On Monday, Leah Helig presented an overview of the first year writing program at the University of Wisconsin Eau Claire, and since then, I've been thinking about a couple of the ways the university implements its program.
One thing I cannot help but think, and I may be just stating the completely obvious, is that most universities have a writing requirement and many have first year writing programs and writing centers. It seems a truth universally acknowledged that students need to be able to write, and need instruction in that regard. Why, then, the incredible differences from program to program? Even when I've taught a class that is considered to be standardized (1301) in two different institutions, the difference in curriculum, assignments, and general course expectations are profound. We all agree that writing is an important course for incoming students to take, and that the skills taught in this class are necessary, but nobody can quite agree on what those skills should be. Even when skills seem to overlap (for example, the rhetorical analysis of "Lost in America" versus a close reading of "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been"), the outcomes have not been, in my experience, the same.
With this in mind, I followed Leah's presentation with interest, as Wisconsin Eau Claire has yet another model of teaching composition. But their model seems to me to be set up for student success (and I'm not saying this as a contrast; I think most FYW programs I've been part of have been and are to some degree successful). If you were to ask me (and probably many other instructors) what's missing in FYW as we've experienced it, I imagine that many of us would answer that there's not enough time, and that the classes are too large (interesting to me that these both have to do with time; the problem with a large class size is that the instructor's attentions are overly diffused). Wisconsin Eau Claire addresses these issues with smaller class sizes and a 5 hour course requirement. So students are a) getting more of the instructor's attention and b) getting more time in class.
And with what is this extra time being filled? More reading on the front end, which seems to me to be an absolute luxury as a teacher, and yet totally appropriate to what we are trying to accomplish. I really like the metaphor of listening to the conversation before you step in to say something, and I think it's absolutely something that adds value to these classes. If you think of first year composition as a course that allows you to practice entering the conversation in your academic discipline (which is obviously what I think FYC is, in its ideal incarnation), this extra step seems crucial. At TTU, we get to this step a bit later, in 1302 with the lit review requirement, and I can't yet comment on this aspect here. (In addition, at TTU, we have a six hour course requirement, but it's spread over two semesters.)
Finally, I'd like to note the empirical evidence Leah presented for this model's success. I have only superficially addressed this presentation; Leah presented much more specific information. However, the materials provided on the website indicate that somehow we have a class required of most entering students, that this class provides them with a useful set of skills, and that this class was not so onerous or tedious that students leave never wanting to set foot in an English classroom again.
Nancy, I have been wondering about the problem of large class sizes and lack of enough time as well. I think that Wisconsin Eau Claire's model more so fits the type of FYC program that I have always pictured as being the most successful. It is truly astonishing that every program can have such vast differences, and it is overwhelming to even begin to consider which program or combination of programs would be most beneficial to students.
ReplyDeleteEmma, I agree with you! It seems as if what Eau Claire is doing is sort of intuitive, but then I read other structures and they sometimes do, as well. I do think that when we compare Eau Claire's small class size and individual attention to our composition classes here, we get an idea of what might be most successful.
DeleteHi Nancy, thanks for choosing to review my analysis! I'm glad the program gave you stuff to think about. University of Wisconsin EC has hands-down my favorite model for FYC that I've seen so far. I think it's a combination of having an entire segment dedicated to listening/reading (like you said, that's such a luxury for teachers), not differing curriculum for the basic/developmental writing class, and integrating WAC models + digital literacy. I agree with you that more time/more one-on-one is a good model for student success, UW@EC is trying to have a more integrated learning environment I think.
ReplyDeleteLeah, of course! I thought quite a bit about your presentation, and I'm still thinking about it. For example, I reviewed Iowa's writing program, and though I didn't mention it in my presentation, this writing program is also award-winning. But it's award-winning for training graduate students, not for teaching first year college students. I think we can read a certain value statement in this fact, to some extent at least.
DeleteNice post, Nancy. Something that I've always been surprised about in India is that there really isn't a huge variety, like there is, in post-secondary instruction. A course that is taught in northern India, is basically taught with the same content in southern India. Why is that? There's a history, or course, and it's there for different reasons. Are individual teachers' skillsets and values optimized? Should we teach the same thing, or does then the individual talent get lost? In theory, a systems approach can somewhat maximize both contraries: the entire system, if change in one class can be fed back in as if a loop, can increase the quality of the entire system.
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting this, Nancy. Because I'm in the Friday section, I didn't get the chance to attend Leah's presentation. Like Emma, I am interested in the discussion of smaller class sizes. I've long thought that timely feedback is the most effective way to help students improve writing. As the class size gets bigger, I have less time to respond to each student, and I either have to cut back on graded assignments, give myself a slower turn-around timeframe, or, sometimes, both. It's difficult to balance helpful feedback and time constraints.
ReplyDeleteMaryAnn, I agree that the small class size here seems pretty key, and you make a good point that graded assignment turn-around is pretty crucial, which makes some aspects of our current grading system excruciating. In my previous courses, I set the limit of one week turnaround, as a maximum, and to see BAs go ungraded for almost two weeks has been difficult. But I also have not just jumped in and graded a great deal more than my share. I do think something happens after a week, and that the assignment is so distant that the assessment loses the potential of also being instruction.
DeleteYou might enjoy reading Irv Peckham on post-process thinking. He just posted his thoughts on PPT in his blog. Reminds me of something we've been talking in class this past week: writing should be engaging for students (and for teachers) in order to maximize learning. http://personalwriting2.blogspot.com/2015/10/post-process-writing.html
ReplyDelete