[…] We have opened up this article as an experiment in collaborative, open peer-review. JITP has always been committed first and foremost to teaching and learning, and we intended that the journal itself—both in process and in product—provide opportunities to reveal, reflect on, and revise academic publication and classroom practice. We are so grateful to Lee Skallerup Bessette for allowing her article to be part of this experiment that we hope will reveal and reflect on the peer review process in order to develop a model for better pedagogy in professional practice.  Continue reading, and participate in the conversation. […]

[…] of this article did, what might be lost as those frameworks change. Public peer review, as Renee McGarry and the editors of Hybrid Pedagogy have argued, can be used to reframe the goals of the review in […]

[…] Special Feature: Behind the Seams […]

[…] The Challenge for Post-Publication Peer Review (with an eye to finishing our Issue 7 Behind the Seams) […]

Lee, I would argue that this conversation is not just on the margins of comp/rhet but also on the margins of the humanities (in as much as comp/rhet is at margins of the humanities) and at the margins of higher education (as many claim the humanities are).

Perhaps that “etc” could be clarified and expanded to include the history, theory, and scholarship of the field. I think this gives more credence to comp/rhet as a serious field of study, not just a practice in the classroom.

I think you mean writing “instruction” (no s) in the first sentence. Also, Ann Larson has a lot of work on this subject here: http://annlarson.org/?s=adjunct&x=0&y=0. Also, can we make this a block quote so we can pull it out via our WP plugin?

Can you share some of the evidence that the establishment was seeking solutions?

This is really interesting! I think a connection to k-12 education is important and underutilized in higher ed scholarship.

Although selfishly, I think a nod to the Writing Studies Tree (writingstudiestree.org) and our commitment to highlighting and archiving mentorship in comp/rhet would be appropriate here. The fact that these relationships are important is the thesis of the project.

Perhaps a discussion of why distant reading would be informative here?

I would also like to see a definition of #alt-ac and perhaps a brief engagement with that realm. It seems to me many contingent FYC instructors are considering/have ended up in these roles.

“Twitter chats are non-hierarchical”–I am interested in this statement–is it about the architecture/structure of twitter? Is there something about the format that helps avoid the ‘disciplining’ comments received on blog posts? Are there ways that hierarchical power dynamics (tenure, academic celebrity, elite institutions, etc) fall away?  (Some of this is answered in the rest of the paragraph–but I think there might be something to be said about the mechanics of the space created.)

How does #FYCchat compare in number of participants to other education/academic chats? Are there non-hashtag-organized conversations about rhet/comp on twitter (i.e. a community of people in comp rhet that talk to each other/follow each other)?

Oh, exciting!

A footnote with examples of people who have attempted to address this might be helpful–para 6 has an example of one article. Are there other talks/articles/books/forms of scholarly communication/moments of activism and organizing that deal with this topic? (Might be a good thing to crowdsource!)

Could you close read some moments from the chat that connect to the themes raised in earlier sections? For instance, how does mentoring manifest? What kind of knowledge was exchanged? I’d love to see some tweets embedded as evidence of your earlier arguments. Also, it would be great to have specific examples of how the twitter chat manifested in your own first year writing classroom/pedagogy/career. What support & teaching resources did it provide to you? How does #FYCchat address contingency and a dearth of training among faculty leading first year composition classes? This last question might be bigger than a comment on this particular paragraph! You do a nice job of explaining the need and motivation for #fycchat, and you give a helpful overview of the life of #fycchat, but I’d love to see more discussion of particular ‘outcomes’ to use a sort of icky word, of the chat, assessing what #fycchat did well, what space it opened up on a disciplinary level (perhaps this would fit where you talk about # of participants).  There might be room, too, for some future-looking–a call for future twitter chats, or a manifesto for collaboration/community around first year composition/acwri/higher ed.

I learned something new today because of this post.

Most folks in the discipline call it first-year composition (FYC) rather than Freshman Writing, which is both old school and sexist. So change that?

I’ve been trying to find more constructive pieces and came across this which is a good roundup. It would be a good thing to crowdsource!

http://blogs.bedfordstmartins.com/bits/lore/spring-2009/considering-the-comp-lit-divide/single-page/

This is a comment.

Edited — thanks!

Typo near end of para “to” should be “the” (to become THE essay it needs to be)

The ending of this para confused me. I think you mean he suggested credentialing and u r suggesting informal, but it doesn’t read clearly.

I think you can bring in more literature supporting the marginalization of writing and EAP teaching. Can think of Susan Benesch and there must be hybridped stuff

MLA doesn’t ask for date so now i find myself wondering what year this was?

I would refer more to the work of Howard Rheingold and Mimi Ito (maybe u do, i am giving feedback as i go bit by bit)

There’s a fairly long history of using multi-user chats for co-mentoring and professional development, even within rhet/comp. With Becky Rickly and Eric Crump, I have a chapter called Creating a Virtual Academic Community: Scholarship and Community in Wide-Area Multiple-User Synchronous Discussions in Computer Networking and Scholarly Communication in the Twenty- First-Century University. eds Teresa M.Harrison and Timothy Stephen. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1996, for example, and although not a lot has been published about The Tuesday Cafe and the TechRhet Barn, academic mentoring conversations in real time chat flourished on MOOs, mainly during the 90s.

A couple of these links might help.

http://technorhetoric.net/1.1/news/intermoo.html

https://llk.media.mit.edu/papers/convergence.html

http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/1.2/coverweb.html

It might help the article if you acknowledge that this online chat-based co-mentoring has a rich history.

This is my favorite lorem ipsum paragraph!

As Lee suggests in this paragraph, her article went through the JITP review process before she and the issue editors decided to present it for public peer review.

I am following this for relevant information. Thank you !