Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2002. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references. Available also from UMI Company.

Thesis (M. Ed.)--University of Hong Kong, 1988. / Includes bibliographical references (leaf [158]-167).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Michigan State University. Curriculum, Teaching, and Educational Policy, 2008. / Title from PDF t.p. (viewed on July 16, 2009) Includes bibliographical references (p. 206-211). Also issued in print.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Auburn University, 2008. / Abstract. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. 262-279).

Thesis (M. Ed.)--University of Hong Kong, 1999. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 232-243).

Thesis (M.Ed.)--University of Hong Kong, 1999. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 232-243). Also available in print.

<p dir="ltr">Historically, teaching first-year composition has been integral to graduate education in English and writing studies (Latterell, 1996). However, as best practices for teaching writing evolve, so do practices for training graduate students to teach it. Graduate instructor training (GIT) now encompasses not only writing pedagogy education (WPE), but also professional development and mentoring for careers both in and outside of academia. To date, research has focused on GIT programs sited at institutions that house doctoral programs, leaving out most master’s-granting institutions, even though they are far more numerous and serve many students. These institutions serve student populations with varied career goals, especially now as the purpose of a master’s degree in English and writing studies is evolving (Strain & Potter, 2016). </p><p dir="ltr">I conducted a three-phase study designed to highlight graduate instructor training programs for first-year composition at master’s-granting institutions in the United States. In my first phase, I developed a database of all master’s-granting institutions with English and writing studies programs (476 institutions) utilizing NCES, Carnegie Classification, and publicly available website data. I then surveyed writing program administrators (WPAs) and other faculty in the programs (n=41) that employed graduate student instructors (GSIs), focusing on program conditions, the first-year composition course, and the responsibilities of GSIs. In phase three, I conducted interviews with faculty (n=13) to gain more insight on curricular and administrative choices within their institutional contexts. My results show that faculty design curricula, training, and mentoring prioritizing students’ needs. WPE serves as pedagogical preparation and as a site of disciplinary enculturation. Participants share a desire for more resources that focus on designing curricula and programs within limited institutional resources. Additionally, as a discipline we need more comprehensive methods for documenting programmatic practices.</p>