No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

<p>  </p> <p>Empathy is a complex emotional response to others’ experiences that can both advance and obstruct mutual understanding. Many fields in the humanities and social sciences have their own theories of empathy, including recent advances in rhetoric and composition. However, writing center studies have not yet arrived at a theory of empathy despite a body of scholarship that invokes empathy as a necessary skill or disposition in writing center praxis. This dissertation argues that empathic dispositions can be evoked and tempered in staff education classrooms through assignments that facilitate critical self-reflection on one’s positionality. The present pilot study describes four aspects of empathic dispositions that can be tempered in a writing center curriculum. The first chapter categorizes different concepts of empathy in writing centers and theorizes four aspects of empathic dispositions that align with theories on rhetoric, affect, and feminist approaches to empathic, critical engagement with others. The second chapter outlines the feminist methodologies and methods that were used to collect and analyze interviews with research participants. The third chapter describes a sixteen-week staff education course that was oriented to evoking and developing students’ empathic dispositions. The fourth chapter shares interviews with new consultants who reflect on their first semester in our writing center and how their work was influenced by their assignments and experiences in our curriculum. The final chapter concludes the study by outlining its limitations, charting a path forward for future research, and offering a pedagogical approach to cultivating empathic dispositions that I call resonant reflection. The results of this study indicate that consultants draw from their own experiences and values when they imagine a writer’s circumstances. They can access their rich, yet tacit, experiences through deliberative reflection, a necessary component of developing empathic dispositions that advance mutual understanding. These findings implicate that a stronger theoretical framework for empathy in writing centers can advance not only writing center research and pedagogy but also our commitments to social justice in our centers. </p>

In this essay, I endeavour to broaden the concept of literature by introducing five children’s literary works. Primarily, literary scholars have concentrated their studies on literature written by adults, regarding children as readers rather than writers. I believe that such a concept fails to cover the diversity of the literary field and therefore needs to change. Approaching writing and reading from a sociocultural point of view, and reading children’s stories from a narratological perspective, I intend to show that a new concept of literature is not only possible but inevitable. Due to the dialectic relationship between sender and receiver, literary and linguistic conventions and deviations, the definition of literature is renegotiated continuously. The French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu emphasized the impact of the academy by illustrating that scholars are maintaining literary norms when putting titles on reading lists and acknowledging certain authorships. Writing this essay is thus a pledge of change. Adult research of children’s literary work encompasses a wide range of implicit age-related power issues (aetonormativity), according to the Swedish literary scholar, Maria Nikolajeva. In this essay, I show an insufficiency of some of these adult literary concepts when applied to children’s writing. I conclude that a partly new terminology, based on children’s writing, needs to co-exist with the older set of concepts. I also emphasize the need for further literary studies on children’s writing to question, criticize and complete mine, and to acknowledge the variety of literary aspects in children’s writing.

No description available.

<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>