I could see if what I have been telling faculty, asking them to try out was actually working. Here some of my experiences.
First of all one big caveat: as I discovered relatively late that I would teach this class and had not taught this content in, oh, a middling while, I did not go through as rigorous a process of redesigning the course as I suggest needs to happen. In particular, what I was not able to do as well as I wished was incorporate collaboration and collaborative technologies throughout the entire course.
Still, I was quite happy with student interaction, engagement, preparedness, and, most importantly, learning. The class was MWF 8-9am, Spring semester -- for some courses that is the proverbial kiss of death in terms of participation, but with a couple of exceptions, my students were in class, ready to work every day.
What did not work that well:
Well, collaboration - students got very comfortable in their first round of groups, and only until they saw that the second set of groups was based in similarity of research topics were they willing to move to a different table.
Classroom technology: It worked - I just did not use the monitors and monitor sharing capabilities as much as I hoped I would
Modelling resources: I thought that if I forced them to come to one conference, they would see how useful these are and would do this again -- not. I thought that if I extended a deadline so that they can go to the Writing Center, they would see how wonderful it is (and they did) and then go back -- not.
 |
| Audience Analysis |
 |
| Rhetorical Triangle |
What worked well:
Getting students used to the room: on the first day, students were talking, writing on glass boards what they remembered learning in their previous writing classes, taking an online quiz in Canvas (yes, they all had a device with them), The quiz helped me form the first set of groups in terms of diversity of learning/studying style and major
Gallery walks: we did these a couple of times throughout the semester with different purposes:
1. Grammar exercise: every student received a bad sentence from me that she improved on the glass board. Then students within that group improved on each others' sentences and then moved to the next group of sentences. This low-stakes exercise helped them remember concise writing without critiquing their own writing.
2. Thesis improvement and Audience analysis: a little later in the term, two more gallery walks focused on improving each other's thesis statements and making suggestions on what a particular audience would be like, know, think, feel.
3. Final presentations: brochures and posters were presented as a gallery walk, with one half having their materials while the other half roamed the room to listen to the materials, commenting on them in a Google form
Reading ahead of time and working in class: I am not claiming that everyone read everything for class but with a couple of minutes of thought gathering, we were able to use the readings for useful discussions about rhetorical strategies and how to apply these immediately to their own writing.
Writing in class: Because we wrote a lot in class, students worked together on revision ideas, had me as a resource, and may not have felt quite as pressured to pull allnighters and turn in bad writing.
Final Exam: I asked them to write about the lessons/skills/resources that they think they will use in their future courses, with the idea that if they have written it down, they are more likely to do it. Of course, I have no way of knowing but the items covered were the library databases for future research, the Writing Center, audience analysis, time management in writing a longer draft.
No comments:
Post a Comment