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.