Composition Forum 43, Spring 2020
http://compositionforum.com/issue/43/

Reading and Writing Diversity: Scaffolding and Assessing a Common Reader Initiative at University of Tennessee at Chattanooga’s Writing Program

Jennifer Stewart and Halley Andrews

Abstract: This program profile details the incorporation, scaffolding, and assessment of a large programmatic common reading initiative as a framework for other program directors to incorporate programmatic change and generate faculty buy-in. This profile describes the integration of a diversity-themed common reader used in a first-year experience program into a first-year composition program. The authors describe the main elements of implementation: selecting a diversity-themed common reader and preparing and executing multiple methods of faculty training. Additionally, the assessment methods of the program—including a faculty survey providing feedback on the administrative support and activities surrounding the common reading program, a survey collecting students’ diversity experiences, and student focus groups that collect the students’ responses to the pedagogical methods engaging them in diversity-themed work—are discussed. How the program’s implementation, faculty development activities, and assessment methods have been modified based on faculty engagement, student feedback, and survey results is also defined.

During the interview for the writing program administrator (WPA) position Jennifer Stewart now holds, the faculty member serving as head of our Common Reader Program (CRP) was on the hiring committee. He’d been receiving pressure from the Provost to push the CRP text into first-year composition (FYC). The head of the CRP introduced this request and asked Stewart how she’d respond.

Stewart: Do you want my real answer or the safe answer?

CRP Head: Both.

Stewart: Well, my real answer is I’m not sure it’s a good idea. A lot of work would have to be done to ensure that the use of the reader met the course outcomes, which are composition-focused, not literature-focused. And I’d have to understand the faculty better before committing. Would they turn the project into literary analysis? All of that makes me nervous.

CRP Head: And what is the safe answer?

Stewart: It’s an interesting idea. I can solicit some faculty to pilot it in their courses to see if it’d work.

One month later, Stewart accepted the Director of Composition position at University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC). UTC is an institution that serves over 11,000 undergraduate and graduate students. Students are required to take two courses to fulfill the general education rhetoric and writing requirements; the majority of students fulfill those requirements via courses in the English composition program{1}. Stewart serves as WPA to this program that consists of three rhetoric and writing courses: Rhetoric and Composition I (RCI); Rhetoric and Composition I with Tutorials (RCIT); and Rhetoric and Composition II (RCII). The English composition program uses a directed self-placement program the lets students select RCI, RCIT, or RCII based on their high school ranking, AP exam scores, and/or SAT/ACT scores. The program is taught by one or two tenured or tenure-track faculty (varies by term); 25 full-time, non-tenure track faculty; and an average of 15-20 adjunct faculty{2}. Each fall term, the program offers approximately 90 sections of Rhetoric and Composition, and in spring the program offers approximately 65 sections (RCI 45 fall/2 spring; RCIT 30 fall/4 spring; RCII 25 fall/58 spring).

A few months into the position, as Stewart acclimated to the institutional context of her program, got to know the varying pedagogical interests of the faculty, and assessed the program, she found a faculty and university working to improve its commitment to diversity. The university’s strategic plan lists diversity as one of its major goals, “Goal 4: Embrace diversity and inclusion as a path to excellence and societal change” (UTC’s Strategic Plan). Here, diversity means underrepresented groups of individuals; this designation could apply to race, value, interest, ability, or lifestyle. The FYC faculty embrace this definition of diversity and work to connect it to the concept that one aim of a liberal arts education is to create an informed, engaged citizenry; they engage students in researching their communities, investigating local instances of the growing gentrification in our city, and examining diversity-related historical events in their communities. Upon an initial overview of the FYC projects and assignments, using institutional ethnography as a frame (see LaFrance and Nichols; Skinnell; Sheridan; Cushman), Stewart found a program in need of more consistency across its multiple sections of FYC. RCI and RCIT had two required assignments: a synthesis essay and a rhetorical analysis. RCII also had two required assignments: an academic research paper and an annotated bibliography. The synthesis assignments in RCI/T were particularly disparate; faculty disagreed as to what should and shouldn’t happen in this essay. As Stewart assessed the institutional and programmatic contexts, she thought that perhaps the suggestion of a common reader in FYC may be a good idea after all. It would connect FYC more directly to the university’s diversity initiative, it would allow faculty to continue to develop and implement diversity-themed projects, and it would offer more programmatic consistency in varied first-semester classes.

The incorporation of a diversity-themed common reader project at UTC started small; the idea was that the program could bring this common reader into FYC with the hopes that its use could 1) broaden students’ diversity experiences, and 2) give students a tool box for discussing diversity concepts and having difficult conversations. The first point assumes that incoming students do not have broad diversity experiences; in order to determine if this belief is accurate, incoming FYC students were given a survey that asked them about their diversity experiences and their perceptions of diversity. Additionally, to assess if teaching with a diversity-themed common reader affected either the openness to diversity or their ability to participate in conversations about diversity, students needed to talk about their experiences in these classes. To that end, the research team, which consisted of Stewart; a nursing colleague who is engaged in the CRP program; and various graduate assistants, including Andrews, arranged focus groups among students in the FYC classes to determine how students responded to various instructors’ use of the reader in their classes.

As this study is ongoing and being revised annually (more on this later), in this program profile, we primarily focus on the incorporation and scaffolding of a large programmatic initiative as a framework for other WPAs to incorporate programmatic change and generate faculty buy-in. First, we detail the integration of a diversity-themed common reader used in a first-year experience program into a FYC program, including details from the common reader program itself as it is situated at the university, and faculty development methods such as piloting the text in earlier courses, running faculty book clubs, designing in-service workshops, and generating online source materials. Additionally, we explain how student surveys and focus groups are used to assess students’ perceptions of diversity and the pedagogical practices related to the common reader in order to identify those practices that best encourage students to interact with the reader in their FYC course; we also briefly preview initial findings from the first two years of a longitudinal study. Finally, we describe the use of faculty surveys to assess these training and development activities, and a heuristic of assessment materials is included. How the common reader program’s implementation, faculty development activities, and assessment methods have been modified based on faculty engagement, student feedback, and initial survey results is also presented.

Common reading experiences as they are incorporated into a first-year experience program have been discussed by many scholars (see Thorne; Moser; Ferguson). Laufgraben, in Common Reading Programs: Going beyond the Book, contends that the most successful CREs “target a broad audience of students, faculty, staff, and community members and ‘adapt the goals, structures, and activities to fit the unique student, faculty, and institutional culture of their campuses” (13). Benz, Comer, Juergensmeyer and Lowry offer the most comprehensive examination of the relationship between Writing Programs (WPs) and the Common Reading Experience (CRE). They note many questions that have been largely undiscussed: “What roles can (or should) WPs have in relation to CREs? What possibilities and problems do CREs present for WPAs and our WPs? How do CREs and WPs work together (or not) to sponsor reading and writing practices of first-year students, as well as returning students, staff, faculty, and members of the larger communities?” (12). Their study of four CRE programs at various universities found that the affordances of these programs were greater visibility for FYC among the larger campus community and the enrichment of the content of the FYC course and interaction among FYC students. The constraints were that faculty felt overstretched in regularly having to make large changes to the curriculum, and that some faculty became resistant to the program. Overall, the authors argue that the most effective way to balance these issues would involve “writing programs with WPAs who can argue effectively for their programs and their writing-program faculty. Such leadership, in conjunction with experienced full-time faculty members, offers the most amenable circumstances from which WPAs can choose to respond to, strengthen, resist, and/or otherwise engage with the CRE” (29).

We can view the suggestions of Benz, Comer, Juergensmeyer, and Lowry alongside the calls in field of composition studies and writing program administration to recognize and address diversity issues in our programs (see Inoue). Sanchez and Branson call for FYC programs “to cultivate, nurture, and support curricular innovations or other pedagogical interventions that make room for nontraditional and/or disadvantaged minority students in the writing classroom” (49-50). García de Müeller tasks WPAs to work as racial activists, specifically claiming that “including texts by diverse authors is a political move but not a big enough one” and that we should also be analyzing, not merely appreciating, these diverse works (37). García de Müeller argues that writing programs too often ignore different racial experiences, creating a “colorblind” environment that does not accurately address the issue of race. In regard to students, she states, “In many ways, the students are affected by the identity of the writing instructor, the writing program, and the values brought into the classroom” (38). Pimentel et al. also discuss how diversity-themed approaches to teaching writing could be improved, largely by arguing that in order for a multicultural, diversity-themed text to be effective, the instructor must set up the reading and discussion in the correct way. They argue, “Including these works without deconstructing race reifies these writers’ place on the cultural fringe. The compositionist’s attempt to incorporate multicultural texts into the classroom without first deconstructing race and his/her own racial position make him/her culpable in marginalizing and othering these writers” (111).

Sometimes the instructor and the identity of the instructor sets the tone for the course, and often that tone is a white, cisgendered, heteronormative, and/or able-bodied experience. Christina Cedillo illustrates her own struggles with ableism and racism, calling for a change in the composition classroom to see all experiences and positions as unique instead of positioning the white, abled experience as the norm and everything else as a deviation. Similarly, Klotz and Whithaus suggest the implementation of “rhetoric of ambiguity as pedagogy” as a way to discuss race and identity formation. Based on student responses to Gloria Anzaldúa's Borderlands/La Frontera, Klotz and Whithaus urge composition instructors to promote the acceptance of ambiguity in identity (72).

As instructors consider ways to implement anti-racist pedagogies in their classrooms (see Phillips), we must consider that these pedagogical moves that address racism can be broadened to address other diversity experiences as well. For example, Blackwell urges composition programs to “decenter whiteness” (478). While many anti-racist pedagogies focus on overcoming the prejudices of white students, Blackwell notes that students of color do not benefit from this type of instruction; instead, they often take on the role of teachers themselves, explaining and defending their experiences to white students. This type of tokenism can generate more taxing emotional labor for students of color, but this same type of emotional work is being done by LGBTQIA+ students, by disabled students, by non-Christian students, by poor students. Grobman moves the discussion out of the classroom, asking WPAs to fight back against racism via community engagement. As we see these calls for anti-racist pedagogies and incorporating more diverse works into FYC, we believe one way to begin to address these calls is to champion the use of diversity-themed common readers.

Introducing the Common Reader Program

UTC incorporated a first-year common reading experience initially in 2011, and that program was rebranded in 2015. The CRP is introduced to students at summer orientation, where they are told to purchase the text from the bookstore, read the selected book, and attend First Class, a 90-minute orientation week class discussion lead by faculty volunteers, many from the English department. One instructor said, anecdotally, that that at least half of her students had not read the book before First Class in 2018. Three to four of the approximately 20 students didn't even know why they were following her to a classroom or what they were about to do. Another three to four slipped away in the walk to class. However, she did hear others say that most of their students had read the book and were prepared in First Class. This disconnect between what students should do and what they actually do may be related to how they are told about the CRP. Students and parents are introduced to the CRP program via its website that states:

The [CRP] program at UTC introduces students to the academic and intellectual culture of university life. The program provides a positive reading experience for students, faculty, and staff, one that holds at its core the belief that reading is an integral part of the university experience. Likewise, the program fosters a sense of community among students, faculty, and staff.

Because the selected [CRP] book is not intended to be specific to any one academic discipline, students, faculty, and staff find the book and its subject matter a touchstone for reference and discussion across the campus.

As students register for classes or attend their freshman orientation, they are directed to a website that presents this information about the CRP program:

All incoming first-year students are expected to read the [CRP] book. Since there is an expectation that you will have completed the book by the first week of school, failure to do so may result in poor classroom performance and a sense that you are “behind” before classes have even begun.

At UTC, the composition program is the only program that consistently adopts the CRP text; therefore, in addition to the introduction to the common reader on the university website, the composition program introduces and discusses the text as well. In its custom FYC textbook, specific information is included regarding the CRP title. The text below identifies for students 1) how the CRP text was selected, and 2) how it will be used in their RCI/T course:

All [RCI/T] courses will incorporate the [CRP] text into the course in some meaningful way. The entire UTC community—students, faculty, and staff—was invited to submit suggestions regarding the book for the coming academic year. Each [CRP] text is used in [RCI/T] because of its:

• Relevance to first-year students, current society, or local community

• Accurate and respectful portrayals of diverse cultures

• Potential to spark lively discussion

In Rhetoric and Composition I, you may engage with the CRP text in many ways.

Content Discussion
By asking you to engage in discussions of reading material, instructors help you develop and refine their ability to engage in civil discourse with a variety of audiences: people who have different opinions, lived experiences, and backgrounds than you do.

Rhetorical Analysis
Some instructors may ask you to consider the rhetorical situation of your CRP text. As you will read, understanding and analyzing the rhetorical situation of a text is key to effective communication.

Composition Instruction
One of [RCI/T]’s course outcomes is that students understand, evaluate, and synthesize non-scholarly material; the [CRP] text allows students to engage in this practice using a text they are all familiar with.

As the section detailing the CRP program was written, a dual audience was considered: this section could both inspire new faculty to approach the common reader in a variety of ways, and it would indicate for students what to expect from their common reader experience in the FYC curriculum.

Identifying the Stakeholders

As many know, often the role of a WPA is to continually balance the needs of various stakeholders. Bringing in a diversity-themed common reader into a program of our size, with over 30 full- and part-time faculty, and for it to have a chance at being effective required that the faculty believe in the goals of the program and the institution and that they clearly see how this pedagogical move achieves these goals. In this situation, the direct stakeholders have varying levels of power, interest, and engagement; analyzing these investments and connections is key to the success of the CRP program as a portion of the writing program.

Those with the most power are the UTC upper administrators, specifically the Provost and Chancellor. The final selection of the CRP text lies with our chancellor, who supports this program as it highlights our previously mentioned strategic plan goals. We move to achieve this strategic plan goal by having FYC, one of the first courses students take, emphasize the significance of studying diverse perspectives and teach students how to have discussions and conversations about topics that some may find difficult or awkward. Upper administration provides the funding and support for the CRP program; their engagement in the program in this way is key, as it shows the university their investment in the program, and it supports those faculty who participate and facilitate the program.

Because the composition program is the only one that consistently adopts the CRP text, the program and its faculty have the power to shape how the reader is taught to the students. This pedagogical flexibility increases faculty interest in the program, and, in turn, that faculty interest can increase student engagement with the reader and diversity discussions as a whole. The FYC program is a foundational element of the undergraduate experience. But bringing a reader into a composition course can be risky: some faculty may want to teach it from a literary analysis perspective rather than a rhetoric and composition perspective, which would not meet the course outcomes. With a larger body of faculty, generating buy-in for the common reader is essential: faculty need support in bringing the diversity discussion into their classrooms in such a way that 1) honors their pedagogical perspective, 2) meets the outcomes of the course, and 3) connects to the university’s diversity goal.

Students come to FYC with varying expectations: some expect grammar instruction, some expect to write “the big research paper,” and some have no expectations at all. Students entering our institution, a university in a red state, are sometimes warned to be wary of their liberal professors; this potential for student resistance and hesitation requires that programmatic changes—and specifically ones centered around buzzwords like “diversity”—be handled with some level of delicacy and transparency. When considering the needs and priorities of all the stakeholders who engage in the CRP program, that delicacy and transparency needed was best served by establishing reader criteria.

Reader Criteria

As the program’s composition committee{3} considered incorporating the reader into our Rhetoric and Composition I courses, we spent a significant amount of time debating how to select a reader. Previous iterations of the reader had middling success due to content, length, or inaccessibility. We ultimately determined that the reader should be diversity-themed, non-fiction, recent, and approximately 200 pages. That the reader be diversity-themed is non-negotiable. Because we want FYC to become a place in which students learn about people who may be, think, and/or act differently than they are/do and a space for them to learn how to talk and write about these differences in a civil, respectful place, the CRP text has to be focused on some aspect of diversity. Preferably, we’d like to answer Burrows’ and Sanchez and Branson’s calls that we be more conscientious of the whiteness in our composition texts and select authors that represent greater diversity; however, as we mentioned earlier, there are multiple ways to represent diversity, so we seek to select texts from authors who represent diversity in race, value, interest, ability, and/or lifestyle. In the first year of implementation, Ta-Nehisi Coates’ Between the World and Me was selected. When deciding candidates for the next two years, the committee sought to vary the types of diversity each year, selecting next Sybil Baker’s Immigration Essays, which addressed immigration issues in the Chattanooga community; Keith Payne’s Broken Ladder, which discusses social inequality in its various incarnations; and most recently, Sally Roesch Wagner’s The Women’s Suffrage Movement, selected to coincide with the 100th anniversary of the 19th amendment.

As a committee, we prefer to select sources that are non-fiction; the primary reason we prefer non-fiction texts is the desire to have students engage with diversity in a real way. Of course works of fiction can ask students to consider positions and views that are different than theirs. However, students can also easily discount those stories as convenient fictions, but non-fiction is undeniable. And honestly, the truth is always more compelling and outrageous than fiction. Additionally, FYC programs traditionally resist brining works of literature into the course because the work can sometimes subsume the composition content; at our institution, students have a separate literature general education requirement, so keeping a clear delineation between the rhetoric and writing requirement and literature requirement is useful.

The two more malleable criteria would be that the reader be recent and approximately 200 pages. Having a text that refers to people and events the students are familiar with or can relate to is significant. We aren’t necessarily opposed to having a text that’s 10 years old, but remembering the audience becomes important. If the book is 10 years old, traditional students were likely 8 years old and may not connect to any cultural, political, or historical touchstones. The length criterion is the toughest criterion by far, but we’ve met freshmen. We want them to read the book. When Stewart arrived at this institution, the CRP text was The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. She hadn’t read this book yet, but most of the faculty spoke highly of it. Not a single student in Stewart’s FYC course read it. The overwhelming response from students was that it was too long. At 381 pages, their general issue is understandable. This criterion, however, is malleable. At 304 pages, Trevor Noah’s Born a Crime, one of the texts we considered for 2018, comes in just over the page requirement, but his witty, narrative style makes up for the length. Ultimately, finding a reader that meets all the committee’s criteria is nearly impossible, but having the framework helps us to narrow and focus our selection discussions.

Text Selection and Pedagogical Support

Each fall term the selection for the following year’s CRP text begins. Titles are solicited from students and faculty via email. The established criteria are shared with the faculty and students, and their suggestions are forwarded to the Composition Committee, which Stewart chairs. This committee reviews the selections and considers which text would be a good fit for RCI/T, and, as importantly, identifies texts that aren’t a good fit for RCI/T. From there, the list is given to the head of the CRP, who writes a report that provides a summary of each book and ranks them according to the feedback received. That report gets sent to the Vice Chancellor of Enrollment Management and Student Affairs who then shares it with the Chancellor, who makes the final decision. Since the composition program has become closely connected with the CRP program, the Chancellor has consistently selected our recommended text.

Pilot Courses

Once the text is selected, we begin the CRP spring pilot. The text is taught in the RCI/T classes in the spring term prior to the text’s adoption. For example, in spring 2017, Stewart taught Coates’ Between the World and Me in her RCI course, and two faculty members taught it in their RCIT sections. The purpose of the pilot is two-fold 1) to generate assignments that can be shared with fall faculty, and 2) to identify any potential problem areas and devise solutions to them for fall faculty. For these reasons, Stewart puts experienced instructors with skill managing diversity-themed projects on this pilot. As many WPAs know, first-semester RCI taught in the spring term is a tricky beast: several students enrolled have either put off RCI or they have failed it. Because of this fact, it is imperative that instructors have the right balance of empathy and accountability. They must have the experience to know that if a student (or several students) don’t attend class, it’s not personal. They know how to account for first-year students who are at times combative, afraid, and/or resistant.

Pilot instructors are paid an extra $250 from writing program funds (generated from our custom FYC textbook) and the CRP program matches those funds so the faculty will develop shareable course materials and attend at least one book club session per week.

Book Club

As these instructors develop their materials, Stewart plans 2-3 book club sessions for the approximately 20 instructors who will be teaching RCI/T in the fall term (see Table 1). Copies of the CRP text are purchased for and disseminated to the faculty and a comfortable reading schedule is planned. Recognizing that many of these faculty members are teaching a full 4-4 load of composition and literature courses requires that the timetable be manageable and respectful of their workloads. Additionally, the pilot instructors need to have had enough time to incorporate the reader into their class and have meaningful recommendations for their peers. Book club sessions are scheduled two days a week—one MWF and one TR to allow for faculty with varying schedules to attend at least one session. Pilot instructors attend as many sessions as possible.

Table 1. Timeline and Content of Pilot Book Club

Week in the Semester (15 wk term)	Content
Week 12	Introduce pilot instructors, general discussion of text in classes
Week 13	First half of the text
Week 14	Second half of the text

In the first year of the project, Stewart applied for and received a Promoting Equity and Diversity grant from our Provost which provided light refreshments for the book club meetings: coffee and muffins. In later, grant-less years, we used composition program funds to purchase refreshments. Providing refreshments at faculty gatherings is a kindness that generates good will, fosters community, and encourages attendance; as we know, many academics share students’ “will there be food” mentality. Finding a meeting space that is comfortable and well lit, preferably with natural lighting, also helps create a more positive atmosphere and increases the likelihood of attendance.

Online Materials

After the spring semester ends, pilot faculty submit all materials they used related to the common reader to Stewart, who uploads the materials to our composition program’s shared online space. These materials are organized according to pilot instructor so that they’re easier for faculty to find months later; faculty are more likely to remember that an essay prompt or activity was suggested by Instructor X, rather than the title of that essay or prompt. Additional readings are given their own section in the online space, as more than just the pilot instructors contribute these.

After getting feedback from faculty informally in book clubs, we determined having the materials online by the end of May is most ideal. Some faculty prefer to prepare their materials for the following fall shortly after spring term ends and having access to these materials is crucial to their pedagogical preparation. As the pilot instructors revise or update their materials for their own fall classes, Stewart adds those to the shared space as well.

Fall Pre-Semester Workshop

In our annual, mandatory composition program pre-semester workshop held the week before classes start, we offer a one-hour break out session dedicated to the common reader. This session is useful for newly hired faculty—often adjuncts—who were unable to attend the previous semester’s book club. These pre-semester workshop break out sessions are run by the pilot faculty, which also gives them the opportunity to discuss any changes they may have made to their reader-related projects or in-class activities.

Initiative Assessment

Assessing the work of this initiative has been the most challenging aspect of the project. As we mentioned earlier, we have multiple methods of assessment: faculty surveys, student surveys, and student focus groups {4}. For the purposes of this article, we are presenting a brief discussion of the types of assessment, their development over time, and how the initial results are being used to shape future assessment. Each spring semester, RCI/T faculty instructors are sent a survey (see Appendix) that asks for feedback on the CRP book club, pre-semester workshop, and online materials. In the first year of surveys, the survey link was provided to 47 faculty; 15 responded anonymously (32 percent response rate). Faculty surveys have been the most generative assessment method thus far. The faculty members are very willing to provide feedback and articulate how they would like to see the program grow and change. For example, they indicated that the book club sessions provided a priming the pump moment; it allowed them to begin thinking about their approach for the next term well enough in advance for them to realistically implement pedagogical changes. Thus, we have continued to hold book club annually. Regarding the online materials, respondents all indicated that the shared assignment sheets, videos, and readings were most helpful for their pedagogical development. The only criticism/suggestion from faculty was that we encourage more faculty to include their materials. This survey feedback has already affected future common-reader activities: book club has more focused discussions and the pre-semester workshop focuses more on implementation, offering faculty time to brainstorm and share those implementation ideas.

Incorporating a diversity reader into FYC classrooms is an attempt to help students broaden their diversity experiences and develop the tools to engage in thoughtful discussions about diversity. After diligently selecting the text and supporting and preparing the faculty, we have to ask if what we’ve done is working; we have to assess if students’ perceptions of diversity are broadening and if our instructional methods are aiding that in any way. To that end, we ask students to take a pre- and post- class survey that is designed to reveal their openness and exposure to diversity. Students are sent a Qualtrics survey link via their university email: once in the first few weeks of the semester and again in the last weeks of the semester. The 77-question survey in this study contains multiple survey instruments (http://bit.ly/diversityFYCSurvey). In 2017, 226 first-year students completed the survey, which represented approximately 8 percent of the freshman class. Too few students completed the post-survey to determine what, if any, change in the students’ views of diversity occurred.

While the survey collects data regarding diversity experiences of students, it does not ask students to reflect on the pedagogical methods used to support the CRP. To collect this data, we conduct student focus groups led by graduate students in our program. Graduate students are trained in how to facilitate and manage focus groups by reviewing Bloor, Frankland, Thomas, and Robson; Krueger; and Morgan. Admittedly, focus group participation has been the challenge of this study. In the initial year of the study, focus group participants were offered pizza and soda as an incentive. That year, of the 10 students who responded they were interested in participating in a focus group, two female students participated. In the second year of the study, in which $25 gift cards were offered as participation incentive, no students volunteered to participate in the study.

As this study progresses, we are continually having to amend the focus groups in an effort to get pedagogical feedback from students. Future focus groups have most recently shifted into the classroom itself. To ensure anonymity, students will be directed in a discussion of the incorporation of the diversity-themed common reader by a facilitator who is not their instructor. It is our hope that this move will generate data that can further inform instructors pedagogical choices related to the common reader.

This study provides a WPA with a mountain of data for analysis annually. Analysis of the data and responses will be the subject of future papers. While the purpose of this article is to describe incorporating the diversity-themed common reader and generating faculty buy-in, the preliminary findings of the student survey provide pedagogical guidance for faculty teaching the reader. For example, in both 2017 and 2018, survey results indicated that among the freshmen class, female students scored higher than males on the Relativistic Appreciations Scale and the Diversity of Contact Scale, suggesting that females experience and value the impact of diversity on self-understanding and personal growth more than males in this sample. Responding to this preliminary data, Stewart directed faculty in the writing program to be more conscientious about gender diversity when creating discussion and activity groups about common reader subjects. One significant and admittedly disappointing finding from the Fall 2018 data set was there was no statistically significant change to students’ pre- to post-survey attitudes toward diversity. Our intent is to survey students in their senior years to see if their diversity views have changed; if they have become more open to diversity, it could provide the university with data that their strategic plan is successful.

If We Knew Then What We Know Now

Data gathered from past and future surveys will provide our institution with a very valuable picture of their incoming freshmen and their views about diversity. As this project has progressed the responses and findings themselves have caused the data collection procedures to shift. For example, sending emails and adding incentives to the student survey was an attempt to keep the survey itself out of instructors’ learning management systems—to maintain their pedagogical agency. However, the reduced response rates have led to the pre- and post-surveys being embedded in the RCI/T courses’ learning management system as an assignment in an attempt to garner a higher response rate. Additionally, the finding that there is no statistically significant change in students’ attitudes toward diversity was disheartening; however it made us recognize that if our hope is that FYC gives students the toolbox to talk and write about diversity, it will take longer than three months for those attitudes to change—if they do at all. To that end, we will seek out those survey participants in their senior years—asking them to respond to the survey and analyzing if there is any change in their diversity perspectives.

Additionally, if WPAs at other institutions conduct similar surveys and focus groups and share that data, we can begin to draw conclusions about the diversity experiences of students and their reactions to various pedagogical approaches. While this information varies by institutional context, we have the potential to better understand our students on an institutional level and contextualize our students’ experiences among FYC students at other institutions.

From an administrative perspective, the diversity-themed common reader has strengthened the community and collegiality among faculty. Connecting the reader to our university’s strategic plan and among composition and rhetoric’s discussion of anti-racist pedagogy provides an exigence for the programmatic change. Ensuring that faculty have pedagogical agency as to how they incorporate the reader into their own classes honors the experiences and wisdom of our existing FYC faculty. Holding book clubs, workshops, and offering online spaces provides faculty with opportunities to share professional development materials, to rely on the supportive community of their peers to talk through pedagogical challenges, and to remain current in the professional discussions in our field. The common reader program and its assessment at UTC is shifting and growing each year, but as a model for generating buy-in and scaffolding programmatic change in a writing program, it is an absolute success.

Appendix

Faculty Survey Questions

1. Indicate which faculty professional development opportunities you participated in/utilized (select all that apply):

   1. Book club

   2. August Faculty Workshop Breakout Session

   3. Online materials in Blackboard

   4. Other (plus comment box)

2. If you attended book club, what did you find most valuable or useful?

3. If you attended book club, what did you find least valuable or useful?

4. What suggestions do you have for future CRP book clubs?

5. If you attended the August Faculty Workshop CRP Breakout Session, what did you find most valuable or useful?

6. If you attended August Faculty Workshop CRP Breakout Session, what did you find least valuable or useful?

7. What suggestions do you have for future August Faculty Workshop CRP Breakout Session?

8. If you used or reviewed the online materials in Blackboard, what did you find most valuable or useful?

9. If you used or reviewed the online materials in Blackboard, what did you find least valuable or useful?

10. What suggestions do you have for the inclusion of online CRP materials in Blackboard?

11. What additional comments or suggestions do you have to improve the training and preparation of the CRP program in RCI/T?

Notes

1. The history department offers a writing-intensive course that fulfills the second rhetoric and writing component; additionally, honors students have their own honors-focused courses that fulfill both rhetoric and writing components. (Return to text.)

2. More sections taught by adjunct faculty are offered in fall semesters than spring. (Return to text.)

3. As WPA, Stewart directs the writing program, but many programmatic decisions are made with the consultation of our composition committee, a body of full-time tenured/tenure-track and non-tenure track composition faculty. Situating these programmatic decisions as committee decisions, rather than director mandates is key—particularly as Stewart is a relatively new director. Because faculty selected for the committee are varied in discipline and experience and they are respected by the composition faculty as a whole, their input lends credibility and ethos to any decision. (Return to text.)

4. Research presented here was approved via the Institutional Review Board of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga #17-116 (student surveys/focus groups), #18-112. (Return to text.)

Works Cited

Baker, Sybil. Immigration Essays. C&R Press, 2017.

Benz, Brad, et al. WPAs, Writing Programs, and the Common Reading Experience. Writing Program Administration, vol. 37, no. 1, 2013, pp. 11-32.

Blackwell, Deanna M. Sidelines and Separate Spaces: Making Education Anti-Racist for Students of Color. Race Ethnicity and Education, vol. 13, no. 4, 2010, pp. 473-94, doi:10.1080/13613324.2010.492135.

Bloor, Michael, et al. Focus Groups in Social Research. SAGE, 2001.

Burrows, Cedric. The Yardstick of Whiteness in Composition Textbooks. Writing Program Administration, vol. 39, no. 2, 2016, pp. 42-46.

Cedillo, Christina V. What Does It Mean to Move?: Race, Disability, and Critical Embodiment Pedagogy. Composition Forum, vol. 39, 2018, http://compositionforum.com/issue/39/to-move.php.

Coates, Ta-Nehisi. Between the World and Me. Spiegel & Grau, 2015.

Cushman, Ellen. Critical Literacy and Institutional Language. Research in the Teaching of English, vol 33, no. 3, pp. 245-74, 1999.

Ferguson, Michael. Creating Common Ground: Common Reading and the First Year of College. Peer Review: Emerging Trends and Key Debates in Undergraduate Education, vol. 8, no. 3, 2006, pp. 8-10. http://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/creating-common-ground-common-reading-and-first-year-college.

García de Müeller, Genevieve. WPA and the New Civil Rights Movement. WPA: Writing Program Administration, vol. 39, no. 2, 2016, pp. 36-41.

Grobman, Laurie. Teaching Critical Race Inquiry. College English, vol. 80, no. 2, 2017, pp. 105-132.

Inoue, Asao B. Looking at Language to Learn about Race and Racism. Writing Program Administration, vol. 38, no. 2, 2015, p. 183.

Klotz, Sarah, and Carl Whithaus. Gloria Anzaldúa's Rhetoric of Ambiguity and Antiracist Teaching. Composition Studies, vol. 43, no. 2, 2015, pp. 72-91, http://www.jstor.org/stable/45157100.

Krueger, Richard A. Designing and Conducting Focus Group Interviews. 2002. http://www.eiu.edu/ihec/Krueger-FocusGroupInterviews.pdf.

LaFrance, Michelle, and Melissa Nicolas. Institutional Ethnography as Materialist Framework for Writing Program Research and Faculty-Staff Work Standpoints Project. College Composition and Communication, vol. 64, no. 1, 2010, pp. 130-150.

LaFrance, Michelle. Institutional Ethnography: A Theory of Practice for Writing Studies Researchers. Utah State University Press, 2019.

Laufgraben, Jodi L. Common Reading Programs: Going beyond the Book. No. 44, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 2006.

Morgan, David L. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., SAGE, 1997, dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412984287.

Morgan, David L. The Focus Group Guidebook, SAGE, 1998, dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483328164.

Moser, Janet. The Uncommon in Common Reading Programs. Currents in Teaching and Learning vol. 2, no. 2, 2010, pp.89-97.

Payne, Keith. The Broken Ladder: How Inequality Affects the Way We Thinks, Live, and Die. Viking, 2017.

Phillips, Jennifer, et al. Barriers and Strategies by White Faculty Who Incorporate Anti-Racist. Race & Pedagogy Journal, vol. 3, no. 2, 2019, pp. 1-27, soundideas.pugetsound.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=rpj.

Pimentel, Octavio, et al. The Myth of the Colorblind Writing Classroom: White Instructors Confront White Privilege in Their Classrooms. Performing Antiracist Pedagogy in Rhetoric, Writing, and Communication, edited by Frankie Condon and Vershawn Ashanti Young, University Press of Colorado, 2016, pp 109-122.

Sanchez, James C., and Tyler Branson. The Role of Composition Programs in De-Normalizing Whiteness in the University: Programmatic Approaches to Anti-Racist Pedagogies WPA: Writing Program Administration, vol. 39, no. 2, 2016, pp. 47-52.

Sheridan, Mary P. Making Ethnography Our Own: Why and How Writing Studies Must Redefine Core Research Practices. Writing Studies Research in Practice: Methods and Methodologies, edited by Lee Nickoson and Mary P Sheridan, Southern Illinois University Press, 2012, 73-85.

Skinnell, Ryan. Conceding Composition: A Crooke History of Composition’s Institutional Fortunes. Utah State University Press, 2016.

Thorne, Ashley. Common Reading Programs: Trends, Traps, Tips. Academic Questions, vol. 28, no. 2, Springer US, June 2015, pp. 135–46, doi:10.1007/s12129-015-9497-9.

UTC’s Strategic Plan. U of Tennessee at Chattanooga, https://www.utc.edu/strategic-plan/index.php.

Wagner, Sally Roesch. The Women’s Suffrage Movement. Penguin, 2019.