CWCA Conference Workshop: Storying the Appointment Form

Dr. Nicole Caswell, Dr. Rebecca Johnson, and Steven Amador ran a workshop at the 2023 CWCA/ACCR (Canadian Writing Centres Association/Association Canadienne des Centre de Rédaction) Conference. In their workshop “Storying the Appointment Form,” the UWC administration team outlined the writing center’s consultant led revision of the appointment intake (sign-up) form with a trauma-informed (TI) pedagogical lens. The workshop had many attendees, all of whom were interested in the consultant driven initiative for inclusivity and empowerment.  

Dr. Rebecca Johnson opened the session by giving background on the trauma-informed pedagogical lens that consultants and administrators applied to revise the form. Dr. Johnson gave a brief outline of trauma-informed pedagogy (Shevrin Venet) for those attendees who may not have been familiar with the practice. Dr. Johnson also shared the ECU’s consultants’ and our administrative concerns with the previous version of the intake form. Mainly, the UWC student staff felt that some questions on our intake form bred bias or created barriers to students making appointments.  

Steven Amador detailed the timeline of the revision process in Spring 2023. Amador outlined the major steps in the revision process over the semester, chronologically by week, omitting other concurrent writing center research projects. Then he shared how, through weekly professional development focusing on TI pedagogy, as well as weekly meetings to explore those ideas more in depth, the consultants were able to draft and craft their unhindered vision for the new form. The updated TI-informed appointment form went live as of Summer Session 1, 2023. 

Dr. Caswell rounded off the presentation portion of the workshop by identifying trouble spots in our revision process. These included sticky points where student consultants may have not agreed on a shared vision for the new intake form. These were highly kairotic moments for pause, which afforded the consultants and administration impetus to evaluate these contended points through the TI lens. For example, consultants reflected on changing their feedback practices depending on the due date of an assignment. We worked through what responding to a due date might mean for writers. Even though a student may only have a few hours to implement revisions, that doesn’t mean we should not offer extensive feedback. A student could choose to ask for an extension after receiving our feedback, and we have no way of knowing what happens after a session. Through our negotiations, we opted to remove due dates from the appointment form and discussed ways to integrate that into conversation with writers instead.

After the 15-minute presentation, Caswell, Johnson, and Amador opened the floor with a list of focused discussion questions. Respondents voiced their appreciation for the revision process work and discussed similar consultant-led initiatives at their own writing centers. Overall, the presentation helped WC directors, assistant directors, student consultants, and WC enthusiasts to reflect on and interrogate the forms and delivery of their practice from a trauma-informed perspective.