Thursday, April 10, 2008

My Favorite Assignment

Last term my favorite assignment was a three-draft paper involving research and analysis. We called it the Biography/Dialogue. My goals for the assignment were to have students to get some basic practice in research, citation, incorporating sources, summary, analysis, global and radical revision, and thesis development.

Here were the steps, in a nutshell:
1st Draft
Choose a historical or well-known influential figure who experienced a transition in his/her life (we'd been reading the Autobiography of Malcolm X and talking about the heroic journey). Research this figure's life. Write a 3 page narrative that identifies what this transformation was and why it mattered (thesis). Use at least one primary and one secondary source.

2nd Draft
Imagine a conversation between your chosen figure, yourself, and one of the theorists or characters we've read, i.e. Erikson, Malcolm X, Mary Shelley, etc. Write a 3 page dialogue between these three people in which they have a discussion, i.e. they agree, disagree, draw connections, extend ideas of one another.

3rd Draft
Write an explanation of your dialogue. Explain why you think each person would have said what he/she said by supporting your ideas with actual quotes from the source. Determine what the main point or what conclusion might be drawn from the conversation. This will be the thesis of your Explanation draft. For instance, "Although ______ and ______ would disagee about _______, they would agree about _______."

What I liked about it:
Impossible to plagiarize
Don't get me wrong, plagiarism was rife in the first draft. That was, partially, the point. Because it was a report, almost none of the text was their own ideas. It should have been littered with in text citations. It was a great opportunity to talk about common knowledge and when to cite. But the second draft couldn't be plagiarized. They were to use no sources, just their imaginations and astute observations about what and how others thought.

Creative and difficult
Oh, they moaned and fretted about the dialogue! Moaning is often a good indication to me that I've done something right. So often my students want a clear template of exactly what I want them to say and how I want them to say it. This time they had to take a risk, use their own imaginations, and see what happened. I couldn't give them a here's how you do it exactly.

Separates interpretation and reporting
A difficulty I have with the traditional research essay is tearing open students' white-knuckle grip on their sources' words. I find it difficult to "teach" them how to not just say what other people said, but interpret/analyze what it means. This assignment allowed them to walk into the second draft alone, then invite their sources back into the third draft, but with the student as the driver of the information, not the sources.

Forces dialogic thinking,
a process critical to other necessary skills like taking good notes and having meaningful class discussions, not to mention creating a good thesis statement.

Mistakes I made
It would have worked better had we not let them duplicate public figures. I'd have liked to have more variety in figures, and have pushed them to have to search a little harder for lives that piqued their curiosity.

What helped
They had time to generate ideas in class and mentor session, to practice freewriting from different points of view. They were encouraged to notice and practice not only what their sources might think, but why and how they think and speak.

How else I might use it
I can imagine using the dialogue as a low stakes writing exercise for other papers, rather than something they turn in. Students could also "perform" these dialogue for one another: an alternative to traditional class discussion or presentations.

What is one of your favorite writing assignments or activities? Have you done something similar to the Biography/Dialogue?

Please pass yours on, even if you only have time to give us the nutshell. I'm an avid collector of good writing assignment ideas, and I know from meeting with many of you that there is a wealth of innovative ideas in UNST, even if we don't all have time to meet and share.

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

New Term Resolutions


Last term I co-taught two accelerated sections of  The Constructed Self with Victoria.  With this experience under my belt, I've returned to the classroom and the blog with some new insights into the challenges and opportunities of teaching writing to freshman in University Studies. 

At the end of each term, I like to sit down on my hindsight and make a list of "dos and don'ts" for future versions of the course and number them because there is something comforting to me about this.  Perhaps the numbers lend a sense of authority; I become the "woman with the plan."  Here are some of my current lists.

Classroom Resolutions
1.  My goal is to talk less.  Engage students in creating discussion topics, questions, and creating/finding class materials.  A particular challenge to me in freshman inquiry was class size.  Because small group activities demand more planning and orchestration, as well as more physical space, it was easier for me to rely on lecture format in a class that stressed the seams of the room.  It would be great to hear from others about how they accomplish a student-centered classroom in a tight space/time.

2.  Keep encouraging risk.  As much as students were made uncomfortable by our more open-ended and non-traditional assignments, these were ultimately the most successful in eliciting real analysis and critical thinking (stay tuned, more on these risky assignments later!).

I've also got some ideas about working with frinq faculty and mentors.  
1.  Host regular workshops for faculty and/or mentors to swap ideas and support.  
Some possible topics: 
* sharing your best writing assignments
* using creative writing to teach academic writing
* teaching research skills without the research paper
* incorporating revision in writing assignments
* teaching argumentation, drafting the portfolio essay throughout a term.
* critiquing our written instructions for assignments

2.  Collect and share writing assignment, exercises, and web-based materials such as this blog I like.

3.  Reorganize and update the writing center blog for undergraduates with frinqsters in mind.  

4.  Meet with students, faculty, and mentors during my drop-in hours: Tuesdays 9:30 - 11:30, 12 - 2; Thursdays 10 - 12.

Here's what you can do.
1.  Tell me what kinds of writing assignments you're planning this term and what writing challenges you anticipate.  Send comments to my email, post comments to this blog, or visit me in the Writing Center.

2.  Offer ideas about what to cover in workshops and when you can come.  Then come to them and share your expertise and wisdom.

3.  Send your students and mentors to the Writing Center, our website, and our blog.





Monday, January 7, 2008

Writing Assignments: The Rhetorical Triangle or The Bermuda?

Although it can make us tutors feel uneasy, much of what we do at the WC is helping students understand writing instructions from their professors. We are uneasy because we don’t want to second-guess professors, nor do we want to undermine their authority and expertise by admitting that we may not understand the assignments. We very often begin and end these sessions with the hearty recommendation to visit office hours and/or email their professors for clarification. Unfortunately, we don’t know how much our advice in this regard is heeded.

As both a writing tutor and instructor, I feel fortunate to have the opportunity to look at assignments from these two different angles. As I try to help students understand other instructor’s assignment instructions, I’m able to reflect on how and why I write my own.

Considerations of the Rhetorical Triangle in Writing Assignment Instructions

Writer:
In one corner of is the writer – the student; a position that may seem to students a fixed mark. But many freshman are still trying to figure out how to address and communicate with varied audiences and how their own new identities -- as college students, adults, scholars, roommates, etc. intersect.

A Freshman Inquiry professor recently shared with me an email exchange with a student who asked “can u hook me up with an A?” The student promised to do better next term. This talented and very patient professor graciously declined the A and pointed out how the student’s use of slang and unpunctuated text-message lingo undermined her argument. The contrite student thanked the professor, and very likely won’t make that mistake again. I count these kinds of writing incidents: tortured syntax, whiplash shifts in levels of diction, the difficulty deciding when and how to use “I,” as proof of students’ struggles to switch voices, to claim a new identity as a “scholar.” As an instructor and tutor I’m an informant, sometimes introducing students to new genres, the vocabulary and conventions of which may be very foreign to them, as hard as that may be for us to believe.

This unfamiliarity shows up in the Writing Center when we see students trying to decipher the basic vocabulary of assignment instructions. Just consider the word “reflect.” When I instruct students to reflect, it means “look back and analyze your experience and thought process. Look for epiphanal moments and draw connections between your experience and concepts/theories covered in class.” But many students are likely to be familiar only with the general definition “to cast back from a surface; to give back or show an image of; mirror.” In that respect, reflect might mean to summarize or reiterate.

While it is true that part of my job as an instructor is to introduce students to the rhetoric and processes of academia, I’m not sure my courses need be a full immersion program. It makes sense to me to first establish a common language, rather than let students flounder under false assumptions. While I can’t second-guess every word for common definition, I can search my assignment instructions for possible professor-ese. I can also ask students to paraphrase the instructions back to me as a way to turn up potential pitfalls.


Audience:
Of the three parts of the RT, audience seems the most difficult to pin down for students. It is also seldom addressed in the assignment instructions, nor in the class preparation for the assignment. I usually vaguely allude to it as “a general, well-educated population.” Last term, while working with a FRINQ student on his research paper, I was reminded of the unique and somewhat absurd fiction regarding audience that students must navigate in academic writing.

When I pointed out to this student that he needed to define the term “camera obscura” for his reader, he said, “but my professor already knows what that is.” Fair enough. I explained he was really writing for two audiences, an imaginary general audience, and the real professor, who is watching and judging how well the student is able to present information to the imaginary audience.

I listened to myself and watched his forehead crinkle. I thought about my explanation and suddenly pictured a TV cop show, the interrogation room, and the one-way mirror.

I realized that if a writer doesn’t have a clear idea of his audience – can’t picture them or relate to them in some way – he doesn’t know what kind of evidence is going to be convincing, what kind of vocabulary or diction is appropriate. It becomes difficult to establish common ground or ethos. In order to write well-reasoned arguments a writer needs to have a concept about the values his audience holds in order to appeal to them.

In a class I teach called, “Argument, Logic, and Style,” I have each student choose a specific audience whom she would like to convince of her particular claim (each student has spent a few weeks researching her own chosen topic) and write what I call an “eloquent letter” to that audience. Inevitably this argument is vastly better than their previous papers. I suspected, and they confirmed that they were able to write more convincingly because they were more confident about whom they were addressing. They could build arguments based on that particular audience’s values and needs.

I also have students write their final portfolio essay as a letter to me – by that point they know me well enough to know what I value and how to address me in a familiar, yet respectful way.

Consequently it may make sense to be more transparent about whom the audience is for each paper and to have some discussion about how to appeal to that audience. Or it might behoove instructors to have assignments address a variety of audiences, i.e. one that is directed at the class; one that is written as a position paper to present to an advisory board of a non-profit, one that is directed to university studies faculty, etc.

Purpose:
Donald Murray, in his book A Writer Teaches Writing, lists fourteen elements to consider when designing assignments. He gives Purpose, Genre, and Models their own categories, but to my mind, these are interrelated and connected to each corner of the RT. He advocates offering models to students as a way to define and demystify the genres and forms we are asking them to produce. He points out that freshman “may have no common idea of what is meant by such simple terms as essay, argument, narrative, fiction, non-fiction, or research paper. One student may think essay means argument; another may think it is creative writing – a short story. They may well have a clear sense of what another teacher has meant by those terms, but the students need a model in a closed assignment [one in which they do not choose the topic and form] especially if the teacher has a model in mind.”

He recommends having three models available to students that “present a range within the genre” so students aren’t painting by numbers. At times I’ve taken this idea further and either annotated or discussed these models in class, pointing out where particular moves that I value are being made in the model pieces. I collect student essays from past classes as well as professionally written essays.

When designing an assignment, Murray advocates making clear what the educational goal is. I often see purpose and goals listed on FRINQ assignments, especially in relation to “The Goals.” But I think there are different levels of goal, some that may come out of one’s area of discipline, and still others that we may not be aware of, that have to do at some core level with our own values as writers.

Recently, in a Writing Center meeting we invited an English literature professor as a guest. While discussing what we as tutors can do to help her students complete her assignments successfully, she talked about approaching student papers as readers and introducing them to the idea of motivation. She frames her goal for student writer as motivating a reader (that professor) to keep reading. Although many of her students are perplexed by receiving B’s for competent explication and interpretation of a text, she insists on reserving A’s for papers that provide a reading of the course text that isn’t obvious or commonly held. She asked us-as-tutors to help students-as-writers to think about what professors-as-readers need to motivate them to keep reading. Given that a professor is probably intimately familiar with the text presented, the student is challenged to find a way to tell and show her something she hadn’t already thought of.

While I don’t think this is or should be a goal of every college writing assignment (she admitted that she never has freshman in her classes), it points to the underlying values of that professor as a scholar and writer. She cares about originality, “the close reading,” as well as the ability to apply theory. But if students don’t have some cue about this value system from the professor or the assignment instructions, many aren’t going to figure it out -- at least not right away. If they think the professor wants to know that they read and understood the text, they’ll write a competent explication and expect an A.

Perhaps most important and least considered when designing assignments is the issue of “WHAT KIND OF PAPER AM I GOING TO WANT TO READ 70 VERSIONS OF?” Although it is the students’ responsibility to figure out how to engage with the material and present it in a clear and interesting manner, there are some assignments that lend themselves more or less to innovation, or creativity. As corny as it sounds, part of why I teach is to learn from my students. I want to be moved; I want to read something I hadn’t thought of before; I want them to make me laugh (on purpose). For me, assignments that move beyond the traditional thesis-driven/researched/synthesized/and applied theory of course texts model provide more opportunity for students to surprise themselves and me.

I as an audience who holds the red pen have some duty to let on about what matters to me as a reader. Some assignments really are just a test for competent comprehension. Other assignments may have a goal of practicing or mastering a particular skill, like incorporating source materials into one’s own prose. I consider these assignments performance-based. I also have many assignments for which the sole purpose is to get students writing for the sake of trying something. I want them to write in a way that makes them uncomfortable, as a way to challenge them or get them out of ruts. These I would define as more experience-based. The final product is less important than the attempt.

I’m also learning that my personal values as a writer tend more toward risk and creativity. In some assignments I see revision as an end in itself; I think it’s good for you to write something and make it into something radically different, just to see what happens. But sometimes revision needs to be about making a piece as clear and polished as it can be in a given amount of time. These are all things I try to take into consideration when designing assignments. What will I value in the product and process of this assignment: competent demonstration of a specific set of skills, creativity, originality, attempt, mastery...? An important question I ask myself when designing an assignment is “how will I know if they’ve met the goals of the assignment?” One attempt I make to answer that question is making a grading rubric to accompany the assignment.

When I get back a stack of papers, all from the same assignment, that don’t meet my expectations, that feel directionless and vastly different from one another, I grumble about my lazy students who obviously didn’t carefully read my assignments. Then I return to my instructions and try to approach them as a reader. It’s the same process I ask my students to go through when refining their arguments: Where might I have questions if I weren’t myself?

Lately as I design new assignments I picture a student sitting down with a tutor to decipher it. Is there enough information so that someone unfamiliar with the course material would be able to figure it out? Is there too much information – am I giving too many instructions or suggestions on how to complete the assignment, instructions that might be better used in class writing activities?

This term I’ll continue to ask you to share your ideas about writing and staging assignments. My goal is to create a site where we share assignments, rubrics, and activities to support writing in Freshman Inquiry. Send me any thoughts, ideas, or materials, or stop by the Writing Center, CH188F, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, or Thursdays to chat.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Finding Time to Write: Low Stakes Writing for Practice, Preparation, and Play

One of the problems that inevitably surfaces when I talk to instructors about writing in Freshman Inquiry is that of time management. With so much content to cover in a course, much of it complex and meaty, requiring a great deal of class discussion, it is challenging to find time for writing and “teaching” writing. Some people feel they need to reserve class time for discussion and pass the writing activities on to the mentors for mentor session.

The problem with looking at writing instruction this way is that it assumes writing is a compartmentalized task separate from the real work of the class: reading and understanding concepts from the text. Implicit is the idea that writing is something we do after we’ve read, discussed, and mulled over course content. I’d argue that this way of thinking assumes that students should write only in order to prove comprehension or to show they can make certain scholarly moves in writing (developing thesis statements, building an argument, supporting assertions with details, incorporating and citing sources, etc.). In this way of thinking, writing for college courses boils down to a performance.

But what if you start with the premise that discussing, thinking, and writing, while related tasks, are different and will each produce different ideas and understanding of course material? I would argue that a student may develop a different understanding of a concept or a text if she has to write about it. If we use writing as a way for students to “discuss” ideas from the text, we allow students to “write to learn.” When writing without the pressure of an assignment that will be evaluated, students are allowed to use writing as a tool of discovery. They learn what many of us already know: sometimes you don’t know what you think or understand until you write about it first.

Informal or low-stakes writing is practice, preparation, and play -- writing that I, the teacher, may never see (and most importantly to me as I face the daunting pile of typed and stapled formal essays now before me at midterm, I won’t have to evaluate for a grade). It can be a way for students to begin the work of formal assignments, to create the raw material that they later shape into the “high stakes” papers they turn in for a grade. Or it may just be practice – an exercise that gets students used to writing and thinking like writers.

This low-stakes writing can be used in several ways in the classroom. I like to start each of my classes with a guided five minute freewrite in order to get students’ scholarly juices flowing and to turn their minds collectively to the subject we’ve been looking at it. It is a way to center and focus the class and create discussion sparks.

A common concern I’ve heard (and had) about assigning informal writing such as reading journals is that instead of having to read and evaluate a huge stack of essays, teachers are faced with the onerous task of reading and responding to a huge stack of journals. I’ve seen this problem handled in a few different ways, for instance, journals can be read randomly for comments and credit given for simply completing entries on those that weren’t read for content. Or students can respond to one another’s entries, posing questions and augmenting discussion.

But informal writing doesn’t always have to be turned in or evaluated. Teachers can have students turn in only a portion of informal writing exercises for pointed feedback in preparation for writing longer pieces. For instance, I might have students do some brainstorming that might lead to a one-sentence working thesis that I then glance at to make sure they are on the right track before they commit to the typed word.

This prepatory/exploratory writing can be as simple as a ten minute freewrite. I try to choose a prompt that I think will get at a particular challenge in the assignment. For instance if I’m having them write a persuasive letter, I’ll have them brainstorm for a few minutes about ways they might establish credibility and common ground with their audience. If they’ve already written their first draft, I might have them write about a possible revision strategy for the next draft.

One thing I’ve noticed about consistently using informal in-class writing is the first couple of class periods some students write a few words, set their pens down, crack their knuckles, look around the room, and fidget. After awhile, when I say, “ok we’re going to do some writing,” all heads bow to the page, the room quiets, students settle quickly into their task, and their pens move until (and sometimes after) I tell them to stop. They’ve learned the practice of writing, so it doesn’t feel tedious, or scary, or whatever, anymore. They’ve developed some “writing muscles” that will help them when they sit down to write their formal assignments.

I’ve also had great success using writing in place of discussion. I have students read from their writing or write responses to one another’s writing, passing papers back and forth or down a line. It is amazing to look up from my spot at the front of the room and see every head turned toward a paper, actively participating in a “discussion,” rather than hearing the same few extroverted voices, mine included, volleying back and forth.

Informal writing works well as a tool for providing feedback. I got this from the book, Handling the Paper Load. On days they turn in a paper, students write to these three prompts: The best thing about my paper is... . If I had more time to work on it, I’d.... If I were the teacher, one comment I’d write on this paper is.... Students have the opportunity to reflect on their own writing and process and to guide my comments to their specific concerns.

I have a personal teaching policy to never give a graded assignment without having students do some in-class (or homework) informal writing in preparation for it. Instead of handing out assignments with the ubiquitous page of “possible questions to consider when writing this paper,” I save those questions for freewriting prompts. I often have students share and respond to one another’s raw writing and “workshop” their ideas. That way students generate the raw materials for their papers and practice wrestling with the questions where and when I can help them, before they write the formal paper.

Another benefit of low-stakes writing is the opportunity to experiment. One FRINQ instructor told me that he has students write in dialogue, as if writing a play, as a way of helping them get beyond just writing from their own point of view.

Please share your own informal writing ideas. What have you used and how? What’s worked well? And if you’re really brave, what’s bombed? Send me your stories: daneen.bergland@gmail.com.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Five for the Price of One: The Revision Station Activity

This activity uses strategies from several sections in the Ways of Writing Handbook. You might have students read the corresponding pages before completing this activity. Any of the station instructions could be used separately. Or you can use them in combination to create a longer, interactive activity that gets students up and moving around.

I set this up as five different “revision stations.” At each of seven tables I placed a different instruction sheet and supplies. Every fifteen minutes students moved around to a station and applied the instructions to their draft. (If students finished before the fifteen minutes were up, they moved to an open seat at another station.)

Station 1
Cut and paste, from page 39.
Use for papers that have organization problems
Supplies: Scissors, blank paper, tape
Instructions:
1. Number each paragraph
2. Cut up your essay paragraph by paragraph.
3. Put your first paragraph aside.
4. Shuffle the paragraphs.
5. Find the one that has the most important point you are trying to make, and make this your first paragraph. See if the others need to remain and reorder them.
6. Tape them onto new sheets of paper, leaving spaces where you might need more information or transitions.

Station 2
Looping, from page 18.
Use for drafts that don’t have a clear direction or enough supporting details
Supplies: Notebook paper
Instructions:
1. Locate the most important sentence or idea in your paper. Write it at the top of a blank piece of notebook paper.
2. Freewrite (write without stopping to edit or correct. Don’t pause, just keep letting your pen and thoughts flow) for at least 3/4 of a page.
3. Read what you’ve just written.
4. Locate the most interesting or important sentence from your freewrite.
5. Repeat steps.
6. Use ideas and/or text from the material you’ve generated to write your next draft.

Station 3
Proofreading, from page 42.
Useful for drafts that need fine tuning in terms of sentence and word level errors.
Supplies: dictionary and writing handbook
Instructions:
1. Reread your essay, sentence by sentence, backwards, looking for spelling, punctuation, or grammatical errors.
2. Look them up and fix them.

Station 4
Wordiness, from page 47.
Useful for papers that need more “flow,” that “don’t sound right” or “need clearer sentences.”
Supplies: colored pen
Instructions:
1. Read through your essay and cross out at least fifteen words without changing the content of the ideas.
2. Look particularly for adverbs (very, really, ridiculously, etc.)
3. Look particularly for groups of words that can be made into one, i.e. “due to the fact that” = “because”; or “In the present time”= “now” or “today”.
4. Look particularly for unnecessary signals like “in conclusion”, “it should be pointed out”, or “in my opinion.”

Station 5
Expand, from page 36.
Useful for drafts that need to be longer or to include more supporting details.
Supplies: notebook paper
1. Pretend you are someone else reading your paper for the first time, without any knowledge of the subject matter.
2. Go through your paper and find any opportunity you can to ask a journalists’ question: who, what, when, where, why, how.
3. Write these questions to yourself in the margin.
4. On a separate piece of paper, answer these questions.

You might have them self-select stations. Or you could choose only specific station activities depending on the issues you’ve identified in their drafts. You might also direct them in peer review to offer advice as to which station to visit (in this case it would be important to make clear the purpose of each technique, i.e. paper seems too general, no clear point being made, needs more supporting details: send them to looping activity).

I followed this activity with a ten minute freewrite (to turn in) of their revision strategy, a plan for how they would rewrite the essay for a final grade.

Let me know if you have any questions or ideas about these activities. I'd also be grateful to hear about ways you're using Ways of Writing in your classes.

Thursday, September 27, 2007

The "Diagnostic" and Writing Resources

Many writing instructors, myself included, like to assign a short, ungraded “diagnostic” writing assignment the first week of class. This assignment serves a few functions. Most importantly, it gives you a chance to preview students’ writing and prepare for the task that lies ahead; it helps you be able to steer developing writers to the resources available outside of your class. It gives you a baseline for later comparison. Additionally, the assignment allows students to introduce themselves as writers. It gets them writing right away and sets the tone of the class as writing intensive.

When I use the diagnostic assignment, I look for ability to follow directions and write coherent paragraphs; complexity, fluidity, and variety of sentence constructions; any evidence of shaping and supporting arguments; and of course, glaring problems with grammar or usage. I might have them start the piece as an in-class writing, then ask them to take it home, revise it, and type it up.

Some possible prompts:
• Compare yourself with an older relative when he/she was the same age as you are now.
• Make a metaphor of yourself as a writer. Explain how the metaphor works. For instance, “As a writer I am like a dormant seed...”
• Write about an early reading or writing memory.

Other prompts or diagnostic assignments/activities? Please share; I’m an avid collector of bright ideas! And if anyone can come up with a better name for this assignment than diagnostic (yuck, sounds painful and possibly humiliating, doesn't it?) I'll bake them a plate of cookies.

At PSU students self-place into writing classes. You can help students identify whether they might benefit from additional writing instruction. Every term the following courses are offered (some are full this term, but you can encourage students to sign up in the future):

WR115 Intro to College Writing: For basic writers. This class is a confidence-building course that introduces students to basic concepts and conventions of college writing.

WR121 College Writing: The equivalent of traditional freshman composition, this course gives students practice in writing and revision for college courses. It usually introduces them to researching, the concept of thesis, citation formats, etc.

LING115: Intro to College Writing for Non-native speakers. Introduces non-native speakers to conventions of U.S. academic writing, with a stronger focus on English grammar than WR courses.

WR199: A 1-credit course offered through the PSU Writing Center. Students meet one-on-one each week with an assigned tutor to work on FRINQ or other course writing assignments.

A course called Grammar Refresher is also offered through the English department.

Last, but certainly not least, the PSU Writing Center has scheduled appointments and drop-in hours for FRINQ students and faculty (Wednesdays 11-1). Our web site is http://www.writingcenter.pdx.edu/; the blog: www.psuwritingcenter.blogspot.com.
Feel free to schedule a field trip with your class to the WC during our business hours.

Saturday, June 2, 2007

Shoulda, coulda, woulda: What you should teach about writing in FRINQ

Question: What writing topics or skills should be covered in Freshman Inquiry?

Answer: I don’t know.

BUT, I do have some ideas, based on the expectations of the writing program at PSU, requirements for classes at local community colleges, as well as conversations with FRINQ faculty. Following, find a list of “shoulds” and “mights” of writing for freshman courses.

“SHOULDS”

PROCESS VS. PRODUCT
Most importantly, students should understand writing as a process.

This means that instructors don’t assign a series of only formal papers and expect that the students are learning to write. Students need to recognize that there are many steps to shaping a piece of writing. The best way to get this concept across is to incorporate informal writing assignments that lead up to formal written pieces and to “teach” revision. For example, students might be assigned freewrites, brainstorms, reading journals, or heuristics to explore ideas for a formal paper. After the first draft of their paper, they might be assigned a reverse outline, a peer review, or other revision exercise and set goals for how to write a second draft. As an writer, you might consider your own process and think of ways to “assign” some of the steps you take before and as write and polish a published piece.

CONVENTIONS
Students should recognize that each discipline has its own set of writing conventions. Audience, values and assumptions, citation methods, forms, types of evidence, types of sources, diction, etc. are governed by “rules” of each discipline. Students should practice noticing and writing using these different conventions. Because FRINQ is multidisciplinary, it is particularly well suited to addressing this concept. Students can approach texts not only for content – what is said – but can analyze conventions – how it is said and why.

“MIGHTS”

MODES
You might want to have students practice these different “modes of discourse” taught in traditional composition courses. Community colleges require all of these be taught in their sequenced writing courses (required for transfer credits into Oregon universities).
Argument
Research/Thesis based writing
Analysis
Narrative
Summary

SKILLS
Citation Formats (see Conventions)
Copy-editing techniques
Notetaking techniques
Paragraph and Essay Development/Organization
Research (see Conventions)
Style (see Conventions)
Voice (see Conventions)
Paraphrasing and Quoting

This "should" be an ongoing discussion, and, like the courses we teach, it will probably evolve. Please share your shoulds and mights for teaching freshman. Respond with questions or comments to this blog or contact me at daneen.bergland@gmail.com.