Introduction

Pandemic Writing Pedagogy

Methods

Discussion

Results

Demographics

Between October 2021 and January 2022, this survey received 55 responses. The following demographics represent participants' roles as of March 2020 and are represented in Table 1. Of those 55 responses, 32 came from participants in tenure-line positions, 12 from full-time teaching faculty, 6 from graduate assistants, three from WPAs with purely administrative appointments, and one each from a faculty in a position similar to the tenure-line and a non-tenure-line faculty with a dual appointment not covered by language in the survey. Most were in some sort of formal role with the writing program: Lead administrators (35), supporting administrators (10), online course coordinator (1), or even had multiple roles and duties in the program (2) or between the writing program and the WAC/WID program (1). Three participants assisted in the switch to remote teaching because they formerly had a position in the writing program, one because they were the lead administrator of the writing center, and one as a GTA with WPA experience.

Forty-eight of the participants were working at public universities and 7 at private institutions. 39 of those were doctoral-granting institutions, with 29 primarily research institutions, 12 regional comprehensive colleges and universities, 7 small liberal arts colleges, 3 community colleges, and 1 historically Black college or university. Most of these responses came from the contexts of larger institutions: using the Carnegie size classifications and reported undergraduate students, 3 responses were from participants at small institutions (1,000-2,999 undergraduate students), 14 from medium-sized institutions (3,000-9,999), and 35 from large (10,000+) institutions, with "very small" schools under 1,000 students unrepresented. Of the 35 large institutions, 12 were what I classified as "very large" with over 25,000 students.

Table 1: Particpants' Positions (Teaching and Administrative)

Teaching Position Participants
Tenure-line position 32
Full-time teaching position 12
Graduate Assistant 6
Other (see above) 5
Writing Program Position Participants
Lead Administrator 35
Supporting Administrator 10
Online Course Coordinator 1
Multiple Positions 3
Other (see above) 5

Table 2: Participants' Institutions
(these categories are not mutually exclusive)

Institution Type Frequency
Public 48
Private 7
Doctoral 39
Research 29
Regional Comprehensive 12
Small Liberal Arts 7
Community College 3
Historically Black College or University 1



Determining Support Needed

Participants were asked to identify which areas of instruction they addressed or focused on when communicating with faculty in their programs, to identify what they felt the most pressing needs of their instructors were. Multiple options could be selected. Table 3 represents the frequency of each selection in response to the question, “What area(s) of instruction did you focus support towards during the shift of March 2020? Choose all that apply.”

Table 3: Areas of Instruction Addressed by the Writing Program

Area of Instruction Addressed Frequency (55 Responses)
Technology for asynchronous coursework (such as LMS setup) 49 (89%)
New course delivery format 44 (80%)
Accessibility in online writing instruction 41 (75%)
Technology for conducting synchronous class sessions (such as videoconferencing software) 39 (71%)
Grading/assessing students in uncertain times 38 (69%)
Engaging students in asynchronous courses 36 (65%)
Engaging students in synchronous courses 35 (64%)
Instructor self-care 32 (58%)
Other (please specify): 11 (20%)

Responses in the "Other" section included:

  1. compassionate and trauma-informed teaching resources (3), including on student reflections in times of crisis (1);
  2. adjustments to curriculum and assignments (3);
  3. adjusting expectations of self and others;
  4. getting technology and internet hotspots to instructors;
  5. pausing program assessment;
  6. resources on antiracism and linguistic justice; and
  7. ungrading.

Another question focused on if all instructors in the program received the same communications or resources: “Did you provide different supportive communications or resources tailored to the different types of instructors in your program?” Two-thirds of participants (37/55; 67%) said that everyone in the writing program received the same communications and resources. However, when participants indicated that communications might be different for different groups of instructors, about 55% (11/18) said they reached out more or offered more support to graduate instructors, many of whom were teaching for the first time. 5/18, or 27%, focused on teaching or contingent faculty. Some had their own lists of who to send specific resources to based on something other than faculty type: at least a couple of participants tried to target more help to whom they felt would have the most difficulty moving instruction online. Finally, one response indicated specific communications may be directed for different courses, such as sections marked specifically for multilingual writers.

Delivering Support to Instructors

To clarify the types of hardships writing program staff may have faced in supporting their instructors, participants were asked, “What, if any, barriers did you face in supporting your instructors during the emergency shift to remote instruction? Choose all that apply.” Participants could select multiple options, and Table 4 shows the frequency of each selection.

Table 4: Barriers to Supporting Writing Program Instructors

Item Frequency (55 Responses)
Time constraints 44 (80%)
Lack of clarity from admin on new expectations 33 (60%)
Resource constraints 32 (58%)
Difficulty communicating with instructors 19 (35%)
Other (please specify): 13 (24%)
No major barriers 4 (7%)

Of the other kinds of obstacles listed, four were related to the mental wellbeing of faculty, three to other types of lack of infrastructure and preparation, two that simply indicated being overwhelmed, and one listing personal mental wellbeing. One response indicated being tokenized to the point of being responsible for all antiracism work in the program; another indicated that faculty resistance (largely from those in more secure positions) presented some barriers.

When considering institution size alongside the obstacles WPAs faced, all of the participants from small institutions (1,500-2,999 students) marked at least three obstacles: time constraints, resource constraints, and lack of clarity on new expectations. However, institution type did not appear to affect the time crunch that everyone felt: time constraints were the most frequent obstacles for those at primarily research institutions, regional comprehensive universities, and small liberal arts colleges. For both research universities and SLACs, constraints on resources came in second.

The Time-Travel Question: Giving Yourself Advice

As noted above, only one open-ended question was provided: "If you could time-travel to two weeks before the emergency shift to remote teaching and give yourself a quick bit of WPA-related advice, what would you say?” Below are the main themes found in these open-ended responses, with their frequency marked. Only one response was not coded under one of these categories: an outlier self-critical response.

In it for the long haul, surviving, and compassion towards self (25)

The most common theme among the advice given was thinking about oneself within the larger picture: one response summarized this feeling with “You can't take care of others if you don't take care of yourself.” Others assured their past selves that they had the skills to make it through their situation. The frequency of these responses are what made the one uncoded response (above) seem like an outlier. Responses mentioned that things don't have to be perfect; that crises will have to be prioritized; having grace with oneself; and self-care as necessary before taking care of others.

Technology & LMS use (15)

Multiple responses mentioned getting faculty comfortable quickly with their institution's LMS. Others mentioned training faculty on synchronous engagement methods (such as videoconferencing software) sooner: for example, one response said “Make sure everyone in your department knows how to use Zoom and the University's LMS.” Others mentioned encouraging faculty to view online instruction more favorably shortly before the switch online was apparent.

Curriculum & Pedagogy (14)

Many responses related to curriculum and pedagogy overlapped with ideas for infrastructure and technology, such as collecting resources and deciding between potential course modalities. At least a few pointed to the existence of OWI scholarship, suggesting preparation could have included reading what we already know about online writing instruction. A few other recommendations referenced keeping course goals and outcomes at the forefront of their mind.

Labor & Infrastructure (11)

Responses discussing labor and infrastructure ranged from mentions of teachers' contracts to difficulty with communications with upper administration to discussing more faculty development opportunities that would have helped prepare instructors better for March 2020. One response suggested mobilizing early rather than waiting on their administrators to make more decisions; one suggested creating an online repository of teaching material ahead of time; one mentioned preparing instructors for the student body's potential lack of resources when classes moved online; one recommended focusing nearly all the WPA's work to just faculty support during that time of crisis. A few responses mentioned encouraging a culture favorable to online learning before the remote switch occurred, or distinguished their own roles in program administration from other parts of the university that could provide more general tech support.

Unsure/No Advice (9)

The reasons for responses saying some version of “I don’t know what advice I would give myself” were pretty evenly split into two different reasonings: the first, that participants believed they did the best they could in the moment; the second, that participants felt their best attempts were so impeded by external factors (such as upper admin and other faculty) that their advice wouldn’t have made a difference. Those who used the former reasoning weren’t cross-coded with the survival/self-care theme, but showed similar trends in compassion towards their past selves.

OWI-Specific Preparation (7)

Some responses either referenced reading existing scholarship on online writing instruction or referenced OWI best practices, such as one that said, "Don't start the conversation with a synchronous vs. asynchronous discussion. Start with major goals and work backward from there." All of these responses were cross-coded with Technology & LMS Use, but they added additional pedagogical interest or principles beyond technological support.

Determining Needs (5)

Five responses indicated they would have spent more time determining what their instructors perceived their needs to have been. One suggested town halls among the program and instructors to more directly address questions; one mentioned finding opportunities to address mental wellbeing more directly; another indicated their instructors may have received too much information.


Discussion

New Priorities in Strange Times