Exit Interviews: CWRL Staffers on the Job Market
Exit Interview: Tom Nelson
Each year, CWRL staffers entering the job market are able to capitalize on their experience working, teaching, and doing research in the Lab. This is the first in a series of “Exit Interviews” of departing CWRL staffers. These interviews are intended to record the value of the lab to professional development. Tom Nelson is finally moving out of FAC 14 to take a teaching position in the Focused Inquiry Program at Virginia Commonwealth University.
How long did you teach/staff in the lab? What roles did you fill?
The longest time possible these days, I think—seven years. I did about all the jobs you can do—first as a proctor and then two years as a developer. One year I maintained the site and worked on accessibility, then was editor of Currents the following year. Then I was AD when we developed the work group model. Then I was a developer again, working on resources for people making the transition out of the CWRL, appropriately enough.
You’ve recently completed a successful academic job search. Did your CWRL experience play a large role in your job materials? Did you talk about teaching, service, or both?
The lab figures in both my teaching philosophy and service record. Over time, technology has become more and more important to not only how I teach but what I teach. I really think that the humanities should take the lead in teaching technology, since it’s a human creation used for communication among (other things). So naturally I talk about this in my letter, portfolio, and in response to appropriate interview questions. Working in so many roles in the lab has given me a chance to think about this. Given the extent of my involvement with the CWRL, lab activities contribute a lot to my service sections of my letter and vita. I was sure to include descriptions of my various jobs so that it didn’t seem that I was just watching an open lab, or strictly a tech-head, but working with colleagues and developing pedagogical resources.
Did interviewers ask about the CWRL? If so, what seemed to be the source of their interest?
They did ask about the lab. One interviewer accidentally handed me her copy of my application letter with some other papers she wanted me to have. The only marks on my letter were an illegible scribble in the corner and two underlined sentences: one regarding the length and breadth of my teaching experience and one about my service to the CWRL. I think that the pressure to integrate technology in the classroom, and also to create truly computer literate students, is being felt across academia and in all departments. There are few places that humanities scholars can get that training as well as the CWRL. That said, I don’t think that people necessarily get what we do, but thought that we are more technicians than teachers, though of course most of what we do is to cultivate innovative (and hopefully effective) teaching.
How did you describe the lab in your job materials or in interviews?
I repeatedly used the phrase “nationally recognized unit that supports the teaching of writing and literature with technology.” Not the most graceful phrase, but I mostly wanted to make sure that people understood what goes on here i.e., innovative teaching.
Is there a specific project, such as a work group or developer project that you talked about?
I can think of several. One thing that I talked about quite a bit was white papers I wrote. I co-authored four or five white papers, which looked like padding on my CV so I just mentioned them in describing my service. But in interviews I was asked about collegiality and working collaboratively, and I referred to these as evidence of working with colleagues (not to mention thinking about teaching and administrative experience).
Do you have any words of wisdom or advice for people just coming into the lab? Either in regard to teaching and/or staffing?
As far as teaching goes, don’t worship the technology, but don’t be afraid of it either. We aren’t here to serve the technology, but to use it and teach our students to use to communicate and to manage information. For staffing, you get back what you put in. The CWRL is open-source in a way: your input, whether its in influencing your work group to incorporate your interests or participating in admin decisions. I started getting involved with the lab as a developer because it seemed more interesting than proctoring. At the time, I didn’t even know of “service” as a category in the world of academia. While teaching and scholarship will play the leading roles in getting you an academic job, you can be sure that hiring committees will want to know that you can function constructively as part of a group too.
Exit Interview: Mariela Gunn
This is the second in a series of “Exit Interviews” of departing CWRL staffers. These interviews are intended to record the value of the lab to professional development. Mariela Gunn, an outgoing AD in the CWRL, is a graduate of the Master's Program in Information Studies at the School of Information. She has recently accepted a tenure track position in librarianship.
How many years did you either teach or staff in the lab?
Four years. The first year I didn’t even sign up for the lab, but I volunteered to teach 306 for non-native speakers, which was in a CWRL classroom. That appointment didn’t require any staffing, so all I did that year was teach. Then my second year, I applied to be a developer, which I did for a year. Then I was AD, so I never actually proctored
What did you do as a developer?
Web development. The first semester we maintained the old site, and the next semester we began working with Drupal, our content management system.
How did you talk about the lab in the materials you sent out—in your letters and CV?
In my CV, I listed it under teaching and work experience. I also had a section called “Recent Projects” where I listed projects that had to do with the jobs descriptions, which often empasized designing and delivering library instructional materials. So I pointed out I had experience with Content Management Systems and so on. I didn’t talk about being a developer otherwise. For my letters, my AD experience allowed me to highlight two aspects of my work: one was administrative responsibilities and decision making, the other was Web development. Participation on committees was also something I stressed. I stressed technology in discussing pedagogy a lot too, explaining how it changed how I taught.
Did interviewers actually ask about the CWRL? If so, what seemed to be the source of their interest?
They hadn’t heard of it, and I assume they would not have asked about it if I had not introduced it and explained what it is—that it is a research unit in the DRW that encourages active learning and the use of technology in the classroom. Then everyone was very interested in it.
Tell me a little more about how you introduced the lab.
First I explained how it fits into the structure of the institution—it’s a research unit within the Division of Rhetoric and Writing. I took that right out of the annual report. Then I talked about the staffing model as a way to explain what people in the CWRL do—to show that in fact the CWRL is not a lab, but a place where people teach, help others with technical issues, and participate in research and professional development. On one occasion, my description led to a question about how I work in teams because the staff was organized in a similar way.
Were you asked any particularly memorable or unusual questions?
At one point I was asked about how online interactions take the learning process out of the classroom. I had shown examples of blogs, forums, and feeds. One person then asked how I encourage this activity outside of class, since class is filled up by lecture! There was a major assumption on my part that my audience understood the kind of active learning that goes in our classrooms. A lot of people still have very traditional notions of pedagogy. Even though it doesn’t seem that different to us on a day-to-day basis, we need to explain how our teaching strategies change with the computers in the classroom. I now realize I should have started with that.
What advice do you have for people just coming into the lab?
Teaching in the lab will allow you to discuss interesting pedagogical strategies for technology-facilitated instruction. If you want to build administrative and leadership experience, however, you ought to think of applying to be a developer or AD. The AD experience gave me great examples of collaborative and administrative activities for the job interviews. Having those opportunities in the CWRL has been invaluable.
Do you have any words of wisdom or advice for people going on the job market?
When you talk about the CWRL in your letters, spend a sentence explaining what it was. My interviews changed after I described what the lab actually does. People got much more enthusiastic after I described it so I think I would have gotten more or different interview if I had done a better job of describing it in my letters.
Also, make sure that you have materials that illustrate what you’re talking about in interviews. For instance a screen shot of an interesting blog post where students are reflecting on their writing. I gave sort of an academicy talk about technology integration into instruction. I had lots of references to scholarship throughout. At the end I had a few screen shots of things we do in the lab. My audience lit up when I actually showed them what an aggregator does, for instance. I think people only started to really understand how the theory and the practice come together at the end of my talk, when I showed my examples.
We can all talk very articulately about what we do, but sometimes we need to show what we do as well.
Exit Interview: Vessela Valiavitcharska
This is the third in a series of “Exit Interviews” of CWRL staffers. These interviews are intended to record the value of the lab to professional development. Vessela Valiavitcharska has accepted a job at the University of Maryland as an Assistant Professor and will defend her dissertation in Medieval Greek and Old Slavonic rhetoric in the summer
How long did you teach/staff in the lab? What roles did you fill?
Two years. I taught both 306 and Visual Rhetoric. I proctored and participated in o first the game development work group and then the visual rhetoric group.
How do you use technology in your courses?
I use it a lot in Visual Rhetoric. Almost everyday we look up some image online and analyze it. In 306, I used it less, but we did some in-class blogging and online peer review.
Has the lab affected your research in any way?
My specialty is Medieval Rhetoric, and believe it or not, technology is very important to my field. Since research materials are rare, we depend quite a bit on digital versions.
You’ve recently completed a successful academic job search. Did your CWRL experience play a large role in your job materials? Did you talk about teaching, service, or both?
I mentioned teaching in computer-assisted teaching in both my letter and CV, but that’s about it.
Did interviewers ask about the CWRL? What sorts of questions did they ask?
Not in the MLA interviews, but I did get informal questions about the lab during campus visits. One campus I visited didn’t have much in the way of computer resources, but thought that they would be integrating technology in the future. In answering questions about integrating technology into teaching rhetoric, I mentioned the video game the work group has been developing. They really liked the idea of the game, how it covers ethos, pathos, logos. One question they asked was “how do students respond to in-class technology?” Meaning, “Do you meet their expectations?” There’s this idea that students are so tech savvy that there’s nothing we can teach them.
I don’t think that’s exactly true though, do you? That students are that tech savvy?
Not at all. I think that’s the anxiety of faculty about a half-a-generation older than us.
Do you have any words of wisdom or advice for people just coming into the lab? Either in regard to teaching and/or staffing?
Work group projects are a great way of answering questions about technology use. You can answer pretty vague questions with detailed, knowledgeable responses. They will ask, because people are curious. We do impressive work here, so know what’s going on.
Exit Interview: Miriam Schacht
This is the fourth in a series of “Exit Interviews” of CWRL staffers. These interviews are intended to record the value of the lab to professional development. Miriam Schacht will defend her dissertation on mobility and transnationalism in Indigenous literatures this July. She will join the English department at the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh this fall.
How long did you teach and/or staff in the lab?
Six years of teaching.
What staffing roles did you fill?
I worked as a developer one year, as editor of Currents. For two and a half years my staffing was covered by my work as Creative Writing and 314 AD. (One and a half years Creative Writing, one year 314). The rest of the time I was a proctor.
How did you present your CWRL experience in your job materials? Did you talk about teaching, service, or both?
Actually, the first time out, last year, I didn’t mention it in my letter at all. It just seemed like something a lot of people did. But then an interviewer mentioned that his department was trying to integrate technology in some classes, so I described what we do in the CWRL. Then a friend who was on a hiring committee told me that they were really hoping for someone who had experience with technology, and so I realized that I really should have been mentioning my CWRL experience all along.
What we don’t necessarily realize—I mean those of us who aren’t in the Computers and English concentration—is that our experience here is unique and important. Like most of us who teach in the lab, I don’t teach technology per se. It’s just a tool for what I do. But the second time out, this year, I made it clear that I did indeed use this tool. I included it in my job letter, and also in the teaching statement, mentioning the kinds of things technology makes possible—the flexibility that comes with an online syllabus, for instance.
So, the second year out, did interviewers ask about the CWRL? What sorts of questions did they ask?
I got quite a few questions about teaching in the CWRL, which again goes to show how unusual our situation is. The question most of them asked was “What do you do there?” So I talked about how I integrate technology in my teaching, and the example I used was a web page assignment I give my students that requires them to describe their relationship to given texts and how their perspectives have changed over time. (I also used this when I was asked for a sample assignment.)
How about your other service, specifically the English AD work?
I got a lot of questions about that. As with the CWRL experience, that kind of administrative experience is rare for graduate programs. I had a separate paragraph about that in my job letter, and was asked about it in almost every job interview. I think that what the search committees saw there was a willingness to do administrative work, take on additional responsibilities, participate in committees, etc.
Do you know if anyone visited your website?
I list it on my CV, and during interviews a few people mentioned that they looked at it, particularly the syllabi for classes I’ve taught. It’s a pretty simple, obvious site, but it’s easy to navigate. Also, if you have your CV online, it’s a good reminder to keep it updated.
Do you have any words of wisdom or advice for people just coming into the lab?
The challenge I faced when I first started was not to let technology overwhelm content, especially since a lot of the technology was pretty unfamiliar to me. I’d encourage people to have their students do a web page—you can teach everything needed for creating a simple page with Dreamweaver in one class period. That’s something you know students will take with them. Also, since a web page is a more public document than a regular paper, they often do their best writing there.
Later, when you go on the market, be sure to mention your lab experience. Even if you’re not in Computers and English, even if you think you don’t do much with technology, you should still mention it, because it’s unusual and because a lot of universities have technology initiatives. They might not list it as a requirement, but it’s something that they are probably looking for.
Exit Interview: Matt Russell
This is the fifth in a series of “Exit Interviews” of CWRL staffers. These interviews are intended to record the value of the lab to professional development. Matt Russell, former CWRL AD, is finishing up his doctorate in Comparative Literature. He is still considering a few job offers and will accept one in the coming weeks.
How long did you teach/staff in the lab? What roles did you fill?
Well, I have taught and worked in the lab ever since I set foot on campus seven years ago. I started out as an AI and proctor before becoming a developer and AD. Aside from various administrative duties, such as working on the web site and Currents, I have seen and taken part in many of the changes that the lab has undergone in that time. I helped shape the new workgroup model for developers and staffers, and tried to help in the transition to the Drupal sites. Over the last two years, I’ve worked on the eFiles and Blogging Pedagogy through funding from an LAITS grant that I wrote with Brian Bremen.
You’ve recently completed a successful academic job search. Did your CWRL experience play a large role in your job materials? Did you talk about teaching, service, or both?
There are sections in our letters of application for academic jobs that are devoted to discussing our teaching and administrative experience. There are also sections in the CV that include “academic service,” “administrative service,” and the like. In my basic job letters, I referred extensively to the lab, my experiences in it, and the projects I worked on for both sections. At first, I included these experiences because, well, I didn’t have any other real ‘administrative’ experience, and because I had used technology in the classroom so much over the last seven years. I thought that they would demonstrate to potential employers that I had worked on some innovative projects involving technology and pedagogy over the years (a number of job listings stated that they were interested in “technology” in a kind of vague way). At first, I thought that everything I had done wouldn’t look all that impressive on a CV or in a letter, but, after listing those experiences in the CV and letter, they actually gave me an interesting profile. In any event, they definitely allowed me to fill out sections of my CV with accomplishments that were legitimated by an actual institutional program and that had some kind of weight in terms of the university.
Did interviewers ask about the CWRL? If so, what seemed to be the source of their interest?
Everyone asked about the lab. At first, I was a little surprised (silly me, I thought that they would want to discuss and become engrossed in the finer points of my dissertation during the half-hour interview). Eventually, I started waiting for people to ask me the following: “So, it says here on your CV and in your letter that you worked for something called the ‘CWRL.’ As you know, we are really interested in technology. What is the ‘CWRL’ anyway, and could you tell us what you’ve done there?” I found out that, while I could easily become lost in the finer points of my dissertation, points sadly lost in the blank stares of hiring committees, I had a lot of easily translatable, very clear things to say about the lab. Those interviews that were weighted more towards discussions of the lab, as opposed to those about my dissertation, were the most successful. I also found out that this focus didn’t detract from my appeal as a scholar (or so I continue to think!). Rather, I think that hiring committees became excited about how I could bring something to their own departments involving technology, and that this was a positive addition to my academic profile.
How did you describe the lab in your job materials or in interviews?
Normally, I said the “nationally recognized CWRL,” as, well, it is pretty prominent among those in the know. I spoke very specifically about what I did in the lab; in fact, the more detail that you can go into, the better, as you are listing your skills as a teaching, administrator, and the rest.
Is there a specific project, such as a work group or developer project that you talked about?
I’ve worked on a lot of projects in my time in the lab, and I chose to emphasize those which had the most relevance for the position I was applying for. I talked about my MEME award (yes, I was asked about that all the time), about eFiles and Blogging Pedagogy, about my time as an AD and editor of Currents. All I can say is that each CWRL-related entry that you put into your CV is going to be looked at quite carefully (like everything else), even if it doesn’t seem to be all that impressive to you right now. I was asked probing questions about all the projects I included; these questions were great because I could answer them with positive statements that reflect accomplishments. The more that you speak positively and about having accomplished things in grad school, the better.
Do you have any words of wisdom or advice for people just coming into the lab? Either in regard to teaching and/or staffing?
Well, I don’t know if I have words of wisdom, but I do know that everything that I did in the lab has proved valuable in going on the market. It has given me options, and options are always good. My advice, based on experience, is to get involved in projects in the lab and do things that are innovative, big or small. Don’t just check boxes and pass through the lab without gaining some of the professional benefits that could come your way later on. As a matter of fact, I would love to see a workgroup do a survey of English positions (on the Chronicle, the ADE job list and elsewhere) and find out how many advertise for “use of technology in the classroom.” I’d bet that the percentage is getting bigger every year.
Look, in all honesty, many of us in the lab think of ourselves as serious literary or rhetoric scholars. We happily and determinedly toil in these very traditional fields here at UT in the hopes of getting that great tenure-track job in the future where we can work with wonderful and engaging students. It is a nice dream; however, as you’ve heard time and again, the reality is that these tenure-track jobs are massively difficult to land, especially right out of grad school, and the competition is unbelievable fierce. And you’ve heard it time and again because it is true.
The work that you do in the lab can make the difference in getting a job, even if it isn’t a dream job, because hiring committees will consider how you spent all your time in grad school (well, most of it, anyway). Work in the lab gives you something to talk about with hiring committees that will separate you from the pack. Also, if you have a hard time on the job market, the experience you have in the lab can get you a real, full-time teaching job for a year or two as you prepare to go on the market again (I’ve seen this happen a number of times). I mean, until you go on the market, you really don’t even know what a “dream job” is (I really think that this is true, and I’ve seen UT grads have changes of heart after a year or two in a job that at first appeared perfect). Does it involve location, for example? Well, if living in a particular area of the country or in a particular kind of environment (big city, culture, etc.) is important to you, then you’ll find out that your experiences in the lab will extend your range of options. Like me, you may find that your experiences in the lab can get you a job that allows you to work on the texts (whether literary or not) that you cherish even if the job itself isn’t advertised that way, even if, in other words, you are hired primarily for your work as a teacher and administrator in a computer lab, and only secondarily as a brilliant scholar.