University of Connecticut University of UC Title Fallback Connecticut

September 2016 Teaching Workshop: Assignment Development

The moving force of inquiry is the existence of questions that are posable relative to the “body of knowledge” of the day but not answerable within it. Inquiry sets afoot a process of a cyclic form . . .

—Nicholas Rescher, Process Philosophy, p. 65

Yesterday, the First-Year Writing Program facilitated a workshop on assignment development for instructors. It was a nicely attended event, with a healthy balance of new and seasoned instructors.

I had been charged with preparing materials for the event, a task to which I’d responded with gusto—or, rather, absurd thoroughgoingness. (A deadline for a dissertation chapter was looming, and what better way to procrastinate than to compose several pages of single-spaced text on assignment design? I’ve already watched Stranger Things.) But despite the wealth of handouts that I’d brought, I was quickly reminded that a dozen heads seeking advanced degrees are better than one, especially re: assignment development. Which is all to say, the participants blew me away with their great ideas.

I’d like to share all of them with you. But because workshops and freewheeling discussions don’t lend themselves to clear, concise recounting, and because I’d like to conclude this post someplace south of 5,000 words, I’m going to focus on just one of the many threads that we followed yesterday.

One of the most important points was, perhaps unsurprisingly in retrospect, also one of the most fundamental: if we hope to design better assignments, we must arrive at a fuller understanding of what student writing is, what it’s for, and what the relationship is between student writing and that genre of instructor writing that we call assignments. Of course, student writing is writing by students—but it’s writing by students as students, specifically for occasions occasioned by the instructor (and often by the instructor’s writing, in an assignment sheet, for example). In a sense, then, it’s as much the instructor who generates student writing as it is the student—but only in a funny, PoMo theory kind of way.

Or not? “As much” may be too much, granted. But while it’s often, and obviously rightly, the student to whom we ascribe the “genesis” of student writing, our discussion yesterday brought to light just how central of a role the instructor’s assignment sheet plays in bringing student writing into being—and in influencing the shape that the student’s writing will ultimately take. There’s a call and response relationship between the two genres, the assignment and the student’s academic essay. If, as an instructor, you find yourself grumbling about a poor batch of essays by your students, you might consider revisiting the assignment that you devised; maybe it’s there that the issue began. Equally, a carefully crafted assignment not only tends to lead to more insightful, interesting, ambitious essays, but it also models for students what a good project is. (A couple of participants pointed out during our discussion yesterday that “good” in this case has to do with disciplinary conventions. One field’s criteria for “goodness” will differ from another’s.) This knowledge—what a good project is—isn’t as intuitive as we sometimes think, particularly for college freshmen who don’t regularly read, say, PMLA or College English.

There’s a balance, however, between modeling a good project and allowing room for originality, creativity, movement of thought. (Then too, at a more selfish level, most composition instructors don’t find it thrilling to read twenty nearly identical versions of a single essay.) We discussed some practical aspects of this balancing act: allowing students to select one or more of the texts that they examine, or having them begin with feeder assignments like project proposals. But what seemed most crucial was the rule of thumb that assignment sequences should both be responsive to what’s going on in class (the ideas, the writing, the conversations of the class) and be structured in such a way and with such flexibility that, if a student offers a fascinating and/or useful contribution to the course’s inquiry in an essay, that contribution isn’t born on the page only to die on the page: instead, that great idea or insight (or whatever) goes on to circulate throughout the class, changing the trajectory of the course’s knowledge-seeking.

Consequently, we can extend our little formula from before:

An instructor’s writing (in an assignment prompt) occasions a student’s writing (in an essay)—yet this same student writing should also occasion the instructor’s writing (subsequent assignment prompts, lesson plans, etc.).

David Bartholomae has already taught us, in “Writing Assignments: Where Writing Begins,” that student writing typically does—and, if students are to learn from us, must—spring from the assignments that we write. What was perhaps most vital about yesterday’s discussion was the recognition by many participants that, from a still more encompassing perspective, this dynamic isn’t a one-way street. Rather, assignments facilitate a “process of cyclic form,” to quote Nicholas Rescher, in which every act of writing, whether by student or instructor, gives shape to the next.

February Teaching Roundtable: Teacher Immediacy in the Digital Age

Two human hands coming out two seperate computers, reaching out for each other. Isolated on a white background

I became interested in the topic of immediacy in teaching—students’ perception of the physical and psychological distance between teacher and student (as defined by Gorham)—by reflecting on my own early teaching experience. As a young college instructor, I was often concerned about my authority in the classroom and what I was projecting to my students. I would let the students call me “professor” and fret about my intellectual authority. Every class felt like a test that I might pass with flying colors or miserably fail.

A few years into teaching, I began working as Coordinator of Writing Tutoring at Baruch College and was suddenly working closely with undergraduate students on a daily basis. We worked collaboratively to create tutoring documents and discussed tutoring issues, searching together for solutions. The barrier I had been so anxious to maintain began to feel like tinsel armor. I realized I could be a leader and guide while also being an equal collaborator in pursuit of knowledge and good practice.

I was reminded of this moment in my career when reading bell hooks’ Teaching to Transgress, a text that provides practical insights into the ways we can foster teacher immediacy alongside an awareness of the sociostructural barriers to immediacy that we work against in our classrooms. Hooks writes, “When I enter the classroom at the beginning of the semester, the weight is on me to establish that our purpose is to be, for however brief a time, a community of learners together. It positions me as a learner. But I’m also not suggesting that I don’t have more power. And I’m not trying to say we’re all equal here. I’m trying to say that we are all equal here to the extent that we are equally committed to creating a learning context.” I like this clarification of what some may perceive as a threat to the necessary order of the classroom. Hooks isn’t pretending that all hierarchy can or should be dispensed with, but that everyone is equally able to contribute to the common pursuit of learning within the course.

In our roundtable last week on teacher immediacy, Simone Puleo, graduate instructor and PhD student in Comparative Literature, and Shawna Lesseur, Assistant Director of First-Year Programs and PhD candidate in Political Science, joined us to talk about their own immediacy practices in the classroom. Simone addressed the traditionally rigid hierarchy of power between student and teacher as it is reinforced by classroom architecture. Puleo’s answer is to “just leave.” He advised instructors to literally get outside the structure of the classroom when they can while providing “surgically” precise guidelines for the class to stave off the chaos that can set in when classes get outside. Shawna spoke of the ways that she creates immediacy and power balance with students in her First-Year Experience courses. Early in the semester, students help to create the syllabus, deciding on course topics of focus. They also help define common criteria for successful writing by reading blog posts online and detailing what makes pieces of writing succeed or stumble. In this way, both content and criteria are co-determined by students and teacher.

In discussion that followed, we worked to suss out the balance between connecting with students on common ground and maintaining professional boundaries that are respectful to teachers as laborers. One of the points that came up in our roundtable was a concern that a more “student-centered” approach can mean excessive and/or outside-of-job-description labor on the part of graduate and part-time instructors. In response, graduate instructor Sarah Berry gave an explanation of the way she makes her labor visible to her students through her language. She explained that she will say things like, “In reading your drafts, I saw that one thing we need to pay more attention to is…,” signalling that she has spent time thinking about class activity in light of reading student work.  

Another concern raised was that a “student-centered” approach may reinforce the identity of student as consumer. Shawn Lesseur responded to this concern by saying that in her classroom students cannot play a consumer role. Rather, they are co-creators of the learning experience and won’t succeed in the class if they take a passive, consumer stance. Associate Director of First-Year Writing Lisa Blansett echoed this by describing the classroom she aims to create as a space for “collective improvisation.”

Director Scott Campbell reminded the group that writing and teaching are never quite “immediate”; that is, writing mediates human activity and relationships—between people, ideas, and other writing. Nonetheless, as Scott and Shawna explained, sometimes highly mediated spaces (including online course spaces like HuskyCT) can be the best places to foster students’ sense of immediacy (that is, a lack of psychological, if not physical, distance) because they allow teachers to focus on student writing and the ways it mediates relationships.  Ultimately, mediation and technology can work in the service of, rather than against, the project of immediacy in our classes.   

Differences of opinion in our discussion emphasized that the distance or proximity instructors feel comfortable with in relation to their students is, in part, a personal matter, but the dynamic we choose to foster is not without political implications. Critical pedagogy asks that we be whole selves in relationship to other whole selves and take responsibility for the political stakes of the relationship between teacher and student. When we do not, we, in hooks’ terms, “erase our bodies” and the political position and histories that goes with them. This “encourages us to think that we are listening to neutral, objective facts, facts that are not particular to who is sharing the information.”

The project of immediacy, then, is about more than creating a psychological closeness that predisposes students to think well of an instructor and a class; it is also a political effort that aims to make visible the power relationships we inherit so that students can write with a more critical awareness of their own and others’ positions.

 

**Update: Published 3/2/2016 on Chronicle of Higher Ed, the article “Read and Unread” pays special attention to the forms of digital communication that are most reliable for connecting with students.

 

Works Cited

Gorham, Joan. “The Relationship Between Verbal Teacher Immediacy Behaviors And Student Learning.” Communication Education 37.1 (1988): 40. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.

hooks, bell. Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge, 1994. Print.

It’s all just in the words

As academics, no matter our level or field, we are used to the conventions of our field as well as the language, the jargon, used in our environment. While I speak of academics, every profession has its own jargon, it is used to communicate efficiently, and simultaneously it establishes our own knowledge and understanding of our discipline – 10-4?

In our field, the humanities and even more specifically, the literatures, terms and concepts such as “discourse,” the “Other,” or to “deconstruct” are frequently used to communicate an idea and situate it within a larger discourse. Often we, as academics and advanced students, do not reflect on these terms because they are understood by our academic audience – it is our language here at the university and in our department. As Instructors we try to familiarize our students with this language, yet might not always be aware of our own jargon use, or what is understood differently by students who are either new to academia or to the field. In humanities discourse, everyday terms like “memory,” “voice,” or “truth” are re-contextualized and given a slightly different meaning and thus different consequences than the same terms when used in non-academic language. In a way they are jargonized as this new, academic meaning is known to the academic community. For native-speakers of English, the transition, or the jargonizing process, from every day to specialized language happens quickly and often as a side note: as instructors we deconstruct the everyday term and (re)situate it within our own disciplinary discourse and then expect our student to use these jargonized terms. But what happens when a Second Language Writer comes across these often common but now re-contextualized terms? For Second Language Writers the transition requires an additional step, the translation of the term into his / her native language and thus an environment where the deconstruction of the English term might not work as fluently as it does in English. Second Language Writers are therefore frequently confronted with jargon understanding of terms that differ or go far beyond a traditional dictionary definition. Furthermore, some of these terms may prove themselves much more complicated and problematic, especially when venturing into a post-colonial environment / jargon: What or Who is “the Other” when a Second Language Writer from a non-western environment writes? Why is he / she referred to as the “subaltern”? Obviously, it was Gayatri Spivak, as an Indian woman and scholar, who coined the term, but she did so within the jargon environment of her field. But it is now we instructors who introduce these terms to a diverse student population from all over the world, and more frequently than not, do so from a Western perspective and interpellate our students into our own discourse, often silencing their voices.

I am not advocating that we as instructors stop using the jargon of our fields! It is in many ways our responsibility to familiarize our students with the specific language that is used in an academic discipline, at least to a certain degree. Members of the medical community must speak the same jargon; legal professionals speak and write in their own “language” where every day synonyms have a distinct (legal) meaning; police officers must know what the numbered codes mean – even though these jargons/languages might seem inaccessible to the outsider at first, they serve a purpose.

However, as instructors of our field(s) are in a position (if not to say we have a duty) to make our language / jargon accessible to our students and thus have to take a step back once in a while to reevaluate our own, specific language. Especially when working with Second Language Writers, we need to understand that there is an additional translation process and that we might have to work through a term, maybe on an individual basis, a bit slower and ask more pointed questions to further the students’ understanding. Or, why not take a moment in class and work with all our students through a term like “voice” and let them discover its academic scope. What we cannot do in return, is to penalize a student who makes a good argument based on a different, non-jargonized understanding of a term.

In the end, it is all “just” about the words and how we use them – for better or for worse – but we need to understand and to be understood in order to have communication happen.

What is an Audience?

As part of the “rhetorical situation” most students either pick up on or are explicitly taught, “audience” looms large as the writer tries to predict exactly what will move those who hear or read the work. Other pieces enter the picture, too—purpose, occasion, for example—and this triumvirate serves as a kind of cloud into which the writer uploads words.

In classical rhetoric (or, is that Classical Rhetoric), the role of an audience is addressed in the works of Aristotle, Cicero, Plato, Socrates (via Plato of course), and a few “unknown authors.” Although the 3d-audiencequestion of “audience” figures into all these authors’ works, the question of how or even whether one should attend to one’s audience was rather more fractured: For some the audience may be filled with dimwits who hold untrained opinions (doxa), and so the model orator would address them by taking the high road of “knowledge” and truth.  In short, he should teach virtue and deliver wisdom (and therefore enlighten those ignorant souls; Socrates, as the mouthpiece of Plato, never did think much of the hoi polloi: see Plato,Gorgias). For others, namely Aristotle, audience was figured with somewhat more nuance; his taxonomy of audiences includes their demographics (their family and fortune; their age; they are assumed to be men) their emotional state, and their character type (see Book 2 of Rhetoric). Aristotle identifies general types of audiences—the passive spectator, the engaged public, and the judge (hence the branches of rhetoric: deliberative, epideictic, and forensic). Yet Aristotle did not actively link invention or style to the characteristics of the audience, although knowledge of the audience does play a role in the construction of some figures. While Plato seems to argue that one makes an audience by lifting them up to the level of the (non-sophist) rhetorician, Plato describes a rhetor whose role is to provide wisdom and knowledge or to persuade the audience to accept an established norm or truth.

In the millennia since, rhetoric has created the “reasonable man” standard, in which one man stands for the whole audience, and audience itself has come to be generalized as “the consumer.”

(more…)

Should First-Year Writing Be Academic Writing Only?

Every August, when I introduce the UConn’s First-Year Writing course to new instructors, I present the course—“the pedagogy”—as a fairly coherent set of approaches and practices coming out of a particular tradition, which we do our best to engage with, revise, and renew each year. I encourage new instructors, who may be best positioned to notice weaknesses or limitations, to suggest potential innovations or mark points of difference from what they expected or have experienced in other programs. I take seriously the adage that teaching is a kind of research. And, although I will occasionally joke that “this is a teaching hospital” and therefore a place where mistakes can happen, I see good teaching as inseparable from experiment.

This year, in our seminar for these new instructors, we are reading selections from First-Year Composition: From Theory to Practice (Parlor Press, 2014). Each chapter features a composition theorist working through a few key issues in teaching FYC (or FYW) and then offering a sample syllabus. Most of these chapters describe courses that are quite different from the UConn courses, and my hope is that encounters with these alternatives will stimulate further experiment and help us resist replicating the UConn ideology merely out of habit or familiarity. We’ll see how that goes.

Doug Hesse’s chapter and sample syllabus is especially interesting to me in its challenge to our almost relentless focus on academic writing. (more…)

Plagiarism and the Pedagogy of Fear

Students in my classes are able to define plagiarism pretty easily and they understand that plagiarizing comes with consequences. Those same students identify plagiarism under the heading “bad” and its attendant ramifications as catastrophic. Most syllabi include a statement about plagiarism with consequences that range from a failing grade for the essay to failing the class altogether. Beyond syllabi, the University of Connecticut, too, has a statement on the Office of Community Standards page, which includes a brief reference to what “academic misconduct” is, and a lengthy “Appendix A,” that includes an outline of procedures for faculty and details of the protocol for a hearing.

traffic_lights_mist

 

To the University, “academic misconduct is dishonest or unethical academic behavior that includes, but is not limited, to misrepresenting mastery in an academic area (e.g., cheating), failing to properly credit information, research or ideas to their rightful originators or representing such information, research or ideas as your own (e.g., plagiarism)” (Community Standards “Student Code,” Appendix A).

(more…)

Zombie Clones and Other Time-Saving Tips

https://www.flickr.com/photos/oskay/265879094/in/photolist-aZkBGa-iJ6PD5-8akZTE-5HMTxE-hesKUF-bfwPve-qrxdNh-5HMTyU-bRDg6v-9nxbvV-bkdpEN-8hXoXM-puGAj-fg7KNW-5gASCQ-7Gacsv-73BEtY-7sW9UN-9buerG-bV3s1D-9FJQq3-5gwxc6-6ihBnP-5gwx1P-5gwwWa-9ZFeb2-5gwx7D-8DGRBs-brUGvC-8HQd6h-divjfM-divigy-divhWo-divips-9MCM2a-cMwJGE-8aTX5G-ccpHzN-711gzh-5gwwYB-5gASFs-9ZFeeR-9ZJ6sf-9ZFe6k-9ZJ65U-8Hf3Y8-5svBLq-8Hf4ZV-8FQ5Ym-pNF9cp

If I could offer you a zombie clone of yourself to either, A, teach your class, or, B, comment on, grade, and communicate by writing with students, which would you choose? I ask this because it can seem, at mid-semester, that you are in fact two people—the one conducting a traditional, familiar class (see: most non-FYW courses ) AND the one toiling in penumbral obscurity, working through drafts, one comment-laden pdf at a time. And, in an important way, UConn’s FYW courses are truly two courses bound together as one. Years ago, students took two 3-credit courses and TAs taught two sections of these courses each semester. The still sound logic behind the change was that a proper FYW writing course is a bit like two courses in that so much occurs offstage, in drafts and commentary. Students today take one 4-credit course and TAs teach just this one course (the two bundled parts), and there is simply no question that the increased attention per student makes for a more profound FYW experience, both for student and instructor. In one move, FYW reduced its curricular footprint (from 6 credits per student to 4) but also matched each student with essentially twice the attention (albeit for just that one semester).*

Within this thought experiment, I would guess that most would choose to put the zombie clone to work as a grader. In fact—and let me be delicate about this—sometimes the comments I see on papers suggest that indeed the zombie clones are already hard at work. That is, I’m not always convinced that instructors of FYW courses find the time to truly engage with student projects with the same care they give to designing and executing class sessions. Some of this has to do with increasing class size and the immense challenge of running a 100-minute seminar twice weekly, especially for instructors with less experience. Another factor is the familiar teaching advice (backed by research, no less) that suggests that instructors should limit comments to two or three at most per paper. In this way, well meaning and appropriate advice about efficiencies in grading can have the unintended effect of closing down or narrowing the channel of discourse opened by the out-of-class communications between instructor and student, these written conversations about drafts and projects.

I am more likely to send the zombie clone to the classroom. (Add snarky comment from my students here.) I say this not because I don’t love teaching and planning class sessions. But my experience in teaching an online section of FYW, although a flawed experiment in many ways, has taught me to further explore the power of networked, ongoing commentary in the form of response, posts, communiqués, out-of-class worksheets, Google Docs, and even, gasp, Google+ posts. (Okay, I might be kidding about that last one.) In a writing course, writing (or at least “composition” more broadly considered) should be the primary activity. So often a course becomes bifurcated—class sessions are group-oriented, conversation-driven spaces and grading/commenting is an isolated, text-driven space. Lately I’ve been emphasizing the need to bring more writing into individual class sessions, especially writing that can be worked through and built upon (and talked about) within a class session. Maybe this post is about the other side of that coin, finding a more “conversational” mode in our communications outside of class sessions. We like in-class conversations because they are dynamic and shared. I think we can approach writing and student texts with a similar spirit of exchange and possibility when we establish channels for writing and terms for this conversation. This means using tools like HuskyCT to aid a circulation of text that is not in only one direction. For example, I ask students to post drafts as a new discussion thread, and all peer review feedback as well as my written comments are posted for that student (and any interested student) as comments on that thread. The peer review happens over a few days within guidelines I post in a separate document, and all of this resulting material becomes fodder for the in-class work do as we move toward final drafts. There isn’t really a sharp boundary between in-class and out-of-class, or between discussion and writing. I find the process more fluid and responsive than the traditional spend-a-weekend-alone-with-papers model. And, since he’s not really needed to teach the course, my zombie clone can fight crime or sign petitions or do whatever it is he wants to do.

*N.B. This logic does not apply to faculty, both part- and full-time, who teach these courses.

 

Photo source here.

Amazing, Brave, Consistent, Dull, and Fragmentary: On Grading

The conclusion of fall semester is near, and it willMichael Coghlan image, Creative Commons soon be time to submit final grades. What final grades are supposed to mean (and what they communicate) remains contested. We hear about grade inflation and wonder how we could be the one to ding a student’s GPA. They all have 4.0s, right? And yet, it seems unfair to tell a student who made essential, substantial contributions to the course that most of her classmates got similar grades. Are grades rewards, motivators, signals of our great power over undergraduates, traces of a regime of certainty long since fallen? One thing we do know is that they are our responsibility.

The questions about and problems with grading have been a rather continuous point of discussion in the FYW Program. After all our talk of “radical equality” and student contribution, are we still, after all, using variations of sticks, carrots, pedestals, smiley faces, and ribbons to mark “success”? Now is not the time to rethink one’s entire grading scheme or overhaul one’s principles of fairness. And existential crises about “marking” students can wait until 2015. But even the most experienced instructors reflect on the work of the semester with some uncertainty about what choices to make in assigning grades.

Some Factors to Consider

Values. The FYW Program communicates values for the courses, but often in mercurial or oblique ways (throughlines, anyone?). Some consistent language nevertheless bubbles up. The Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing, which was cited in several syllabi this semester, emphasizes curiosity, openness, engagement, creativity, persistence, responsibility, flexibility, and metacognition. Language from past assessments within FYW give us these priorities: inquiry, defined project, textual engagement, and rhetorical knowledge (among other things). Even the throughlines suggest that contribution and emergent complexity are highly valued. In assessing students’ work in your course, consider reading through these lenses. What terms best convey the priorities of your course? Do you make reference to these when you establish final grades?

What you’ve communicated. You have been talking and writing to students all semester. One thing to review at semester’s end is your own discourse about success in this course. What have you emphasized and encouraged? If your language is wholly different than the above values, you might need to consider revising your communications with students in future semesters. But you should stick to what you’ve explicitly asked of students.

What seems fair and consistent. Even the most meticulous recorder of student work and progress will sometimes see inconsistencies between students in assessing grades. That is, one may see that the numbers add up to a simple B for one student, but, when looking at other B grades, notice a gap between performances. If you’ve provided detailed information about points and percentages, you’d best stick to these guidelines. Nonetheless, most calculations leave room for some interpretation. Assign the grade that you feel best reflects the student’s performance in the course, giving some attention to how other students achieved a similar grade. Don’t let a faulty grading system trump your gut, if your gut is informed by fourteen weeks of reading and innumerable points of contact with your students.* Likewise, each section of FYW is a partner to other sections offered throughout the UConn-iverse. If your grades are especially high (a majority of students receiving As) or low (most at C-level or below), you should look into why that is. You cannot be expected to know what happens in other sections, and you may indeed have an anomalous group of students. But the FYW directors and assistant directors can provide feedback and context for program-wide grade trends.

Non-passing students should not pass the course. A tautology, perhaps, but one that bears repeating. There are many reasons why a student may not pass your course, and you have presumably communicated with the student about this possibility at an earlier date (midterm grades, an end comment suggesting that the student is at risk of failing, or a November email to a disappearing student). I usually tell students that everyone has a bad semester at some point (because it’s largely true), and I remind them that retaking the course will remove the F from their GPA. Nevertheless, some instructors find it very difficult to follow through in assigning a failing grade. It’s an understandable reservation. But don’t assemble some dubious points and extra credits to help a student cross the threshold if he is not turning in passing essays. Please, bring borderline cases to the FYW Office.

As with all things FYW, please come by our offices or send an email if you would like some dialogue or feedback regarding grades. We can provide program-sanctioned backbone, and we can provide a second opinion when you’re feeling unsure about a grade.

 

*Scott’s perhaps tiresome postscript on the false consolation of positivism goes here: grading schemes that rely on numerical weights and measures are no less “subjective” than those devised and articulated with prose alone.

 

Image found here.

Letter to an Instructor

In the past decades American academic institutions have experienced a steady increase in the numbers of international students. Increasing economic pressures and the commodification of education have led college administrators to intensify recruitment efforts overseas in an attempt to bring an even larger number of international students to US campuses – a development that in my opinion is unlikely to change; international students are here to stay, figuratively and sometimes literally. For us in the university and college classrooms this upsurge in numbers may pose a challenge as these highly intelligent students sometimes come ill prepared in regards to language skills and cultural knowledge. As educators of either writing or content courses, we sometimes disregard these differences in cultural upbringing and prior knowledge and are surprised when some of the international students do not fare to well. In the American academic system, the participation grade seems to be almost omnipresent and carries at least some weight in the final grade. Still, we have international students in our classes who do not speak up, or if they do, they are hard to understand, and sometimes write papers that are illegible. Unfortunately, we often do not have the time to address their needs as international, multilingual students.

I was an international student. I came for my Masters in German Literature and stayed for my PhD – that is almost a decade ago. Today I am working with international students in a second language writing classroom, not because I am an excellent writer, but because I am intimately familiar with the challenges and struggles of a second language writer. When I recently visited the graduate seminar of a professor with whom I took several seminars almost a decade ago, I remembered my fears and anxieties of taking a graduate seminar in an English department. The classes back then were amazing, challenging, and intimidating. I learned a great deal in these seminars, but still there were some things I would have liked my instructors and my fellow classmates to understand.

The following “letter” is to any instructor who has second language students in his or her classroom, it is not a plea for special treatment, but an attempt to voice the frustrations and thoughts of a second language student in an academic classroom; it is unedited for grammatical or punctuation errors (we use many more commas in my home language), this is how I, as a now-experienced second language writer, write in my first draft:

___________________

Letter to my instructor and my classmates,

I am a second language writer and there are some things you need to know. I am trying to improve my English on a daily basis, but it will never be as good as yours. Even though I dream and think in your language, it will always be yours and never completely mine. I can live with that, but can you? Will you accept my mistakes? When I struggle with articles, prepositions, and other grammar issues? When I use the wrong word or confuse sentence structures? I am not trying to make these mistakes and often I am not even aware of them. The longer I live here the better my spoken English gets, but I don’t write as much as I speak. I have many ideas, but often I lack the vocabulary! I am a good writer, when I am in command of the language, my own. When I came here things were different, harder, I not only had to learn one new language, yours, but I had to learn to understand and to write in the language of academia. But this is not all, when I arrived in this country, I had to learn to understand it; you do so many things differently from what I was used to. For the longest time I did not understand your jokes, it is easy to laugh along, but your humor is hard to understand and I often just don’t get it. I still have a hard time to be funny, at least when I want to be. I learnt the difference between “playing with myself” and “playing by myself” the hard way; when I said the first version, it made perfect sense to me. Also, you laugh about things that I have a hard time to consider funny, imagine being a German and you hear the word “Grammar Nazi” for the first time. My country has a distinct, different history from yours; I grew up with different values, ideals, and prospects – but now I am here, sitting in your classroom, with 20 students who share your culture, your values, and your ideals. Are you surprised that I am not speaking up when I disagree with your views? You are a group, I am alone, I am not afraid of you, but I am intimidated by you: I am afraid that my voice will not be heard, that my argument is obstructed by my lack of vocabulary, I am afraid that I will say something wrong.

But I am pointing out the negatives, I am proud to be here! I am proud to have come to this country, to learn, and to contribute. Even though I know that my English will never be as good as yours, I know that you will never speak my language as well as I do. I am able to converse in two languages; to transmit and translate ideas and concepts. I bring a cultural understanding to your class that you might not have thought about, bring ideas and cultural knowledge to your class which is completely foreign to you. I am willing to share, I am willing to let you be part of my experience – if you let me be part of yours. I am willing to learn and succeed, if you give me the time and tools I need. It might take a bit longer, you might not always be able to understand me, but I am trying. Talk to me in person, I know that takes up your time, but I will appreciate it! Try to understand where I am coming from when you read my paper and you disagree with my views on the world – I sometimes don’t agree with you either. Please don’t penalize me for being a second language writer, but use me as a resource for a different perspective.

Sincerely,

me

Bend and ‘Flect

medium_7930358116 (1)  When I think of “reflection” outside the world of composition and rhetoric, I think of light that emanates from a source bouncing off a surface that redirects that light–like sunlight bouncing off car windshields. The light is conceived of as linear, and the relationship between source and surface is geometric, the point of origin different from the point of metaphorical impact, and different, too, from the usual destination, the driver’s side of a car on the highway, making it difficult to see ahead.

The word “reflection” itself doesn’t have appear to have an etymological history that follows the rules of geometry. Where the “flect” in “reflection” comes from is unclear, and while that root is related to an old French word that means “to be brought back,” or from the classical Latin “flectere,” to turn around, “retrace one’s steps, turn back, to turn away (the face, gaze), to turn back, reverse” (OED).

The “flec[t]” of “reflection” means “to bend,” and that’s where “genuflect” connects (as does “connect,” says the OED, as well as “inflect” and “deflect”). The OED editors suggest that a now-obsolete word, “fleche,” may be related, but that word went out of style in about 1420. Still, adding “fleche” to our understanding provides some interesting details to the effects of this bending, including vacillating and wavering.

In the field of rhetoric and composition, reflection has come to mean “writing exercises that require us to position ourselves as the authors of detached rational cognitive and apparently objective self-assessment” (Done & Knowler 850). Students are asked to reflect to assess their process and their work generally, with the goal of developing some metacognition about the work of writing.  Developing some consciousness of the work is a productive goal, but I find that students tend to perform the work of reflection rather than really do much.  I also find that they focus primarily on form, recording, for example, that they need to focus more on stating a thesis early, and then making sure that “everything else” referred back to the thesis.  I don’t seem much about the work of the actual project mentioned at all in a reflection like that.   (For more about the performances of reflection, see Julie Jung’s “Reflective Writing’s Synecdochic Imperative: Process Descriptions Redescribed”).   (more…)