Tag Archives: pedagogy

Assignment Guidelines

I introduced the Module 2 assignments to my Web Writing and Content Management course on Monday. They are creating a Landscape Analysis, Audience Analysis, and Content Recommendation report.

I’m so excited about these assignments. Students can do so many creative things, with very little work, and no design experience. So, I left page requirements, word requirements, general recommendations related to formatting completely off the assignment. I told students to refer to the course textbook which includes summaries, bullet objectives, graphics, and images to convey information as a guideline.

So reading Warner’s similar recommendation on Inside Higher Education was great. Similar to Warner’s discussion, I left off requirements because I want students to think about content design in their reports about content design. I told them this.

BUT, I still had questions about page length. While this is really not surprising – this is a Junior level course, these students are really good at being students – it is more difficult to help guide students through analysis of content applying principles from the reading while also asking them to apply those same ideas to their own document. The questions students asked about document length and formatting absolutely indicated the final ‘reports’ they imagined look like essays.

Next week when we meet we’ll briefly discuss content, so they use their analysis of Landscape and Audience to connect directly to content recommendations and content created. We’ll discuss how this is what they’re very comfortable doing with secondary evidence in writing that is familiar to them, and more reminiscent of writing they’ll complete in professional settings. Now, I need to further reinforce that they need to critically analyze the format of THEIR content as an ethos move.

I’m considering tweeting good and bad examples all week, but that would require so much work. How did I learn to consider document design as part of ethos, how do I help students to that metacognitive space?

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under pedagogy

What is ‘good’ writing?

As my students begin (hopefully) writing their Reflection essays this weekend (it’s due next Friday so this is possibly wishful thinking) – I’ve noticed I’ve discussed ‘good’ and ‘bad’ writing A LOT this week. Not just with students in my classes, but with former students, grad students, colleagues, and even at home.

As part of a faculty reading group in my department we’ve discussed teaching – especially teaching moments in online courses (and their relationship to design, assignments, assessment, etc.). So i’ve been contemplating how i’ll assess and comment on the drafts submitted next week. As I was thinking about this, I was told a story about a professor saying “since you struggle with writing, go to the Writing Center.” This reminds me of an elementary teacher telling my mom I’d always struggle with writing. In both these situations I would argue the professor/teacher is the culprit of ‘bad’ writing. Clearly there was a lack of audience awareness for the potential outcomes of such a statement. For me, I obviously set out to prove her wrong (HA! joke is on you teacher who I really do appreciate). For the other student, she’s rethinking how far she’ll continue in higher education and reducing her career goals because she obviously selected beyond her capabilities. NO!!!! Just no!

I think what’s hardest for me, and probably the reason Rhet/Comp resonated so much with me, is I could have been that statistic. One mis-directed comment could have derailed my educational plans, when that was completely unintended by the speaker/writer.

So coming back to assessment – how can we use the Teaching for Transfer key concept model AN view assessment feedback as a teaching moment so we don’t recreate ‘bad writing’ through our comments? And, how do we balance these teaching moments so students attend to the comments and transfer the learning to the next essay?

The easy answer is to keep the feedback short – right. So students will actually read it.

I use a 1 point rubric – which is as un-rubric like as you can get – which is why I love it. I break feedback down into “What you did well” and “where to improve”. So now I’m considering how I need to attend to each of the 4 key concepts (5 for Content Management) within this structure – to tie my assessment feedback to the core of my curriculum in an attempt to maximize transfer. So when I go through ‘how is purpose attended to in this essay’ in class – I need to better use that in my rubric.

I’m thinking:

Based on our class discussion, each key concept needed to be directly discussed in this Reflection, and considered as a rhetorical move within the text of the essay. Here are my comments for where you excelled and where there is room for growth:

What you did well:

Where to improve:

Since I have a week until I’ll need this structure it may change, we’ll see. Too formulaic?

Leave a comment

Filed under pedagogy

eportfolios and badges

On Saturday I attended the full day workshop on ePortfolios at AAC&U. In several different sessions, and by several different speakers, the idea of using ‘badges’ to support student learning through eportfolios was mentioned.

While I use games in my classroom I’ve never found good integration points for badges – I always see them as behavior driven, or skill-based. I don’t think writing is a skill – I don’t think certifying students in FYC who earn a C or better as “FYC Writing Skill” would carry significant meaning/weight.

I think the mentioning (and it was mentioning not full panel discussions – more ‘here’s another way to use eportfolios, digital badges’) of badges was to add a layer of cool, to point to recent innovations and further digital connections – the idea really stuck with me as a framework for approaching eportfolio design as my institution. In focusing on developing an online graduate certificate program for writing, the goal is to clearly communicate to potential students (and employers) the value of this degree. This is where eportfolios is a great connection – they allow professional writing samples and reflection on learning to raise student awareness of their writing practices and their understanding of writing.

If badges are system ‘awards’ that ‘certify’ learning – how can these be integrated to better demonstrate and exemplify learning outcomes of the program in a way that both attracts students and communicates meaningful information to employers?

I currently (and have for a long time) play Words with Friends (the newer edition). This game awards badges for completing points in a week, for creating a specific number of words using difficult letters like J, Q, Z, etc. The app is designed to force me to click through badges (good UX design to raise awareness for a new award system!), but beyond some coins or help, these badges don’t have any meaning. For me, these types of badges dilute the meaning of meaningful badges because they offer nothing to the player. They don’t support game learning, they don’t support learning of new words (the dictionary attachment with definitions is a great addition for on-demand learning!). What is the value of these badges.

So as I move forward with my difficult question of considering how to design program learning outcomes as badges to support a portfolio project in a graduate certificate (hahahaha that is quite the goal for the next month), I want to draw from meaningless to craft meaningful.

I do think that translating program learning outcomes to badges, then asking students to understand the learning outcomes by submitting portfolio quality papers to each area of the program is a great way to visualize learning goals that will help learners through the program, and help them communicate their own learning and expertise upon graduation. The first obstacle will be committee buy-in of the learning outcome translations I present to them……..

I am excited that there are meaningful ways to rethink badges – to use badges without even necessarily describing them with that videogame-based terminology that will support better student learning. Now to design that at the program level, then the course level………

Leave a comment

Filed under pedagogy

Supporting Learning – Student Outreach

Fall 2018 my department will launch a 100% online Graduate Certificate in Writing. This certificate program has been approved on campus for a number of years, but there has been no advertising, no support, no enrollment. To launch this program officially, it needed an overhaul, it needed curriculum to meet the needs of 21st century learners. So my recommendation to the committee was to streamline the courses to be completed, and deliver them 100% online in a year time frame.

In shifting to the online platform, many of the faculty in my department are nervous about teaching graduate courses (especially never before taught graduate courses) through the online platform. So I asked to lead a faculty reading group to support faculty in discussing teaching composition online – or Online Writing Instruction (OWI). We’re reading Applied Pedagogies: Strategies for Online Writing Instruction edited by Daniel Ruefman and Abigail G Scheg.

So far (I’m reading chapter 6 of 11) a question/concern regularly raised is “how to succeed in an online course”. Some chapters raise approaches to support student learning in online courses while others focus on instructor success (yes, teaching an online class SHOULD be different than teaching a face-to-face!). What’s important about these conversations is the student-centered focus on success in an online platform BOTH success with the online delivery (finding things) and with learning (content).

One of the automated ways of refocusing students in the digital classroom (even in f2f delivery) is student outreach. When students don’t submit assignments, when students don’t access pages, have the system automatically email.

CAVEAT: some students print everything! There are ways in some LMS systems to automatically print files in a module folder that don’t register a student having accessed specific pages. Setting up automatic student outreach may be overkill for EVERY page because there is no guarantee students haven’t accessed in print.

I’m also reading through The Graphic Syllabus and the Outcomes Map: Communicating your course which emphasizes showing students the larger structures of organizing content knowledge so they know how to model the background knowledge you’ve created, where individual module pieces fit in, etc.

So, I want to combine these two ideas – to support a learner-centered classroom, how can I use automated messaging to support student content learning so they know how to make sense of their learning AND recognize learning? Instead of using Student Outreach messages as “hey, I see you didn’t submit the thing, how can I help” what if they focused back on learning “this assignment fits here on the learning map” (I default to pirate themed designs as we’re marauders – aka land pirates). The message could be tailored then to students who submitted and students who didn’t. If all students realize they are being direct messages in support of their learning, will they be more active agents in their own learning?

At this point – while still reading both books and prepping Spring 2018 syllabi – i’m still considering how these ideas come together to support students learning. But, I think it’s important to note – OWI offers new ways to be teachers, new ways to be students, we should consider how these new ways shift our questions and our focus. We should keep addressing questions like “how to succeed in the online classroom” but I think the focus should be more positive, even more positive learner-focused (growth mindset and/or mindfulness ideas would help me flesh this out here, but I’m trying to keep my findings more brief than that). How can these new tools, seemingly designed to track student submissions and engage students with things in the course, be used to teach students how to learn in was that positively effect learning AND engagement?

Leave a comment

Filed under pedagogy

Kairos and Power

There is a story in Smith’s Rhetoric and Human Consciousness about Marin Luther causing an uprising months after he published a paper in an unexpected area. The Printing Press was very new technology, authors hadn’t considered circulation and kairos because circulating texts had been difficult and expensive so very few were circulated.

Today I read a post on Chronicle of Higher Ed about recent identity politics issues. While these are important discussions, what struck me were the examples of social media critique that stopped movements. Without self-reflection on the influence of our own subject positions, arguments may carry bias. With the internet publication cycle (anytime, anywhere), this can cause power issues in addition to the expected circulation issues.

As I’m beginning to formalize my plans for Web Writing and Content Management, this idea struck me as especially important today. In a course focused on the circulation of text, the plans to structure communication in meaningful ways, how do I address issues of power as they relate to the content.

Web Writing and Content Management is a course closely related to Technical Writing and Business Writing. While the impact of text and document design is briefly discussed by these fields (in textbooks – I’m focusing specifically on textbooks here not scholarship), it’s still just a brief discussion. Yet, Universal Design for Learning, Document Design for Social Justice, and the power of unconscious bias in text are important conversations directly related to all the assignments created for such a course.

In my current Advanced Writing course, the Document Design for Social Justice article resonated the most with students, but after the course conversation, most chose not to continue with this discussion in the papers they submitted. How do I not just design accessible content, but focus on teaching accessible content design, the importance of accessible content design as a primary concern?

In my composition courses I’ve begun to structure them based on key concepts, as an approach to learning composition through threshold concepts (organizing learning structure to support transfer and recall). What will this look like accounting for UDL and potential content bias? What key concept can support critically engaged thinking while teaching approaches to writing and structuring content in meaningful ways? What can a Content Management course look like structured by learning-based writing concepts modified to support content management specific writing so writers consider UDL and power?

Leave a comment

Filed under pedagogy

Observing Teachers Teaching

This semester I’m Co-Chair of a committee in my department that observes the teaching of our non-tenured faculty. I want to spend some time consider what I’m learning about teaching from observing teaching (practicing my #meta pedagogy).

Scaffolding

Composition instructors spend amazing amounts of time developing strongly scaffolded assignments in their syllabi. To help students understand the connections we really need to be overt in discussing the connections between assignments – connections to the overall learning goals. I’ve noticed students in classes where the scaffolding was overt, where the connections were discussed, asked excellent questions about writing and their assignment. Questions to help guide and develop their thinking.

Awareness and Language

The advantage to these overt discussions was language development. Students in sections with discussions about the assignment connections developed richer language about assignments, learning, composition, writing practices, etc.

Students benefit from understanding the language that surrounds writing. When freshmen composition students ask questions about identifying arguments in persuasive opinion articles, and about the effectiveness of supporting detail, they are able to discuss how arguments develop. In aiding students with developing rich language surrounding writing, they can use that language to identify and understand writing in other classrooms, in other situations.

In my classroom observations I saw students ask more complex questions when they had language to support their questions. I know there are many different theories to support this approach to teaching writing. How do we share these results? What results will be most meaningful to faculty members to adjust their curriculum to support stronger student writing development including the language and metacongition that supports understanding of their own writing?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under pedagogy

Makerspaces at Conferences

This past weekend I presented at the Feminisms and Rhetorics 2017 conference. I presented a maker session on using coding robots (my ozobots) to support learning writing processes and theories (maker pedagogy with a focus on transfer).

The conference call for papers included a call for maker sessions, but for this conference it seemed very few presenters submitted to publish under that category. I attempted to attend a few maker sessions that didn’t happen, and generally did not see many listed in the program. Whatever the cause for fewer maker sessions, it caused interesting mindset reactions in my session.

I presented on Friday afternoon – after a largish lunch with our keynote speaker. The conference began on Wednesday, lasted all day and into late evening on Thursday, included activist sessions and workshops Friday morning, followed by our keynote address, then my session. By my session many attendees seemed a bit overwhelmed and tired. There was a lot of conference happening before my session. What I appreciated most was the joy and excitement in my session when I told attendees the point was to give them time to experience my theory pedagogy, they were going to play with robots.

While i’ll follow-up later with discussions of the theories, I want to take a short break to discuss the idea of maker time at conference to support good learning at conferences. Educators burn-out too. We become overwhelmed at conferences. My session now has me wondering if there should be more productive ways to organize conferences to build in experimental time, experience time, play time.

What i’m not arguing is that my format was the best. What I am considering is the way my play-based format, using the ozobots and some keynote theory slides, but focusing on spending time with the theories as experiential learning offered time for attendees to process some of their learning. Even if attendees never use robots (I understand the cost prohibitive nature of this tech – I only have 4 which influences how I design some of my pedagogy), even if attendees don’t process my theories but some of what they’ve learned from other sessions, could there be benefits to makerspaces at conferences where all attendees work through their own learning in experiential ways that are meaningful to them?

With a focus on transfer (I’m reading How People Learn, I highly recommend these ideas), I’m also wondering how makerspaces can aid learning transfer. How can attendees use these maker practices in new spaces to continue to support their own development. While being overloaded with ideas for new projects is great, it’s also exhausting. Can makerspaces help information processing in meaningful ways?

I feel this post has even fewer answers than I normally provide, I’m epically failing as an education blogger by just adding more questions to an already complex field, but I’m really happy with these ideas. I’m also considering possible applications in the classroom. Yes, I use robots, but with course times, regularly engaging maker activities requires a lot of work (and areas where I need to improve my approach to flipping). How does the classroom need to be reimagined for this to work? This same question would apply to conferences too – how would a conference be reimagined to allow for maker learning processing space? How do we get student/attendee buy-in for such a different approach? I have tons of students who love lectures, they are comfortable with and familiar with lectures, modify that approach and students need guidance. I’m assuming conference attendees would be similarly mystified to new approaches to conference learning. How do we teach students/attendees how to learn in these new approaches?

Leave a comment

Filed under pedagogy

LMS and Critical Digital Pedagogy

I’m presenting at FemRhet 2017 in October on Ozobots and writing process. I love the idea of makerspaces, programming robots, but I want to be able to use the technologies available to meet the needs of composition learners. I want to use technology and colorful markers to help students engage with learning about their own writing process to facilitate transfer. So these theories of teaching composition tend to influence how I make meaning. I’ll come back to my coding bots, but I want to detour to theory for a minute.

Critical Digital Pedagogy, as discussed by Hybrid Pedagogy authors and recently in an post by Sean Morris titled “Reading the LMS against the backdrop of critical pedagogy, part one”, argues for critical engagement with digital technologies to understand/question in what ways power and control are reinforced. Difficult, but worthy questions about the digital technologies we use.

In Morris’ recent article, he encourages readers to question the tools provided by Learning Management Systems. Ultimately asking, in what ways are the tools provided data collectors instead of learning facilitators? Page views is an excellent example. LMS, like the one I use for my courses, tells me (the course shell owner) which students have visited a given page. I can even build alerts when students haven’t visited a page and they should have – or haven’t logged in to the system and they should have. But, and this is an important point made by Morris, content page view in no way indicates learning.

However, dismissing the page view also dismisses the students who did learn by engaging with the page and the page content. Dismissing the page view ignores the ways lack of page view can be an early indicator that a student needs help. Ultimately, critical digital pedagogy should ask us to consider all the alternatives, not just the ones that allow us to dismiss corporate technologies adopted and funded by universities to manage students.

Do LMS have issues? Yes, of course they do.

Do faculty often adopt tools and systems without critical engagement? Of course they do, but not everyone.

Morris calls for stepping back and analyzing the tool. I agree, we need to choose tools that meat pedagogical goals, not ones that are available, easy, or used by everyone. But we also don’t need to use tools in the way they are designed! We instructors and students are the ones asking these hard questions, so why do we have to answer philosophically? Why can’t we decide to subvert the use instead to meet our pedagogical needs?

Wholesale dismissal reduces the productive conversations that could occur from the questions Morris (and other critical digital pedagogy, critical pedagogy theorists) poses. And this is my struggle with critical digital pedagogy – instead of arguing for engaged pedagogical praxis that open classroom space for students to critically engage with digital systems, critical digital pedagogy dismisses the systems as anti-teaching. At one point Morris discusses, in an off-hand reference, that design can be subverted, but not time is spent on that discussion. The article focuses on raising questions about tool design, discussing the student behavior tracking (Skinner and behaviorism, yay), then dismissing LMS. Fine, the systems have issues, but students are real people, with real lives. Asking students to manage a myriad of new systems every semester as they navigate higher education seems cruel.

In this way, critical digital pedagogy ignores the humans using the systems, and the pedagogy of the teacher.

Which brings me back to my robots. I love Ozobots because they move, they dance, and they light up. These sensory cues offer real connection to represent writing and writing process differently. To create a path for the robot, students must draw a line (or use a code sequence) for the robot to follow. The students use different colored markers in wavy lines, circles, script, and so much more to find ways for the Ozobot to drive through their representation of the writing process.

Ozobots were designed to teach kids to code, to teach them in a fun way that involves colors and markers so young kids could engage with the ideas. The ozobot website typically offer mazes to help young students engage with STEM based fields. I critically engaged with coded design, and decided the robots offer so many more possibilities. In subverting the robot design I create space for students to engage with writing process, to use colored markers (college students LOVE markers!), to work together to develop a path for the robot to embody their very real, lived struggles with writing. They have moments of catharsis, moments of transfer, and, importantly, so many moments of fun when they engage. This was made possible by critical pedagogy. This was made possible by subverting designed usage, and considering the ways students could engage differently to support better writing learning. When students present their maps they discuss the real struggles to use markers and a robot to represent their processes – they engage with subverting the technology.

As I continue to read critical digital pedagogy as I prepare my materials for my Ozobot presentation I continue to become frustrated with the missing human element in so many of these discussions. Why can’t we subvert from inside the system? Why can’t we allow technology management to be a little easier for our stressed out students? With questionable job prospects, increasing hours worked while attending school, and huge student loans, is critical digital pedagogy from within the system really such a horrible thing? #subvertthesystem

Leave a comment

Filed under pedagogy

Core Concepts, FYC, and Intertextuality

Influenced by a visiting speaker, Kara Taczak, I’m making some changes to how I teach First Year Composition to promote transfer. Drawing from both Writing About Writing and Teaching for Transfer, the new model will focus on threshold concepts or core concepts of writing to strengthen what students know about their own writing process to help students successfully transfer ‘good’ writing to new writing situations.

 

When I taught a 200 level Rhetorical Theory course we learned a lot of concepts, key terms if you will, that related to rhetoric and why rhetoric as a theory and field of research survived. Even during the Dark Ages when learning, knowledge, and schooling were very limited, rhetoric continued to be taught to Catholic Priests to help convert and deliver sermons to constituents. One of the key concepts that remained, and became a stronger aspect of theory, is the idea of intertextuality.

Teaching the idea of intertextuality from Smith’s Rhetoric and Human Consciousness is difficult. Smith focuses on Biblical intertextuality and the ways the Church interpreted the theory to benefit their Priests and constituents (it’s much more involved than this, but this summary serves my purposes here). Literature students recognized the concept and drew connections to how intertextuality operates in literature. Non-literature students never seemed to understand Smith’s discussion. I’m currently reading Stephen King’s The Drawing of the Three (#2 in the Dark Tower series) and the characters referenced The Shining in a discussion – basic intertextuality, but it’s engrained in the story so readers don’t recognize the moment as intertextuality (why did King reference The Shining at THAT moment? why not The Stand, etc.). But, intertextuality exists far beyond literature and novels, and some of the most popular television shows and movies use intertextuality in important ways.

After watching Game of Thrones (the episode that aired on Sunday 8/16), I read a blog by Erik Kane (he presented at the Undergraduate Videogame Symposium at my previous institution about blogging as a career post-English Bachelor’s – the students loved his candor) about intertextuality in GoT that could help a viewer make educated guesses on the direction of the show (there’s also compelling arguments for the need for viewers to recognize most of the intertextuality to follow the storyline development – cognitive requirements of modern viewing and fandom). While his post is looking at literary intertextuality in the television show, the use of text and a multimodal YouTube clip as support for his claim struck me as ridiculously helpful to teaching academic intertextuality – the dreaded citation.

Returning to the idea of selecting key concepts, for Fall 2017 I’ll focus on discourse community, audience, purpose, and ethos. I’m using They Say/I Say as the course textbook. As I’m finalizing the design for my internet-theme’d, Teaching for Transfer influenced pedagogy, i’m working in a way to use a blog post (internet-based reading and writing, with all it’s messy author-audience relationships and imaginings) to help students understand why citations matter (ethos, discourse community). In the GoT post, Kain uses a few interesting rhetorical moves that are helping me work through the connection to be made between theme (internet) and key concepts (learning about writing to write better).

First, the post begins with an image (yes there is a title, but i’m choosing to begin with the image) of The Magnificent Seven (his term). For those who watch, GoT has an endless supply of story lines and tons and tons of characters (i’m not a lit major so excuse my lack of literary terms to describe this). In using an image of the exact group he’s discussing, he focuses the reader’s attention on the small portion of the HUGE GoT world he’ll discuss in this post. This is such an important move in academic introductions. We humans have been discussing and theorizing since before the Ancient Greeks (the Greeks happen to be the most well preserved recordings). In selecting a topic for an essay, the hardest concept to teach students is how to enter that HUGE conversation and focus the point. Blogs, by including multimedia, allow for images to do much of that work for the author – IF the correct image is selected. From a Pfannenstiel’s key concept point of view, this allows Kain to focus his discussion on the purpose of his conversation within the larger discourse community.

Next, Kain establishes the background knowledge necessary to understand his claim – he contextualizes the mission and the characters involved. Again it speaks to the discourse community, establishing the necessary background information needed for the post without assuming too much or too little about the reader of the post (ethos and audience). The attention to audience here is really important, he makes educated guesses about how to introduce this information so his audience appreciates the information without feeling like he’s belittling their knowledge of GoT.

Now comes the intertextuality (with some ethos thrown in when he includes both the show and the book). We (readers) are being asked to re-examine existing information from the show as evidence for Kain’s analysis. After including the originals (again, the video clip and the passages from the book), Kain analyzes the information by explaining the clips along side his analysis – let me say that again in case any of my students read this post, by explaining the clip along side his analysis. He doesn’t assume the readers will draw the same connections, so he includes the original source, then analyzes it and adds his point.

The goal of this post isn’t to explore GoT theories, but to consider how the video clip functions as an academic citation – through intertextuality. While intertextuality isn’t a key term (it’s a difficult idea to grasp), it is influenced by and influences discourse communities and practices within discourse communities.

To develop a connection between the Magnificent Seven and GoT lore, Kain includes a video link with a clip from season 1. This is an expected rhetorical blogging move – include the thing that you reference for readers to know especially in the form of a video. This is also, essentially, a citation. Here is where my information comes from. Citations and intertextuality help an author establish ethos, they lend credibility to a discussion and claim by referencing other sources in very specific ways.

The specific clip selected is a choice to present the findings from the original in a very specific way. When I search on YouTube for “Old Nan tells a story” I have approximately 5,300 results. While yes, many are commentary and fandoms (so easily excluded) – this is the same situation student writers often find themselves in, wading through massive amounts of text to find the one that properly supports their point. What’s so important for comp instructors (and librarians) is the information literacy skills required/developed to wade through these videos. It’s the same required of wading through sources to find ones that actually support and develop the student-author’s text. If we consider any of the other videos in the YouTube list of 5,300 we can discuss all the reasons those videos would support Kain’s argument less well than the video he included. This is a real, lived citation making intertextual claims, embedded within a blog argument, to support Kain’s analysis of the episode.

Importantly, students read posts all the time that require them to understand these videos as citations, as intertextuality. They experience, analyze, and judge posts daily that rely on their ability to understand intertextuality and citations in writing. Will finding and analyzing such everyday lived posts help them transfer what they know from everyday sense-making to the academic essay, or will they still see citations as a ‘chore’ and ‘requirement’ of writing that simply make their lives hell?

Now, we’ll see if this focus on rhetorical moves of an existing blog post helps students understand the key concepts as they move through their academic papers this Fall……… show of hands for who watches Game of Thrones! 

Leave a comment

Filed under pedagogy

Mindfulness in the Classroom

Today marks the first day of my graduate seminar The Teacher as Writer. This week long course is designed to help graduate students, especially K-12 teachers, write. Because the course meets Monday through Friday of just one week, including guest speakers has been the order of the day for the course.

I began teaching composition at a community college. My early experiences were lunch time classes with first-time freshmen, who did not want to be in a writing course. They affected the bored student approach to a writing course – it’s a requirement so they must automatically hate it. My second year, due to a full-time job, I was able to change my teaching schedule and was given early morning classes. I taught the 7am, 8am, and 9am courses on campus. My student population was so radically different it has changed my entire approach to writing. These students were a mix of late registrants who were stuck with the time slot (a small population) and returning adult students who completed class before work. The adult students struggled more with their perceptions and [what I would now call (thanks WAW and TFT)] theories of writing.

These students influenced my approach to the first few course meetings – I began emphasizing [mis]perceptions of writing as an entry into learning about and how to write academic essays – learning to think and write critically about subjects. Before I had the language for it, I was working to help students develop agency in their approaches to writing.

During my first faculty position I moved toward teaching upper division/graduate courses focused on digital rhetoric, videogames and literacies, rhetoric and composition theory. While writing was a huge part of these courses, and discussed, the theme was the major content. These were English majors and English graduates who still struggled with writing, but didn’t need to be convinced in their theories and perceptions – instead they wanted language to explain their choices to their business major friends and various family who felt English major only led to barista jobs (shout out to my many many amazing former students who have rockin’ jobs in the tech industry, teaching, and various other fields). I still worked through theories of writing, but the focal point stopped being those theories because of the courses taught.

At my new institution I teach freshmen and junior level composition – courses that again require me to shift my focus to helping students work through their own perceptions and theories of writing (again this second idea is more fully flushed thanks to recent scholarship in WAW and TFT). To explore these concepts at the graduate level, i’ve designed the Teacher as Writer course through the theory of mindfulness. Today we spent time using post-it notes to develop our awareness of what we need to write – we posted Twitter gifs of what writing looks like to us – we meditated with a wonderful guest speaker.

As with most lessons, some of these experiences worked and some of them did not work for students. Our guest speaker emphasized on several occasions that there is no one right way to meditate. This applies to the teaching of mindfulness as well – since mindful awareness and the drawing of awareness to the present moment is a deeply personal experience, the curriculum designed experienced are bound to fail for some students. Today, each of them failed for a few students.

As the teacher I feel a personal connection to my content – I want students to learn, I want students to enjoy their learning experiences – I want students to consider future applications of their learning (in this case successfully writing when they want to and helping their students successfully write) – I want students to see the usefulness of mindfulness. So how do I both feel the personal connection to my curriculum (especially when it fails) and mindfully approach the curriculum knowing that students need to develop agency and ownership over the practices I’m exposing them to and develop their own understanding? How do I nonjudge reactions to my curricular design?

At this point the students are writing amazingly (yeah it’s day one, but some started early!!!). That’s the goal so I feel I need to not worry about the effectiveness of the techniques I provide to support writing if the end goal is met. But is this just mindfulness?

Leave a comment

Filed under pedagogy