Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Segall and Smart Revisited

Segall, Mary T., and Robert A. Smart, eds. Direct from the Disciplines: Writing across the Curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 2005.

We finish our multiple-post discussion of Segall and Smart with a potpourri of the writing instruction wisdom that abounds in the book. Susan R. Dailey notes that “uninspired writing prompts produced uninspired writing” so she revised her assignments until students produced the kind of quality writing she desired (68). Similarly, Pattie Belle Hastings and Valerie Smith experimented with having students write blogs, and found the results worthwhile (76). Sean P. Duffy found that short linked writing assignments and other pedagogical retoolings enabled him to summon “better writing out of [his] students” (122). Teachers weren’t the only ones pleased with the results of these techniques. According to Suzanne S. Hudd, students as well seemed to find writing multiple drafts of a paper valuable for improving their writing (135). Cornelius Nelan notes that instructors should grade writing differently, depending on the goals of the assignment (148). If the goal is for the student to learn or apply a concept, then concentrate on how well the student has accomplished that, and not on other features such as adhering to the conventions of standard academic English. On the other hand, if an assignment is what educational theorist James Britton calls “transactional” (158), meaning the focus is on communication between writer and reader, then more attention should be paid to this goal and accordingly to deficiencies in surface correction that might mar this process. Describing writing tutoring at Quinnipiac, Andrew Delohery points out a useful concept by asking instructors to distinguish between “HOTs” and “LOTs”: “HOTs--higher-order-things--correspond to the elements one might recognize as deep revision. Here, tutors attempt to focus their clients on issues of idea development, coherence, cohesion, organization--many of the tasks require more metacognition, which is definitely not the expectation of clients who use tutoring ‘to have their papers proofread.’ Initially, the clients, and often, their faculty, default to our tutors to provide the LOTs--lower-order-things--such as punctuation, grammar, and the like before their ideas have come to fruition or have been adequately developed” (162). As Delohery points out, there isn’t much sense in proofing a paper that needs more development in its ideas; it would be like painting a car that lacks an engine, even if it looks pretty, the car (or the paper) isn’t going anywhere. Delohery further suggests that instructors must make “sure not to overload papers with comments about surface-level errors and, thus, [create] the impression that more serious concerns are no more serious than a dropped comma or a misplaced modifier” (166). So, if a student doesn’t offer any support for her or his argument, focus on that aspect of the paper first and then deal with the comma splices later. Finally, as Smart and Segall, the editors, note, drawing on the research of Richard Light, writing is worth the trouble because more than any other factor, the amount of writing in a course matches the level of engagement by the students. And, student engagement usually equals learning, which is why we're here in the first place.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Walbaum, Shar. "A Cognitive Psychologist’s Rationale for Experimenting with WAC”

Walbaum, Shar. "A Cognitive Psychologist’s Rationale for Experimenting with WAC.” Writing across the Curriculum. Ed. Mary T. Segall, and Robert A. Smart. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 2005. 137-44.

In “A Cognitive Psychologist’s Rationale for Experimenting with WAC,” Shar Walbaum explains how commenting less on a student paper may actually be more beneficial than filling up a page of student writing with red ink (or ink of any color): “I learned that less is more: my old editing habits were very likely overloading students with too many details. As a consequence, my feedback was probably being ignored. this is just what Jean Piaget, the eminent theorist of cognitive development, would have predicted (Piaget 1972). If we have no way of making sense of new stimuli, we resolve the resulting cognitive disequilibrium by just filtering them out. For example, if I overheard a conversation between a Peruvian couple, I would be in a similar position. Although I know a little Spanish, when it is spoken colloquially, I experience information overload and simply stop listening. This is an adaptive response. If someone wants me to understand something that is being said in Spanish, he or she must speak clearly and simply (presenting me with a moderate amount of cognitive challenge). Similarly, if I want a student to understand what I am saying about his or her writing, I must express it clearly and simply. In other words, cognitive development is possible only when new information is moderately disequilibrating. (Of course, as a cognitivist, I was kicking myself for not figuring out this rule sooner.) During my three years at Mount Holyoke, I learned to ‘zoom out’ as I was reading student work and to look for patterns, whether in terms of micro or macro structure or content” (138). Walbaum also found that writing could be useful even in subjects not typically identified with it such as math (139). Walbaum argues that this is because “When we integrate writing into college courses, we provide scaffolding for young adults’ intellectual development” (143), enabling them to reach their potential by providing appropriate challenges that can spur further development.

Monday, April 27, 2009

McGeary, Signian. "The 'Just Right' Challenge"

McGeary, Signian. "The 'Just Right' Challenge." Writing across the Curriculum. Ed. Mary T. Segall, and Robert A. Smart. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 2005. 57-62.

Richardson (see previous post) was trying to guide his students in what we might call a “learning to write” assignment, wherein students develop the writing practices valued by their specific discipline. But writing can also be used as an instructional technique which can primarily focus in aiding students to learn the content of the course. In “The ‘Just Right’ Challenge,” Signian McGeary describes how she used “low-stakes writing to foster mastery of classroom material” (58). She utilized various writing exercises such as an in-class assignment that asked students to explain an anatomical process to help students learn concepts in occupational therapy and found that “The students appear to have much better overall understanding of the basic foundation that allows for ease of transition to a higher application demand” (59). This may be because the writing exercises forced the students to do more than rote memorization of the material. In the assignments, they had to think about the concepts on their own in order to successfully explain them to someone else.

Friday, April 24, 2009

Richardson, Dennis J. "Protracted Peer-Reviewed Writing Assignments in Biology"

Richardson, Dennis J. "Protracted Peer-Reviewed Writing Assignments in Biology: Confessions of an Apostate Cynic of Writing across the Curriculum." Writing across the Curriculum. Ed. Mary T. Segall, and Robert A. Smart. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 2005. 44-56.

Dennis J. Richardson, in the beginning of his chapter, provides a humorous look at the unfortunately all-too-typical approach to writing: “For years I relished lamentations shared with fellow biology teachers over the abysmal state of student writing. It’s the same old story. We assign a term paper: due at the end of the semester, typed, ten pages in length, doublespaced, a minimum of five references. The students wearily trudge through the assignment and ultimately turn in a seriously deficient document, to put it graciously. Then, the excruciating process of evaluation begins. After the third glass of scotch, one encounters the challenge of reading yet another paper that appears impenetrable to constructive criticism. Finally, there are the students’ moans as the papers are returned. they walk away tossing their papers at the wastebasket, contemplating yet another affirmation of their writing deficiencies, and I head off to the lounge to share my grief over the deteriorating state of western civilization due to student apathy and lack of basic English skills” (44). Fortunately, as Richardson knows, there are better ways to deal with such issues. As he points out, “I learned to my surprise that many of the perceived problems with student writing were in reality a result of pedagogical shortcomings of an assignments” (44). By using a process approach to writing instruction such as requiring students to turn in a rough draft and setting up a peer review process, Richardson found that he “was amazed at the increase in quality of student manuscripts” (49).

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Clark, Deborah J. “The Use of Peer Evaluations to Foster Critical Analysis of Writing in Biology”

Clark, Deborah J. “The Use of Peer Evaluations to Foster Critical Analysis of Writing in Biology.” Writing across the Curriculum. Ed. Mary T. Segall, and Robert A. Smart. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 2005. 28-43.

Deborah J. Clark writes, “Learning to write in a discipline-specific style, such as that used in the sciences, must be approached using scaffolded writing exercises, beginning with lab reports and other writing exercises in the first year and continuing throughout all four years of the undergraduate experience. The process of peer evaluating, followed by rewriting, and perhaps a second revision after instructor evaluation, is important. It is during this process that students derive many chances for reconstructing their knowledge of how to write—that is, losing high school habits and replacing them with appropriate skills for a college science major” (41). Clark also notes that students at different levels may need slightly different approaches. For example, peer editing didn’t work as well with first year students since the students were still learning the basics of scientific writing, so they couldn’t help their classmates as much while critiquing their writing (40-42).

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

O’Brien, Liam. “Building a Scaffolding for Student Writing across the Disciplines in Communication Studies"

O’Brien, Liam. “Building a Scaffolding for Student Writing across the Disciplines in Communication Studies." Writing across the Curriculum. Ed. Mary T. Segall, and Robert A. Smart. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 2005. 18-27.

Similar to William Keep (see previous post), Liam O'Brien notes that having students write a journal can be a good way to improve their writing without instructors having to grade every word (20-21). In general, students found writing useful for their education, even in courses not often associated with writing such as biology (see page 39 in Segall and Smart) and math (see page 148 in Segall and Smart). But merely including a paper in a course is not enough to achieve this success.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Keep, William. “Rewriting Business as Usual”

Keep, William. "Rewriting Business as Usual." Direct from the Disciplines: Writing across the Curriculum. Ed. Mary T. Segall, and Robert A. Smart. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 2005. 9-17.

In “Rewriting Business as Usual,” William Keep notes that although we often find writing in various disciplines to be quite different from one another. He states, “I listened with amazement as a political science professor described passive voice as a valued writing style. I began fighting against passive voice with my very first student, yet here was a respected colleague valuing a style I sought to dramatically reduce” (11). Keep also points out that writing in the same discipline can also vary significantly (10-11). These facts no doubt can perplex students until they have an understanding of the important role context plays in writing. Keep found that allowing and encouraging revision improved student writing. He states, “By providing such opportunities, we encourage students to view the improvement of their writing to be an ongoing and important goal” (16).

Monday, April 20, 2009

Segall, Mary T., and Robert A. Smart, eds. Direct from the Disciplines: Writing across the Curriculum

Segall, Mary T., and Robert A. Smart, eds. Direct from the Disciplines: Writing across the Curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 2005.

Direct from the Disciplines collects a number of essays reflecting on the implementation of a writing across the curriculum (WAC) approach to college education at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut. Although a couple selections are devoted to more theoretical discussions or overviews of the program, most of the selections offer an interesting look at how WAC has been integrated in the courses of a specific discipline. Disciplines represented include biology, communication, computer science, design, English, law, mathematics, occupational therapy, political science, and sociology. The beginning of the book also provides a handy guide to selections that discuss specific WAC techniques used in the classroom such as brief in-class writing activities, drafting/revision, journals, and peer critique. The authors of the selections make some interesting observations in the course of discussing WAC at Quinnipiac. Over the next couple of weeks, I'll be posting discussions of various chapters. The book is available through OhioLINK.