Preparing writing centers and tutors for literacy mediation for working class campus-staff

Writing centers work with writers; traditionally services have been focused on undergraduates taking composition classes. More recently, centers have started to attract a wider client base including: students taking labs that require writing; graduate students; and ESL students learning the conventions of U.S. communication. There are very few centers, however, which identify themselves as open to working with all members of the campus-community. Michigan Technological University has one such center. In the Michigan Tech writing center, doors are open to “all students, faculty and staff.” While graduate students, post docs, and professors preparing articles for publication have used the center, for the first time in the collective memory of the center UAW staff members requested center appointments in the summer of 2008. These working class employees were in the process of filling out a work related document, the UAW Position Audit, an approximately seven-page form. This form was their one avenue for requesting a review of the job they were doing; the review was the first step in requesting a raise in job level and pay. This study grew out of the realization that implicit literacy expectations between working class United Auto Workers (UAW) staff and professional class staff were complicating the filling out and filing of the position audit form. Professional class supervisors had designed the form as a measure of fairness, in that each UAW employee on campus was responding to the same set of questions about their work. However, the implicit literacy expectations of supervisors were different from those of many of the employees who were to fill out the form. As a result, questions that were meant to be straightforward to answer were in the eyes of the employees filling out the form, complex. Before coming to the writing center UAW staff had spent months writing out responses to the form; they expressed concerns that their responses still would not meet audience expectations. These writers recognized that they did not yet know exactly what the audience was expecting. The results of this study include a framework for planning writing center sessions that facilitate the acquisition of literacy practices which are new to the user. One important realization from this dissertation is that the social nature of literacy must be kept in the forefront when both planning sessions and when educating tutors to lead these sessions. Literacy scholars such as James Paul Gee, Brian Street, and Shirley Brice Heath are used to show that a person can only know those literacy practices that they have previously acquired. In order to acquire new literacy practices, a person must have social opportunities for hands-on practice and mentoring from someone with experience. The writing center can adapt theory and practices from this dissertation that will facilitate sessions for a range of writers wishing to learn “new” literacy practices. This study also calls for specific changes to writing center tutor education.

Multimembership and Identity in Writing Centers and in Industry: Examining the Work of Reconciliation in the Michigan Tech Multiliteracies Center and at Kimberly-Clark Corporation

Writing center scholarship and practice have approached how issues of identity influence communication but have not fully considered ways of making identity a key feature of writing center research or practice. This dissertation suggests a new way to view identity -- through an experience of "multimembership" or the consideration that each identity is constructed based on the numerous community memberships that make up that identity. Etienne Wenger (1998) proposes that a fully formed identity is ultimately impossible, but it is through the work of reconciling memberships that important individual and community transformations can occur. Since Wenger also argues that reconciliation "is the most significant challenge" for those moving into new communities of practice (or, "engage in a process of collective learning in a shared domain of human endeavor" (4)), yet this challenge often remains tacit, this dissertation examines and makes explicit how this important work is done at two different research sites - a university writing center (the Michigan Tech Multiliteracies Center) and at a multinational corporation (Kimberly-Clark Corporation). Drawing extensively on qualitative ethnographic methods including interview transcriptions, observations, and case studies, as well as work from scholars in writing center studies (Grimm, Denney, Severino), literacy studies (New London Group, Street, Gee), composition (Horner and Trimbur, Canagarajah, Lu), rhetoric (Crowley), and identity studies (Anzaldua, Pratt), I argue that, based on evidence from the two sites, writing centers need to educate tutors to not only take identity into consideration, but to also make individuals' reconciliation work more visible, as it will continue once students and tutors leave the university. Further, as my research at the Michigan Tech Multiliteracies Center and Kimberly-Clark will show, communities can (and should) change their practices in ways that account for reconciliation work as identity, communication, and learning are inextricably bound up with one another.

Legislative Legacy: Big Changes in Legislative Article of 1972 Constitution -- Jerry Loendorf, Arlyne Reichert & Rich Bechtel “In the Crucible of Change”

The fulcrum upon which were leveraged many of the dramatic progressive changes in Montana that are documented "In the Crucible of Change" series was the lead up to, preparation, writing and adoption of the 1972 Montana Constitution. As Montana citizens exhibited their concern over the dysfunctional state government in MT under its 1889 Constitution, one of the areas that stood out as needing serious change was the Montana Legislature. Meeting for only sixty calendar days every two years, the Legislature regularly tried to carry off the subterfuge of stopping the wall clock at 11:59 PM on the sixtieth day and placing a shroud over it so they could continue to conduct business as if it were still the 60th day. Lawyers hired by the Anaconda Company drafted most bills that legislators wanted to have introduced. Malapportionment, especially in the State Senate where each county had one Senator regardless of their population, created a situation where Petroleum County with 800 residents had one senator while neighboring Yellowstone County with 80,000 people also had one senator -- a 100-1 differential in representation. Reapportionment imposed by rulings of the US Supreme Court in the mid-1960s created great furor in rural Montana to go along with the previous dissatisfaction of the urban centers. Stories of Anaconda Company “thumbs up – thumbs down” control of the votes were prevalent. Committee meeting and votes were done behind closed doors and recorded votes were non-existent except for the nearly meaningless final tally. People were in the dark about the creation of laws that affected their daily lives. It was clear that change in the Legislature had to take the form of change in the Constitution and, because it was not likely that the Legislature would advance Constitutional amendments on the subject, a convention seemed the only remedy. Once that Convention was called and went to work, it became apparent that the Legislative Article provided both opportunity for change and danger that too dramatic a change might sink the whole new document. The activities of the Legislative Committee and the whole Convention when acting upon Legislative issues provides one of the more compelling stories of change. The story of the Legislative Article of the Montana Constitution is discussed in this episode by three major players who were directly involved in the effort: Jerry Loendorf, Arlyne Reichert and Rich Bechtel. Their recollections of the activities surrounding the entire Constitutional Convention and specifically the Legislative Article provide an insider’s perspective of the development of the entire Constitution and the Legislative portion which was of such a high degree of interest to the people of Montana during the important period of progressive change documented “In the Crucible of Change.” Jerry Loendorf, who served as Chair of the Legislative Committee at the 1972 Montana Constitutional Convention, received a BA from Carroll College in 1961 and a JD from the University of Montana Law School in 1964. Upon graduation he served two years as a law clerk for the Montana Supreme Court after which he was for 34 years a partner in the law firm of Harrison, Loendorf & Posten, Duncan. In addition to being a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, Jerry served on the Board of Labor Appeals from 2000 to 2004. He was designated a Montana Special Assistant Attorney General to represent the state in federal court on the challenge to the results of the ratification election of Montana's Constitution in 1972. Jerry served on the Carroll College Board of Directors in the late 1960s and then again as a member of the Board of Trustees of Carroll College from 2001 to 2009. He has served on the Board of Directors of the Rocky Mountain Development Council since 1970 and was on the board of the Helena YMCA from 1981 to 1987. He also served on the board of the Good Samaritan Ministries from 2009 to 2014. On the business side, Jerry was on the Board of Directors of Valley Bank to Helena from 1980 to 2005. He is a member of the American Bar Association, State Bar of Montana, the First Judicial District Bar Association, and the Montana Trial Lawyers Association. Carroll College awarded Jerry the Warren Nelson Award 1994 and the Insignias Award in 2007. At Carroll College, Jerry has funded the following three scholarship endowments: George C and Helen T Loendorf, Gary Turcott, and Fr. William Greytek. Arlyne Reichert, Great Falls Delegate to the Constitutional Convention and former State Legislator, was born in Buffalo, NY in 1926 and attended University of Buffalo in conjunction with Cadet Nurses Training during WWII. She married a Montanan in Great Falls in 1945 and was widowed in 1968. She is mother of five, grandmother of seven, great-grandmother of four. Arlyne was employed by McLaughlin Research Institute in Great Falls for 23 years, serving as Technical Editor of Transplantation Journal in 1967, retiring as Assistant Director in 1989. In addition to being a state legislator (1979 Session) and a delegate to the 1972 Montana Constitutional Convention, she has filled many public roles, including Cascade County Study Commissioner (1974), MT Comprehensive Health Council, US Civil Rights Commission MT Advisory Committee, MT Capitol Restoration Committee, and Great Falls Public Library Trustee. Arlyne has engaged in many non-profit activities including League of Women Voters (State & Local Board Officer – from where her interest in the MT Constitutional change developed), Great Falls Public Radio Association (President & Founder), American Cancer Society (President Great Falls Chapter), Chair of MT Rhodes Scholarship Committee, and Council Member of the National Civic League. She also served a while as a Television Legislative Reporter. Arlyne has been recipient of numerous awards, the National Distinguished Citizens Award from the National Municipal League, two Women of Achievement Awards from Business & Professional Women, the Salute to Women Award by YWCA, Heritage Preservation Award from Cascade County Historical Society and the State of Montana, and the Heroes Award from Humanities Montana. She remains active, serving as Secretary-Treasurer of Preservation Cascade, Inc., and as Board Member of the McLaughlin Research Institute. Her current passion is applied to the preservation/saving of the historic 10th Street Bridge that crosses the Missouri River in Great Falls. Rich Bechtel of Helena was born in Napa, California in 1945 and grew up as an Air Force brat living in such places as Bitberg, Germany, Tripoli, Libya, and Sevilla, Spain. He graduated from Glasgow High School and the University of Montana. Rich was a graduate assistant for noted Montana History professor Professor K. Ross Toole, but dropped out of graduate school to pursue a real life in Montana politics and government. Rich has had a long, varied and colorful career in the public arena. He currently is the Director of the Office of Taxpayer Assistance & Public Outreach for MT’s Department of Revenue. He previously held two positions with the National Wildlife Federation in Washington, DC (Sr. Legislative Representative [1989-91] and Sr. Legislative Representative for Wildlife Policy [2004-2006]). While in Washington DC, he also was Assistant for Senator Lee Metcalf (D-MT), 1974-1976; Federal-State Coordinator for State of Montana, 1976-1989; Director of the Western Governors’ Association Washington Office, 1991-2000; and Director of Federal Affairs for Governor Kitzhaber of Oregon, 2001- 2003. Earlier in Montana Government, between 1971 and 1974, Rich was Research Analyst for MT Blue Ribbon Commission on Postsecondary Education, Legislative Consultant and Bill Drafter for MT Legislative Council, Research Analyst for the MT Constitutional Convention Commission where he provided original research on legislatures, as well as Researcher/Staff for the MT Constitutional Convention Legislative Committee, from where he drafted the various provisions of the Legislative Article and the majority and minority reports on behalf of the Committee members. Rich has represented Montana’s Governor on a trade and cultural mission to Republic of China and participated in US-German Acid Rain Committee sessions in Germany and with European Economic Community environmental officials in Belgium. He is married to Yvonne Seng (Ph.D.) - T’ai Chi apprentice; author and birder.

Sirolimus-eluting stent treatment at high-volume centers confers lower mortality at 6-month follow-up: results from the prospective multicenter German Cypher Registry

BACKGROUND: Studies continue to identify percutaneous coronary intervention procedural volume both at the institutional level and at the operator level as being strongly correlated with outcome. High-volume centers have been defined as those that perform >400 percutaneous coronary intervention procedures per year. The relationship between drug-eluting stent procedural volume and outcome is unknown. We investigated this relationship in the German Cypher Registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: The present analysis included 8201 patients treated with sirolimus-eluting stents between April 2002 and September 2005 in 51 centers. Centers that recruited >400 sirolimus-eluting stent patients in this time period were considered high-volume centers; those with 150 to 400 patients were considered intermediate-volume centers; and those with <150 patients were designated as low-volume centers. The primary end point was all death, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization at 6 months. This end point occurred in 11.3%, 12.1%, and 9.0% of patients in the low-, intermediate-, and high-volume center groups, respectively (P=0.0001). There was no difference between groups in the rate of target-vessel revascularization (P=0.2) or cerebrovascular accidents (P=0.5). The difference in death/myocardial infarction remained significant after adjustment for baseline factors (odds ratio 1.85, 95% confidence interval 1.31 to 2.59, P<0.001 for low-volume centers; odds ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.29 to 2.21, P<0.001 for intermediate-volume centers). Patient and lesion selection, procedural features, and postprocedural medications differed significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The volume of sirolimus-eluting stent procedures performed on an institutional level was inversely related to death and myocardial infarction but not to target-vessel revascularization at 6-month follow-up. Safety issues are better considered in high-volume centers. These findings have important public health policy implications.