Teaching Essay Writing in the Post-Truth College

[spork]

I can pretty much guarantee that any student who flubs any of the three rubric criteria, multiple times, because they don't see a connection between the process of writing (e.g., "revision") and the structure of the assignment, is also going to flub a subsequent "now argue the other side" or "build more depth into your argument over two pages" assignment.

Edited to add:

For example, student scores 2 out of 3 on Assignment 1 because of spelling errors. Same for Assignment 2. Same for Assignment 3. Each time the reason for the grade is shown on the rubric and in my comment. Then student complains "professor is not fair because it's impossible to get a good grade on assignments."

[Caracal]

I can pretty much guarantee that any student who flubs any of the three rubric criteria, multiple times, because they don't see a connection between the process of writing (e.g., "revision") and the structure of the assignment, is also going to flub a subsequent "now argue the other side" or "build more depth into your argument over two pages" assignment.

Edited to add:

For example, student scores 2 out of 3 on Assignment 1 because of spelling errors. Same for Assignment 2. Same for Assignment 3. Each time the reason for the grade is shown on the rubric and in my comment. Then student complains "professor is not fair because it's impossible to get a good grade on assignments."

The point of teaching writing through revision is to force students to revise, something they tend not to do on their own. It isn't strange at all that most students don't see revision as part of the process of writing. The experience that undergrads have had through college and high school is that they write something, they turn it in, and then they get a grade and some feedback. After that the thing they wrote is out of their lives. Good students will actually read the feedback and apply it to their next assignment, but they don't return to the previous assignment.

It is just one of the ways in which college is artificial. It seems strange to us that you wouldn't revise anything you wrote because the idea of revision is so ingrained in our profession. We don't write anything and just move on from it. When I taught writing, the goal was to make students see how this process worked by making them go through multiple drafts-we usually did three full ones. I didn't grade the drafts, because I wanted them to think of drafts as not an ending point, but just part of this long process where they had to come back to what they had written and improve it.

The problem you might face is that it can be hard to apply this model to classes where the writing isn't the only focus. It sounds like the point of the assignment you describe is just to get students to do the reading, think about it a bit and engage with it through argument. I'm not sure it would be practical to turn it into a lengthy revision exercise.

[spork]

This is, in fact, the only method I've found that forces students to read and engage with what they've read on a sustained basis (meaning: throughout the semester, rather than the night before an exam or research paper is due). And the cognitive science research backs me up in my use of spaced repetition.

[Caracal]

This is, in fact, the only method I've found that forces students to read and engage with what they've read on a sustained basis (meaning: throughout the semester, rather than the night before an exam or research paper is due). And the cognitive science research backs me up in my use of spaced repetition.

I wasn't suggesting it was a bad exercise, just not something that it would be easy to incorporate structured revision into. I'd love to have my students do more of the revision work I did in writing classes, but it generally is difficult for classes where writing is a component of the class rather than the sole focus and it is also very hard with a lot of students. There is a reason freshmen writing courses should be capped at 14 students or so.

[dr_codex]

One of my colleagues (Humanities field, not English/Comp) assigns two grades to essays: the "content" grade and the "writing" grade. A student earns the lower one, unless the essay is revised. She swears by it, but while I understand what she's doing, I feel strongly that expressing and content are intertwined. One of many reasons that I don't love standard rubric grading, but that's me.

I've been thinking about your problem, Spork, and I have two thoughts.

First, what you are describing for your students isn't what I usually think of as "revision"; that is, editing/recasting/rewriting the same piece more than once. Rather, you are asking students to apply feedback to the next iteration of the same kind of assignment. That's absolutely legitimate, and students who repeatedly submit assignments with the same weaknesses either don't want to, or don't know how to, do them better. A student who repeatedly doesn't "Write the answer in the first sentence" isn't trying; a student who has never learned how to spell isn't going to pick it up overnight, and needs to find a different solution.

Second, I cannot think of a way to do what I think of as revision without adding more grading. (Well, I can think of one: the dreaded Peer Review, which if unsupervised isn't going to solve anybody's problems.)

My one other suggestion is to do what online writing tutors often do. Create a set of macros for common errors, and use it to fill in your comments. These take a while to set up, but very quickly save a lot of typing. E.g.: "The writing center is located at ..."; "Commas are used to separate clauses ... examples and how to find them can be found at https://owl.purdue.edu/owl_exercises/sentence_structure/sentence_structure/run_ons_comma_splices_and_fused_sentences.html..."; and so on. The advantage here, of course, is that it provides methods for correcting the issues, going beyond simply identifying them. Yes, you can use proof-readers' marks keyed to a writing textbook, but if your students are like mine, they don't even know what my chicken scratches mean, let alone how to address them.

Keep up the good fight! Don't abandon the essay!

dc

[Caracal]

Keep up the good fight! Don't abandon the essay!

dc

It is frustrating, because the proper place to learn all of this stuff is in a freshman writing course. Ideally, other courses would then teach students to apply and refine the lessons they learn there. Where I teach students are required to take a freshman writing course, but it doesn't seem to do much for their skills. I'm betting a lot of this is just about the number of students and classes. Looking at our course schedule, most of the classes have 22 students in them and many instructors are teaching three sections. That's way too many. When I last taught a writing course, I had fourteen students. At the same time I had 100 students in two different classes and the writing course took up far more of my time. I can't imagine you could have 66 students in writing courses and have time to really engage with student work through multiple drafts.

[spork]

One of my colleagues (Humanities field, not English/Comp) assigns two grades to essays: the "content" grade and the "writing" grade. A student earns the lower one, unless the essay is revised. She swears by it, but while I understand what she's doing, I feel strongly that expressing and content are intertwined.

[. . .]

My wife says trying to teach composition as separate from content is fruitless and counterproductive. I tend to agree.

First, what you are describing for your students isn't what I usually think of as "revision"; that is, editing/recasting/rewriting the same piece more than once. Rather, you are asking students to apply feedback to the next iteration of the same kind of assignment.

[. . . ]

Yes, that's it exactly. I'm not an engineer but I have an engineering background and mindset from my undergraduate days, and I'm quite familiar with design thinking. The benefits of iteration (i.e., practice) are quite obvious to me. Not to students, apparently.

That's absolutely legitimate, and students who repeatedly submit assignments with the same weaknesses either don't want to, or don't know how to, do them better. A student who repeatedly doesn't "Write the answer in the first sentence" isn't trying; a student who has never learned how to spell isn't going to pick it up overnight, and needs to find a different solution.

Yes, and unfortunately this "one and done, next!" mentality is reinforced by faculty who assign a term paper with no scaffolding process.

Second, I cannot think of a way to do what I think of as revision without adding more grading. (Well, I can think of one: the dreaded Peer Review, which if unsupervised isn't going to solve anybody's problems.)

I have tried peer review multiple times and in multiple ways in the past and it's never worked. The students here just aren't aware of what constitutes good writing and why it's good.

My one other suggestion is to do what online writing tutors often do. Create a set of macros for common errors, and use it to fill in your comments.

[. . .]

The comments aren't a problem. It's just a few words or sentences that I copy and paste from a list of remarks.

[dr_codex]

Spork, I may be out of ideas. You're already doing the Writing Across the Curriculum/Writing in the Disciplines that I'd love to see at my place, and you're actually giving feedback about student writing. With literally dozens of attempts at the same thing, it really is up to your students at some point to wise up to the fact that they have to follow a format, and they have to communicate idea clearly. Frankly, it's hard for me to say what else you could be doing.

[spork]

Thanks. That means a lot. This is the kind of conversation faculty on my campus should be having among themselves, but there is no venue for it.

[AvidReader]

So I'm now looking for advice on incorporating "revision" into graded assignments in a way that 1) students perceive as "revision" and 2) doesn't increase my workload. My standard writing assignment is "Write a page that responds 'yes' or 'no' to this question. State your argument in the first sentence. Defend your argument using evidence taken from the reading assignment." I'll have about two dozen of these assignments in a course, graded on a three-point rubric -- organized as specified, sources of evidence cited correctly, and correct spelling/grammar/etc. Assignment is due before class; in class there is discussion. Students who do badly on the first few assignments can simply read my comment, look at the rubric, and change -- i.e., revise -- what they do next time. But students don't think of the system in terms of "I have twenty-four opportunities to improve by changing what I do."

I teach composition, mainly, and I have a specific revision assignment: my students can choose any previous essay to revise. I ask them to consider the changes I have recommended, and make them if they agree. I also ask them to revise other elements of the essay: evidence, tone, style, audience, etc. Finally, I have them write two paragraphs describing the changes they made. (They can also identify changes I recommended and defend their original text if they feel strongly that the original version is preferable). Though the paragraphs are worth less than the rest of the revision, I use them to structure my rubric (I list the comments I have made and identify ones they have addressed, then list the revisions they claim to have added and check off each one in turn).

If you don't want to lose one or two of your 24 opportunities on an actual revision, you might have them perform a similar contemplative activity by having them write, say, two sentences identifying one piece of feedback they received on the last assignment and describing one way in which they think they have applied that feedback to the new one they are submitting. You might even have them start this process as soon as they receive the first assignment back (for instance, reading your feedback and describing one thing they could do differently on the next assignment in order to earn more points).

AR.