Showing posts with label Revision. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Revision. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Assembly Line Pedagogy


It’s not an accident that UMass graduate students are card-carrying members of the United Auto Workers.  That’s right, the good old UAW.  Surprised? You shouldn’t be.  Working as teaching assistant is not that different from working on an assembly line.  Actually, they’re really different.  But both require a lot of routinized, mind-numbing labor.  In my first TA appointment, I graded for 125 students.  There were two five page papers, a midterm and a final, per student.  After two years of doing this type work, I had graded thousands of college essays and developed a few thoughts about the state college writing. Most of those thoughts can be summed up by two words – not good.

Both the university (professors, administrators, teaching assistants) and the students bear responsibility.   The assembly line style grading process fails students…figuratively speaking. Honestly, not that many students really fail classes, despite sub-par assignments.   But I digress. 

There was one semester when I was responsible for 75 students.  Each student had nine papers over two pages and final examine with two essay questions.  In addition, there were 4 extra credit essay opportunities.  I graded over 825 essays in about 12 weeks.

Sure, I can assign a grade to each assignment without too much trouble.  But given the quantity, I didn’t have time to notate the essays adequately or help students improve.  You know, like, teach.  And, as usual, problems flourished: vague arguments, passive voice, run-on sentences, poor citations, and even plagiarism.  I complained to the professor half-way through the semester that there were too many assignments and that it was very difficult to give each student the attention they needed.  He said “you’re doing it wrong; each paper should take you no more than two minutes to grade.”  In other words, he literally just wanted me to assign a number to each paper. “Don’t we an ethical responsibility to the students?” I asked.  The professor shrugged his shoulders and replied “that’s just the reality of these big classes.” 

So, what’s the point of the lecture? If students can’t communicate their ideas clearly, it’s unlikely that they leave with a clear understanding of the content. 

The institution, of course, is not entirely to blame.  After all, some students procrastinate, cheat and slack, etc.   Recently, I asked my students: what barriers stand between good and bad writing? What prevents them from handing in quality work?

They had a lot of good insight.  Here are four problems that they identified: 
      
      Don’t overthink sentences:

Students think writing needs to be academic, ornate, and formal.  I have no idea where they got these ideas from.  As a result, their essays can appear like a well-meaning party guest in an ill-fitting tuxedo.  They flex the binder of their virtual thesaurus (AKA Google) and pose as a sesquipedalian.  They bury the subject and the verb in the back of the sentence.  Because, well, if they wrote it like they’d say it, it’d be too causal.   That may be true.  But balance is the key.

Don’t procrastinate:

Another group of students complained that they couldn’t write unless they had an intrinsic drive, so they would just wait until the last moment.  And it’s true.  When an assignment piqued their imagination, they shined.  When they were bored, they dulled.  Many of these students confessed that they loved to write, just not the assignments and tests they receive in school.  Well, that’s understandable. But, truth be told, most people have to work for a living.  If part of your job entails writing, well, it’s contingent on other people.   Just be grateful you’re not a technical writer for a lumber company…unless of course, you work as a technical writer for a lumber company.   
What’s the solution?  Set a specific time and space to write every day.  Or, as one student noted thoughtfully – do the least savory work first. 

Revise:

Many college classes overemphasize the final draft of a paper.  In my experience, many professors will agree to read early drafts if requested, but few require multiple drafts.  And this goes for both grad school and undergrad.  As a result, students never learn the steps or strategies to good revision.  My advice – ok, ok, it’s really Roy Peter Clark’s advice – start big, then go small. In other words, focus first on structure and organization and then edit for style and grammar.  On the first point, I always advise students to re-outline their paper AFTER they have completed a first draft.  This helps capture a big picture overview of their argument and content. It helps to determine a few key factors: order of thoughts, key elements, and superfluous content.  On the second point, I advise – again, not original to me – for students to read their work aloud – emphasis on loud -- and pay attention to the moments when they stumble or sound awkward.

Don't sweat page requirements:

When some students run out of stuff to say…they just talk till they fill the required space.  So, how can you expand your ideas without producing fluff?  Use examples to help provide context to difficult ideas or elaborate on the significance of your argument.  Use conjunctions to link and expand ideas: for, and, nor, but, etc.  Use subordinate clauses to add contrast.  These are sentences that start with although, nevertheless, unless, if.  

Are you a TA or a student?  Comment and share a note about your experience as a grader…or someone being graded. 

Thursday, October 4, 2012

A Near Student Revolt...


I had this brilliant idea for an assignment the other day.  Well, it wasn't exactly mine.  It actually came from a reality TV show.  DISCLAIMER: I really like bad reality TV.  Either way, it was a true moment of inspiration.  There was only one problem:  it required that I change the terms of a graded assignment…An assignment that students were in the middle of writing.
But let me give you a little background first.

I’m teaching a new class this semester – at least new to me – called Methods and Interpretation.  The class fulfills the Junior Year writing requirement for Political Science students at UMass, Amherst.  I scheduled the first half of the semester to focus on professional writing -- like Op-Eds, Press Releases, Stump speeches, etc. -- and the second half on research resulting in a formal research paper. 

Throughout the semester, I emphasize the revision process -- a key craft often lost to the allure of procrastination.  I require students to hand in a first draft which we workshop in class, and then both a first and a final draft stapled together in the subsequent class.  A component of their grade is based off the difference between the first and second draft.

So, back to my great idea:  I had watched this episode of Master Chef where home cooks compete to…well…be Master Chef.  In this episode each cook had five minutes to pick ingredients from a pantry and then thirty minute to cook a meal-to-end-all-meals for the critics.   But there was a twist.  When the contestants returned to the kitchen with their ingredients, the host required them to exchange items with the person next to them.  Do you see where I am going with this?

It was 6am, Tuesday morning, I was eating apples and oatmeal, thinking about how I wanted to structure the days class, and it hit me: rather than have the students break-off into pairs and peer-review the first draft of their press release, I would make them trade press releases with a partner, polish it and hand it in as their final.  Brilliant right? 

It sounds foolish, ridiculous, stupid, but actually it makes perfect sense.  After all, professional writing is rarely single author oriented; it often entails an iterative process with multiple participants.  Besides, what better way to hone your revision skills than to visit incomplete work with fresh eyes and the authority to make it shine? 

Of course, when I announced the activity to class with all the enthusiasm of an evangelical preacher the morning after a midnight visit from Saint Gabriel, the reaction was…well…predictable.  The class erupted in protest.  Students complained to me and to each other; they blurted out questions and rebuttals. One student retorted: “A lot of ideas are good in theory.”   

Most students and teacher treat the syllabus as a sacrosanct contract.  Students resist uncertainty and change – especially when grades are at stake.  But at the same time, I have yet to find a more effective pedagogical tool than spontaneity and surprise.  So, despite a near student revolt, I stood my ground.  I carefully detailed how the assignment would be graded.  I gave the students fifteen minutes to consort with their new colleagues.  And I took group and individual question.

The final draft is due next Thursday…We’ll see how it turns out.