4th Annual Naylor Workshop for Undergraduate Research in Writing Studies

In 2017, we were fortunate to host Dr. Laurie Grobman, who founded Young Scholars in Writing (along with Candace Spigelman) and who has been a consistent voice for making undergraduate research public.

2017 Naylor Workshop Plenary Speaker

Laurie Grobman is a Professor of English and Women’s Studies at Penn State Berks.

Laurie integrates her teaching, research, and service through community writing, multicultural education, and social and racial justice. Primary among this work is the facilitation of community-based undergraduate research projects to (re)write local histories of marginalized ethnic, racial, socioeconomic and cultural communities in Berks County and the city of Reading in Pennsylvania. Grobman has published two single-authored books and four co-edited collections. She has published more than 40 articles in peer-reviewed journals and books.

Laurie has been a stalwart for undergraduate research for many years. Two of her students presented their research at the National Conference on Peer Tutoring in Writing in 1999; since then, she has mentored more than 50 students who have presented or published their work. Grobman has published several articles on undergraduate research in leading journals, and she co-edited (with Dr. Joyce Kikead) the first book on undergraduate research in English studies, Undergraduate Research in English Studies (NCTE, 2010). Grobman also led the founding of two undergraduate research journals: Young Scholars in Writing: Undergraduate Research in Writing and Rhetoric, about to publish its 14th consecutive annual volume, and Undergraduate Journal of Service Learning and Community-Based Research, a refereed, multidisciplinary, online undergraduate journal that published its fifth consecutive annual volume in February 2017.

Among Laurie’s favorite professional experiences are co-writing scholarly journal articles with undergraduates. “Collaborative Complexities: Co-Authorship, Voice, and African American Rhetoric in Oral History Community Literacy Projects,” written with three undergraduates and a former student, was published in Community Literacy Journal in 2014.

Laurie and seven students in a capstone course published “Co-Authoring the Curriculum: Student Voices and the Writing Major” in Composition Studies in 2015. Another article, “Counternarratives: Community Writing and Anti-Racist Rhetoric,” written with two undergraduates on a community-engaged project, is forthcoming.

Laurie’s work has been recognized with the 2014 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Outstanding Baccalaureate Colleges Professor of the Year.  Laurie has been honored with the Penn State University President’s Award for Excellence in Academic Integration in 2012, the first recipient outside University Park campus, and the Penn State Faculty Outreach Award in 2015.

We were so pleased to have Dr. Grobman’s expertise, experience, and caring mentorship for the 2017 Naylor Workshop.

In 2017, undergraduate researchers continued to join us from locations around the US, bringing with them topics continued to enrich the experience. This year’s group included:

Kristen Boyle, Alvernia University
Angelica Brown, Christian Brothers University
Mackensie Crowley, Fairfield University
Lucas Dembicki, University of Denver
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
MyKynzie 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
Alison Lukowski, Christian Brothers University
Jamie May, York College of Pennsylvania
Sean McGovern, University of Maryland
Mary Katherine Mims, University of Mississippi
Ryan Ninesling, University of Denver
Abigail Osgood, University of Missouri, Kansas City
Chelsea Otis, York College of Pennsylvania
Mary Pollard, Rutgers University, Camden
Jessica Reed, Allegheny College
Cody Roane, West Virginia University
Briana Roldan, NY City College of Tech, CUNY
Olivia Sederstrom, York College of Pennsylvania
Dennen Senasi, Mercer University
Michelle Smith, Marist University
Chantel Vereen, York College of Pennsylvania
Michaela Wiehe, University of Missouri, Kansas City
Jessa Wood, Bloomsburg University

These students brought with them an array of topics that not only mirrored trends in, and priorities of, the discipline, but the unique new perspectives that they were introducing to push Writing Studies forward:

• Writing tutors’ learning may be affected by the act of tutoring other students, there being a connection between learning and growing a skill and teaching it to others. I am interested in exploring this connection specifically in terms of writing centers, tutor/tutee relationships, writing education methods, and how these may or may not contribute to collaborative learning occurring between writing tutors and students, including the degree to which this occurs and why.
  
   
• As an English Education major, I am interested in how social issues manifest in the classroom and how the classroom environment (teacher, curriculum, etc.) support or discourage these issues. I am also interested in digital literacies and how technology can be used to achieve the goals of the ELA classroom.
  
   
• Many university-level writing centers are and have historically been dominated by women, both in their administration and staff of tutors. I am interested in studying whether these feminized spaces easily lend themselves to being feminist spaces which promote gender equality, or whether these spaces instead become exclusive to those who are not women or who are not academically involved in more traditionally feminine areas such as the arts, humanities, or education. I hope that this research will give some guidance concerning what barriers, if any, this gender imbalance creates, and furthermore what can be done to improve the accessibility and empowering nature of university-level writing centers.
  
   
• This research began with the question “How should students approach civic engagement within the education system?” Before this question could be answered, I had to ask, “Why is there a need for civic engagement in the education system?” and “How is educational inequality perpetuated?” By understanding the reasons behind the necessity for civic engagement in schools we can more effectively serve our communities. I hope to refocus this research to explore the challenges students face in reading and writing at the college level as a result of their experiences with educational inequality. The goal is to understand and the educational backgrounds these students come from and the challenges they face so that tutors can become more effective resources.
  
   
• Scholars have studied the written works of America’s founding fathers for centuries. However, the work of their female correspondents is given comparatively little scholarly attention. One such correspondent was Angelica Schuyler Church, a woman who used various writing styles to communicate effectively with prominent male figures like Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. The purpose of this research project is to identify the writing styles in Church’s letters to these men and analyze their effectiveness. I believe this research can help us understand the impressive rhetorical strategies used by American women of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
  
   
• Development of a reading guide for a Freshman-level writing course which looks at writerly moves within a text from the perspective of the writer, not the reader. This would be developed for one specific genre and would detail various moves used throughout the text and the potential impact these moves have on a reader’s perception of the text. The object is to see how well these guides can potentially increase understanding of rhetoric and writing for underachieving students.
  
   
• American Sign Language is a language distinct from English, with its own grammar and syntax rules. The use of sign language as a first language also changes the neurological development of Deaf children, optimizing their brains for visual language rather than spoken. Children born Deaf who grow up using ASL may experience difficulties with learning to read and write English. The goal of this project is to examine linguistic differences between ASL and English as well as neurological differences between Deaf and hearing children in order to better accommodate students in Writing Center tutoring sessions. Understanding the specific struggles faced by students who use sign language can enable writing tutors to better assist them in developing their English writing.
  
   
• We wanted to explore the different issues that affect students of color with learning disabilities like Dyslexia, including discrimination in school disciplinary systems as well as the impact that ableism has on students' cultural, linguistic, and academic experiences. We also discuss how teachers could reform their personal pedagogies to create more inclusive learning environments that provide customized curriculum that scaffolds MAE (mainstream American English) through the use of Hip Hop and Rap texts that feature AAL (African American Language) properties. These texts may also provide important cultural and sociological perspectives of the experience of many African-Americans in the United States, and may be incorporated into larger lesson planning blocks on issues like freedom and equality. We hope that by employing qualitative and quantitative testing methods to test reading comprehension, literacy, and the students' affective experiences, that we will see a positive trend in all of these areas of concern. 
  
   
• How can writing tutors most effectively guide and support student writers who have been diagnosed with Dyslexia? I hope to uncover proven methods and strategies that tutors can implement that will prove most helpful when supporting Dyslexic students throughout various stages of the writing process. Aside from improving the tutoring methods currently practiced by my own institution, I also hope to possibly publish and present my findings in order to inform as many professionals as possible about the academic struggles of students diagnosed with learning disabilities and how we as writing tutors can become equipped to best help them with their academic endeavors.
  
   
• How exactly are characters created that effectively invite the process of identification? My research shows that the answer may lie in the realm of rhetoric, specifically in situated ethos. By looking at a piece of literature through the lens of situated ethos and analyzing the character’s identity as it relates to their physical location (such as a geographical location or a time in history) and figurative location (such as their stage of life or gender), I began to realize that a well-developed character, a character that is relatable, relies on how well they adhere to, or purposely veer from, a community’s beliefs and ideologies. By analyzing literary characters and their situated ethos’, I am effectively finding what an author does to garner reader sympathy and empathy for those who are different from them. This research will hopefully lead to creative writing pedagogy so that writers will be able to continue to create stories that connect people, connect cultures, and bring about change.
  
   
• Works of fiction, including short stories and novels, are a cornerstone of middle and high school students’ English education. By their nature, however, these works are low-tech experiences that rely heavily on readers’ attention and imagination. I am interested in the strategies that current English teachers utilize to introduce these novels to an increasingly tech-oriented student body. How are lessons tailored to connect students with the works’ content and themes? Does utilizing technology (through social media, interactive message boards/themed blogs, etc.) enhance the books’ impact? I believe that this research could be helpful not only as a “snapshot” of the current English education landscape but also as a way to consider effective teaching methods going forward. It may also be helpful for teachers in other fields who face similar questions.
  
   
• What teaching styles are most helpful in meeting the needs of students who visit the University Writing Center? This will impact the Writing Center in the following ways: Helping consultants utilize appointment time more wisely. Helping consultants use interactive strategies to help students with writing. Help students retain information. The Writing Center will be an all-inclusive place for students who need help with their writing.
  
   
• My project is a deep dive into a series of interview Madalyn Murray gave between 1964 and 1966. She was at the height of her fame as the voice of atheism in America, and she was in fine rhetorical form. By doing a close reading of these interviews I hope to untangle her rhetorical strategies. Humor, hyperbole and sarcasm are all present – to what end? By choosing to take seriously as a research topic a female atheist I hope to participate in the (slow, laborious) process of bringing atheism into the mainstream. As much as 25% of Americans claim no religion and yet we are among the least trusted minority groups. If I can help change this, even in a small way, I’d like to.
  
   
• The success of an email or face-to-face session in the writing center depends on how well a writer and a writing advisor communicate with each other. The writer communicates what they would like to fix and how they envision their ideas on paper. The writing advisor uses that information to work with the writer and reach a conclusion that ideally satisfies them both. I am interested in studying the ways a language barrier changes the conversation between a writer and an advisor. Wittenberg doesn’t have a large ELL population, but this study has the potential to better inform our advisors on how to work with the ELL population.
  
   
• The first stage of my research focuses on the role of non-native tutors in the writing center at American colleges, especially in their consulting experiences with international students who may, or may not, share their first language. If my research could be carried out, the findings will be especially helpful not only in the recruitment process, but also in the overall tutoring and teaching practices in the writing center. If we understand the tutors’ experiences as well as how international students perceive them, we can make a greater effort to market the position to excellent non-native writers and make the writing center a more diverse place. We can also build a stronger relationship between the tutors and international students, enabling these students to have a better and more productive session. I hope my project will also encourage other researchers to pay more attention to this subject.
  
   
• Through my research I would like to learn how online synchronous tutoring can be improved in comparison to face-to-face tutoring. While online synchronous tutoring has been advancing for the past couple of decades, it can further be improved by exploring the impact of social media. The exploration of social media is important because it can be an effective way to reach out to tutors and tutees, making sessions mutually beneficial. I believe that exploration in the online synchronous tutoring space can help to improve the tutoring center and the services it offers at my institution.
  
   
• Writing is something that can be polarizing for those who learned only one “right” way to write, and it’s my hope to initiate a broader discussion in communities on what writing and writers really can be. In particular, I am interested in focusing on marginalized groups in a community that is often overshadowed by the college, especially those who are working-class, elderly, disabled, and/or people of color. I believe that writing is a powerful tool for sharing and thinking about experiences, and it’s something that I want to make accessible in a community setting.
  
   
• We will focus on Peer Review activities that involve two or more students in the act of analyzing each other's composition and providing encouraging, constructive, and critical feedback in an online-only environment. In addition to analyzing data regarding how students in the writing program at ASU currently view, engage, and reflect on peer review activities focused around their two multimodal projects and their digital portfolio capstone project we plan to review current digital Writing Mentor teaching materials such as videos, emails, screencasts, blogs/vlogs, and documents to see if utilizing this technology increases student engagement in the peer reviews process, or what can be changed to better suit our students’ needs. From our research, we hope to select lesson plans and activities that would better prepare students to engage in both respectful, comprehensive, and influential peer review. Alongside the focused study of the peer review process in online-only educational environments, we plan to improve students’ engagement and satisfaction with the peer-review process and prepare them to be critical readers, writers, and responders in their civic, personal, and professional lives.
  
   
• Writing can result in a variety of forms, but with this a division can arise between the different disciplines, the largest division being between creative writing and academic writing. By addressing the potential lack of differences between the writing processes for different forms of writing, tutors who are not familiar with creative writing can gain an understanding of how to work with tutees that bring in creative work, and vice versa. Additionally, an increased understanding in how the writing processes operates in each form of writing could allow for students to use techniques that they’ve learned from one form of writing in another, which can develop stronger writing and voice as a whole.
  
   
• Which method and content choices, made by professors in a Freshman Composition English class, lead to the most student extrinsic and intrinsic motivation? Because motivated students have a better chance of being successful students, my research will impact and improve the way we teach English through a wide variety of methods to a wide variety of students. By finding the most universal motivational techniques specific to English class, more universal success will also be found.
  
   
• How can academic dishonesty rules and guidelines be changed or better implemented to decrease the rate of academic dishonesty and ghostwriting among students? What causes students to misunderstand or deliberately ignore academic dishonesty guidelines?
  
   
• Community college students are promised transferability of courses for academic credit and a low-cost education compared to universities. In contrast to the content, community college English courses are not always equivalent to university English courses in terms of expectations. Articulation agreements guarantee course equivalency in English composition, yet the reality is that many transfer students find that their community college coursework does not transfer over as seamlessly as they thought. Worse still, some transfer students often find they are not academically prepared and end up failing university coursework and dropping out altogether, costing the state money. Unfortunately, the actors involved in articulation agreements—government agencies, legislators, faculty, advisors, university administrators, and transcript evaluators—are ignoring the problem. These articulation agreements are not effective in promoting academic success in writing. But if more efforts were designed to improve the quality of alignment between community college and university curriculums, Maryland may find that their retention and graduation rates for transfer students may increase substantially while decreasing remediation costs for transfer students. This research has implications for other subjects outside of English composition as well.
  
   
• Are those who are stressed, regarding writing, more or less likely to go to the Writing Center than those who are not? How can the Writing Center better address students who are stressed? I see the Writing Center as a place that can help to reduce stress and I want to know if other students feel the same. I also want to know what actions students take if they feel differently. Furthermore, I am curious as to how the Writing Center can become better at handling stressed individuals and how it can advertise to students that it is a place to go to ease stress when writing a paper. The potential impact of my results is that they could help Writing Centers learn if they are a resource students use to overcome writing stress and what they and the tutors can do to improve the assistance provided to students with stress.
  
   
• We want to know how we can use a student publication to create more of a sense of community among students. Therefore, our guiding research question is what features of the digital newspaper would make it an indispensable read for all students on campus. We also hope that the publication will encourage students to become more aware of and more involved in issues related to social justice, so we would like to get a better understanding of how an online publication could help to create greater social activism on campus.
  
   
• While research has been done on how different facets of one’s identity can shape the way they deploy literary tactics in lifewriting, there exists a gap in academia regarding the way that lesbian autobiographers tell their stories. Current research does not properly address how and why lesbian autobiographers choose to discuss their relationships to other women, in platonic, romantic, and sexual ways. This project expands on that topic by analyzing the scrapbook and memoir of Kansas City lesbian activist Chris Almvig, titled “Recollections of Flying Out of the Closet: Lake of the Ozarks and Kansas City, 1972-1974.” Though research exists regarding how women discuss their relationships to other women (e.g. Long, Taylor), Almvig’s works are entirely unique because of how much private information Almvig gives about other women in her life. Studying Almvig’s work is necessary to properly understand the rhetoric and literary choices of marginalized LGBT+ women.
  
   
• My research involves seeing how using writing in a secondary mathematics classroom can benefit both the teacher and the student, and whether writing can be used to promote a deeper understanding of mathematical concepts than traditional methods.
  
   
• In this research project, I would like to begin to form an understanding of the effect of social media promotion and outreach on writing center engagement and traffic. In my preliminary digging, the only articles I’ve discovered on writing center promotion have been solely anecdotal as well as written before the emergence of social media as a platform for outreach.  I believe the quantitative data this project could produce would begin to help writing centers like mine enhance their presence on campuses and most effectively reach the students they aim to help by integrating social media into their approach.
  
   
• What teaching styles are most helpful in meeting the needs of students who visit the University Writing Center? This will impact the Writing Center in the following ways: Helping consultants utilize appointment time more wisely. Helping consultants use interactive strategies to help students with writing. Help students retain information. The Writing Center will be an all-inclusive place for students who need help with their writing.
  
   
• I want to understand the most effective ways to market writing centers at institutions so faculty and students perceive the writing center services accurately. Such findings have the potential to result in more productive consultations and other services.
  
   
• Writing to explain mathematics to audiences with varying degrees of background knowledge is a challenging task, and many mathematics courses place little to no emphasis on developing this skill. The project I am working on is focused on enhancing the method of writing instruction within a course that does emphasize writing. The goal of the project is to implement a Writing Fellow (myself) into the course to provide more direct feedback on the students’ writing produced for the course and to provide individual consultations focused on the improvement of each student’s writing process. This project is useful to the students because its primary goal is to help improve their writing; furthermore, the project can serve as a model and a stepping stone to further projects aiming to enhance writing instruction across the disciplines at OSU and at other universities.
  
   
• Theater and writing are connected in their overall goals: to communicate to an audience. Primarily, these goals are achieved in different ways, but the skills people learn from both transfer across disciplinary boundaries. There are levels of theatricality active in the classroom: presenting and implementing a lesson plan can be considered a performance, or asking students to be active and engaged in their learning is asking them to commit to a certain level of performance. Both writing and performing are similar in that they are often misconstrued as talents, when in fact, they are hard-earned skills. The multiple facets of theater engage different learning styles, which will equalize learning environments so students who struggle with traditional methods of instruction can gain more confidence in the classroom. Creating writing-focused lesson plans and class activities while incorporating theater pedagogy will take these theatrical elements already used in the classroom, and teach students the skills of performance in the classroom and writing.
  
   
• Writing Centers may provide classroom workshops outside of the center itself. The primary purpose of these workshops is to educate, but there is often little to no incentive for students to pay attention to the content, as it is presented as supplementary material and not integral information. Our goal is to answer the question, “how do we insure that our spaces reach those we support?” Doing so would not only aid in imparting information to a student audience, but also increase the awareness of a Writing Center’s presence as an educational resource. Building off of the research put forth by the likes of Steve Sherwood and R. L. Garner, we would like to test to see if the use of humor increases retention in classroom workshops. While there are many different ways to increase retention, we believe humor can be an effective tool at increasing information retention in these workshops

Our mentors for the 2017 Workshop offered to undergraduate researchers the following areas of expertise. This information was provided to undergraduate researchers, allowing them to seek out the “just-in-time” support that they needed:

Naylor Workshop 2017: Mentor Information for Just-in-time Consultations

Rebecca Babcock
Area of Expertise/Consultation: Archival research
Research Statement: My main interest is in meta research which is research about research. With co-author Terese Thonus I published _Researching the Writing Center_ which looks at research from a broad perspective. With co-authors Kellye Manning and Travis Rogers I published _A Synthesis of Qualitative Studies of Writing Centers, 1983-2006_ which also gives a broad view of the research that's out there. My dissertation was on tutoring deaf students in the writing center which I studied using qualitative methods and grounded theory. Most recently I have a book coming out on disabilities in the writing center. I also published a chapter in _Tutoring Second Language Writers_ on "Designing a Research Study." I have mentored undergraduate researchers on topics such as the research paper, writing fellow programs, texting, and graphic novels to name a few. In addition to writing studies, I have also mentored undergraduates on projects to do with linguistics and rhetoric.

Kim Ballard
Area of Expertise/Consultation: Writing Centers
Research Statement: I've been involved with writing centers for nearly 30 years, having served in high school, community college, and university centers. My most recent work involves writing center assessment, genre studies, and threshold concepts in writing development. As a co-editor of the WLN: A Writing Center Journal, I've had the opportunity to help scholars, including undergraduates, develop their work for publication.

Noel Holton Brathwaite
Area of Expertise/Consultation: First-year writing pedagogy
Research Statement: I am interested in how reading creates strong writers. I, along with many other educators, have noticed the link between students who are avid readers and their relative clarity and control when composing their ideas in print. However, there is a dearth of information about what exactly accounts for the connection between reading and writing. Why is it that students who dislike and avoid reading often struggle with writing? I am currently looking for answers to this question via qualitative research in my own composition classroom.

Nikki Caswell
Area of Expertise/Consultation: Writing Centers, emotion/affect, queer studies
Research Statement: My research considers the role of emotion/affect in various writing studies sites. How do we understand and reflect on our emotions in ways that helps us be better teachers, writers, and administrators. I've looked at the ways new writing center directors navigate emotional labor, and I've looked at how emotions mediate teachers' responses to student writing. To do this work, I use an empirical qualitative framework. I've done longitudinal interviews, focus groups, think-aloud protocols, and surveys.

Katherine Cottle
Area of Expertise/Consultation: Archival research, discourse analysis
Research Statement: "Digging" describes the bulk of my research work and interests. I am interested in pushing the lines of connection in research to include parallels between academic fields, historical time frames, popular and private figures, language usage and forms, and creative expression. I use a mixture of scholarly and non-scholarly lenses and methods to uncover lost or neglected material and routes, including archival research, genealogy, historical influence, and identity frameworks. Some of my published essays include "Port of Entry: Secret Correspondence by Frederick Douglass to his Fiance, Anna Murray (Douglass)" (Critical Insights/Salem Press) and "Baltimore's Hidden Communication: (Un)written Words by Harriet Tubman and Eleanor Roosevelt and her Journalist, Lorena Hickok" (Popular Culture Review).

Cindy Crimmins
Area of Expertise/Consultation: Writing Center administration, online learning
Research Statement: My over-arching inquiry is how can we improve teaching and learning in higher education. For over 30 years, I've taught writing at all levels in both secondary and higher education. For 20 of those years, I directed tutoring programs and writing centers. Recently, I've focused on connecting learning outcomes assessment findings and faculty development programming, as well as consulted with a variety of institutions who want to use evidence to inform improved student learning initiatives. The most recent turn my work has taken is to advance High Impact Practices at my institution -- including Undergraduate Research! My research methods are primarily qualitative: searching for correlations from surveys, interviews, artifact analysis, focus group data, and coding from observations. It will be my privilege to work with student researchers in any ways they find useful.

Gabriel Cutrufello
Area of Expertise/Consultation: Archival Research, History of Science
Research Statement: Gabe’s interests include archival research, the history of science, first-year writing, and writing program administration. He has also done work in General Education.

Jenn Fishman
Area of Expertise/Consultation: First-Year writing, undergraduate research, feminist research
Research Statement: To date, Jenn Fishman has been involved in 3 multi-year studies of college writing, including (most recently) Kenyon Writes. She writes about those projects as well as performance, intellectual property, and mentoring. She's the founding editor of the Research Exchange Index, a database for writing researchers, and she has edited watershed issues of 2 online journals: CCC Online (2012) and, with Jess Enoch, Peitho 18.1 (Fall/Winter 2015). Currently, she is working on the Undergraduate Research Impact Project with Jane Greer and Dominic DelliCarpini while serving as 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.

Bill Fitzgerald
Area of Expertise/Consultation: Community literacy
Research Statement: I work primarily in the rhetoric of religion and spirituality but I have broad interests in teaching professional writing, assessment, effective research at the undergraduate level, and ethnography. I teach at Rutgers University-Camden, where I currently direct the Writing Program and oversee our innovative Writing and Design Lab. I am co-author of The Craft of Research, 4th edition (2016) and other guides to writing research-based papers.

Angela Glotfelter
Area of Expertise/Consultation: Community-based research
Research Statement: My research interests are based broadly in Professional and Technical Communication (PTC), a part of the field that is also often called Professional Writing (PW). One of the most exciting things about this area of research to me is that it's inherently concerned with problem solving. As an example, in my current research project, I'm partnering with two small nonprofits to study their use of social media. Part of this project has also been working with these organizations to develop sustainable, appropriate social media strategies. Broadly, I'm interested in community based research projects, digital communication, and problem solving methodologies.

Mara Lee Grayson
Area of Expertise/Consultation: Social Activism, mindfulness, creative writing
Research Statement: Much of my research explores racial literacy, a framework for interrogating the role of race, racism, and racialism in society and individuals’ lives, as a paradigm for writing instruction. My additional work focuses on memoir writing as self-reflection; positionality and ethics of representation in writing and research; and the connections between writing, meditation, and yoga. I hold a PhD in English Education from Columbia University and an MFA in Creative Writing from The City College of New York. I am currently a full-time lecturer of English at Pace University in New York City. My scholarship and creative work can be found in Teaching English in the Two-Year College, Columbia Journal, and Fiction, among other publications, and my book on racial literacy in composition instruction is forthcoming in 2018. Like my background, much of my work is interdisciplinary, and I am especially interested in research that blurs disciplinary boundaries to provide a holistic perspective on literacy, rhetoric, and writing instruction.

Jane Greer
Area of Expertise/Consultation: Archival research, feminist rhetorics
Research Statement: My research centers on the literacy practices & rhetorical performances of girls and women in the U.S. from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century. I love being in the archives and working with texts by women and girls that have received very little attention from other scholars.

Laurie Grobman
Area of Expertise/Consultation: Writing Centers, undergraduate research
Research Statement: Plenary Speaker: Dr. Laurie Grobman is a Professor of English and Women's Studies at Penn State Berks. Grobman's teaching, research, and service interests center on service learning and community-based research, bringing together students and community organizations to produce meaningful work while enriching students' learning experiences. Grobman has published five books: Service Learning and Literary Studies in English (2015, co-edited with Roberta Rosenberg), Undergraduate Research in English Studies (2010, co-edited with Joyce Kinkead), Multicultural Hybridity: Transforming American Literary Scholarship and Pedagogy (2007), Teaching at the Crossroads: Cultures and Critical Perspectives in Literature by Women of Color (2001), and On Location: Theory and Practice in Classroom-Based Writing Tutoring (2005) (co-edited with the late Candace Spigelman). Grobman has published more than 40 articles in peer-reviewed journals and books. Pedagogies of Public Memory: Teaching Writing and Rhetoric at Museums, Archives, and Memorials (co-edited with Jane Greer) is forthcoming from Routledge. Grobman is the 2014 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Outstanding Baccalaureate Colleges Professor of the Year and was the recipient of the Penn State University President’s Award for Excellence in Academic Integration in 2012. She is the first recipient of the award from a Penn State campus outside University Park.

David Halliwell
Area of Expertise/Consultation: Tutoring, public advocacy
Research Statement: As a previous undergraduate participant of the first Naylor workshop, I can attest to how helpful an experience it is. I finished my B.A. in Professional Writing at York College of Pennsylvania and am now working on an M.A. in Composition and Rhetoric from Miami University in Ohio. As an undergraduate, my research was on the commenting practices of tutors and teachers responding to fallacies in student writing. My graduate research interests are focusing on community writing and studying and creating a model of community-based writing centers. As a teacher and tutor, I LOVE working with writers and researchers one-one or in small groups. Broadly, my research interests include pedagogy, writing center work, public writing and literacy, and feminist/antiracist work (which should be a part of all of the rest!).

Alexis Hart
Area of Expertise/Consultation: Public advocacy, civic engagement, veteran’s issues
Research Statement: Professor Alexis Hart is Director of Writing and Associate Professor of English at Allegheny College, where she teaches community-engaged first-year seminars, digital communication first-year seminars, and professional communication; she also trains and supervises the undergraduate writing consultants, who work alongside speaking consultants and subject matter tutors in a Learning Commons. Professor Hart conducts research on student veterans and women in the military, civic rhetoric and community-engaged pedagogies, and the teaching and tutoring of undergraduate writers. Her research methods include interviews, surveys, artifact analysis, and literature reviews. Professor Hart also serves on the editorial boards of several journals, including The Peer Review and Kairos.

Melissa Ianetta
Area of Expertise/Consultation: Writing Center administration, historical research
Research Statement: I currently focus my research on tutoring work as intellectual labor, but I’ve research many different things using a variety of methods. My published research includes: the relationship of tutoring and teaching using interview and surveys; the history of women’s rhetoric using archival research and a range of historiographical strategies; and rhetorical analyses of the ethical values expressed in writing studies using a variety of theoretical lenses. With Lauren Fitzgerald, I wrote The Oxford Guide for Writing Tutors: Practice and Research, which introduces historical, qualitative, quantitative and theoretical research methods. With Dr. Fitzgerald, I edited The Writing Center Journal for several years and with Kelly Ritter I’m editing Landmark Essays in Writing Program Administration. I’m also currently editor of College English, a journal that publishes work from across the field of English. So I like to think of myself as a utility player, a generalist scholar who can credibly research in a variety of areas.

Brynn Kairis
Area of Expertise/Consultation: Multi-modal composing
Research Statement: Brynn Kairis recently graduated from Rutgers University-Camden with an MA in English. She currently works at Rutgers as an instructor of First Year Writing and coordinator of Writing Labs. Brynn’s research interests span a range of areas. A past participant of the NAYLOR workshop, Brynn has published research on D/deaf literacy narratives (2015) and using archives to teach undergraduate research (forthcoming). She has presented other work at national and regional conferences, including projects that focus on multimodal composition in both the first year writing classroom and the writing center. In her most recent project, Brynn conducted interviews and analyzed writing samples to complete a master’s thesis focused on writing style pedagogies in the English classroom.

Elizabeth Kleinfeld
Area of Expertise/Consultation: Tutoring methods
Research Statement: I study disability, universal design for learning, linguistic diversity, and anti-racist pedagogy as they relate to both first year writing instruction and writing tutoring. In addition, I am researching how students learn to write from sources. I do qualitiative research, including grounded theory methodology and discourse analysis. I have co-authored a textbook on multimodal composition and published articles on writing center work and student source use. I love working with new researchers and look forward to helping you develop your research project!

Elaine MacDougal
Area of Expertise/Consultation: First-year writing, transfer students, mindfulness in the classroom
Research Statement: I have been teaching college writing for 13 years at both universities and community colleges in the Baltimore, Maryland area. I have directed writing centers run by peers, as well as faculty members, and I have seen the struggle and disinterest many students have with the writing process through my teaching and tutoring experience. In addition, my recent 200hr, and subsequent 500hr, certification as a yoga instructor has strongly influenced my approach to teaching writing, and I would like to explore this possible intersection between mindfulness and writing. If writing is approached as a creative activity used to explore the self, would students be more open to the process? Are students ready for this approach at the undergraduate/freshman level? I also teach a First Year Seminar at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County called "The Search for Truth and Happiness in a Technological World." This course has given me further ideas in the discussions we need to have as our world becomes more immersed in technology, and we begin to lose touch with one another. How can mindfulness and writing be a part of this conversation?

Mike Mattison
Area of Expertise/Consultation: Writing Centers, IRB (Institutional Review Board) proposals
Research Statement: I have spent the last twenty years in writing centers, and my research focuses on the relationships and conversations that occur in that setting. For example, how do tutors learn to be tutors? What is the educational process like for them, and how do they describe the changes they encounter? What role does reflective work play in their growth? Additionally, I’m curious as to how administrators can best serve tutors in their work, and, of course, how tutors can best serve writers in theirs—a lot of this research builds from an analysis of the talk that occurs in a writing center. What do people say and how do they say it? And, at the centers I’ve worked in, the tutors (undergraduate and graduate) treat research as an important component of their mission, and they have given dozens of presentations at regional and national conferences, utilizing a variety of research methods. Most recently, one student examined the uses of space at four different writing centers; another compared tutoring strategies with the captains from Star Trek; and two others studied how a writing center can conduct community outreach.

Steve McGuire
Area of Expertise/Consultation: L2/ESL students, tutoring
Research Statement: For the past several years, I've been working on an ongoing project considering the use of humor in writing tutoring. The project began as a research study in how humor was being used at our writing center. This study was done through two instances of quantitative data collection. This project pivoted into research on pedagogical theory and how ELL interact with writing center tutors. The project further pivoted toward discussing humor theory and how different types of humor affect tutoring English Language Learners.

Craig Medveckey
Area of Expertise/Consultation: Tutoring and tutor-training
Research Statement: As a Writing Center administrator my research has focused on graduate tutor training, especially on understanding the differences between supporting undergraduate writers and graduate writers. I have primarily performed qualitative studies but recently I have also conducted mixed methods research.

Jessie Moore
Area of Expertise/Consultation: Writing Transfer, L2/ESL students, first-year writing
Research Statement: Dr. Jessie L. Moore's current research in writing studies focuses on the writing lives of college students, students' use of writing technologies, and the transfer of writing knowledge and practices across contexts (e.g. from self-sponsored writing to academic writing, from academic writing to post-graduation writing, etc.). Her work uses mixed methods (quantitative and qualitative), including surveys, interviews, focus groups, textual analysis, and case studies. Her previous research also has examined the impact of specific teaching pedagogies on student learning and ESL/ELL/second language writing.

Lana Oweidat
Area of Expertise/Consultation: L2/ESL students, writing centers, feminist rhetoric
Research Statement: Lana Oweidat is an Assistant Professor of Rhetoric and Composition and Director of the Writing Center at Goucher College. She has taught courses in writing, rhetoric, and gender 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 developing an anti-Islamophobia pedagogy utilizing feminist research methods. She is also working on a pedagogical model for tutor training that is foregrounded in critical empathy.

Michael Riffenberg
Area of Expertise/Consultation: Non-school literacies
Research Statement: For the past decade, I have worked closely with student-athletes to study the reading and writing they undertake in their sport. Through observations, interviews, and textual analysis of scouting reports, plays, and other common genres, I try to paint a rich picture of the many reading and writing practices swirling through their non-school discourse community.

Leigh Ryan
Area of Expertise/Consultation: Writing Centers
Research Statement: For many years, I directed the Writing Center at the University of Maryland, training and overseeing more than 60 writing tutors each semester. I wrote The Bedford Guide for Writing Tutors, now coauthored with Lisa Zimmerelli and in its 6th edition, have published and presented on many aspects of peer tutoring, and consult nationally and internationally. To my delight, I’ve also worked with many students researching, publishing, and presenting on aspects of teaching and tutoring writing—most recently with a former tutor on establishing an inner city high school writing center. My current research is archival and focuses on a Maryland slave family. I served on The Committee to Clear Chaplain [Henry Vinton] Plummer, and our extensive research and report resulted in the US Army’s changing his 1894 discharge from “dishonorable” to “honorable.” We also recovered a diary kept by Adam Francis Plummer, Henry’s enslaved father, and I work with that.

Megan Schoettler
Area of Expertise/Consultation: Peer tutoring, WAC, indigenous and feminist rhetorics
Research Statement: I began my adventures as a writing researcher as an undergraduate peer tutor at York College of Pennsylvania. Now I am a PhD student at Miami University of Ohio, and my primary research interests are composition pedagogy, writing center tutoring, and rhetorical histories of women and indigenous people. My MA thesis was on the writerly identities and dispositions of five students as they transitioned between first-year composition requirements and disciplinary coursework. I used mixed methods, working with quantitative measures, artifact analysis of writer portfolios, and discourse-based interviews with students. I have also presented on and am engaged in several other projects. With a colleague at my writing center, we are studying the writerly identities and beliefs of peer tutors and examining how these beliefs impact their work. Finally, I am interested in recovering the rhetorical strategies of social justice advocates, including the Grimké sisters and the Marshallese organization Nuclear Zero.

Michelle Stuckey
Area of Expertise/Consultation: Multi-modal composing, community-based research
Research Statement: I administer an online first-year writing program at Arizona State University. My interests include multi-modal composing, digital literacy, and using reflection and meta-cognition to help students apply their learning about writing to writing situations in other classes as well as in their personal, professional, and civic lives. I also oversee an online embedded peer tutoring program. I am interested in how peers contribute to learning about writing.

Mike Zerbe
Area of Expertise/Consultation: Writing in STEM fields
Research Statement: Mike Zerbe is the WPA at York College of Pennsylvania, and has expertise in the rhetoric of science, professional writing and writing program administration.

• I thought that the Just-In-Time mentor opportunities were more useful to me than the workshops themselves. This was primarily because my project was archival research, and the weekend didn't really offer any workshops specific to archival research strategies. There were, however, plenty of mentors who had great archival research ideas.
  
   
• My attendance helped me strategize new ways to take my project going forward. I got to hear ideas I hadn't thought of, and now I have a better vision for my project.
  
   
• I think that engaging in an undergraduate research project has helped me become a more well-rounded student. I am a political science major, but doing archival research on rhetoric was very interesting to me. I found a way that my project was linked to politics, and the political science department at my university actually funded some of my travel expenses.
  
   
• Most of the research we do in our organization comes from our administrative hive mind, so the main benefit I saw from the workshop was interacting with researchers and administrators from other universities. It was fantastic to hear about the things they thought needed to be researched and how that differed from my agenda.
  
   
• As a mentor, I found the "Just in Time" mentoring sessions to be immensely rewarding. Undergraduate research is so important because it prepares undergraduates for advanced degrees and for work in academia. So many undergraduates will never interact with advanced research until they hit the graduate level.
  
   
• It opened my perspective to a much wider world of research in writing studies and writing centers that I wouldn't have acknowledged otherwise. In terms of mentorship, this means that I'm pushing my students to pursue research topics that aren't currently in our stable of scholarship and pushing them to interact with students at other universities to team up on research projects.
  
   
• It made me more aware of the writing studies community, and made me feel better equipped to do research in the humanities.
  
   
• Undergraduate research is an incredible opportunity to hone research skills that can be used throughout one's academic and professional careers!
  
   
• For me, the most helpful session was the quantitative research session, as I want to do research as I become a teacher and was really not sure how to do about doing this. This session really helped define ways to do research and what counts on quantitative research and good practices for doing so.
  
   
• The biggest benefit I received from attending the conference was that it gave me a strong direction for where I want to take this research in the future to develop it into something that is used in a mathematics classroom (writing for conceptual and procedural understanding) so I can take this research and make it practice in a future mathematics classroom to better the teaching of mathematics in American public schools.
  
   
• Loved the conference, it gave me a strong direction for the future for how writing can be used to benefit students in the classroom. Dominic was incredible, as well as the other staff, the facilities were great, overall I was incredibly satisfied with the experience.
  
   
• The workshop helped me understand how I can navigate the research process more easily. Before I attended, I had no idea how to start. Thanks to all the helpful information I got from my mentor and other mentors, I at least now know who to turn to when I have questions and the steps I need to take to conduct my research. It also helped me realize how much I enjoy doing research.
  
   
• I learned about the steps I'd need to take to conduct a research. Before I attended, research seemed too demanding for someone like me because I thought the work would just be too overwhelming on top of all responsibilities I already have. But I now understand that it is doable once you have a clear plan and approach.
  
   
• I think it provides a great opportunity for college students like me to understand how research works as well as learn about doing research in general. I think it's always good to start early and I definitely learn a lot more outside class now that I'm a part of a research project.
  
   
• I enjoyed the ball game and I also really like York. It is a great city and I love walking around!
  
   
• Honestly, the main benefit for me is connecting the undergraduates with whom I work to the larger community of writing scholars (professionals, graduate students, and undergraduates). While the Allegheny students could attend without me being in attendance, having me there seems to provide them with a substantive way to process and reflect on their experiences. I also greatly value the opportunity to work with undergraduate researchers at other institutions whom I can offer support and guidance to in their work. Our communication often extends past our time at Naylor together.
  
   
• The undergraduates who have attended Naylor have benefited from extending their opportunities for mentorship beyond me, which benefits my own mentoring of them and their research once we return from Naylor. Naylor provides a feasible, attainable, and prestigious opportunity for the Allegheny undergraduates interested in writing studies to participate in the scholarship of the field, which gives me the opportunity to encourage their research. In other words, I might not otherwise be able to persuade them to engage in such research in the absence of a writing minor/major at my institution, but the opportunity to attend Naylor and to broaden their mentoring and peer research networks gives me leverage to do so.
  
   
• As corny and clichéd as it might sound, I genuinely get the greatest benefit by learning from the undergraduate researchers. They are not only the students we are teaching, they are often the ones who are working with other undergraduate writers and hearing their stories, which they then use to inform their really interesting research questions. Mentoring undergraduate researchers, in other words, helps me to see the research and teaching that I engage in in a different light and helps me to form better research questions and revise my approaches to classroom teaching.
  
   
• I will be presenting on undergraduate researcher and faculty mentor collaborations with an undergraduate at IWCA next month.
  
   
• The Naylor Workshop is an intensive dive into undergraduate research practices in writing studies that provides undergraduates with the unique opportunity to work closely with highly respected professional scholars and other undergraduate researchers to learn methods, refine research questions, and work toward publication.
  
   
• As a junior faculty member at my institution, I find myself often mentoring UR students, but my graduate training did not necessarily prepare me to do that work. I thoroughly enjoy working with URs, and the Naylor workshop has helped me be more intentional in my individual mentoring.
  
   
• First and foremost, I believe that the students benefit by developing as critical thinkers and researchers. Whether or not they choose to pursue graduate work in writing studies, the experience of developing and executing your own research agenda is a valuable one that translates into a variety of skills and knowledge that can be used to develop careers.
  
   
• I also find that these students can bring this experience back to their home institution and help other students and show faculty what is possible for UR.
  
   
• As a mentor, I would say that the experience helps you to see the various types of projects students can undertake, and it the workshop allows you to network with other faculty interested in support undergraduate research.
  
   
• I learned a lot about what kinds of projects undergraduate students are interested in. I also learned a lot about the different possibilities for mentoring undergraduates. The keynote was very helpful to think about methods and structures for constructing collaborative research projects in future courses. I think I will try to set very clear expectations and goals in future research I do with students.
  
   
• It is an important learning opportunity for both, as through my work with undergraduate researchers I am able to understand the work we do differently. Learning about undergraduate perspectives on the field contributes to new ways of imagining writing scholarship, because they are not embedded in the structures and practices of the field. Their work exceeds the boundaries we set for ourselves, and it is very exciting!
  
   
• I am heartened and inspired by the work undergraduate researchers are doing. Their interest in social justice and their willingness to work above and beyond their required school work to achieve social justice goals keeps me going. I am honored and humbled to be a part of that.
  
   
• I loved having two whole days to devote to mentoring two students. It helped me slow down the conversations and let them unfold at whatever speed seemed to work for my mentees. I have brought that slower, more relaxed approach home.
  
   
• Learning about the types of things undergraduate researchers are doing and how their faculty mentors at their institutions inspired and supported them gave me so many ideas to bring back to my campus. I also really appreciated the conversation all the mentors had together on the last day.
  
   
• This is a unique professional development experience that will inspire you and push you as an educator. It's a great opportunity to engage in what Friere called "co-intentional pedagogy," where you and your mentees learn from each other.
  
   
• I was very impressed with the quality of mentors and undergraduate researchers. The range of interests and goals of both mentors and undergraduate researchers was also notable. The level of brainstorming, application, timeliness, scholarship, and publication extension was just the right amount of challenge and support for new and ambitious researchers.
  
   
• I definitely believe that my perspective of undergraduate researchers has widened (in terms of critical depth and scholarly/interdisciplinary applications) and lengthened (in terms of temporal potential past singular projects and/or semester goals).
  
   
• I can't say enough about the importance of mentoring--for myself (as a formerly mentored student at all stages), as well as for others (as a mentor). Scholarship, reading, curiosity, and experience are all vital to research; but a strong mentor is the glue that provides the cohesion, reasoning, urgency, and longevity behind learning and researching.
  
   
• I found the just-in-time mentoring sessions to be the best part of the Naylor workshop. Compared to last year's workshop, I benefitted more from direct face time with professors. This was my greatest complaint from last year. But I am glad that these just-in-time sessions were included. I have no recommendations for improving them because they were well executed.
  
   
• Based on this workshop, I benefitted the most from talking to several faculty--Cynthia Crimmins, Gabriel Cutrufello, Jessie Moore, and Bill Fitzgerald--and getting feedback on how to narrow the scope of my project and which possible publication avenues to consider. I left with a more concrete plan on how to meet my goal of publication compared to last year.
  
   
• I learned to constantly revisit my research questions and question my own thinking and preconceived notions. My analytical skills have become stronger because I learned how to properly frame my research into a concise elevator pitch and presentation.
  
   
• I believe it is excellent practice for graduate school and other entry level research positions. Overall, research is a great addition to a resume.
  
   
• My goal is to publish my research online in an academic-journalistic type of publication such as The Conversation, The Chronicle of Higher Education, or Insider Higher Ed.
  
   
• I would tell someone that this is an opportunity to work more closely with faculty than in an independent study. This opportunity prepares students to take on more in-depth independent research that can become a conference proposal or future publication.
  
   
• Bringing back ideas to my university, networking with others, seeing the beautiful space, sustained time for reflection, getting invigorated by the undergrads. They were great!
  
   
• This is how we grow our field. We need to get people interested before they have chosen other career paths. Graduate school may be too late. Benefit to the self is that its fun, exciting, and enjoyable.
  
   
• Attending the Naylor Workshop has made me think more about mentoring, about approaches to it and the value of it. I like the intensity of the interactions and the fact that a mentee and I can keep checking back over the two days. That allows us both to see the growth that occurs over that short time, and to discuss and make accommodations as new ideas get folded in.
  
   
• Some discussion at the Naylor Workshop in 2016 focused on archival research, something I do more and more of. It was very helpful to hear others and I have reconsidered some research I do on diaries as a result. (I didn't really know that I could be a mentee at Naylor, as well as a mentor!)
  
   
• The benefits?--the excitement and fun of seeing someone discover things, not just about their topic, but about themselves. They grow and see possibilities they didn't see before, and it's a privilege to be a part of that. Naylor Workshops have expanded horizons beyond my own campus. Every year, I have kept in touch with several undergrads from other schools via email and phone calls.
  
   
• Re-energizing me for my own research and working with my undergraduates. It was exhilarating to be among all the participants and have so many fruitful conversations about writing and research.
  
   
• I can be more deliberate in what I ask for in research and how I ask for it. One of the best takeaways is to bring in more student research for my writing center course. Given all that's been written by undergraduates, that could make up more of the reading list. My students need to see authors like them in the course, and then we can work towards such projects given the models. I need to better stage research work, too, from class to center and beyond.
  
   
• For writing centers, they are the main work force. They are the people who day-to-day conduct the sessions. They have to be involved in the research; they have to be studying what they do and analyzing it. They gain from it for their tutoring, but they also learn such valuable skills that they take into the workplace.
  
   
• A remarkable experience. I'm grateful that we could attend this year, and I am going to push more students to apply in the future. It is a wonderful opportunity to think and work in a space surrounded by like-minded people, and it opens the students' eyes to all they can accomplish.
  
   
• The main benefits were all of the different input and ideas for my project that I was able to get from people with fresh perspectives and considerable experience doing research within the field. I got a lot of useful reading recommendations, and felt like people were excited about my project and were genuinely interested in helping me improve my methods and further develop my project.
  
   
• Attending the workshop and getting to talk about both the mentors and other undergraduates about the many possible avenues of research (and research methods) was a great experience. It's helped inform my own project, but it has also helped me work on getting other undergraduates at my institution engaged in research projects that are meaningful to them.
  
   
• I think the benefits are innumerable. I've been involved with different types of research since my freshman year, and it's made me a much more active participant in my education. I feel as if my coursework is secondary to my research, and my research is aimed at exploring things I'm interested in and using what I've learned (and am in the process of learning) to address real problems that are important to me and to others. Being an undergrad involved with research has helped me engage in what I'm learning, has helped me see the applications of my coursework to my future life, and has also (hopefully) made me a competitive applicant for grad schools so that I can further my education and pursue my goals.
  
   
• I plan to propose a poster for CCCC, and to write an article over my project for my senior honors thesis. I am also exploring the possibility of publishing my research--either in undergraduate research journals, writing studies journals, or math education journals.
  
   
• The workshop provides a great space (and time) to work on your research, no matter what stage you are at in your project. The mentors provide an encouraging and helpful resource to develop your ideas and refine your methods. The entire workshop experience is worthwhile and a great way to become further engaged with research and to meet experts within the field.
  
   
• For me, the biggest benefit was having a mentor who had never seen my project before give me advice and guidance. I was able to access lots of new perspectives that helped me look at my project in new ways. Gabe was a fantastic mentor and provided very helpful, constructive feedback. Another benefit was the opportunity to meet other students who are interested in the same kinds of research as I am. Developing that sense of a research community was very valuable.
  
   
• My attendance helped me think about the methods behind my research and ways that I can be a more organized researcher. The opportunity to learn about research methods that were entirely new to me was very valuable. Also, I learned about the value of networking with other scholars who share my research interests.
  
   
• I think that undergraduate research helps students take an active role in their education. It is important to learn about topics in a classroom, but it's incredibly rewarding to do your own research. Undergraduate research also builds interpersonal skills since undergraduate researchers often have to work in groups or ask others for assistance.
  
   
• I'm planning to apply my research towards my senior honors thesis. I also plan to write a proposal for CCCC, and I hope to attend Undergraduate Research Day at the Capitol in Jefferson City, Missouri.
  
   
• The workshop was a fantastic experience. I loved having the opportunity to learn more about York, and the baseball game was great!! Thank you for putting together such an awesome experience for undergraduate researchers.
  
   
• The Naylor Workshop gives students the opportunity to think about their research in new ways. With the help of a mentor, students learn about research methods and have the opportunity to present an early version of their work. Plus, it's a very fun experience!
  
   
• Exhilarating experience and opportunity to mingle with like-minded students and colleagues in an enchanting, supportive setting.
  
   
• It was great to be able to gather a wide range of perspectives and feedback. However, I might recommend a time limit for table visits. I didn't get a chance to talk to some mentors on my list because the same students/groups of students remained at the same table for extended periods of time. While I understand that longer conversations are often needed to determine ideas and strategies, perhaps a 10-15 minute limit could be helpful in this sense.
  
   
• Meeting and talking with fellow undergraduate researchers, describing/testing ideas, checking in with mentor throughout the weekend for detailed feedback, gaining a greater understanding/awareness of different types of research
  
   
• The weekend was very helpful in showing me just how many ways a project can be approached. The variety of ideas on display sparked my creativity and allowed me to understand how exploration-oriented research is. As a tutor in training it was also great to hear from students and professors who have had previous experience in writing centers.
  
   
• Undergraduate research and mentorship encourage creativity, allow students to explore topics of personal importance, permit recognition of and participation in conversational circles, enhance confidence, and provide positive learning strategies that spread into additional disciplines.
  
   
• The weekend helped me develop a plan for the future - specifically, a longer time frame for my project. I would aim to start out locally (ex. at the CURCA research event on Rutgers campus), but if the project seems to have gone well, I would be open to submitting it to a larger conference like CCCC.
  
   
• The Naylor Workshop is a great opportunity to examine, refine, and revise your project while engaging with other members of the writing center research community. It's inspiring on multiple levels: personally, interpersonally, and academically.
  
   
• I attended the National Conference on Peer Tutoring in Writing. From attending this conference and also attending the Naylor Workshop, I plan to carry out my research plan with the intention of improving Loyola's Writing Center. Also, I am considering the possibility of publishing my finding

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 15th

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. 

5:00: Opening Meet and Greet and Gallery Walk

6:30: Opening Remarks and Dinner

7:15: Plenary Address: Dr. Laurie Grobman

Saturday, September 16th

7:45–8:15: Breakfast, opening remarks, and logistics (York College Center for Community Engagement, 59 East Market Street, York)

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 17th

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).