R4

Mathieu’s ideal course intrigues me. I appreciate her thematic approach and the diverse assignments that culminate in a multifaceted research project. Requiring a project such as this one that appeals to the students’ interests likely results in more informed writing than assigning a topic without a personal connection. Of course, and Mathieu made a point of mentioning this, the students must understand the background research involved before interviewing to create a research-based personal history. This type of assignment provides an interesting model that I may emulate to a certain extent. The greater challenge that my students will face is putting the university library to use. With the vast number of sources available on the Internet and through digital government archives, my students have become accustomed to researching electronically. They may have no concept of the beneficial resources available in print from the library. Sad, but true, to many of them, print is dying.

In terms of service learning, I am perplexed at the hesitation to attach this segment to the course. As a board member of a service learning nonprofit, I find it disappointing that the assumption is made to abandon that aspect because a semester may be too short or the first year too demanding. When I address students hoping to earn scholarships for their service learning projects, I am amazed by what they can accomplish in a short period of time while they are also taking AP and honors courses and participating in extracurricular activities. Many high schools require service hours, and many students are, therefore, accustomed to giving time to help others. This builds a well-rounded individual.

Redd’s course offers more practical assignments that provide real world writing, as I like to call it. It focuses on both academic writing and public sector text, and this would definitely benefit students well into their futures. I’m not well enough versed in the studies behind allowing students to use non-standard written English, but I definitely see the value of accepting dialects and cultural differences. It makes sense that students can explore and elucidate better when doing so in their natural linguistic style. What may help her program realize such success is the drive behind it to move students beyond the point where they entered the class. I really appreciate the use of discipline specific writing guides. This course seems to address my concerns is R3 regarding the purpose of the course altogether. Redd’s program exposes the students to a rich mixture of tools and styles, which in turn prepare them for many courses and experiences that lie ahead. Redd states that writing empowers the students, and I whole-heartedly agree. If a student can write successfully for a range of audiences and rhetorical situations, then that student can truly communicate, and with that comes both power and responsibility. At this stage in their lives, students need to take on the responsibility of mastering their voices and contributing to the adult dialogue of life.

R4: Final Advice for the Bewildered

R4: Final Advice for the Bewildered

When I first realized that I would be submitting the first draft of my course materials before I had read the last four chapters of First Year Composition, I was a bit apprehensive that when I read those chapters I would run across ideas that would significantly change the direction of my course components. In light of all that we have been reading about the importance of being flexible with our ideas and our drafts and the need for major revisions, it would have been quite appropriate if that had happened. Given the time constraints of fitting in this course with other plans I had this summer (as well as a desperate need for some downtime to decompress from this past school year and to prepare for the upcoming one) I am relieved that I don’t feel a need to substantially revamp my course. Instead, I found several of the comments made by these authors to be helpful, and I can use some of them to enhance the plans for my course.
One of the gems that I was able to mine from these last four articles was the list of stated goals for the course shared by Howard Tinberg. His list could certainly serve as the core for a list of my own that I would like to share with my students. I am also thrilled that Tinberg described his assignment for the This I Believe program. I was feeling guilty that my original course plan did not include an assignment that would reach a broader audience. I am also embarrassed to admit that one of my former department members had raved about the This I Believe project that he had done with his sophomore students, but I had never taken the time to look into the specifics of the submission process. I had also never listened to any of the audio essays on the site and I thoroughly enjoyed listening to them. I am also glad that the actual written essays are available on the site as well. I have found several that I hope to use as models. I will also assign the students to choose essays to listen and respond to. There is something quite magical about hearing the writers’ voices sharing their experiences. I hope that my students will be inspired by the essays that they listen to and read. I also hope that they will be excited about sharing their work with such a broad audience. I also borrowed some of the wording from Tinberg’s course description to revise the About section for my course. Hopefully those revisions will make the focus of the course clearer.
In the chapter written by Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs, I was reminded of the appropriate use of both student and professional models. I agree that models can effectively be used to discuss possible revision strategies. Using models that are not written by members of the class can take away some of the initial anxiety about making suggestions for revisions. As Downs points out, I also believe that they can be used to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of the pieces. I also liked Downs’s use of the term reader response instead of peer review. I agree that the term reader response adds another dimension to the value of peer sharing. It emphasizes that the reader will gain additional insight into how to improve his or her drafts and deemphasizes the perception that the reader is trying to catch errors or make a value judgment about the work.
Kathleen Blake Yancey provided another item that I can integrate into my own course. The eight habits of mind that she lists as essential for success in college writing can be used as points for students to consider as they write their final portfolio letter to me. They can reflect on and discuss how they have demonstrated these habits of mind throughout the course.
Some of the other ideas that I gleaned from these chapters validated my own basic beliefs and practices. For example, I agree with Victor Villanueva’s practice of assigning the most important assignment next to last in the schedule of assignments. Students are very stressed at the end of a semester and they would probably not give sufficient time and attention to a lengthy work too close to their exam schedule. That is one of the reasons that I did not schedule the integrated profile essay too close to the end of the course. I was also glad to read Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs’s discussion of the importance of scaffolding. That is one concept upon which I have always tried to base my teaching practices and assignments. I hope that my final course materials will reflect a definite scaffolding of skills and strategies.

R4: A Review of Sorts

I found Tinsberg to be my favorite instructor (besides the author of that first text we read!); he had a very clear and concise way of laying things out.  He captured the essence of nearly every instructor’s plight in a simple yet rigorous plan.  He had consistent expectations like the two drafts per assignment and very well-thought out assignments that are reflected in his student objectives.  He knows he needs to empower students through language study, retooling writing skills, and adhering to the process.  I loved his Essay of Belief/radio assignment that he uses to specifically let students realize “their ideas matter.”  I find his Essay of Application very relevant and applicable, while also thoroughly thought out and structured.  Though other instructors have mentioned the writer’s memo, I like his simple explanation and 3 questions that frame all memos.  Tinsberg offered not only great ideas for curriculum design, but the philosophical approach to Writing instruction.

 

I found Villanueva’s writing interesting, relevant, and easy to follow; but relative the wealth of notes I took from Tinsberg’s chapter, I took very little for Villanueva’s chapter as little was new to me and I was still relating everything back to Tinsberg. That being said, he discussed writing instruction in a way that confirmed some of my thoughts, but did not make me think of anything new.

 

Wardle and Downs reiterate the Writing about Writing approach that was previously mentioned and little elaborated.  Like with Villanueva, I didn’t feel anything profoundly new was offered, but some of their philosophies and explanations were helpful.  I appreciated their definition of writing and some of the requirements of developing authentic writing tasks.  I like their explanation of learning through writing versus societal beliefs of simply “recording information.”  I especially like their explanation of what E101 is – they describe it as a beginning of a vertical writing journey that continues beyond the course, presumably lifelong.  I admittedly did not like their tandem writing in the last several pages – I continually wished they had cut back on the back-and-forth; it was refreshing at first, but then became tired and cumbersome.

 

As with the last two, I felt Yancey was not offering many fresh ideas, but reiterating previous practices of other instructors (I know they can’t help where editors decided to sequence their chapters, but as a reader, my interest waned.  Yancey did provide some interesting information about 3 tendencies that influence FYC curricula: WPA outcomes, Framework for Success in College Writing, and the local campus initiatives for FYC.  She makes an interesting point about the evolution of facts as it relates to writing “correctly”; what we do today, may be found out to be false or partially false down the road, but we still have to follow some procedure and framework.  Since writing is largely rooted within society, there is an expectation of its evolution as society evolves (or perhaps writing is the causation of societal evolution!)   Nonetheless, she reminds us to be open minded ourselves.

 

I also liked Yancey’s assignment “Composition-in-Three-Genres”.  It was mentioned previously, but I like her set-up and explanation of the assignment; an adapted version will find its way into my course.

 

Please excuse my structure for this response; I just felt like reviewing each chapter.

 

Lastly, I want to thank everyone again for the wonderful examples/models of curricula  from which I will be perfecting my own curriculum and for the wonderful feedback.  Despite my own disappointment due to doubting E110 implementation any time soon at my school, I am very grateful to be working with such an efficient group; your energy is contagious and you really propel me to hone my own talents and perfect my E110 curriculum.  Thank you!