CCCC '97 Outcomes Forum: The Continuation

WPA Conference '97 Session: Barry Maid's small group report

The discussion moved from specific comments on specific sections/ wording toward broader issues of audience and approach. This is for the most part a transcription of my notes.

1. GENRE KNOWLEDGE section: How genre knowledge is cast is different from rhetorical knowledge in the way we cast it. --too literary --Why are "conventions" listed here?

2. Category names are not particularly clear: "genre knowledge"--should it be "discursive habits"? As written it is formalistic and stylistic, not process-oriented.

3. Writing as developmental should be reflected: social context of writing and developmental nature of writing.

4. The description of 4 general outcomes backs away from the promise to "specify what we are accountable for."--descriptions too general.

5. The document mixes social skills with writing outcomes.

6. The document should mention personal observation and experience and their employment in different academic settings.

7. Categories are subsets of composition studies--they reflect various theories of composition and composition pedagogy and do not really specify outcomes: What is it that we want the students to be able to do.

8. The document needs to mentions the ability to think critically ---intellectual engagement.

9. The group felt that we should not work for a divided text, but rather aim to write one version, understandable by everybody.

10. Instead of listing sub-attributes (or at least in addition to this) we should answer the question of "why" in each category.

The discussion should be taken back to the C's. It was suggested that we look at and try to coordinate with the K-12 outcomes statment/book that came out last year..

Return to Main menu | Return to the Outcomes History | Return to the WPA '97 session reports