I'm writing this post as a response to some of the other posts I've seen about attendence woes due to weather and flu. I'm sure everyone received the same email I did about being understanding towards students who miss class due to weather and travel. I also recently received an email about "excused absences" concerning one of my students who has broken his jaw. The email appealed to me on behalf of the student to be understanding about his absences, but reiterated time and again that it is up to me, the instructor, to determine what is, and is not, an excused absence.
This whole idea of "excused absences" is interesting to me, because it's something I affiliate with high school. Is a student "excused" -- what does that even mean in a college course? It must imply that I will allow the student extra time to turn in work, extend deadlines, etc. But in the case of my student who broke his jaw, a student who was fast approaching missing the 7 class periods I've designated in my syllabus as the pass/fail attendance line even before this accident, how can I "excuse" him? (The final memoir is due on Monday, and I haven't seen a draft or heard a word -- what am I supposed to do about that?) When I was an undergrad, if I missed a class, more often than not I didn't notify my teacher. I simply accepted the consequences of my absence (I took ownership of the class). Now, as a teacher, I receive a zillion emailed excuses for people missing class -- do I excuse those people? What about the people who miss b/c of the same reasons, but don't contact me because they approach the course the way I did? What is "excused"?!
I tend to be more understanding than not when it comes to absences, because I'm just a softie. But I can see how, in the hands of more manipulative students, and if I taught more than two classes, this could be a problem. I do email missed handouts to students. I do this simply because in the event of a student's late paper or unacceptable paper, I can say that I did everything I could to help them and that I must fall back on my overall course policies. Students can't deny that I did everything to help! (I also email students who have missed several classes to show I care, and usually I really do care.) Also, I have to admit, sometimes I'm scared to lay down the law with a student. I think to myself, in the environment of violence in the universities, how can it hurt to be accomodating? But I think that's a blog post I want to explore in more detail next week ...
Sunday, February 24, 2008
assignments as stepping stones
In a brief article titled "Response to Sharon Crowley, 'Components of the Composing Process,'" in College Composition and Communication (1977), Nancy Sommers addresses the idea of composing as both a linear and recursive process. One of the three aspects that define this binary is the idea of writing assignments as linear "stepping stones," marking "writing development from assignment to assignment" (2).
This idea is at the forefront of my approach to the assignments in ENG 110. The overt example of the annotated bibliography and the I-search illustrates this best. This semester, I've decided to really reiterate the tie between assignments by asking students to analyze the texts for their annotated bibliography much in the way that they evaluated the text for their textual analysis. When evaluating their sources, I ask them to consider the rhetorical models we discussed for the textual analysis assignment -- ethos, pathos, and logos. I found that most of the material I had on evaluating sources could be boiled down to these three basic approaches: evaluate the source (who and what credentials, where it comes from, etc.), evaluate the tone/style (opinion? information?), and evaluate the validity of the argument (does the text provide counterarguments, etc.).
Of course, the annotated bibliography will be created from the students' sources for their I-Search assignment. I find that this is a valuable use for the students' time and also allows me to make sure their topic is properly narrow and acceptable. I'm allowing students to maintain control over their resources (two students will be using documentaries, for example), but at the same time they know I'm expecting them to critically approach each source and that each must live up to the students' evaluation of these three components. This knocks out common student mistakes such as using wikipedia or about.com. (FYI, I ran across a helpful website about evaluating internet sources, which reiterated that .org sites aren't necessarily credible. Their main example was martinlutherking.org, which is in fact sponsered by a white supremecist organization. Check it out -- it's shocking.)
I like Sommers' description of "assignments as stepping stones" because it implies a journey. With each assignment, the student is advancing towards a final destination. I've described how the critical analysis approach to the textual analysis helps the student evaluate sources for the annotated bibliography. The student will use the techniques he/she has learned for the Memoir to draw out the personal voice component of the I-Search. Exploring sources for the annotated bibliography will help the student discover information and ideas for the I-Search. The student's honest evaluation of his/her assumptions and beliefs when approaching the I-Search topic will help him/her be authentic and confident in taking and defending a stand with the Position Paper. The workshops, drafts, and revisions for each assignment will build towards the final assignment, "It's Wise to Revise," where the student can revisit one of the assignments in the course for a better grade. Looking at the course holistically, so to speak, helps me as a teacher understand the purpose and overall momentum behind the assignments, and helps the students to understand the relevance of each assignment and, hopefully, allow them to reflect back upon the growth they've made, one step at a time.
This idea is at the forefront of my approach to the assignments in ENG 110. The overt example of the annotated bibliography and the I-search illustrates this best. This semester, I've decided to really reiterate the tie between assignments by asking students to analyze the texts for their annotated bibliography much in the way that they evaluated the text for their textual analysis. When evaluating their sources, I ask them to consider the rhetorical models we discussed for the textual analysis assignment -- ethos, pathos, and logos. I found that most of the material I had on evaluating sources could be boiled down to these three basic approaches: evaluate the source (who and what credentials, where it comes from, etc.), evaluate the tone/style (opinion? information?), and evaluate the validity of the argument (does the text provide counterarguments, etc.).
Of course, the annotated bibliography will be created from the students' sources for their I-Search assignment. I find that this is a valuable use for the students' time and also allows me to make sure their topic is properly narrow and acceptable. I'm allowing students to maintain control over their resources (two students will be using documentaries, for example), but at the same time they know I'm expecting them to critically approach each source and that each must live up to the students' evaluation of these three components. This knocks out common student mistakes such as using wikipedia or about.com. (FYI, I ran across a helpful website about evaluating internet sources, which reiterated that .org sites aren't necessarily credible. Their main example was martinlutherking.org, which is in fact sponsered by a white supremecist organization. Check it out -- it's shocking.)
I like Sommers' description of "assignments as stepping stones" because it implies a journey. With each assignment, the student is advancing towards a final destination. I've described how the critical analysis approach to the textual analysis helps the student evaluate sources for the annotated bibliography. The student will use the techniques he/she has learned for the Memoir to draw out the personal voice component of the I-Search. Exploring sources for the annotated bibliography will help the student discover information and ideas for the I-Search. The student's honest evaluation of his/her assumptions and beliefs when approaching the I-Search topic will help him/her be authentic and confident in taking and defending a stand with the Position Paper. The workshops, drafts, and revisions for each assignment will build towards the final assignment, "It's Wise to Revise," where the student can revisit one of the assignments in the course for a better grade. Looking at the course holistically, so to speak, helps me as a teacher understand the purpose and overall momentum behind the assignments, and helps the students to understand the relevance of each assignment and, hopefully, allow them to reflect back upon the growth they've made, one step at a time.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
to choose or not to choose: a question of topic
This semester, I decided to teach the memoir second -- needless to say, I am currently in the midst of all things memoir! Taking a page from the discussion of "playing it safe" with academic writing, I'm wondering about the idea of student-chosen topics and its possible negative effects in the composition classroom.
Though it's a bit cold to refer to our students' personal experiences as "general," I think we can all agree that there are some "safe" topics in academic writing. In this particular blog, I'll use the word "safe" to refer to those topics which are perhaps typical, easily accessible, etc., which don't necessarily require deeper thought in terms of topic choice. In my experience with the memoir, for example, it's often safer to pick a serious topic than a humorous one. Why do our students shy away from humor? In my class, I assign two pieces by David Sedaris as reading during the memoir unit ("Cyclops" from our text and a handout of "Turbulence"). These pieces are overtly humorous! I even show a clip from the film "American Splendor," a darkly humorous reflective, memoir-driven film about the non-fiction underground comic writer Harvey Pekar. YET, in all except one of my conferences with students about their memoir topics, I find that their chosen topics remain "safe" (read: serious).
Donald M. Murray, in his essay "Teach Writing as a Process Not Product," lists the implications of "environments in which our students can experience the writing process for themselves" (5). Implication No. 2 reads, "The student finds his own subject" (5). I think that most of us take this approach with our students when it comes to the memoir, the I-Search, and the position paper (and even some in the textual analysis). Though I tend to agree with Murray in his support of this process-driven environment (drafting, students' work as texts, etc.), I think that the implications of student-chosen topics can be, in fact, negative.
In allowing my students to choose their own topics, I find most opt for the "safe" choice. In addition, I find that instead of directing my students to topics in a positive way -- suggesting or assigning my students specific, thoughtfully chosen topics I know will challenge them as writers -- I often find myself "vetoing" specific topics, utilizing don't-ever-write-about-these-topics-ever lists from previous graduate assistants which in fact negate student ideas. In doing so, I feel like I'm creating a false environment of choice: "Choose whatever topic you want, but don't you ever write about abortion! That's a big no-no!"
I wonder if rather than substracting ideas before students have even begun to brainstorm, I could instead provide a limited list of specific, thoughtfully chosen, challenging "un-safe" topics from which they could choose. This way, I could encourage the un-safe while still giving my students some power over their topics. I'm actually finding myself doing this while teaching the memoir. In one activity, I encourage students to choose one "big" moment (family death, car acccident, etc.) and one "ordinary" moment and to freewrite about both. I then subtly challenge them to choose the "ordinary" moment from which they can create an "extraordinary" memoir. One student who chose this ordinary moment is writing about how embarassed she was to use crutches after an accident, and how stumbling around on crutches made her realize something about herself and issues like control and dependency.
As I approach the position paper, I'm thinking about replacing my list of "vetos" with a prepapred, thoughtful, challenging and un-safe list from which they can choose their topic. And in my opinion, an un-safe topic is the first step to un-safe writing. I'll be sure to let you know how it goes ...
Though it's a bit cold to refer to our students' personal experiences as "general," I think we can all agree that there are some "safe" topics in academic writing. In this particular blog, I'll use the word "safe" to refer to those topics which are perhaps typical, easily accessible, etc., which don't necessarily require deeper thought in terms of topic choice. In my experience with the memoir, for example, it's often safer to pick a serious topic than a humorous one. Why do our students shy away from humor? In my class, I assign two pieces by David Sedaris as reading during the memoir unit ("Cyclops" from our text and a handout of "Turbulence"). These pieces are overtly humorous! I even show a clip from the film "American Splendor," a darkly humorous reflective, memoir-driven film about the non-fiction underground comic writer Harvey Pekar. YET, in all except one of my conferences with students about their memoir topics, I find that their chosen topics remain "safe" (read: serious).
Donald M. Murray, in his essay "Teach Writing as a Process Not Product," lists the implications of "environments in which our students can experience the writing process for themselves" (5). Implication No. 2 reads, "The student finds his own subject" (5). I think that most of us take this approach with our students when it comes to the memoir, the I-Search, and the position paper (and even some in the textual analysis). Though I tend to agree with Murray in his support of this process-driven environment (drafting, students' work as texts, etc.), I think that the implications of student-chosen topics can be, in fact, negative.
In allowing my students to choose their own topics, I find most opt for the "safe" choice. In addition, I find that instead of directing my students to topics in a positive way -- suggesting or assigning my students specific, thoughtfully chosen topics I know will challenge them as writers -- I often find myself "vetoing" specific topics, utilizing don't-ever-write-about-these-topics-ever lists from previous graduate assistants which in fact negate student ideas. In doing so, I feel like I'm creating a false environment of choice: "Choose whatever topic you want, but don't you ever write about abortion! That's a big no-no!"
I wonder if rather than substracting ideas before students have even begun to brainstorm, I could instead provide a limited list of specific, thoughtfully chosen, challenging "un-safe" topics from which they could choose. This way, I could encourage the un-safe while still giving my students some power over their topics. I'm actually finding myself doing this while teaching the memoir. In one activity, I encourage students to choose one "big" moment (family death, car acccident, etc.) and one "ordinary" moment and to freewrite about both. I then subtly challenge them to choose the "ordinary" moment from which they can create an "extraordinary" memoir. One student who chose this ordinary moment is writing about how embarassed she was to use crutches after an accident, and how stumbling around on crutches made her realize something about herself and issues like control and dependency.
As I approach the position paper, I'm thinking about replacing my list of "vetos" with a prepapred, thoughtful, challenging and un-safe list from which they can choose their topic. And in my opinion, an un-safe topic is the first step to un-safe writing. I'll be sure to let you know how it goes ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
