Blog Post (3/27)


                We tell our students to “show” in their writing rather than “tell” all the time – so Goedde’s piece resonated with me as an example of pedagogy through example. Goedde doesn’t just tell us “that it happened,” he shows us “how it all happened” (63). The story about Lorraine’s story tracks an individual student’s improvement through discussion in the writing center, so while it doesn’t have statistics on its side, it does make the work we do feel more palpable and real. I could see myself taking a non-fiction approach with my case study, as well. 

                On the other hand, the article about Fei was humbling in that it made me realize that our feedback – however painstaking – is not a panacea for writing errors. I groaned out-loud when I read about how Fei would not even bother to read the explanations her tutors gave her and would just copy and paste them into her paper. I get it – that’s how undergrads roll / they're looking for payoff in the form of a good grade. But it doesn’t make it any less depressing. I recently gave feedback to an online submission and I took a lot of time to address global as well as local concerns and I’m a little bummed that it might go unheeded. I liked Goedde’s approach because it made writing center work seem effectual, whereas the other article made it seem like it is all for naught. But maybe I’m just misinterpreting the data? And I understand that online tutoring might not be as fruitful as face-to-face interactions as far as retaining and developing skills goes.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

Comments

  1. EleanorMarch 27, 2018 at 12:50 PM

    It's a little heartbreaking, isn't it? I'm taking it as a reminder to remember who our audience is. I thought it was great she mentioned that she knows the grammar rules, so just marking an error--and not marking all of them--is the most helpful response. I think this kind of information, along with the data, can help us find a middle ground in terms of the balance of feedback we provide: the higher-level rhetorical feedback we prefer to offer vs. direct correction and error identification of proofreading issues students might like to receive. I'd also like to think about ways to teach students self-editing and error identification strategies through online tutoring (I think of that kind of thing as much easier to do face-to-face).

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Writing to Learn, Learning to Write

I'm familiar with different approaches in different contexts. As an instructor, I'm most familiar with learning to write, because even my content-based assignments receive extensive writing attention. As a student, though, I was and am more familiar with writing to learn. But I'm still displeased that as a student in English at the undergraduate, MA, and PhD levels, there was/is not more attention placed on learning to write. At this stage, this seems to be something professors take for granted. (I was recently told: "That's not how you title a dissertation chapter." And I responded: "Can you please tell me how you title a book chapter? I have never done this.") I think also in liberal arts required courses, writing to learn is prioritized in many (most?) disciplines. I'm not particularly persuaded by one form over another, though I have never succeeded in writing to learn language models. But I am partial to the idea that learning to write sho...
Read more

Emi 03/27

These two case studies consider two different research methods that will inevitably lead to very different discussions and presentation of the ideas.  T he non-fiction case study (Lorraine) is purely qualitative, while the academic case study (Fei) is a mixed methods study in which qualitative data is quantitized and the rest of the collected qualitative data (e.g. interview) mainly serves to enhance legitimation. These two different focus, qualitative (Lorraine) and Mixed methods with a focus on quantitative (Fei) are well accepted in research. However, the way that readers approach them may be very different. The qualitative (non-fiction) case study is more engaging, more relatable, and easier to read. As promoted in Qualitative research, the authors present the data as if it were a story and include very detailed anecdotes (called vignettes) that represent the main point to be conveyed. The study is not replicable, but the authors do provide additional information to ensure...
Read more

4/17

In my tutoring sessions, I've been most familiar with the 'learning to write' paradigm. I felt Ortega's statement that "...LW places at the center of attention the cognitive activity of the writer and her or his authorial voice" encapsulates the work my students have called on me to do. Whether they're working on a Peace Corps application, a psychology paper, a global health paper or a speech for Rhetoric, I've found my work can be described in Ortega's twofold statement: helping students put in writing first, their cognitive activity (their opinions, arguments, and questions) and second, their authorial voice (by airing confusions, doubts, and identifying needs for further research). In class, I'm wondering if we can have a discussion about the overlap between LW and WLL when it comes to students picking up specific language necessary for academic assignments. As Ortega writes, there is a difference between students "learning to write abo...
Read more