Thanks to all who came–we had a really diverse group. Every one was from a different college: we had representatives from the College of Humanities, the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, the School of Allied Medical Professions, Fisher College of Business, the College of Pharmacy, and from the College of Mathematics and Physical Sciences (who was from the Mansfield campus). Thank you also to Heather Mitchell, who arranged the workshop through FTAD.

I began, as I like to do, by asking you what classes you teach involving writing, and what questions or concerns you have about teaching writing. As I mentioned above, the attendees were all from a variety of disciplines, and furthermore taught a variety of classes of different sizes and in different places in the curriculum. Some were teaching courses around 45 students, others much larger lecture classes of 100 or more. Some of you were teaching introductory or GEC courses, while some of you were teaching upper-level or even graduate-level classes in your discipline. Some of you noted student resistance to writing in fields where writing isn’t expected. Others were concerned about how to manage opinion based papers in science classes. Some of you were used to shorter writing assignments, and wanted insight into how to assign longer research papers and guide students through their writing.

The size and shape of classes greatly affects the kind of responding to student writing that can be done, as smaller classes permit closer engagement in student writing than larger classes, and upper level classes expect greater student engagement and facility in disciplinary conventions. In any case, the primary and first step in responding to writing is to articulate specific, concrete goals or outcomes that you have for your class. Your writing assignments should clearly fit within these overall goals. Furthermore, these criteria should be clearly expressed to students as often as possible at all stages in the writing process. A clear articulation of goals and expectations can make responding to student writing much more transparent, efficient, and helpful to students. At this point, I asked you to list several criteria that you had for student writing in your discipline.Some of the criteria you mentioned were generalizable, while others were more discipline specific (though even these specific criteria could arguably be grouped into parallel categories). You mentioned criteria such as an ability to reference opposing viewpoints properly, to have clear, logical argumentation, to reference and cite sources properly, to synthesize class concepts and ideas comprehensively, as well as to produce mechanically correct final written products. Several of you also pointed out that a clear sense of audience was crucial–which lead to an important discussion about how audience expectations should be clearly articulated in assignments and in class discussion by instructors.

I then introduced you to a sample assignment from an introductory Biology class that asked students to make a research-based argument in favor of (or against) an environmental policy. In groups, I asked you to develop a short list of criteria (3-4) that could shape your response to these papers. Both groups developed similar lists of criteria for the assignment: a coherent argument based on a policy, clear argumentation and organization, and proper citation of research to support the argument.

We then talked about strategies for making comments on drafts of assignments like the sample. I distinguished between two levels of commenting–local or marginal comments and global or end comments. Local comments should point to particular areas of a piece of writing to address particular aspects of a students writing. Global comments offer students a clear, concrete plan for revision. Comments should balance critique with encouragement, so that students know what aspects of their writing were effective, and which were less so. Such a balance can be best achieved when instructors imagine themselves less as judges and evaluators than as coaches. Instructors can be most helpful to students when they imagine themselves responding as readers–pointing out what aspects of students’ writing are clear and which aren’t and asking questions which help a student come to understand how to communicate his or her ideas in writing to a reader. I also suggested that you limit the volume of your comments, so that you can focus your advice toward a limited set of goals, and so that you give students greater responsiblility for revising their writing. In addition to focusing your comments, this strategy can also help you save time when responding to a large number of student papers.

To drive this last point home, I asked you to read the two sample papers, make only two marginal comments, and summarize your revision advice in only 3 or 4 sentences. I also asked you to think about what aspects of the assignment you might discuss with the class, having read two essays. Unfortunately, we didn’t get a chance to talk about the comments that you ended up writing. However, we did talk extensively about what you would say to the class to clarify the assignment and point out areas that students overall could improve on. You noticed that both essays, for example, failed to clearly advocate for a policy. Talking to students about theses that would back up a policy would help here. One of you suggested that students get into groups to discuss their theses and revise them for the second draft. Finding patterns in a group of essays can help you understand how your students are responding to your prompts and how you can clarify your expectations to students.

Chris Manion

Here’s the handout we used for the workshop: FTAD Workshop sp06