The Council of Writing Program AdministratorsResearch Grant Recipients

Note: a copy of this information is available to logged-in site users as an attachment that can be downloaded and printed. See the link at the bottom of this page.

Lindemann, Erika. “Composition and Rhetoric: An Annual Annotated Bibliography.” 1982. UNC-Chapel Hill

Award: $250

Strenski, Ellen. “TAs: The Invisible Essential in Writing across the Curriculum at Research Universities.” 1989. UCLA

Award: $284.40

Rose, Shirley K. and Little, Sherry. “A Comparative Study of Programs and Philosophies for Teaching Teaching Assistants.” 1989. San Diego State

Award: $300

Sommers, Jeffrey. “A Program in Portfolio Writing Assessment.” 1990. Miami University

Award: $500

Ebest, Sally Barr. "The Status of Women in Composition." 1992. University if Missouri-St. Louis

Award: $300

Papers & Presentations

·        Ebest, Sally Barr. "Gender Differences in Writing Program Administration." WPA: The Journal of Writing Program Administration (Spring 1995): 53-73.

·        "Finding One's Voice." Conference on College Composition and Communication. Washington, D.C. March, 1995.

Ebest, Sally Barr. "Preparing Graduate Students for Writing Program Administration." 1995. University if Missouri-St. Louis

Award: $871

Publications & Presentations:

·        "How Are Comp/Rhet Graduate Students Being Prepared to be WPAs? A Report from the Field." Conference on College Composition and Communication. Milwaukee, WI. March, 1996.

·        "Preparing the Next Generation of WPAs." Women's Program Council Fall Conference. St. Louis, MO. October 16, 1997.

·        "Breaking Precedent: Preparing Graduate Students to Teach." Conference on College Composition and Communication, Chicago, IL. April 2, 1998.

·        Ebest, Sally Barr. "Preparing the Next Generation of WPAs." WPA: The Journal of Writing Program Administration (Spring 1999): 66-85.

·        Ebest, Sally Barr. Changing the Way We Teach. (SIUP 2005).

Gradin, Sherrie and Duncan Carter. [Study of the teaching of writing in Portland State’s new general education program]. 1995. Portland State University

Award: $2,000

McLeod, Susan. “Whither WAC?” 1995. Washington State University

Award: $2,000

Publications and Presentations:

·        McLeod, Susan and Eric Miraglia. "Whither WAC?  Interpreting the Stories/Histories of Mature WAC Programs." WPA: The Journal of Writing Program Administration. (Spring 1997): 46-65.

Sewell, Lauren. [Study of how new TAs develop a sense of authority, both as teachers and as novice members of our discipline during their first year in a writing program]. 1995. University of Louisville

Award: $1,745

Townsend, Martha. [Study of how teaching writing-intensive courses affects the tenure cases of junior faculty across disciplines]. 1995. University of Missouri at Columbia

Award: $2,000

Holt, Mara. and Leon Anderson. [Focus group interviews, one phase of a planned multi-method study of how WPAs manage and negotiate conflict]. 1996. Ohio University

Award: $1,800

Harrington, Susanmarie. [Placement rating systems that use group reading sessions and rely on teacher experience in the classroom rather than on norming sessions with scoring rubrics]. 1996. Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis

Award: $978.60

Devitt, Amy and Mary Jo Reiff. [Role of teaching teams in ensuring continuity among classes in the Freshman-Sophomore English sequence, maintaining standards, and making the work of administration more collaborative and collegial]. 1996. University of Kansas

Award: $2,000

Publication and Presentations:

•   "Creating Community, Collaboration and Consistency:  The Use of Teaching Teams in Writing Program Administration" (with Angela Jones and Mary Jo Reiff).  Issues in Writing 11 (2000).  28-63.

Mathieu, Paula and Ken McAllister. “Digital Articulacy Project.” 1997. University of Illinois at Chicago

Award: $1,000

Publications and Presentations:

·        Mathieu, Paula. "Teaching Writing and Reading Cultures." Conference on College Composition and Communication. 1998.

Ballenger, Kelly, Mary Jo Reiff, and Clyde Moneyhun. “Going Online with WAC.” 1997. Youngstown State University

Award: $1,000

McCormick, Kathleen. “The WPA and the Centrality of Academic Intellectual Work.” 1997. University of Hartford

Award: $1,000

McQueeney, Pat. “Writing in Large Classes: Operative Variables." 1998. University of Kansas

Award: $2,000

Gilliam, Alice. "Investigating Alternative Models of Writing Program Administration: A Case Study and Survey." 1998. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Award: $950

Desmet, Christy and Kathy Houff. “Mainstreaming Computer Instruction in a Large Freshman Composition Program.” 1999. University of Georgia

Award: $1,000

Boehm, Diane and Eric Gardner. “Teachers in the Center.” 1999. Saginaw Valley State

Award: $900

Publications and Presentations:

 

• Boehm, Diane, Eric Gardner, Deborah Huntley, Gary M. Lange, and Andrew Swihart; "Teachers in the (Writing) Center," WPA:  Writing Program Administration 25.1-2 (Fall/Winter 2001):  9-23.
• Diane Boehm, Eric Gardner, Deb Huntley, and Gary Lange, "Teachers in the Center."  East Central Writing Centers Association, Lansing Community College, Lansing, MI.  March 2000.
• Diane Boehm, "Teachers in the (Writing) Center:  A Research Study."  Writing Program Administrators (WPA) National Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina, July 2000.
• Diane Boehm, Eric Gardner, Deb Huntley, Gary Lange, and Andrew Swihart. "Teachers in the (Writing) Center." Twentieth Annual Lilly Conference on College Teaching, Miami U., Oxford, Ohio. November 2000.
• Diane Boehm, Eric Gardner and Deb Huntley. "Teachers in the (Writing) Center." Lilly Conference on College and University Teaching--North, Ferris State U., Big Rapids, MI.  September 2001.

 Summary of project:Research grant to study the impact of Teachers in the Center (Saginaw Valley State University program in which faculty in various disciplines volunteer to work with students in the SVSU Writing Center. Participating faculty reported greater awareness of the issues facing student writers; greater focus on improving students' thought and revising processes; redesign of course assignments and of strategies and rubrics for feedback and assessment; enhanced commitment to developing student writing proficiency.  Hourigan, Maureen and Lizbeth Bryant. “Writing Program Administration at the Millennium: Composition and the Academy Revisited.” 1999. Kent State University, Trumbull Campus; Ohio State Mansfield

Award: $900

Kelly-Riley, Diane, Susan Webber, and Bill Condon. “An Exploratory Study of Problematic Writing in a Campus-Wide, Rising-Junior Writing Portfolio Requirement.” 2000. Washington State University

Award: $1,024

Roen, Duane and Greg Glau. “Enacting the Outcomes Statement: How do ENG 101 Students Exemplify its Goals and Objectives?” 2000. Arizona State University

Award: $2,000

Publications and Presentations:

·        "Using the WPA Outcomes Statement to Guide Students' Portfolio Construction." WPA Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina, 2000.

 Project Description

In 2000, Duane Roen and Greg Glau received a grant from WPA to examine students’ portfolios in Arizona State University’s (ASU) two-semester basic writing sequence.  Since Glau at that time was the Director of Arizona State University’s basic writing Stretch Program, we decided that information would be collected from that group of students. (Briefly, Stretch does what its name implies: it “stretches” ENG 101 over two semesters, to give more time to those students who enter college without a great deal of varied writing experience.  Stretch students use the same books and construct the same writing assignments, but do so more slowly, in smaller classes (for more information, see Glau “The Stretch Program” and <http://www.asu.edu/clas/english/composition/cbw/stretch.htm>).  For this project, we decided to collect papers from the second part of the Stretch sequence, ENG 101.)  In the spring semester, 2000, the 17 Stretch Program teachers were asked if they would like to participate in this research project; 12 of them submitted papers and permission forms from their Stretch Program ENG 101 classes. The methodology used to evaluate the students’ reflective portfolio letters involved a series of steps.  First, Glau and Roen developed a scoring sheet (See Appendix) based on the OS that the scorers could use to evaluate the portfolios’ reflective letters.  Second, the scorers numbered the portfolio sample and then randomly selected 130 portfolios to read and score.  Third, the scorers developed a rubric to explain what qualified as a 0, 1, 2 or 3 on the scoring sheet.  Our ranking was outlined like this: if the item from the OS is        

 

• not mentioned = that item receives a score of 0             
• mentioned = that item receives a score of 1
•  an example provided = that item receives a score of 2  
• multiple examples are provided = that item receives a score of 3

 Fourth, following the rubric development was a norming process during which the scorers utilized letters that were not part of the 130 letter sample in order to practice scoring and to practice consistent application of the scoring sheet to the portfolios.  These two steps were done to help the scorers establish a degree of interrater reliability.  Fifth, the scorers rated the reflective letters from the 130 sample using the scoring sheet.     Bergmann, Linda and Janet Zepernick. “Student Perceptions of Writing Across the Curriculum at a Technological University.” 2000. University of Missouri-Rolla

Award: $1,635

Fendley, Kimberly, and Erica J. Reynolds. “Twelve Writers Reading.” 2000. University of Arizona

Award: $1250

Takayoshi, Pamela and Katherine Willis. “Building a Methodology for Studying the Intersection of Writing Program Administration and Computer-Aided Instruction in First-Year Curriculum.” 2001. University of Louisville L’Eplattenier, Barbara. “Comparing Administrative Strategies of Women WPAs during the Progressive Era.” 2001. University of Arkansas – Little Rock

Award: $1,000

Leverenz, Carrie Shively. “The Ethics of Access: Three Contexts for Computer-Supported Writing Instruction.” 2001. Texas Christian University Kelly-Riley, Diane, and Bill Condon. “An Exploratory Study of Problematic Writing in a Campus-Wide, Rising-Junior Writing Portfolio Requirement.” 2002. Washington State University

Award: $1,300

Publications and Presentations

·        Condon, Bill and Diane Kelly-Riley. “Assessing and Teaching What We Value:  The Relationship (?) Between College-Level Critical Thinking and Writing Abilities.”  Assessing Writing 9 (2004) 56-75.

·        Kelly-Riley, Diane. “Washington State University Critical Thinking Project:  Improving Student Learning through Faculty Practice.” Assessment Update.(July-August 2003) 15.4 5-14.

·        Kelly-Riley, Diane.  “Washington State University Critical Thinking Project:  Improving Student Learning Outcomes through Faculty Practice.”  In Banta, T. W. (ed.) Assessing Student Achievement in General Education.  San Francisco:  Jossey Bass, (2007) 35-43.

·        June 2006, Promoting Critical Thinking in the Classroom, Workshop for Summer Institutes, Spokane, Washington.

·        February 2005, Workshop Leader for the Northern Nevada Assessment Conference, Two sessions on Critical Thinking, University of Nevada Reno.

·        February 2005, Assessing and Teaching What We Value, Core Curriculum Workshop, University of Nevada Reno

·        June 2004, From Sandbox to Mortarboard:  Promoting Critical Thinking K-20, three day workshop, Sleeping Lady Resort, Leavenworth, WA,

·        June 2004, Two day critical thinking workshop for Spelman College, Atlanta, Georgia with Bill Condon and Cathy Perillo.

·        March 2004, Two day critical thinking workshop for Core General Education Faculty at University of Nevada-Reno with Bill Condon.

·        August 2003, One day Critical Thinking Workshop Leader for University of Idaho Core of Discovery faculty.  Moscow, ID.

·        July 2003, Three day Critical Thinking Workshop Leader for CO-TEACH participants. Sleeping Lady Resort, Leavenworth, WA.

·        November 2002, Two-day Critical Thinking Workshop Leader for Wenatchee Valley College Faculty, “Articulating Expectations for Student Critical Thinking,” Wenatchee, Washington.

·        August 2002, Critical Thinking Workshop for the General Education Faculty at WSU with Bill Condon and Lisa Johnson.

·        “You can lead them to school, but you can’t make them think” Workshop at the Inland Northwest National Council of the Teachers of English, Moscow, ID October 2004 with Jason Johnstone-Yellin, Lisa Johnson, Karen Weathermon, and Collin Hughes.

·        “Promoting Critical Thinking K-20” AAHE, Denver, CO June 2004 with Rena Mincks, Jason Johnstone-Yellin and Bill Condon.

·        “Critical Thinking Assessment That Teaches:  Higher Order Learning That Matters,” Workshop at the Washington Assessment Group Conference, Vancouver, WA, May, 2004 with Bill Condon and Jason Johnstone-Yellin.

·        “WSU Critical Thinking Project Update.”  FIPSE Project Directors’ Meeting.  Denver, CO, December 2003.

·        “WSU Critical Thinking Project and Freshman Seminar,” with Kay Tronsen, Geoff Gilmore and Camarin Davidson.  First Year Experience Conference, Vancouver, BC, July 2003.

·        “Improving Faculty Practice by Integrating Critical Thinking Expectations.” Workshop with Bill Condon, Jason Johnstone-Yellin and Michael Delahoyde, AAHE, Seattle, WA, June 2003.

·        “An Exploratory Study of College-level Critical Thinking and Writing Abilities.” “Thinking or Writing or Social Reform or all or None of the Above:  What’s up in the composition classroom.” Panel presentation with Yvonne Merill, Irvin Peckham and Greg Columb. CCCC New York City, March 2002.

·        “An Exploratory Study of College-level Critical Thinking and Writing Abilities,” with Bill Condon. Poster Presentation at the WPA Breakfast, New York City, March 2002.

·        “Communicating our expectations to students:  Critical thinking in the classroom” WPA Summer Conference with Bill Condon, Park City, UT, July 2002.

·        “Articulating Expectations for Student Critical Thinking: Addressing Needs for Student Learning, Faculty Teaching Reform, and Statewide Accountability,” with Kim Andersen, Paul Smith and Karen Weathermon, AAHE, Boston, MA, June 2002.

·        “Fostering Student Critical Thinking within a University-wide General Education Curriculum: Student Access, Teaching Excellence, and Institutional Reform” Pacific Planning, Assessment & Institutional Research Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, May 2002 with Bill Condon and Lisa Johnson.

Strickland, Donna. "The Emergence of the National Council of Writing Program Administrators: A Comparative Critical History." 2002. Southern Illinois University Zawacki, Terry Myers, and Christopher Thaiss. "Alternative Discourses in the Disciplines: Implications for Program Development." 2002. George Mason University

Award: $2,000

Publications and Presentations:

·        Thaiss, Chris and Terry Myers Zawacki. Engaged Writers and Dynamic Disciplines: Research on the Academic Writing Life. Heinemann (2006).

 Ralph L. Walstrom and Mark Hammer, State University College at Buffalo State College, for "Reviewing a Directed Self Placement for Writing Programs: Concerns, Recommendations, Revisions" 2003 Amy Ward Martin, College of Mt. St. Vincent, for "Definitions of and Ethical Attitudes Toward Plagiarism Among Students and Faculty Across the Curriculum" 2003 Courtney, Jennifer and Christine Norris. "Establishing on Online Archive for Research in Writing Program Administration." 2004. Purdue University; University of Nevada-Reno

Award: $2,000

Cripps, Michael. "Seeding WAC: The Impact of Interdisciplinary Writing Programs on WAC Faculty Development." 2004. York College, The City University of New York

Award: $1,450

 Project DescriptionFaculty development initiatives are a central concern for Writing Program Administrators (WPAs) engaged in Writing Across the Curriculum(WAC) initiatives. The literature on WAC and faculty development is principally focused on helping existing faculty across the academic disciplines incorporate WAC pedagogies into their discipline-specific classes through the WAC workshop.The research described in this proposal explores the possibility that writing programs with an interdisciplinary teaching pool of emerging and recent PhDs form an alternative to WAC workshops. The principal hypothesis for this project is that these interdisciplinary writing programs seed WAC by exposing future faculty in the disciplines to WAC pedagogies at a formative period in their own development as college instructors. Ianetta, Melissa, and Shelley Reid. "More than a Feeling: Researching the Relationship between Writing Centers and Writing Programs in TA Preparation." 2004. Oklahoma State University

Award: $828

 

This study examined the role of tutoring experience in the formation of teacher pedagogy. It was comprised of two parts: a survey of writing programs that use TAs in the writing center (that part that's being published in WPA) and a study of the writing program at Oklahoma State University. For the latter, I conducted interviews with teachers who did and did not have writing center experience and asked them to respond to a set of student essays to explore any trends in response. 

Fishman, Jenn, Mary Jo Reiff, Bill Doyle, and Stacey Pigg. “‘Does it Transfer?’ Tracing FYC Students Rhetorical Practices across Multiple Mediums.” 2006. University of Tennessee-Knoxville

Award: $2000

Publications and Presentations:

·        Fishman, Jenn and Stacey Pigg. "Reinventing the University—Online" Paper presentation at the Computers and Writing Conference, Detroit, 2007.

Emerson, Lisa. “‘Are We Making it Harder?’ A Comparison of Online and Paper Based Writing Instruction Focusing on Subjective Cognitive Workload.” 2006. Massey University, New Zealand

Award: $1098.87

(a report on this award is available as a downloadable attachment at this node: http://wpacouncil.org/node/498)

George, Diana, Kelly Belanger, Marie Paretti, and Lisa DuPree McNair. “Reformist Opportunities: A Study of Writing Program Partnerships.” 2006. Virginia Tech

Award: $1,997

 Presentations and Publications

Preliminary work has led to the co-authored paper, "Outcomes Assessment as a Site of Integration: ABET Meets the Council of Writing Program Administrators," Marie Paretti, Lisa McNair, Kelly Belanger, and Diana George. It will be presented by Marie Paretti and Lisa McNair at the 2007 Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education on Monday, June 25, 2007.The next project connected with this research is to draft a paper for submission to WPA Journal.

 Project Description:

One key challenge of writing program cross-disciplinary collaborations has been reciprocity--that is, achieving collaborations that inform both the writing program and partner disciplines rather than simply delivering courses or supporting cross-disciplinary instruction. To address that issue, the Virginia Tech Composition Program formed a partnership with Virginia Tech's Engineering Education Department. Our aim was both national and local. Nationally, we surveyed programs to identify past and current partnerships and their degree of reciprocity or perceived reciprocity. Locally, we are conducting a case study of a composition sections linked to first-year students in Engineering Education courses that clearly keep both ABET and WPA Outcomes in the forefront of course design and delivery.

Bawarshi, Anis. "Accessing Academic Discourse: The Influence of First-Year Composition Students’ Prior Genre Knowledge." 2007. University of Washington

Award: $2,000

McClure, Randall. "Researching the Presence of Advocacy and Commercial Websites in Research Essays of First-Year Composition Students." 2007. Minnesota State University, Mankato

Award: $1,500

Reid, Shelley. "Theories and Practices: Problem-Solving Strategies of New and Continuing Composition Teaching Assistants." 2007. George Mason University

Award: $1,113

Rowan, Karen. "Writing Centers in Minority-Serving Institutions." 2007. Morgan State University

Award: $1,490

  === 2008 WPA Research Grants Awards

Peter Dow Adams; Community College Baltimore County Diane Kelly-Riley; Washington State University Chris Anson, Susan Miller-Cochran, Matt Porter, and David Rieder; North Carolina State University

===

The recipients of the 2009 WPA Research Grants are

1. Sue Doe and Karla Gingerich full funding-$1980

“The Role of Direct Instruction and Assessment Criteria in the Development of Writing Skills and Efficiencies of Grading: Empirical Results for Review and Discussion”

Top-down writing integrations are often greeted with resistance by faculty in the disciplines and can thrust WAC and WPA scholars into situations where their expertise is needed but their preferred processes have been circumvented. One challenge in such situations is to persuade a reluctant faculty by building support after the fact. At our large, public R1 institution, a state-mandated writing initiative involving two colleges has yielded high levels of faculty resistance, although not from the Psychology Department, where graduate teaching fellows (the instructors of record) and their course director have embraced the initiative and engaged in ongoing professional development and multi-modal assessment efforts. In general, this department has shown enthusiasm for learning best practices for assigning and responding to student writing, perhaps because the graduate student faculty (competitively selected doctoral candidates) believe they are building their vitae. This study will build upon the Psychology Department’s successes and its desire to expand instructional and assessment efforts while also providing important information for other departments and colleges. It will query whether two specific instructional strategies positively impact 1) student writing (as measured through holistic scoring) and 2) GTA grading efficiency (as measured by time spent grading). The two instructional strategies to be tested are distribution of an analytic rubric to accompany the writing assignment and direct instruction in the development and support of ideas in Psychology papers. Development/support of ideas is one area of entry-level student writing that our Psychology Department faculty have identified as needing attention.

For this project, which has obtained Human Subjects approval, we will use a quasi-experimental Solomon 4 design, which controls for both change over time and change caused by the pre-test itself. The study will involve eight intact sections of Introductory Psychology with enrollments of 150-200 per section, for a total of 1200-1600 students. Each intact section will receive a consistent approach. GTAs will be provided training in holistic scoring by an experienced placement director. The study will also involve focus group discussions among undergraduates, GTAs, and teaching fellows to determine their responses to the experimental treatments. Among the questions we will ask of the graduate students are: What were the costs and the benefits of incorporating these approaches? Did the benefits outweigh the costs?  

2. Kimberly Harrison and Mike Creeden full funding-$1700

“Using Nontraditional Means to Meet Traditional Aims in First-Year Writing Classes”

At our large, urban, Hispanic-serving university, our first-year courses (approximately 150 sections each semester) have been capped between twenty-seven and thirty; eighty-eight per cent of these sections are taught by adjunct faculty, many of whom are not trained in writing pedagogy. Our context is not an effective one, and the ideal institutional change would be slow in coming. As program administrators, we could not wait for the ideal but needed to respond to our current context to improve delivery of our course content and student learning.

Thus, in Spring 2007, we began a pilot program in which we offered hybrid (two days face-to-face, one day online) sections of our first-year courses. In these hybrid sections, we strategically increased the enrollment cap in exchange for funding to hire five full-time writing instructors to teach the larger-capped classes with teaching assistants. These teaching assistants, doctoral students from departments throughout the College of Arts and Sciences, were funded specifically to work in the writing program, taking our four-hour graduate writing pedagogy class and working in a hybrid writing class.

Our working theory, developed in response to our limited resources, was that with smart technology, a small but strong group of full-time faculty, and well-trained TAs, we could create a “virtual” version of the ideal: a small writing class focused on student writing time and frequent feedback. Although the classes are capped at forty, the presence of two TAs and one instructor brings the student/faculty ratio down to about thirteen students to one instructor, while the hybrid course design (two class meetings face-to-face and an equivalent online) increases both student writing time and points of teacher/TA response. This model allows the benefits of small class size cited in Horning’s article: increased student writing, increased feedback on writing that result in increased revision, the development of valuable student/teacher relationships, improved grades and retention.

Our study will begin to answer the question, can we meet traditional pedagogical goals in our writing classes with nontraditional means? In this portion of what we see as a large-scale project focusing on both teacher and student development and satisfaction, we will focus on student success, which we tentatively define through student perception of teacher/student interaction, course satisfaction, perception of a writerly identity, achievement of course outcomes (measured through portfolio analysis, student self-reporting, and grades), and retention to the next semester of our writing sequence.

  3. Heidi Estrem full funding-$930

“Phase 2: Understanding the Problem-Solving Strategies of New and Continuing Composition Teaching Assistants in Multiple Settings”

The stakes surrounding TA education are high: at many institutions, TAs regularly teach hundreds (and even thousands) of first-year writing students each year. Their collective impact on entering first-year college students is substantial, and we desperately need replicable research on writing teacher development. This research project begins to address key questions about TA education: As instructors develop, what “sticks” for them? What happens as they work to negotiate teaching and are confronted by theories (in seminars they take and beyond) that might directly negate or repudiate the “brought theories” they have? How do they develop their own theories of teaching? This multi-year, multi-site study begins to address these important questions.

This funding is for a new phase of an ongoing research project, fully expanding this research to a second site. Phase 2 focuses on sustaining the yearly surveys for two more years (for a total of five years) and adding the yearly interviews at the second research site. The interviews are vital for contextualizing the survey-based data already generated. Through surveying and interviewing TAs each year, we are able to capture their insights over time.

4. Colin Charlton and Jonikka Charlton partial funding-$1390 “The Assemblage Project”

To investigate how WPA identities develop, the metaphors they put into play, the forms they may take in the future, and how these identities affect conceptions of writing and writing programs, we have designed what we've tentatively titled The Assemblage Project. Inspired by instruction‐based public projects like those of Marcel Duchamp, we would like to purchase and circulate several relatively inexpensive and small video cameras among WPAs. With each camera, we would include a set of potential questions and a set of filming instructions.

Contributors would be able to film responses to one or more of our questions and then pass the camera and footage to another WPA until it is returned to us for download and put back in circulation.

Contributors would also be able to see colleagues’ responses as the camera circulates, leading to a kind of extended conference or conversation on film, screened by the contributors while in creation.

=== Date of this version: 6/16/2009

Attachment	Size
grant_report_cumulative_with annotations1.doc	94 KB