We just had a really good norming session, like a grad school seminar, and I want to get some notes down while the discussion is fresh in my mind, so that I can bring this material forward to the rest of the writing committee.
Issue #1 --
The bar for entry into 095 is fluency. What does this mean exactly? Are we focusing too much on principles other than fluency in 095, to the detriment of our students; most participants agreed than in 095 they are imagining how to get students into 101, or hoping that their students will progress into 101; however, this intention introduces elements into the course and curriculum that are not a part of the departmentally stated function of the course.
If, as we say, 095 is about fluency, then we should be focuing on that first and foremost, and rhetorical context and principles should be secondary to that. Kyle and Lynne explained how they are conducting their 095 courses, and they are focusing first and foremost on fluency. For Lynne, she required students to produce 20 pages of freewriting in the first 8 weeks. Kyle's requirements were similar, although he organized the writing in the course thematically -- I can't recall exactly what the theme is atm, but it has something to do with positive human emotions, defining them, finding examples of them, completing multi-genre work around them -- and from this mass of material, Kyle asked his students to produce an essay. He reported that his students were forced to make decisions about what to cut, what order to put this material in, and in doing so, consider audience.
This is brilliant because while it purports to teach fluency, it's also teaching rhetoric, just from a slightly different angle. Students are learning rhetoric based on the need for it, a personal need, and through ownership of their own words, they are moved to this point.
So, all of this begs the question: should 095 just be about fluency. Focus on fluency. To get out of 095, you must demonstrate fluency, nothing more.
The advantages of this is that students' introduction to writing can be focused on writing as a human activity rather than writing as an academic activity.
Turn 095 into a true workshop course?
096 becomes introduction to rhetoric and composition, where essential rhetorical principles are defined and applied systematically.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Seminar
Seminar #1 -- Hume -- 10/7/2008
Brandon, the only participant whom I actually know, began the seminar by asking, "What did you get out of it?" Brandon was in our (Darrell and I) learning community last fall, so he has some experience with seminars. He's also, generally, a smart guy and interested in the material. He's a good student because he doesn't put a lot of ego into his learning. He's not afraid of not getting it right. He'll put himself out there and try to explore and learn.
Darrell told me that the seminar went well, by his standards, and I agreed. The first thing I noticed was that students began, and stayed very close to the original text, quoting or referring to the source material at least 10 times during the seminar. I'd like to observe a regular lecture class and count the number of direct references to the text under those circumstances.
Moreover, it appeared to me that students really were operating on a higher-level, in terms of Bloom's Taxonomy, as they clarified, explained, synthesized, and evaluated the course material. They were not at all concerned with summary details, although, this might be a good place for them to start, the basic outline of the essay and Hume's argument. There seemed to be some reiteration of material they had already covered, most notably the idea of "secret powers." Finally, Darrell explained this to them, and, actually, according to Darrell, it was really one student who was held up by this concept. The student was missing Hume's tone, that he was saying "secret powers" slightly tongue-in-cheek. The misconception about tone is difficult, and entirely understandable. This is probably one of the most diffcult things for students to identify, which is why satire is difficult for them :)
I also noticed a student draw upon his learning from Anthropology -- patterns of ______! I can't recall the term, and I didn't write the specific term down in my notes, but this was beautiful. There's always a problem with transference of knowledge from one domain to another.
I also spoke with Karen about her seminars. She noted that in her seminars, her students reported feeling badly for not coming to class prepared for seminar. She uses the same seminars groups throughout the semester, which seems to be important, because then students feel a sense ofresponsibility to one another. It's funny, as teachers, we try everything to get students to come to class prepared, but in the end, grades, shame, rational arguments seem to have little impact, but if it's the pressure comes from peers, they feel badly, and this motivates them to complete the work.
I think I should survey seminar students regarding their thoughts about the effectiveness of seminars.
Ideally, I should get together with Barb and see if she can help me put together a survey that relies on a Likert scale, rather than a qualitative survey -- easier to analyze the data :)
Brandon, the only participant whom I actually know, began the seminar by asking, "What did you get out of it?" Brandon was in our (Darrell and I) learning community last fall, so he has some experience with seminars. He's also, generally, a smart guy and interested in the material. He's a good student because he doesn't put a lot of ego into his learning. He's not afraid of not getting it right. He'll put himself out there and try to explore and learn.
Darrell told me that the seminar went well, by his standards, and I agreed. The first thing I noticed was that students began, and stayed very close to the original text, quoting or referring to the source material at least 10 times during the seminar. I'd like to observe a regular lecture class and count the number of direct references to the text under those circumstances.
Moreover, it appeared to me that students really were operating on a higher-level, in terms of Bloom's Taxonomy, as they clarified, explained, synthesized, and evaluated the course material. They were not at all concerned with summary details, although, this might be a good place for them to start, the basic outline of the essay and Hume's argument. There seemed to be some reiteration of material they had already covered, most notably the idea of "secret powers." Finally, Darrell explained this to them, and, actually, according to Darrell, it was really one student who was held up by this concept. The student was missing Hume's tone, that he was saying "secret powers" slightly tongue-in-cheek. The misconception about tone is difficult, and entirely understandable. This is probably one of the most diffcult things for students to identify, which is why satire is difficult for them :)
I also noticed a student draw upon his learning from Anthropology -- patterns of ______! I can't recall the term, and I didn't write the specific term down in my notes, but this was beautiful. There's always a problem with transference of knowledge from one domain to another.
I also spoke with Karen about her seminars. She noted that in her seminars, her students reported feeling badly for not coming to class prepared for seminar. She uses the same seminars groups throughout the semester, which seems to be important, because then students feel a sense ofresponsibility to one another. It's funny, as teachers, we try everything to get students to come to class prepared, but in the end, grades, shame, rational arguments seem to have little impact, but if it's the pressure comes from peers, they feel badly, and this motivates them to complete the work.
I think I should survey seminar students regarding their thoughts about the effectiveness of seminars.
Ideally, I should get together with Barb and see if she can help me put together a survey that relies on a Likert scale, rather than a qualitative survey -- easier to analyze the data :)
Monday, September 22, 2008
Partnering for College and Career Readiness
Audience -- Admin, possibly some faculty, looking for ideas about how to partner with secondary schools.
Purpose -- Relay SWIC's experience and initiatives to improve communication and collaboration with local high schools.
What We Did --
1st Meeting -- meet and greet; discussed possible course of action. We tried to make this process as collaborative as possible, seeking input at every available turn. We emphasized that we (SWIC) were not there to tell HS teachers what to do, or to criticize them for that they are doing wrong, etc.
2nd Meeting -- Norming. We looked at SWIC's writing rubric, discussed our developmental portfolio process, and evaluated sample essays, discussed our evaluations and use of the rubric.
3rd Meeting -- HS teachers brought 5 essays from their students, made multiple copies, evaluated them, and compared the results. We discovered that there is not a statistical difference between how we graded and how HS teachers graded. College evaluations were shared with high school students.
This tells us that our standards are not that different; so, in looking for answers, we have to look elsewhere. The problem, 2/3 of our students enter requiring some remedial education, is not a matter of weak standards, but deeper than that. We cannot simply blame the teachers for not doing their jobs, they are doing their jobs, but are sidetracked by outside influences and barriers to effective teaching of writing.
4th Meeting -- Discussed what we learned, things we might change, and additional initiatives we might take.
Project Goals:
1. Align high school and college writing expectations;
2. Assist high school students in understanding skills necessary to be successful in college-level writing.
Purpose -- Relay SWIC's experience and initiatives to improve communication and collaboration with local high schools.
What We Did --
1st Meeting -- meet and greet; discussed possible course of action. We tried to make this process as collaborative as possible, seeking input at every available turn. We emphasized that we (SWIC) were not there to tell HS teachers what to do, or to criticize them for that they are doing wrong, etc.
2nd Meeting -- Norming. We looked at SWIC's writing rubric, discussed our developmental portfolio process, and evaluated sample essays, discussed our evaluations and use of the rubric.
3rd Meeting -- HS teachers brought 5 essays from their students, made multiple copies, evaluated them, and compared the results. We discovered that there is not a statistical difference between how we graded and how HS teachers graded. College evaluations were shared with high school students.
This tells us that our standards are not that different; so, in looking for answers, we have to look elsewhere. The problem, 2/3 of our students enter requiring some remedial education, is not a matter of weak standards, but deeper than that. We cannot simply blame the teachers for not doing their jobs, they are doing their jobs, but are sidetracked by outside influences and barriers to effective teaching of writing.
4th Meeting -- Discussed what we learned, things we might change, and additional initiatives we might take.
Project Goals:
1. Align high school and college writing expectations;
2. Assist high school students in understanding skills necessary to be successful in college-level writing.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Opening Week, Fall 08
095, 096, 101, 102 Course Objectives Workshop/Discussion
Set up tables prior to meeting, with directions to go to a table of a course you are most interested in, teach the most, have curiosity, etc, and write down list of 10 most important course objectives for the course as you see/teach it.
Exercise will be completed individually first, then group will discuss and compile list of 10 most important objectives. 5 minutes.
Cut list to 5. 3 minutes.
Discuss each list and compile single list.
Report back to large group.
Break.
Do announcements; Nicole and Steve introduce Learning Circle.
End :)
Set up tables prior to meeting, with directions to go to a table of a course you are most interested in, teach the most, have curiosity, etc, and write down list of 10 most important course objectives for the course as you see/teach it.
Exercise will be completed individually first, then group will discuss and compile list of 10 most important objectives. 5 minutes.
Cut list to 5. 3 minutes.
Discuss each list and compile single list.
Report back to large group.
Break.
Do announcements; Nicole and Steve introduce Learning Circle.
End :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)