In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

DOI: 10.7330/9780874219029.c010 10 D e v e l o p i n g a H e u r i s t i c f o r M u lt i­d i s c i p l i n a ry Fac u lt y W r i t i n g G r o u p s A Case Study Trixie G. Smith, Janice C. Molloy, Eva KassensNoor , Wen Li, and Manuel Colunga-Garcia From its inception, The Writing Center at Michigan State University has operated on a peer-to-peer consultancy model. In “Reforming Education in the Land-Grant University: Contributions From a Writing Center,” Patti Stock, founding director of the center at MSU, explains that “in these consultancies, less-experienced, less-practiced writers benefit from the greater experience and greater expertise of their peers; at the same time, consultants expand and enrich their general education as they read and discuss articles their peers are composing in a wide variety of fields and disciplines” (Stock 1997, 13). This approach helps develop a genuine community of writers and learners. Our faculty writing groups (FWG) are very much a piece of this model, providing space for small groups of faculty to build their own communities of support and inquiry for improving writing and thus publication and grant success. Not all center-made groups of faculty work, especially on a long-term basis; however, this is a success story—the case study of a multidisciplinary group of five (including the facilitator) that is viable and productive as it enters its third year. Consequently, we wanted to examine what makes this particular group work in hopes that such an examination would help with other groups in the future. The group originally formed in 2009 with four members, each with distinct specialties, including invasion ecology (Manuel), transportation and urban planning (Eva), human resource management (Janice), and rhetoric and writing (Trixie). In the middle of the 176   Tri xie G. Smith et al. first year, an additional member joined the group; however, she only remained with the group for a few months. Later that same year a second group was formed, which, unfortunately, quickly fell apart due to conflicting time schedules and individual priorities. The one member who was committed to the process was folded into our group; thus, biomedical and materials engineering (Wen) was added to this case study group. The group meets in person on a weekly basis. The agenda rotates so that each writer is the focus of one meeting a month; Trixie, the Writing Center director acts as group facilitator and typically does not insert her own writing into the schedule. Meetings are held for two hours, and begin with the writer talking about the status of the project, the specific challenge(s) she/he is facing, and the help wanted from writing group members. This discussion typically lasts about fifteen minutes and is followed by thirty minutes of reading, during which members focus on the assigned task. Over time this process has moved to e-mail, so that individual authors can more clearly articulate what kind of feedback they need and group members have more time to do focused reading before the dialogue starts. Discussion is the mainstay of the meeting and includes each person’s impression of the writing and task at hand. Often this discussion fine-tunes the specific challenge or refocuses the writer’s attention on equally pressing issues. The weekly meetings close with members giving the writer their handwritten comments (which typically include more detailed edits than those discussed) and general conversation about how members’ writing is going (submissions, revise and resubmits, rejections, etc.). The questions we asked ourselves for this study include: Why is this group working? What has helped this particular group, these group members, work together to achieve both individual and group success? What caused other members to leave or not commit to the group? We turned to a number of different theories from the various fields represented in the group, but found a theory in organizational psychology the most relevant. Using a case study methodology, we combined this theoretical framework with individuals’ narratives to reason out the factors contributing to the group’s success. We offer this self-reflective case study on how shared values foster the vital outcomes members view as success: learning and growth. We present a broad heuristic to guide others who want to form similar FWGs, hoping that theorizing our own experiences will help...

Share