Phase II: Discourse Strategies in Action at the CLC
The second phase will take us to the Community Literacy Center (CLC) to work with teen writers. While at the Center, you will begin an inquiry focused on intercultural discourse: reading a situation or describing a literate practice.

Phase III: Inquiry and Reflection: Intercultural Discourse Strategies
For the third phase, we will be back on campus to do some more reading and to complete final course projects.

Your responsibilities for the course include:

• Readings: Prepare readings for group discussions and for bulletin-board posts (described below).
• B-board portfolio: Make nine assigned posts to the mentoring b-board (suggested length 100-500 words). Questions to consider are given in the schedule and listed at the end of the syllabus. These posts are designed as a place for you to connect your course readings to your experiences and inquiry as a mentor.
• Mentoring: Participate energetically in all CLC sessions, occasionally giving your writer a call.
• Project proposal: Draw up a plan for your inquiry into intercultural discourse focusing on reading a situation or on describing a literate practice. Describe your current hunches or observations about what makes this interesting. In addition, outline in some detail your plan for three ways you will go about collecting good observations at the CLC. Include a schedule with real dates for getting observations, making comparisons, drafting and revising. See handout on Intercultural Inquiry. (Post on b-Board; 1-2 pages.)
• Group reflection meetings/sessions for inquiry: Reflection meetings and inquiry sessions occur on Wednesdays, approx. 4:45-5:30. The reflection meetings give mentors and literacy leaders the chance to address questions and concerns as they arise. Inquiry sessions are also designed to support your observations for your inquiry into an intercultural discourse practice.
• A final project: Design this as an inquiry into intercultural discourse. Consider inventing a hybrid genre (vs. a conventional college "paper"). However, this serious inquiry should bring both your reading and your CLC experience to bear on a meaningful issue. (Note: Start thinking about this early because you will want to collaborate with your writer while you are at the CLC.)

Wed. Aug. 28: Read Gee's "Literacy, Discourse and Linguistics: Introduction" and Yedes's "Playful teasing: kiddin' on the square."

Bulletin-board Post #1. Predictions: By Monday, Sept. 2, make a prediction of the picture a CLC teen might have about what people do at college, might know about how you get to college, and might assume about why you're there. Also consider your own expectations about the teenage writers you will be meeting and working with.

Wed. Sept 4: Read Peck, Flower, & Higgins' "Community Literacy"

By Monday, Sept. 9, complete the Collaborative Planning Partner Hypercard program and print out your responses for class discussion.

Wed. Sept. 11: Visiting the CLC. Read Chapter 1 and pp. 109-127 in Problem-Solving Strategies for Writers.

Phase II: Discourse Strategies in Action at the CLC

Bulletin Board Post #2. Gilyard: By Monday, Sept. 23, post an entry to the mentoring b-board: What did you feel was an important thing Gilyard was trying to tell us through Voices of the Self - as a story, through the commentary, or through its mix of voices? Can you build any connections (similarities/differences) between his key point (i.e., the point that interests you) and what you have learned about the CLC?

Wed. Sept. 25: Mentors' Group Reflection Meeting
Reading: Childress' A Hero Ain't Nothin' but a Sandwich.

Bulletin-board Post #3. Childress: By Monday, Sept. 30, post an entry to the mentoring b-board, What did you feel was an important thing Childress was trying to tell us through this story or through its different voices? Can you build any connections (similarities/differences) between her key point (i.e., the point that interests you) and what you have seen at the CLC?

Playing: Play the "Rival Readings" game sometime this week with your writer. TAPE YOUR DISCUSSION.

Wed. Oct. 2: Mentors' Group Reflection Meeting
Reading: Read an article that interests you from Kintgen or one of the published articles on reserve. Keep notes for your next post.

Bulletin-board Post #4. Rival Reading: By Monday, Oct. 7, use the "Rival Readings" game to engage in an open ended inquiry with your writer. Tell us about the ideas, assumptions, reasoning or experience each of you brought to interpreting the text. And even more interesting, tell us what you discovered together in comparing your responses.

Bulletin-board Post #5. Midterm Reflections: By Wednesday, Oct. 9, look back at all of your B-board posts and write about your progress through the class and your involvement at the CLC. Include a reflection on and evaluation of three very broad things: yoiur reading (as reflected in your posts), your learning, and your contributions to the discussion and learning of the rest of us. This will give you a chance to pull your thinking together and evaluate yourself in order to improve during the rest of the term. Add a final comment: do you think your posts reflect your learning at and contribution to the Center so far?

Wed. Oct. 9: Inquiry Session
Reading: Read Chapters 7, 8, 9 in PSSW (yes, all 3!) and the revision chapter of the CLC Strategy Handbook. Try out these revision strategies with Raymond Musgrove's text, "A teenager that needs help but don't know how to face it" on your own BEFORE you go to CLC. Be prepared to engage your writer in trying different strategies.

Wed. Oct. 16: Mentors' Group Reflection Meeting

Bulletin-board Post #6. Inquiry Proposal: By Monday, October 21 draw up a plan for your inquiry into intercultural discourse. Describe your current hunches or observations about what makes this interesting. In addition, outline in some detail your plan for collecting different perspectives and observations at the CLC. Include a schedule with real dates for collaboration, observation, drafting and revising. Look at Chapter 8 of Problem-Solving Strategies for Writers for some ideas on how to frame a problem for inquiry. (Several projects are on reserve at Hunt Library.)

Wed. Oct. 23:

Wed. Oct. 30: Mentors' Group Reflection Meeting
Reading: Read another article that interests you from Kintgen or one of the published articles on reserve.

Bulletin-board Post #7. Speaking as ....: By Monday, Nov. 4, Read an article that interests you from Kintgen or one of the published articles on reserve. Give us a 3-4 sentence summary of the topic and general argument so we know what your article is about. Then, bring the author to our table to help interpret something about the CLC experience. E.g., What issue would Erickson or Resnick & Resnick point to as interesting and what would they have to say to us? If you feel creative, write some of this post in quotes, as if you were the authors, speaking with their language, their point of view, and making their claims. Speaking as Freire, I would say ....

Wed. Nov. 6: Inquiry Session.

Bulletin-board Post #8. Inquiry Update: By Monday, Nov. 11, give us an update on your inquiry into intercultural discourse. What are you trying to learn more about through your inquiry? What discoveries have you made? What questions are still on your mind?

Wed. Nov. 13: Rehearsal at CLC

The Community Conversation

Wed. Nov. 20: Community Conversation (3:00-9:00 p.m.)

Phase III: Further Inquiry and Reflection: Intercultural Discourse Strategies

Bulletin-board Post #9. End of term Reflections: By Monday, December 2, post an entry to the mentoring B-board: Reflecting on Intercultural Discourse Strategies in Action: 1) Print out and review the portfolio of all your posts. 2) Write a reflection on and an evaluation of three very broad things: your reading (as reflected in your posts), your learning, and your contributions to the discussion and learning of the rest of us. This will give you a chance to pull your thinking together and conduct your own evaluation of it. 3) Add a final comment: do you think your posts reflect your learning at and contribution to the Center? Dr. Peck will be evaluating these reflections.

Wed. Dec. 4: Presentations of final papers

Mon. Dec. 9 Papers are due.

HOW TO BUILD A B-BOARD PORTFOLIO

Use the following headings to organize your posts:

Furthering your own inquiry: (once a week)

Post observations and inferences from your experiences as a mentor; make connections between the course readings and your experiences and inquiry.

Continuing the Discussion: (when the spirit moves you)

Some people find it helpful to use the b-board to talk about what's going on at the Center. Although using the b-board in this way is optional, we have found these kinds of discussions a wonderful forum for sharing ideas and insights.

Assigned Bulletin-board Posts

Mon. Sept. 23:
Post #2. Gilyard: Over the weekend, post an entry to the mentoring b-board: What did you feel was an important thing Gilyard was trying to tell us through Voices of the Self - as a story, through the commentary, or through its mix of voices? Can you build any connections (similarities/differences) between his key point (i.e., the point that interests you) and what you have learned about the CLC?

Mon. Sept. 30:
Post #3. Childress: Over the weekend, post an entry to the mentoring b-board, What did you feel was an important thing Childress was trying to tell us through this story or through its different voices? Can you build any connections (similarities/differences) between her key point (i.e., the point that interests you) and what you have seen at the CLC?

Mon. Oct. 7:
Post #4. Rival Readings: Use the "Rival Readings" game to engage in an open ended inquiry with your writer. Tell us about the ideas, assumptions, reasoning or experience each of you brought to interpreting the text. And even more interesting, tell us what you discovered together in comparing your responses.

Wed. Oct. 9:
Post #5. Midterm Reflections: Look back at all of your B-board posts and write about your progress through the class and your involvement at the CLC. Include a reflection on and evaluation of three very broad things: yoiur reading (as reflected in your posts), your learning, and your contributions to the discussion and learning of the rest of us. This will give you a chance to pull your thinking together and evaluate yourself in order to improve during the rest of the term. Add a final comment: do you think your posts reflect your learning at and contribution to the Center so far?

Mon. Oct. 21:
Post #6. Inquiry Proposal: To prepare for the reflection meeting on Oct. 23, draw up a plan for your inquiry into an intercultural discourse, focusing on reading a situation or describing a practice. Describe your current hunches or observations about what makes this interesting. In addition, outline in some detail your plan for three ways you will go about collecting good observations at the CLC. Include a schedule with real dates for getting observations, comparisons, drafting and revising. Look at Chapter 8 of Problem-Solving Strategies for Writers for some ideas on how to frame a problem for inquiry. (Several projects are on reserve at Hunt Library.)

Mon. Nov. 4:
Post #7. Speaking as ....: Read an article that interests you from Kintgen or one of the published articles on reserve. Give us a 3-4 sentence summary of the topic and general argument so we know what your article is about. Then, bring the author to our table to help interpret something about the CLC experience. E.g., What issue would Erickson or Resnick & Resnick point to as interesting and what would they have to say to us? If you feel creative, write some of this post in quotes, as if you were the authors, speaking with their language, their point of view, and making their claims. Speaking as Freire, I would say ....

Mon. Nov. 11:
Post #8. Inquiry Update: Give us an update on your inquiry into intercultural discourse. What are you trying to learn more about through your inquiry? What discoveries have you made? What questions are still on your mind?

Mon. Dec. 2:
Post #9. End of term Reflections: By Monday, Dec. 2, post an entry to the mentoring B-board: Reflecting on Intercultural Discourse Strategies in Action: 1) Print out and review the portfolio of all your posts. 2) Write a reflection on and an evaluation of three very broad things: your reading (as reflected in your posts), your learning, and your contributions to the discussion and learning of the rest of us. This will give you a chance to pull your thinking together and conduct your own evaluation of it. 3) Add a final comment: do you think your posts reflect your learning at and contribution to the Center? Dr. Peck will be evaluating this portfolio for a) completeness and b) quality and substance of your discussion.

GRADING

READINGS for the Course:

Texts

Gilyard, K. Voices of the Self

Rose, M. Lives on the Boundary

Flower, L. Problem-Solving Strategies for Writers

Childress, A. A Hero Ain't Nothin' but a Sandwich

Kintgen, E. R., Kroll, B. M., & Rose, M. Perspectives on Literacy

Handouts and required reserve materials

Gee, J. P. "Literacy, discourse and linguistics: Introduction"

Peck, W., Flower, L., & Higgins, L. "Community literacy"

Yedes, J. "Playful teasing: kiddin' on the square"

Scholarly Publications:

Aston, J. A. "Collaborative planning and the classroom context"

Farb, P. Word play: What happens when people talk (selected excerpts)

Flower, L. "Negotiating the meaning of difference"

Gilyard, K. Voices of the Self (Chapters 2 & 3)

Labov, W. Language in the inner city (Chapter 5)

Oakes, J. "Keeping track"

Scollon, R. & Wong-Scollon, S. "Athabaskan-English interethnic communication"

Stroller, P. Black American English

Williams, M. D. On the street where I lived (pp. v-vii; Chapter 3)

Wolfram, W. All about dialects: Instructor's Manual

Wolfram, W. Ethical considerations in language awareness programs

Mentors' Final Inquiry Projects:

Applewhite, E. & Davis, D. Responding to uncertainty.

Ayoob, Michael. "Nigger"--As Bad as it Sounds?

Davis, T. Strategies for instigating an intercultural conversation

Dixon, B. Vectors and frictions: Should the lantern be a lava lamp?

Rosenstock, M. Transforming intellectual strategies into text conventions

Slater, D. Actions and interactions: Overcoming misunderstanding in collaboration

Sperger, M. Design me a bridge

Zane, T. An inquiry based on revision

Texts on Reserve:

Flower, L. Problem Solving Strategies for Writing (4th ed.). 1993. Harcourt Brace

Kintgen, E., Kroll, B., & Rose, M. Perspectives on Literacy. 1988. Southern Illinois UP

Bartholomae, D. (1988). Inventing the university. In E. R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll & M. Rose (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy (pp. 273-285). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP.

Brandt, D. (1990). Literacy as involvement: The acts of writers, readers, and texts. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP.

Childress, A. (1973). A hero ain't nothin' but a sandwich. New York: Avon Flare.

Delpit, L. D. (1986). Skills and other dilemmas of a progressive Black educator. Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), 379-385.

Erickson, F. (1988). School literacy, reasoning, and civility: An anthropologist's perspective. In E. R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll & M. Rose (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy (pp. 205-226). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP.

Farb, P. (1974). Word play: What happens when people talk. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Freire, P. (1988). The adult literacy process as cultural action for freedom and education and conscientizacao. In E. R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll & M. Rose (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy (pp. 398-409). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP.

Gee, J. P. (1989). Literacy, discourse, and linguistics: Introduction. Journal of Education, 171(1), 5-17.

Gilyard, K. (1991). Voices of the self: A study of language competence. Detroit:Wayne State UP.

Gumperz, J. J., & Tannen, D. (1979). Individual and social differences in language use. In C. F. Fillmore, D. Kempler, & W. S. Wang (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (pp. 305-325). New York: Academic Press.

Heath, S. B. (1988). Protean shapes in literacy events: Ever-shifting oral and literate traditions. In E. R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll and M. Rose (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy (pp. 348-370). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP.

Hull, G., Rose, M., Fraser, K.& Castellano, M. (1991). Remediation as social construct: Perspectives from an analysis of classroom discourse. CCC, 42(3), 299-329.

Kintgen, E. R., Kroll, B. M., & Rose, M. (Eds.). (1988). Perspectives on literacy Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP.

Kochman, T. (1981). Black and white styles in conflict. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Oakes, J. (1989). Keeping track. In G. Colombo, R. Cullen, & B. Lisle (Eds.), Rereading America: Cultural contexts for critical thinking and writing (pp. 459-468). New York: St. Martin's Press.

Olson, D. R. From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech and writing. In E. R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll and M. Rose (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy (pp. 175-189). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP.

Rose, M. (1989). Lives on the boundary: The struggles and achievements of America's underprepared. New York: The Free Press.

Scriber, S., & Cole, M. (1988). Unpackaging literacy. In E. R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll & M. Rose (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy (pp. 71-82). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP.

Scollon, R., & Wong-Scollon, S. (1990). Athabaskan-English interethnic communication. In D. Carbaugh (Ed.), Cultural communication and intercultural contact (pp. 259-286). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Williams, M. D. (1981). On the street where I lived. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Willinsky, J. (1990). The new literacy: Redefining reading and writing in the schools. New York: Routledge.

Flower, L. (1994). The construction of negotiated meaning A social cognitive theory of writing. Carbondale, IL: University of Southern Illinois Press.

Flower, L. (in press). Literate action. To appear in D. Daiker, E. White, & L.Z. Bloom (Eds.), Composition in the 21st century: Crisis and change. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP.

Flower, L. (in prep.). The negotiated meaning of difference. Submitted to Written Communication.

Flower, L. (in press). Collaborative planning and community literacy: A window on the logic of learners. To appear in R. Glaser & L. Schauble (Eds.), The contributions of instructional innovation to understanding learning. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Flower, L., Long, E., & Fleming, D. (in prep.) Hidden negotiations: When students construct meaningful arguments. (Tech. Report). Berkeley: National Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy at Berkeley and Carnegie Mellon.

Flower, L., Long, E., Fleming., & Wojahn, P. (1993). Learning to 'rival' in school and out: A window into the logic of learners. (Tech. Report.). Pittsburgh, PA: Mellon Literacy in Science Center, Carnegie Mellon University.

Flower, L., Long, E., & Higgins, L. (in prep.). The construction of a literate practice: Learning rival-hypothesis thinking.

Flower, L., Wallace, D. L., Norris, L., & Burnett, R. E. (Eds.). (1994). Making thinking visible: Writing, collaborative planning, and classroom inquiry. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Higgins, L., Mathison, M. A., & Flower, L. (1992). The rival hypothesis stance: Thinking and writing about open questions. (Tech. Report). Pittsburgh, PA: Mellon Literacy in Science Center, Carnegie Mellon University.

Higgins, L., & Peck, W. C., (in prep.). How decision about youth are made in Pittsburgh and Allegheny County. Position paper on Youth Policy. Community Literacy Center, Pittsburgh, PA.

Johnson, C. (1992, May). Tina: A portrait of literate awareness. Unpublished honors project report. Carnegie Mellon University.

Long, E. A. (1994, May). The rhetoric of literate social action: Mentors negotiating intercultural images of literacy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University. Pittsburgh, PA.

Long, E. A., & Flower, L. (in prep.). Conflicting images, assumptions, and practices: Mentoring at an inner-city literacy center.

Long, E. A., Flower, L., Fleming, D., & Wojahn, P. (1995). Negotiating competing voices to construct claims and evidence: Urban American teenagers rivaling anti-drug literature. In S. Mitchell & P. Costello (Eds.), Competing and consensual voices. London: Multilingual Matters.

Peck, W. C. (1991, May). Community advocacy: Composing for action. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University. Pittsburgh, PA.

Peck, W. C., Flower, L., & Higgins, L. (1995). Community literacy. College Composition and Communications, 46 (2), 199-222.