Analysis of Amicucci’s Writing Prompts (Assignment Post 3)

In her CEA Paper on the pedagogical value of reflection in writing courses, Amicucci shared some of the assignments she gave to her students. Without context of the lessons themselves, it can be difficult to discern the effectiveness of these, but free of context, it is also easier to imagine repurposing these in all kinds of classes.

Amicucci’s Week 1 assignment is partly an ice-breaker and a way for the instructor to know the class. Currently, I am putting together a curriculum for a class on independent living skills for adults with intellectual disabilities, so I have been considering the need to set aside time in a first class to know who your students are. This can help the instructor better adapt the curriculum to the needs of the students. I liked the question about the student’s “relationship with writing”–it’s not focusing so much on the student’s writing skills but on their perceptions of themselves and writing itself. It can open up a lot to be addressed later in the class. The question regarding “critical thinking” not only pushes the student to explain what they view as critical thinking, but also to reflect on how often they use that skill. People tend to use critical thinking more often than they think, even if it’s when watching episodes of a reality TV show or reading a BuzzFeed article, so to open up the discussion on a simple usage of the skill is helpful.

I do think the Week 1 prompt has too many questions, especially for a starting prompt. They would have been overwhelming to me as a student. I still have a hard time with a paragraph of questions, even when I know I don’t need to answer all of them. Breaking these into bullet points and combining similar questions would be helpful here and could avoid unnecessary confusion. As an instructor, I have always found that to be most effective in getting information across to students. It makes an assignment seem simpler when a student can see it split up into manageable chunks.

I have mixed feelings about the Week 6 prompt. First of all, it should be broken up into bullet points for clarity. As for the prompt itwelfth, what I like about it is exactly what I dislike about it: the two seemingly disparate options. Option 1 is creative (“a fictional story or poem that metaphorically depicts your inquiry process”) and Option 2 is more traditionally academic (“an explicit version of the…inquiry process”). Amicucci’s states she created these options because of ongoing anonymous class evaluations (great idea!) that asked for more creative assignments. Personally, despite my love for creative writing, I dislike Option 1, as it seems forced and actually boring, like it is trying too hard to be fun. As a student, I would prefer the straightforward Option 2, which also seems more useful. But I recognize that all students are different and I have worked with students who would prefer any creative option, as they have trouble with and/or are easily bored with academic responses.

I would not assign Option 1 unless I was certain students understood what a metaphorical depiction in a story looks like. I would perhaps have given samples previously, so they don’t feel like they’re going in blind. Giving samples can be really helpful to students, especially for journal/blog assignments, which can vary in formality requirements depending on the  instructor. As an adolescent education major, modeling and scaffolding were always on my mind–they pushed us to consider how we would model what we wanted from students and how we would scaffold the students to get them there. This is not always emphasized in adult education, which is unfortunate. Learners of all ages benefit from these techniques.

Overall, these prompts encouraged critical thinking and self-reflection, skills which are useful to students in any major or career.  A biology major would benefit from thoughtfully examining what they read and considering their own methods. Too often composition courses privilege English majors and humanities students in general, but English instructors must consider the value and direct use of their lessons to those in other fields. Pushing students to be more observant and self-aware is a step in the right direction.

Strategies for Reading and Referencing Academic Texts (Assignment Post #2)

In her book Teaching College Writing to Diverse Student Populations, Dana Ferris compares different types of learners based on their acquisition of English. Her main focus is ESL students, and she breaks them up into three generalized groups: 1) International students, whose L1 is grounded in its own grammatical rules and culture and whose L2 is based on a rote technical knowledge; 2) Early-arriving students, who came to the US as children and have picked up English naturally, so have an L2 that is culturally-informed, but may lack technical rules, especially since their L1 is stunted from not having been given to them fully in schooling; 3) Late-arriving students, who have neither an academic or natural understanding of the L2, so struggle expressing themselves and understanding expectations. These are, of course, not 100% accurate for all individuals that make up these language-acquisition groups, but these generalization provide a useful framework for students to prepare for when teaching ESL populations.

Based on my own experience working with L2 students in all three categories, a common struggle is selecting and utilizing quotes effectively in assignments. The sample promps on communication and community would be something that could be interesting and relatable to all students, but for L2 students the requirement to use three quotes, might be initimidating. It is good to give a quote minimum, as it provides structure, and a quote maximum would be helpful as well. I would make sure to say “3-4 quotes from any one of the readings”, so as to limit the students who might use quotes to take up space. L2 students may also be overwhelmed by the readings themselves and feel that quotes would be better than their own words, so should be emphasized over their own thoughts. This would handicap their analysis and make the paper a dull read.

I would first review what it means to engage with a text–taking notes, highlighting, writing down definitions, paraphrasing, even writing “lol” or a smiley if that’s what came or mind while reading it. As Ferris noted (Ch. 4), L2 students all also have varied learning styles, so an instructor ought to consider what is best for each L2 as an individual. We could do a short in-class exercise like this and then share with a partner and then the class. Students would be encouraged to pick out quotes that jump out at them, as they will have more to say about those. L2 students (and even L1s) should be reminded to write down definitions of unfamiliar words, or even words that they get in context but do not know how to use. Then they would spend some time rephrasing the quote in their own words–not focusing on the grammar but just on unpacking the meaning of the quote itself. We would discuss how a quote should usually be nestled in their own words–with a phrase or sentence that introduces it and then a phrase or (preferably) a sentence or more that explains it and then connects it to the thesis or topic sentence. This would better equip them to write their essays and feel confident using and analyzing quotes.

This would be assessed in the essay. I would thus make the rubric clearer and more specific, possibly with examples for students to use as models and to help them make sense of their own grades. I have been in classes myself where instructors asked students what they think their grade should be, based on the rubric, and that self-assessment is counted into their overall grade. That could be confusing to freshmen, but might be useful for L2 upperclassmen or graduate students, as it help them reflect on their own academic standing and goals.