workshop, I have been able to raise the profile of writing studies as a discipline within my home department (English) and at the college as a whole. Attending the Naylor helped me to make a strong case to receive summer funding to conduct research with an undergraduate and to work on a project I might not otherwise have tackled alone.
  As I said above, I have been a beneficiary of mentoring throughout my career, and the Naylor Workshop provides a unique opportunity to forge connections with undergraduate researchers outside of my home institution and to connect undergraduates from my institution with amazing mentors and other undergraduate researchers in the field.
  
   
• Through mentoring undergraduate researchers, we benefit not only the researcher but other undergraduate writers, K-12 writers, peer writing consultants, writing center directors, writing program directors, and teachers of writing. In other words, the research that these undergraduate researchers are conducting is making a difference in the world, and through mentoring them, I hope to help them to continue to engage in the work, receive support for their work, and make that work have an even greater impact.
  
   
• Please pass along my sincere thanks to Mr. Naylor for making this workshop possible. In a time of declining resources at institutions of higher education, the Naylor Workshop provides a significant opportunity for emerging scholars in the field of writing studies to enrich their research and expand their networks--all in service of writers.
  
   
• I am amazed at the rate that undergraduate researchers can change in such a setting, tended by mentors who really, really are engaged by the researchers' inquiries. It astonished me that undergraduates can grow so quickly and can produce and come away with the take-aways of the workshop.
  
   
• My department of Writing Studies offers only a minor, no major course of study. I thought that undergraduate research would be limited because students would not have enough time to commit to a project. Witnessing the rapid growth and development of Naylor researchers, I am re-thinking what my students can or might do.
  
   
• I know that research provides a deep, rich quality to the undergraduate experience, one that is separate from coursework or experiential learning of other kinds. I think it is a necessary part, a welcoming invitation into a field, that is unparalleled next to other student experiences.
  
   
• My institution is making great strides in undergraduate research, especially in the sciences. I'm hoping to get greater participation from the humanities and social sciences in undergraduate research.
  
   
• The best parts of my experience at Naylor were, without a doubt, the times I got to spending with my working group. The dynamic in our group was overwhelmingly positive and productive, and it really changed the way I saw myself as a scholar in my field.
  
   
• My involvement in undergraduate research has helped me to realize that there is no clear distinction between my personal voice and my academic voice. While there are different conventions in each, they are rooted in the same source: my experience.
  
   
• I know that research provides a deep, rich quality to the undergraduate experience, one that is separate from coursework or experiential learning of other kinds. I think it is a necessary part, a welcoming invitation into a field, that is unparalleled next to other student experiences.
  
   
• My department of Writing Studies offers only a minor, no major course of study. I thought that undergraduate research would be limited because students would not have enough time to commit to a project. Witnessing the rapid growth and development of Naylor researchers, I am re-thinking what my students can or might do.
  
   
• I am amazed at the rate that undergraduate researchers can change in such a setting, tended by mentors who really, really are engaged by the researchers' inquiries. It astonished me that undergraduates can grow so quickly and can produce and come away with the take-aways of the workshop.
  
   
• The mentoring was most definitely the biggest benefit for me. It was amazing to work one-on-one and in group settings with the mentors. I arrived at Naylor thinking my project just needed to be expanded a bit but I left with plans to take it in a completely new (and better) direction. I think one of the best parts about the mentoring was how excited the mentors got about our projects and how invested they were in helping us improve them. Honestly, I cannot say enough good things about the mentors I was fortunate enough to work with at Naylor.
  
   
• Not only have I learned new ways to research -both in general and for my project in particular- but I have learned how to explore and expand the arguments that emerge from research. I've also realized just how valuable talking things through with a mentor can be which has helped me become more open to the idea of using the wonderful resources of professors and mentors rather than trying to figure it all out myself.
  
   
• Encouraging undergraduate researchers -particularly in the humanities- provides them with countless benefits. First of all, most undergraduates -especially those studying subjects like English- aren't aware of the kind of fascinating projects that can be explored through research. Moreover, encouraging undergraduate research helps prepare those students planning to attend grad school, planning to teach, or who hope for a career in academia. Even those who don't have such plans can benefit from the new ways of thinking that research projects encourage and require which can benefit them throughout their lives.
  
   
• Listening to presenters at workshops always makes me reexamine my own approaches and thoughts. As I work with students, I am always reminded, too, of the importance of listening.
  
   
• The experience is simultaneously exhilarating and exhausting. So rarely can we immerse ourselves as a group into something that's exciting and interesting, but that's what happens. All of that requires lots of energy, so it's exhausting, but so worth it!
  
   
• I got a lot out of these sessions, so I am not real sure if anything was missing. Maybe more focus on data analysis. Possibly some focus on Internal Review Board processes. I had to write a proposal for IRB, which has added lots of steps to the process that I was not aware of.
  
   
• For me, the main benefit of the Naylor Workshop was the networking. I met so many amazing people involved with incredible research. To be able to stay in contact with these people is very valuable. I also learned a lot about building out your own research project where you collect the data yourself.
  
   
• I learned so much about collecting your own data as opposed to collecting data from a database. I learned the big differences between qualitative and quantitative research, and the benefits that each offers to a research project. Mentoring is also so important at times. I am mentoring a student in the writing center right now. I took some stuff away from the workshop that has helped me be a better mentor.
  
   
• I plan to coauthor a paper with the writing center director at my school. The goal is to get the paper published to distribute statistics and suggestions for improvement when tutoring writers with learning disabilities. Hopefully, I will get an opportunity to present my project at the spring English conference on campus next year.
  
   
• I would say that this is a valuable experience for many reasons. It gives you the opportunity to work with like-minded individuals that are heavily involved in the academy. The networking you take away from that is super important. This is also a major benefit for graduate school. It shows passion and commitment. And it really is a lot of fun even though it is a lot work.

Making the Workshop Time Well Spent: The Naylor Workshop is meant to be interactive and productive.  Done properly, you will leave the workshop with new ideas, new methods to enact, and new friends and colleagues to assist with them. Your goal? To find next steps toward a productive research project.

For undergraduate researchers, the experience is designed to be hands-on so that you can leave our days together with a more refined and developed plan for your project.  With that in mind, you should use each session to ask yourself “how might this apply to my project? How does it change my thinking? What new techniques/methodologies can I use to collect information or data?” Make notes at each session on what strikes you as useful to your own work and how you could apply what you learn there.  And try to leave this workshop knowing more about the diverse reasons we do research and the diverse ways in which we do it.

For mentors, this workshop is designed to be an idealized workspace, one in which you often have one-on-one or small group interactions, where you can meet undergraduate researchers where they are.  A place where you can both give them advice and learn from their wonderful new additions to the discipline’s work. This time can also be used to develop some shared projects and a network of researchers.

Working Groups: You have each been assigned to a “working group.” These groups were formed through our best attempts to match you with others that share your areas of interest.  You will check in with this group throughout the workshop to test out ideas and collaborate. Hopefully you’ve interacted already electronically; you’ll meet this group in person during our very first session on Saturday.

So, while we have a schedule, we’re o.k. with fluid and messy. We’re writers, after all.

Fluid and messy is how things get done sometimes.

Friday, September 9

After arriving and getting settled in, feel free to spend some time mingling with others in the hotel lobby or having a look around downtown York. 

Representatives from York College will be there to greet you by about 5:00.

Evening Dinner and Program (Lafayette Room, 3rd floor, Yorktowne Hotel)

We’ll enjoy dinner together, and have the opportunity to hear our plenary address from Dr. Jess Enoch and two of her undergraduate students, followed by some conversation. 

6:30: Lafayette Room (3rd Floor, Yorktowne Hotel) doors open

7:00: Opening Remarks and Dinner

8:00: Plenary Address: Dr. Jessica Enoch: Reflections on Method: Undergraduate Research and Digital Transcription

Saturday, September 10

7:45–8:15: Breakfast, opening remarks, and logistics (York College, Willman Building/Yorkview Hall)

8:15–9:15: Yorkview Hall: Initial Working Group Meetings: Designing a Research Question (led by working group mentors). After brief introductions, each researcher will introduce her/his research question to the group; mentors and fellow researchers offer advice on ways to focus and narrow the question, and to start to consider appropriate methods.

9:30–10:30: Concurrent Research Workshops, Session 1

Room 408: Working Groups 1–3: Qualitative Methods Workshop (Presenters: Bill Fitzgerald, Emily Cope, Barbara Roswell)

Room 404: Working Groups 4–7: Quantitative Methods Workshop (Presenters Mike Zerbe, Jessie Moore, Ethna Lay)

10:45–11:45: Concurrent Research Workshops, Session 2:

Room 408: Working Groups 4–7: Qualitative Methods Workshop (Presenters: Bill Fitzgerald, Emily Cope, Barbara Roswell)

Room 404: Working Groups 1 -3: Quantitative Methods Workshop (Presenters Mike Zerbe, Jessie Moore, Ethna Lay)

12:00–1:00: Yorkview Hall: Lunch and discussion with working group; part of discussion should be about choosing the most appropriate mini-workshops (see choices below)

During the next three sessions, you should choose the workshops that you feel might best inform your research question. As you participate, work toward further refining your methods and questions.

1:00–1:40: Concurrent Mini-Workshops 1 (Choose one).

Room 403: Archival Research (Presenters: Gabe Cutrufello, Tim Dougherty, Jess Enoch)

Room 404: Case Studies Research (Presenters: Michelle Smith, Anissa Sorokin, Mara Lee Grayson)

Room 408: Research toward Public Advocacy (Presenters: Alison Lukowski, Scott Wible, Alexis Hart)

Room 314: Research in Teaching for Transfer (Presenters: Matt Davis, Kara Taczak)

1:50–2:30: Concurrent Research Mini-Workshops 2 (Choose one)

Room 404: Case Studies Research (Presenters: Michelle Smith, Anissa Sorokin, Mara Lee Grayson)

Room 408: Research toward Public Advocacy (Presenters: Alison Lukowski, Scott Wible, Alexis Hart)

Room 314: Resources for a review of the Literature (Presenters: Megan Schoettler, Angela Glotfelter)

Room 409: Digital Archive of Literacy Narratives recording

Yorkview Hall: Open discussion space

2:40–3:20: Concurrent Research Mini-Workshops 3 (Choose one)

Room 403: Archival Research (Presenters: Gabe Cutrufello, Tim Dougherty, Jess Enoch)

Room 408: Resources for a review of the Literature (Presenters: Megan Schoettler, Angela Glotfelter)

Room 314: Research in Teaching for Transfer (Presenters: Matt Davis, Kara Taczak)        

Room 409: Digital Archive of Literacy Narratives Recording

Yorkview Hall: Open discussion space

3:30–5:30: Yorkview Hall: Working Group Sessions: Drawing upon their work throughout the day, researchers will rough out a revised research question, a methodology that matches their question, and begin planning for posters and presentations. This will give researchers something tangible to return to in the morning with fresh eyes. Mentors will circulate to provide advice.         

Room 409: Digital Archive of Literacy Narratives Recording

6:00–7:30: Dinner, Yorkview Hall, York College

7:30: Return to Hotel for unwinding, informal conversations and thought sessions (but rest up—early start in the morning); this will also be a good time for mentors to chat about advancing undergraduate research in our field

Sunday, September 11

8:00–8:45: Yorkview Hall: Breakfast and Informal Working Group Discussions: Reporting out, Critique, questions

9:00–11: 15: Humanities Center, lower level, where computer labs and other work spaces are available: Undergraduate researchers will complete mini-posters; mentors will be available

BY 11:30: Electronic file for mini-posters submitted for printing

11:30–12:15: Break and Lunch

12:15–1:45: Poster Presentations, Gallery Walk, and Celebration

About 2:00: Workshop concludes; airport shuttles arrive (we’ll work out details).