SIWP II

I took the second level of the Southeast Iowa Writing Project (SIWP) during the summer of 1984. It was in EPB on campus at The University of Iowa. The two-week course was taught by Cleo Martin and Jim Davis. As with Level I of the project it was a great learning experience for me.

Taking the course in the academic environment of the university was stimulating. It was additionally stimulating to be right across the hall from the famed Iowa Writers’ Workshop that had produced award-winning writers from across the globe.

Jim Davis had taught in the SIWP Level I that I took and was extremely knowledgeable about learning and the teaching of writing. He led the half of the class that focused on research and best practice. We had stimulating discussions and challenged each other on a daily basis.

Cleo led the afternoon sessions. She was an extraordinary person. Eventually she served on my dissertation committee. I’ll tell that story later. At the time she was head of the Rhetoric Department at the University. Generally, most people are a little intimidated by English teachers and even more intimidated by university level professors who are also department chairs.

That wasn’t the case with Cleo. She was one of the most gentle, kind people I have ever known. She was widely popular with project participants for years. She shared her gentleness and wisdom with hundreds of Iowa teachers and, I am sure, had a major roll in shaping language arts education in the state. Even more, she had a personal impact on many teachers and inspired them to seek additional education and improve their teaching skills.

If I took anything from participation in the institutes of the project it was a sense of calmness and gentleness in dealing with the writing of others. The structure of the project was to spend the mornings talking about what we were doing in our classrooms and research and professional opinion about teaching in general and writing in particular.

That process was affirming in many ways and disconcerting in others. Affirming because many of the things I was doing with kids were supported by research and disconcerting in the sense that some things weren’t. It’s dissonance that causes one to seek out better ways to teach. Without it there is no motivation to change.

In the afternoon we were in the position we put our students in all the times. We were to write and share our writing with the group. That can be an intimidating experience for even the most accomplished writer in the group. Sharing your writing with colleagues makes you feel very vulnerable.

That is where Cleo’s skill came into play. She provided written response in green ink to all papers. Teachers who had used a red pen to carve up student papers didn’t miss the symbolism of the color. Her comments were always positive and encouraging. It set the tone for the afternoon sharing. We all tried to take that approach back to our classrooms.