Today’s Plan:
- Open time to discuss the first week (6:00-6:30)
- Discussion of Murray, Fishman et al, Barger, Parrott (6:30-7:15)
- Break (7:15-7:30)
- Plagiarism Workshop [Scott] (7:30-8:00)
- Syllabus review, between now and next week (8:00-9:00)
- Setting up medium.com accounts
- Setting up a way for students in other classes to link up (following each other on medium.com)
- Review rubric for the proposal, peer review
- Williams and Bizup on active verbs
- Scheduling peer teaching observations
- Homework
Open Time to Discuss First Week
Successes. Challenges. Needs.
Feedback. (#1 when to italicize, when to quote; #2 Run-on; #3 Beware of “but”; #4 Be fair to opponents; #5 Rock star
Discuss Readings
Forthcoming.
Teaching Presentation: Plagiarism
Scott’s up.
Syllabus Review
Wednesday August 31
Class: In groups of 4, share your summaries of ESSAY. Check in on proposals.
Home: Complete proposal. Bring 2 printed copies of your proposal to class on Friday for workshopping.
So, first thing Wednesday is to have them get into groups of four and share their summaries. Writing summaries is harder than many people think. Because my emphasis for a first year writing class concerns claims and evidence, I use this as a reinforcement opportunity. Here is the prompt I will use for this activity:
- Distribute copies of the summaries.
- Decide which summary you will read first and then read it. Since it is only 4-5 sentences, I will give you two minutes to read it.
- After you have read it, I will give you one minute to plan a comment for the writer. Your comment should be a concise sentence. I want you to tell the author if, after reading the five sentences, you feel you have a clear grasp of the original author’s purpose and the main evidence she provides. If possible,
provide the author with a concrete idea of what else you would have liked to know. - I’ll give you four minutes per group to share opinions.
The second part of this class is to check in on proposals. I have no system for this. I just go around the room and ask each student to tell me about their proposal–which of the communities are they interested in, and then follow up with a question that asks about their specific interest in that community and if they have found anything of interest. Alternatively you could dot the activity below.
Possible Computer Lab Activity: Setting up medium.com accounts
As students develop their proposals, we want them to spend some time on medium. Here’s how I plan to do this in the computer lab. This could also be done next week, or transformed into a homework assignment. But, given that some people aren’t comfortable with technology, I prefer to do these kinds of things face-to-face so I can help them through it.
First, I will ask them to go through account creation. I have already advised them to develop a pseudonym and have given them time to do so. I will walk them through account creation step by step, creating a new account on the main screen. While not all of them will follow along, some, especially those less comfortable, will.
Second, I will show them where to set up a profile picture. I will strongly advise against using an actual picture. Most of them know this, not all do.
Third, I will show them how to “clap” an article on medium. Claps are the social currency of medium–its likes or hearts. What is useful for us is that claps show up on someone’s public profile. I will tell my students to “clap” any article that they write about, so I get a sense of what/whether they are reading.
Fourth, I will give them time in the lab to search through medium and follow two writers whose work meets the quality standards outlined below.
Fifth, and perhaps most important, after they have created an account I will ask that they follow me so that I can follow them back. [Let’s check this in class tonight]
The quality of writing on medium varies pretty significantly, so it might be a good idea to present them with a rubric for determining the quality of a source. Let’s look at a few resources:
- Georgetown University Library
- Purdue OWL (look at print vs internet too)
- Keely Wilczek’s Research Strategy Guide for Journalists (scroll to 5 W and 1 H)
My version:
- when was it written
- how fairly does it frame opponents
- how thoroughly does it consider counter arguments
- how well are its links composed
- how credible is the evidence it provides (and what kind of evidence)
Friday September 2
Class: “Workshop Proposals” Class notes.
Home: Revise proposals and submit to Canvas by 10:00am on Monday.
Here’s what I shared with students last year to set up workshopping:
Workshopping
We’ll spend a lot of time in class this semester reading each other’s writing and providing feedback. This kind of workshopping not only provides the author with a sense of how people are receiving her writing, but also helps readers develop a better sense of what does and doesn’t work.
Usually, you will have an opportunity to read the works we are workshopping before class. Today, however, we’ll be reading and commenting in class. Our guide today will be the grading rubric for the first project. Remember that I will be grading on:
- Sufficient Research: [51%] while I can’t put an exact number here, I’ll be looking to see that you have done your homework, so to speak, and that your paper reflects reading and research into the topic by explicating the names, sites, terms, activities, etc central to your topic. This should include numerous citations (both quotations and/or paraphrases).
- Arrangement: [13%] Following below, I’ll be looking to see that your proposal reads like a proposal and follows the genre conventions we identify in class
- Edited Prose: [13%] I expect that you will have carefully edited your prose for correctness and clarity. Also, since we are dealing with digital documents, I will be checking that links are properly hyperlinked.
- MLA or APA format: [13%] I will be checking three things here. First, I will be looking to see that your proposal is formatted according to MLA or APA guidelines. Second, I will be paying attention to how you format subject headings. Third, I will be paying particular attention to how you use direct quotes and/or paraphrases (checking the parenthetical, quotation marks, commas, etc).
But, beyond the grading rubric, I want you to highlight sentences that are clear, informative, or engaging. Let the author know what is working. At the same time, I want you to highlight places where you might be a bit confused, where you need one more sentence to explain something, where you encounter a name that isn’t given an identity, where you encounter a claim that isn’t given evidence, where you encounter a term or acronym that is unfamiliar and left unexplained.
I want to make it clear that peer review is more about revision (developing an idea in a logical, coherent way that makes sense to a reader) than it is about editing (grammatical correctness and style). We must build the table before we polish it.
So, technically, this week isn’t a workshop, since they are bringing copies of their proposal to class for small group peer review. But I still want to develop productive habits of looking at each other’s work.
We haven’t gone over MLA or APA guidelines. My approach here is to test what they already know, to get a sense of how much time I need to dedicate to formatting and citations later in the semester.
For next session, readings on responding to student writing:
- Williams, “Phenomenology of Error”
- Moxley, “Responding to Student Writing”
- Daiker, “Learning to Praise”
- Leahy, “Rubrics Save Time and Make Grading Criteria Better” Bad Ideas
Next teaching presentation sign up: due
Grade proposals and Google Doc feedback contributions.
If you haven’t already, then set up an account on medium.com.
