Author: Bill Cecil-Fronsman
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 11:44:03 -0600
I just spent a chunk of class time today in my US-1 class going over how to write an essay exam. I took one of last year's essay questions (on Puritan ideals and how those ideals were translated in social policy) and wrote up a thesis statement and an outline for that question. I distributed this as a hand-out and made it into a transparency, which I projected on to the screen. I used this as the basis for a 15 minute lesson on how to write an essay exam.
This is all relatively new for me. In the past I *assumed* that students were being taught essay writing in high school or in freshman comp classes. I *assumed* my job was to teach them history and to expect them to be able to produce decent essays. Thirteen years of teaching freshman indicate that these assumptions simply aren't true. Only half of the class raised their hands when I asked them if they felt that they had written a "fair amount" of essays. Several said that they had never written a history essay exam in their lives.
I am starting to re-craft my survey course to accommodate my school's general education guidelines. We are obligated to teach certain skills. In history's case -- reading intelligently, writing effectively, and processing information in terms of analysis and synthesis. All of these demands meant that today I spent less time on the Continental Congress, Thomas Paine, and the Declaration of Independence in order to go over how to write an essay.
My question to H-Survey folk is: what do you think of all this? Are general education courses being unfairly made the dumping ground for skill instruction which should be covered in high schools or in freshman comp classes? New subscribers may note that last year we spent a fair amount of time discussing all the "new" history that goes into the survey that wasn't there ten years ago. Is it fair to expect us to cover the new stuff and provide instruction in these basic skills?
On the other hand, is it not our obligation to serve students' needs, needs which clearly are not being met in other places? I teach in an open-admissions school and a substantial proportion of my students are not prepared to write a college-level essay when they come in. Is it not our job to take students where they are and try to move them forward?
Bill Cecil-Fronsman zzceci@acc.wuacc.edu Department of History Office: (913) 231-1010 x1317 Washburn University Fax: (913) 231-1084
Topeka, KS 66621
Author: peter c holloran
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 14:53:50 -0600
Bill Cecil-Fronsman raised an important point, one I deal with each semester in recent years (yes, students' skills have declined!). But isn't it the responsibility of the college learning resource center (tutoring, remedial skills, etc.) to offer students with substandard essay writing and study skills the tutorial help they need in college? If we take time from our history classes to offer remedial teaching, the other students are not served and the material we CLAIM to cover is missed. I see as many students outside of class as possible, but an increasing number of college freshmen have needs beyond my skill or time available to meet. My first responsibility is to teach history. Let the trained staff (overworked and underpaid as I am!) do this important job, no?
Peter Holloran, Mount Ida College, pch@world.std.com
Author: LIBSPBMK@vaxc.hofstra.edu
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 14:55:40 -0600
Whether it is fair or not, the reality is that unless we teach the students how to write a proper essay for a history course they will never learn. It should have been taught in HS [or maybe even earlier] but clearly, it wasn't. And, since they are here now, the students are our problem. We can stand on our rights and refuse to teach them anything that isn't properly 'history' but if we do we win the battle and lose the war.
Our only options are to be part of the solution or remain part of the problem. But perhaps this is really a symptom of another set of problems. How many of the students who cannot write an essay would be better off if they were not in college at all? How many of them have skills and talents which lie in other directions and which are being buried as they get the message that unless they are college-trained they are nothing?
I still remember the six-foot-something freshman who -- after spending the better part of a semester heckling me in my class -- broke down in my office and cried like a baby because all he wanted out of life was to own his own delicatessen. His parents, themselves having never attended a single college course, had decided that their son was going to have what they had not. He was then working in a deli, was doing very well, enjoying the work and the sense of satisfaction he received from it and I was making his life miserable by insisting that he learn about a past in which he had no interest.
Meanwhile, I find it increasingly difficult to get a decent sandwich because they are all being made here on campus by work-study students!
Barbara Kelly
Author: Patrick Riordan <71702.677@compuserve.com> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 08:50:11 -0600
Funny you should mention teaching students how to write essays. This morning I did exactly that in the American Studies seminar (our large lecture class is broken into 7 seminars as well as 2 large lectures a week). The faculty who teach this course have decided that the single we spent on the mechanics of writing last semester will be buttrested by *two* days this semester.
When I asked "What is a topic sentence?" my students looked as if had asked, "What role does the thymus play in the endocrine system?"
Whatever it is that's caused American students to be unable to write, it's not just an American disease. It's international.
As Britain prepares for an 18-month study of higher ed, it's looking as if people here will have to accept that, just as Bill Cecil-Fronsman says, the job increasingly is not to reject the students as we receive them, but to teach them, beginning realistically at the point at which we find them.
Patrick Riordan
Middlesex University
White Hart Lane
London N17 8HR
Author: Mark Byrnes
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 08:50:56 -0600
I try to deal with the essay skills problem by giving the students a detailed handout on the first day of class, in which I explain my expectations. I cover everything from the simplest concepts of structure (introduction, body, conclusion) to use of evidence to support arguments, to how to use and cite quotes. This way, I know I have given them the information they need, but without taking valuable class time to do so. I also encourage them to make use of the writing center. The handout also insures that they have something concrete and authoritative to refer back to when writing, rather than their own cryptic notes of what I said in class about writing.
Mark Byrnes
Dickinson College
Author: Gordon E Harvey
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 08:51:35 -0600
Another aspect of the essay in the history course is the feeling of many students who do not wish to be held responsible for grammar, etc. in a history course. A few terms ago I served as an assistant for a large survey in the history of technology. The professor administered essay exams to this class, and part of our responsibility in grading the tests was to correct and grade composition and grammar. As might be expected, student evaluations at the end of the quarter criticized this policy. The view of many students was: "this is history, not English."
I would like to see if this is consistent with other classes at other universities.
Gordon Harvey
Auburn University
Author: VOLPE@zodiac.rutgers.edu
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 08:54:27 -0600
I have ben thinking about the issue of reading and writing skills quite a bit as I design my own syllabi for the first time. As a T.A. it was my job to try to address my students' lack of skills (in my 75-student seciton of a U.S. sruvey of 300 students), and I found that the mini-workshop like the one Cecil-Fronsman did worked out well for most students. Kids who needed more indepth help were referred to peer tutors, writing centers and study skill classes.
As I look at the skills vs. material trade-off now, I wonder if one way to address the very real lack of anayltical skills would be to reconsider HOW we teach, rather than assume teaching skills would mean to sacrifice plowing through the chronology. One tactic I have been considering is the "whole language" approach used by many secondary curriculi to teach writing and get my students writing as much as possible in as many different ways as possible without overloading myself with grading: have them keep journals, teach them how to identify arguments in articles or primary sources, have them read and review each other's work in small groups, these are just a few options. I also realize I am miserably uninformed about the literature on learning and teaching that I might put into place in my classroom, and would like to try to find some way to incorporate such information into my course structure as well.
It is also important to remember that just because we are seeing more students with less skills doesn't mean they should not be in college. The rhetoric around education in this country is disguising the ways in which local communities are increasingly unwilling to invest in education or the inability of secondary schools to address the severe socio-economic issues that prevent children from learning. In colleges and universities where skill levels are a problem, one approach would be to offer a critical reading and writing class outside the liberal arts curriculum, another would be for professors to seek out strategies for teaching reading and writing from the departments that teach these things outside the regular curriculum. I don't think the answer is to pass the buck or settle for mediocre skills, I think we can do a lot to break out of the lecture format for the survey and teach skills without sacrificing "the material." After all, if our students can't tell us why an event, issue, form of expression is important, who cares if we got to 1865, 1952 or any other arbitrary end point?
Andrea Volpe Rutgers alvolpe@eden.rutgers.edu
Author: Kelly A. Woestman
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 10:55:21 -0600
This semester I'm teaching the second half of the US Survey in our Writing Intensive program. Students are accepting (albeit passively) of the fact that they are expected to write in the course. (The converse is that a few of the students in the "regular" sections complain when they have to write at all in a non-WI course)
Keep in mind that even if they have "learned" it in English comp, students have trouble translating skills from one course to another. The same goes for some of the knowledge they were exposed to in high school.
It sounds like several of those submitting posts are trying a variety of ways to deal with the problem. Ignoring it won't make it go away. Modeling -- demonstrating what you want them to do -- is still the best method of teaching. Isn't that a part of what we do when we lecture and discuss - model how we come up with our conclusions from the facts of history. There is a point, however, as one post mentioned, that you have to move on and send students other places such as university writing centers for help.
Peer evaluation - with specific instructions given - is very effective. How many test essays and papers have you read/graded that were really only rough drafts? Just having them bring writings to class and review one another's work is an excellent step.
The Teaching Professor published by Magna Publications is an excellent source for info about teaching techniques in the college classroom.
Kelly Woestman
Pittsburg (KS) State U.
--
Kelly in Kansas
kwoestma@pittstate.edu
316-235-4316
Author: Bill Cecil-Fronsman
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 11:47:49 -0600
I've been pleased by the responses that have been coming in to the question about how much time we devote to teaching students how to write an essay exam.
I noticed, however, two different responses that raised questions in my mind that we might want to discuss further.
Mark Byrnes wrote:
I try to deal with the essay skills problem by giving the students a detailed handout on the first day of class, in which I explain my expectations. I cover everything from the simplest concepts of structure (introduction, body, conclusion) to use of evidence to support arguments, to how to use and cite quotes. This way, I know I have given them the information they need, but without taking valuable class time to do so. I also encourage them to make use of the writing center. The handout also insures that they have something concrete and authoritative to refer back to when writing, rather than their own cryptic notes of what I said in class about writing.
I wonder if this is enough? I, too, give students a hand-out on how to write an essay. But these are the same students who repeatedly ask the simplist questions about the course rules that are stated in no uncertain terms in their syllabus. Do H-Survey folk feel that we have done our job in instructing them in writing by giving them a hand-out and encouraging use of the writing center?
On the other hand, Andrea Volpe Rutgers writes:
I don't think the answer is to pass the buck or settle for mediocre skills, I think we can do a lot to break out of the lecture format for the survey and teach skills without sacrificing "the material." After all, if our students can't tell us why an event, issue, form of expression is important, who cares if we got to 1865, 1952 or any other arbitrary end point?
Are H-Survey folk comfortable with this approach? Isn't our challenge to address the demands of skill instruction at the same time as we address the demands of finishing the course?
Just a few thoughts -- what do you think?
Bill Cecil-Fronsman zzceci@acc.wuacc.edu Department of History Office: (913) 231-1010 x1317 Washburn University Fax: (913) 231-1084
Topeka, KS 66621
Author: Anthony G Carey
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 12:11:16 -0600
I wonder what "our job" is in dealing with underprepared students, at least on the higher plane of service to society, or something like that. Does remediating students in college help the educational system? Would not admitting/flunking students who don't have basic skills do more to help the education system? Would it compel everyone to perform at a higher level? Does taking a day or two to "teach students how to write essays" make things better? Is our goal to see all students make it through, however much help is needed and however broad the allowances made? Does a right to a college degree exist? Should all our students end up "above average?"
Having thought a lot about these questions in my relatively short career, and having spent a lot of time helping students with essays, I honestly haven't decided what "our job" is. And the assumptions and logic of some recent posts, it seems to me, would lead us toward doing remedial work all the way up to the Ph. D. level, because the students pay the bills and it's our job to "meet their needs." I could meet the needs of many students very easily by giving them A grades and never meeting class, why not do that? Because of standards? If we are to have standards, why not high ones?
I've got a lot more questions than answers, and, actually, my usual practice is to give students all the help they ask for and make lots of allowances. As with many others, I suspect, what I think in the abstract often does not control how I relate personally with students--so I end up trying to "save" students who shouldn't be allowed within 100 miles of a college.
Tony Carey, Auburn U.
Author: vmccombs@frodo.okcu.edu
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 12:13:03 -0600
As I was waiting in line to cross the stage and receive that long-awaited Ph.D., I struck up a conversation with a new Ed.D. What I said rather shocked her. I said that one reason I was glad to finally get this degree was that I could look forward to a college position where I could spend my time teaching my "subject" rather than teaching students, ie how to read, write, and think. That comment is now right up there in the "Oh, my God, how could I ever say that" hall of fame. Fortunately, I did teach six years in a prep school where I did learn to teach students because I do a great deal of that now. As others, I rail against a system that sends us poorly prepared students and yearn to talk more about that enlightened subject. But I remind myself that while students may not remember the significance of mechanized warfare to World War I, hopefully they will remember something about how to write. Let's face it--do you honestly remember all those facts and historical interpretations from your US survey course way back when?
I suppose I have become jaded, but I hope I am realistic and a good teacher. I spend much of a class period explaining both how to write a paper and also how to effectively answer an essay question. I have had students tell me they learned more about writing in my class then they did in Comp I and II.I think the main addition to this discussion that I might add is that writing, reading, and thinking skills must be a group effort. It is not realistic to assume that students will learn it all in Comp, or US history, or poli sci, or any other specific course.
Meanwhile, I wax ecstatic on history more days than I instruct them in writing. Hopefully, I will find an appropriate balance.
Virginia McCombs
Oklahoma City University
Author: Peter Frederick
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 15:11:50 -0600
Loved Barbara Kelly's story --and point-- about it being our responsibility to teach the students we get, and to teach them the skills they need to be good students of history (and good people). It does no good to bemoan poor preparation; besides, who taught those high school teachers?; besides, most secondary teachers are, like us, doing the best they can. So are our students. Well,. . . most of them. The imperative (wherever it comes from) to "cover" the material is, I believe, the enemy of good learning and teaching. And leads to a bunch of questions: how much material? how detailed? organized under what conceptual themes? are we sure that just because we covered something the students necessarily learned it? etc... Coverage implies to me pulling a huge ugly moldy brown/grey tarpaulin over a lovely, lush green field. Or, as someone once told me: "everytime someone talks to be about coverage, all I can think of is a cat and a litter box."
So I focus on teaching historical thinking skills, writing, speaking, decoding primary documents, detecting interpretive points of view, understanding the BIG Picture, concepts, themes, stories, immersing students at points of historical decisions through roleplaying, etc. And, to repeat, spending the necessary time to teach them how to read a document, a painting, a photograph, a diary, a monograph, even a textbook; and how to write, what a thesis statement is and where it goes, how to quote and cite sources, etc... It is time well spent, and usually one can teach content AT THE SAME TIME as one is teaching a skill; it's not like they're mutually exclusive.
And, by the way, on another topic, doing a mid-term "evaluation" (I call it getting feedback) in which I ask students 1) what's going well for their learning, 2) what's going not so well, and in terms of #2, 3a) what I can do to help, and 3b) what THEY can do to help. This way what I learn about the group of students I am currently trying to teach can be used to adapt what I do better to help their learning. End of term evaluations are much less helpful except for flawed sorting of faculty and flawed summative decision-making by administrators and P & T committees. I want earlier feedback to help my current students learn.
This is what being a history teacher is, isn't it? I cannot imagine another model.
Peter Frederick
Wabash College
Author: Omohundro@aol.com
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 15:15:03 -0600
Boy is it ever! I gave up years ago trying to teach writing in most history courses, esp. the U.S. survey. Correcting grammar, spelling, sentence structure, etc., was not worth the criticism on student evaluations, and from other faculty, who thought I was too tough and unreasonable, and administrators, who don't like complaints from the paying customers. Such criticism has real impact, on annual merit pay (in years when there is any); and on tenure and promotion over the long term. And I am in a tough department, with a collective GPA below that of math and the hard sciences for the past few semesters.
The idea of teaching writing to 30-40 students per class is ridiculous, esp. when the class meets only two or three times a week. It's akin to the notion that one can teach "critical thinking" to college students who don't already know how to evaluate evidence or analyze a problem. To those who want to try it, go right ahead; to those who can actually do it well, and succeed, you have my admiration. The fact that I am at a commuter school, part of a state university, makes no difference; I had virtually the same experience at Harvard as a TA. There the customer really was always right--after all dad had paid the big bucks for that A!
Michael Chesson, U/Mass-Boston
omohundro@aol.com
Author: peter c holloran
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 08:34:46 -0600
Michael Chesson was right on target, you cannot teach writing to a history class of 30 or more undergrads. I teach both History and College Composition, and the CC class is never more than 15 while US History or Western or World Civ classes are never smaller than 30. To teach writing skills, you need one on one time and many office visits.
That is not to say history courses should not include writing, just that remedial writing is both inappropriate and unusual, IMHO. Why not let the professional staff in the learning center do this (important, overlooked) job? Our job is to teach history and, we hope, cover most of what the course description and syllabus claims to include. Covering the course cannot be dismissed lightly, the intro survey is a prerequisite for upper courses whose professors do assume we have done our jobs, no?
Peter Holloran, Mount Ida College, pch@world.std.com
Author: Joan Gundersen
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 08:36:15 -0600
For years I have assumed it was the job of a survey instructor to help students improve. In all of my classes I give a short discussion of 1) how to analyze an essay question 2) How to write under a time limit and include enough information to document a point. I often use a short handout I developed for book reviews that illustrates summary without argument, arguement without evidence, and a supported thesis. I do this by creating three versions of a review on Goldilocks. Students need these same skills for an essay exam. When students bomb an exam, I offer to meet with them to analyze what went wrong - is it reading or studying problems, or is it writing problems? If it is writing problems, I try to arrange a voluntary session on writing essay exams through our writing center. Another strategy I have used is to develop pieces of the skills students need to write well through various class exercises. For example, asking students in small groups to identify the thesis and supporting points for an essay assigned to the class, creating a class debate on another topic, or running 10 minutes of "silent" discussion on topics I write on the board, that look much like thesis statements for an exam question. In a silent discussion, students are invited to come to the board and write their own points, responses, or comments under the original statements. It usually takes a few minutes for someone to break the ice, but then lines often form in front of certain questions. All of these can be used with large classes, all leave most of the class time for new material that needs "covering" but all also help students develop the critical thinking/reading/writing skills they need for essays.
Joan gundersen jrgunder@coyote.csusm.edu
Author: Kirk Jeffrey
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 10:54:57 -0600
I teach at a highly selective liberal arts college, and I can tell you that we have many of the same problems that others have described with students' essays. I am just now reading a batch of papers on Booker T. Washington & W.E.B. DuBois. Many of the students at least have a thesis that they can discuss vigorously over four or five pages. But they often cannot develop an idea beyond stating it in one sentence (i.e., they can't give supporting reasons or evidence, or explain how the idea is related to other aspects of the paper), their papers are filled with atrocious errors of punctuation and usage, and they have an extremely limited set of sentence structures on which they can draw. Many tend to rehash the initial idea rather than writing an essay that builds toward some new insight.
The Feb. 1996 issue of The Teaching Professor, a monthly newsletter (send to magnapubs@wisplan.uwex.edu for info on subscribing), has an article on "Those Poorly Prepared Students." It suggests that most teachers adopt one of three positions on this problem. In this discussion in H-Survey, all of these positions have, I believe, been stated:
(1) My institution and I have no responsibility for these problems; these kids probably shouldn't be in college. I teach my discipline and I try to uphold standards of excellence.
(2) My institution has some responsibility, but I don't. The college/university let them in; now let the college/university set up "developmental" [remedial] courses, provide writing tutors, etc., to bring them up to a level where I can teach them.
(3) I do have to deal with the problem because these are the kids I am hired to teach. I can make a difference for them, so let's get on with it.
Each of these outlooks entails problems, as the article shows in some detail. A problem with (1), for example, is that it's elitist and will not be taken kindly by parents and legislators. Position (2) may be a cop-out: the people who staff those developmental courses and programs are usually marginalized by the faculty. Number (3) brings us full circle: if I spend a lot of time on teaching the students grammar and writing skills, when do I teach my field?
I don't believe anyone has yet found a way out of this maze. We always end up where we began.
Well, back to my papers . . .
Kirk Jeffrey
Carleton College
Author: James B. Schick
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 11:54:25 -0600
Did any of you see the newspaper article regarding an article soon to be published in a medical journal suggesting that poor writing skills as a youth translate -- "more likely" -- into memory loss and Alzheimer's? The article refers to a study of nuns and autobiographical essays they wrote some 60 years earlier. The poorer they were as writers, the more likely to develop and the earlier to develop these problems.
So now you can tell your students you're trying to help them avoid Alzheimer's!
(Of course they can counter with the news of last year that spelling seems to be related to a specific gene, so at least they can argue their poor spelling is genetic.)
--
Dr. James B. M. Schick - History Computer Review
Pittsburg State University - Pittsburg, Kansas 66762
jschick@pittstate.edu - fax: 316-232-7515 - phone: 316-235-4317
Author: Tom Beaman
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 14:45:04 -0600
I have read with a great deal of interest the posts on teaching writing, and I now feel I must toss in a different point of view: that of the high school teacher that has not prepared those illiterate underclassmen.
Nothing will improve high school education faster than a broad-based standard that those who "should not be at a University" ARE NOT ALLOWED IN. My students are capable of writing, but they won't do it because they don't HAVE to. Someone will let them in somewhere, and then water down their history content to spend too much time on remedial writing.
Survey instructors should spend some time on some aspects that are historiographical, i.e. adequate support for a thesis, organizing a persuasive essay, or test-time management. After all, historians must be able to communicate clearly their findings, and certain standards for our discipline must be maintained. But grammar, punctuation, syntax??? If they can't do the basics, don't admit them! It won't take long before you'll notice a marked improvement in your assigned essays, and I will notice an improvement in student motivation to learn it before they leave here.
As you are all aware, and Kirk Jeffery wrote, such an approach will likely also have the following result:
>...it's elitist and will not be taken kindly by parents and legislators.
With all due respect, that's what tenure is for. That's why it exists. USE IT.
Will some staff be RIF'd? Yes. Will our schools be stronger? Yes. Will that, ultimately, serve the students and society better? Yes. Will there be casualties? Yes, but that's where the remedial writing centers, or community colleges, or other adult education services, come in.
I trust you all take this as it is meant: a pat on the back for jobs well done. We are all concerned and care for our students deeply. We can't afford to let them down by lowering our expectations of them.
Tom Beaman
AP History
U.S. History
Government
Economics
et.al :-)
Reynolds High School
Troutdale, OR
tom_beaman@reynolds.k12.or.us
Author: Pfurba@aol.com
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 08:52:51 -0600
I've been following the discussion concerning essay writing in survey classes, and I thought the point of view of a secondary person might be worth hearing.
Those of us on the senior high school level can only wholeheartedly echo the thoughts of most of you: how do they get to us (seniors in AP classes, for instance) and not have the skills to independently attack the task of writing clear, logically organized essays of an argumentative/comparative nature?? Do we blame it on the middle schools, which often emphasize self-image over skill development? Do we blame it on English Departments who don't always do their job with writing, as we in the Social Studies expect? Do we blame it on an increasingly fast-paced society that encourages quick-fix accomplishment of task and not deliberative reading, interpretation, analysis, and, most importantly, original synthesis of ideas?
I could go on with the rhetoricals forever - but they'd all be partially right!!! The bottom line is - we must all "keep on keepin' on" with our efforts to get these kids to realize that sketchy narrative writing, with no substantive reasoning or organization, is NOT acceptable. All of us, from the secondary level on up, need to persevere. Contrary to what one respondent mentioned yesterday, the content is not vital if it can't be internalized, analyzed, and interpreted in an intelligent manner.
From a secondary history teacher's perspective, your efforts to "hold their feet to the fire" as far as their writing is concerned are absolutely vital to keeping our students focused on the serious task of improving their analytic writing skills while WE have them. Hopefully, our efforts together can eventually decrease our mutual frustration
Peter Urban
Millburn High School (NJ)
PFURBA@AOL.COM
Author: Omohundro@aol.com
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 08:56:21 -0600
Co-Editor's Note: Michael is responding to Kirk Jeffrey's suggestion that there are three options for dealing with poor student writing: 1) assume it's not the university's problem; 2) assume it's the problem of writing centers, English departments, etc.; 3) assume it's our problem and try to work with it.
Bill Cecil-Fronsman
Co-Editor, H-Survey
All the comments about options 1, 2, and 3 are accurate. Yes, it is a maze, and we're in it; unfortunately, so is the country, and our collective future. What our generation has never been willing to admit, most of us lacking a background in medieval history, is that the very concept of a college or a university is elitist. We may be trying to educate the masses, rather than what DuBois I think called the "talented tenth," but in trying to do almost everything, we end up, many of us on many campuses, not everyone at all places, but far too many, doing almost nothing well.
I use essay questions on all my exams for all courses below seminars (along with a bunch of short IDs) but don't deduct for spelling, penmanship, etc. on bluebook exams. I still assign short papers and research assignments in my upper level courses, just not in the survey. But I'm not an English professor; and most of the English faculty I know don't think it's their job either. They're too busy trying to show what a racist Conrad was or how mean Hawthorne was to his wife.
Michael Chesson, U/Mass-Boston
omohundro@aol.com
Author: Omohundro@aol.com
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 11:38:31 -0600
Correction/amplification to my earlier posting, as clarified by Bill. According to my wife, a writer of fiction, an editor, and a former assistant dean, it's not "elitist" to refuse to try and teach large classes of college students how to write well--it's merely "lazy". I stand corrected.
Michael Chesson, U/Mass-Boston
omohundro@aol.com
Author: clm1b36@PANAM1.PANAM.EDU
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 11:40:01 -0600
I can only applaud Michael Chesson's effort to reacquaint us historians with the history of the institution with which we are associated. Indeed, the university was initially envisioned as a place where knowledge was crafted, whatever learning took place therein was the byproduct of creating new knowledge. Of course, the modern industrial age in America turned the university into a very different kind of institution, the "multiversity" that Tom Hayden and others in the late 60s and early 70s berated for its disavowal of knowledge in exchange for productivity.
But, here we stand at a new crossroad. The institution so many are defending as "traditional"--the institution that served the needs of an industrializing and industrialized nation admirably--may no longer be relevant to the needs of our society. Perhaps it's time, as many who have responded to this thread have suggested, to rethink whether a university education is a "right" or is even appropriate for most people. What, exactly, is the role of the academy in a post-industrial world? Who is, and who should be our clients? If new knowledge is not to be our primary product, then what should it be? Are we, as so much of the discussion on this and other H-LIST forums might suggest, looking forward to being a simple extension of secondary school, designed to carry out the aspects of learning that have been crouded out of secondary education by demands for creating a drug-free, sexually safe, and multi-culturally accepting population of teenage good citizens?
I don't know the answer. I do know, however, that big changes are coming. I also know that ignoring the fundamental realities underlying these changes won't prevent them from happening. Moreover, I know that if we don't play an active role and develop a loud voice in managing the responses to these changes, if we leave these decisions to administrators, politicians, and "community leaders", we will be faced with new institutions that we don't like, but which we will, unfortunately, deserve.
C:
Christopher L. Miller
University of Texas--Pan American
Author: Eileen Walsh
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 11:41:25 -0600
Hello H-SURVEY:
Forgive me if I am saying things that others said before I joined this list recently, but certainly we teach writing. Writing is different in History than it is in English or Philosophy or Chemistry or Film Studies. We are showing people how to think historically and asking them to practice it, and one can no more separate writing from thinking than one can separate dance from the body. It is expressive, it is joyous, and it is satisfying.
I wince at the writing issues that come across my desk. Many of my students have never before been to a city as large as Bemidji (population 13,000+/-), and the restricted linguistic codes of their small-town upbringings are painfully evident. How will they function in this country if they never elaborate their linguistic codes, never have a clue as to what to make of the language of, say, the presidential candidates (content aside). How would they make sense of a newspaper that did not devote most of its space to high school sports reporting, obituaries, and heterosexual weddings? It seems to me democratic education is a laudable goal. It also seems to me that in public institutions democratic education is a goal that is not negotiable.
The only question is whether we will be recalcitrant in carrying it out. And perhaps, whether we have been trained in ways to do that. Teaching writing is not just a matter of correcting mistakes; I find it takes just a few minutes of class time to set students to writing an interpretation, and then a few more minutes to set students to writing a reasonable challenge to that, and then a few more minutes to share with classmates whichever perspective ends up seeming most reasonable, and what evidence supports their preference. I get better papers for investing 20 minutes in something like this - and that means, to my way of thinking, that they are elaborating and disciplining their thinking, or the papers would not appear increasingly elaborated and disciplined.
Eileen Walsh
Asst. Prof. of History
Bemidji State University
Bemidji MN 56601-2699
(218) 755-4355
ewalsh@vax1.bemidji.msus.edu
Author: STEPHANIE COLE
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 11:42:29 -0600
I certainly don't have the answer to improving student writing in US survey courses, but I have figured out my comeback (for what that's worth) when they complain that "this isn't English, it's history." I point out that they all accept the necessity of knowing calculus to do physics, or some other higher level of math for most sciences, and that there are prerequisite skills for history as well. You simply can't do history right, I tell them, unless you have decent skills in composition. I hope that I back that up in my lectures by making it transparently clear that I'm making arguments about the past, which I couldn't do if I didn't understand how to analyze information lucidly, not simply telling The Story.
re: The Alzheimer's study story. Of course I know that contributor was teasing, but I did want to point out that as I understood that study, it wasn't that you could prevent Alzheimer's by learning to write well at an early stage, but rather that those who aren't able to learn to express themselves with linguistic sophistication have brains that may be showing an early sign of Alzheimer's disease. Thus it seems to me this study is the last thing we want to bring up to them. Might our assigned papers, however, be the groundwork some research scientist is looking for to expand the study beyond nuns in Wisconsin (or wherever they were)?
Stephanie Cole
NMSU
Author: Joan Gundersen
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 08:01:24 -0600
Of course we should be teaching writing. The fact is, however, that marking up an entire paper with every mistake is actually not an effective way to do this unless you offer a chance at rewriting.
At my current institution every course (yes, folks you heard right, EVERY course and that includes the Math, Science, education, arts, etc.) must be a writing course with the equivalent of 10 typed pages assigned and corrected as writing in every course. At my previous institution, many courses were labelled W courses which meant they were designated as meeting a writing across the curriculum requirement. It never made any difference to me, nor did the size. I corrected writing, in larger classes or on especially troubled papers, focusing in on one or two paragraphs which I could require be rewritten. The secret of course is to tell people you are going to do this, and that it is because communication fails without good writing.
I was especially troubled to hear that some people have stopped working on writing in order to improve their evaluations. It really isn't necessary to do that, and it gives credence to those who claim that adjuncts, TAs, and others who are unsecure in tenure will water down courses in order to seek better evaluations. I have more respect for my colleagues than to think they would sell out.
Joan Gundersen CSU, San Marcos (a commuter institution with a broad admissions policy) jrgunder@coyote.csusm.edu
Author: JEDBOWER@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 08:03:38 -0600
I assume that the writing issue is the problem of the instructor as well as a symptom of much larger issues within the educational structure of our schools at both the secondary and collegiate level. I don't think, however, that it is the "blame" of the admissions staff for letting in students who are not qualified or for "lowering the standards" as some have suggested. As a former admission staffer myself, I can assure you that this is not the case. They struggle with the decisions concerning marginal admits as much as the teachers (of which I can now see the second side) but have overarching conerns about diversity, filling the class (per the directions of the President) and more.
One way to deal with it is to take the time and talk about it. I have been fortuante enough to be able to talk extensively with a faculty member here at IU who has co-authored a book, Studying For History (David Pace and Sharon Pugh, Harper Collins -- http://www.harpercollins.com/college) which has served me quite well in trying to relate to students' patterns of study, habits, concerns, and to help them think more specifically about what they are doing. I hesitate to suggest tacking this book onto the books you already ask them to buy and read, because most of them will probably resent it and won't read it, but it is good to have a copy on hand to show students who do need and come in for help. I have even gone to the extent of making some overheads based upon the book (with full credit given of course) to show in discussion sections. I hope that you think this book is as worhtwhile as I do and suggest that you take a look at it. David Pace has been teaching here for 25 years and is the faculty member in charge of the AI program and teaches H580 "Teaching College History" to the graduate students.
J.D.
INTERNET: JEDBOWER@ucs.indiana.edu OFFICE: 742 Ballantine Hall, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405
(812)855-9105 or (812)855-7581 HOME: 816 21st Street Bedford, IN 47421-4612 (812)277-0210
"A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Edward DeBono
Author: Michael McDonnell
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 13:21:50 -0600
I agree with Professor Gundersen about the ineffectiveness of marking papers critically unless you give students a chance to rewrite. In my experience, students look only at the mark given, and rarely at the comments made - particularly those dealing with spelling, grammar, and structure. It is only when they can make changes and get credit for it do they sit down and think about the problems in their work.
Following a policy used by a mentor of mine at the University of Ottawa, I warn students that I will be particularly critical about their writing skills and that they will lose points for poorly written essays. I then allow them to submit papers two weeks before the deadline which I correct and give back to them with a mark that would stand if they did not rewrite. Those who wish to rewrite then have a week to make corrections and revise their papers and they must get them back in by the normal deadline for a second, revised mark.
Though a little more labour is involved, the result does seem to be worthwhile. In my classes of approximately seventy-five students, I usually receive between ten and twenty papers early. Those who are worried about their writing skills have an opportunity to "test the waters," and those who do poorly in their first essay often submit early papers the next time. I find that most of the American exchange students who take my courses - and who are far more grade-conscious than my regular British students - take advantage of this opportunity and I have had some markedly improved papers given back to me. They complain about the work they have to put it, but their sense of self-satisfaction at the end of the process is evident.
Mike McDonnell
University of Wales, Swansea
Author: mdavis@uwcmail.uwc.edu
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 14:18:57 -0600
The discussions on essays are interesting. I'd like to make a couple of points.
mark davis U Wisconsin Center - Baraboo mdavis@uwcmail.wisc.edu
Author: LIBSPBMK@vaxc.hofstra.edu
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 15:40:26 -0600
Co-Editor's Note: I have changed the subject of this topic we've been discussing in the light of several people who have pointed out the distinction between working with students on writing essay exams and working with students on writing essays out of class. Barbara Kelly offers some useful thoughts on the process of getting students to write better out-of-class essays, so I'm changing the subject heading for it.
Bill Cecil-Fronsman
Co-Editor, H-Survey
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 16:26:38 -0400 (EDT)
I instituted a practice several semesters ago which turned out to be more successful than I had anticipated. At a certain point in the semester, usually about the middle or slightly later, the 'first' draft of the paper is due. This draft is handed to a partner in the class [the partnering process is more than just this, but I'll save that for another time]. The partner is responsible for giving the draft a critical reading and commenting on it. The partners must sign the drafts and then they are returned to their authors. [I do not see them at this point].
When they have the papers back, the authors revise for a final draft. They do not have to abide by the recommendations that the partner makes, but they do have to justify their decision to ignore them -- at least to themselves. When the final drafts are handed to me during the last week of class, the rough drafts with comments are handed in as well. The paper itself receives a grade, ranging from 25 to 35% of the course grade, depending on the course requirements. In addition, the critical commentary on the rough draft receives 10 to 15% for the partner who did the work.
I had seen this originally as a method of forcing rewrites without bogging me down in grading and commenting along with the added pressure of getting the papers back to the students within a reasonable amount of time. Time was very critical, since they needed enough lead time in the semester to create the rough draft, but the papers had to be back in their hands quickly since they still had a bit of work to finish.
The real payoff, however, turned out to be the lesson inherent in the process of editing another's work. Many of the students told me that they were much better able to revise their own work after having done a critical reading of someone else's paper. [In the partnering process, by the way, partners are generally working on similar, if not identical, topics].
There have been instances where particular students, usually upper-classmen in a room full of sophomores and freshmen, will ask me to review their rough drafts, since they don't feel that the younger students will be sufficiently sophisticated to give a good reading. This works very well, since I can give those papers the time they deserve, but also because the partner still provides a reading and gets the benefit of the exercise. Moreover, since I do not read the paper until after the partner has done so, I get a preview of the level at which the commenting is being done and can spot some errant trends before it is too late.
Barbara Kelly
LIBSPBMK@VAXC.HOFSTRA.EDU
Author: tkaminsk@uwspmail.uwsp.edu
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 14:01:43 -0600
I tell all of my students (plus write it on the syllabus) that the only way to learn history is to read, talk, listen, and write about it. All of these things are reflected in the course requirements. I also tell them that I realize that most of them, because of their majors, may not be familiar with taking essay exams or writing historical essays, but emphasize that these are skills that can be learned.
I pass out essay questions a week before the exam so students have time to prepare. I do not grade for grammar or spelling on these because of the 50-minute time limit. I am more concerned with how well they present an argument (ideally) or at least put the facts together correctly (basically).
Students in my Writing Emphasis section of the survey have to write a research paper. I've told them that this is a process and have divided that process into stages for them: paper topic, outline, preliminary bibliography, rough draft, final draft, rewrite. This helps to keep them on track (and on schedule) and gives me an opportunity to help them along the way. The various drafts also give them a lot of practice and I think it helps them to understand that no one writes anything perfectly the first time around.
I often do get frustrated with some students and wonder why they can't get content and form right. But then I think back to all the drafts of my dissertation and all the subsequent drafts of the revised monograph, count all of the people who read and commented on those various drafts, and realize that I may be expecting too much too soon from my students. The most I hope for and expect from them is that they keep trying--and the best of them do combine effort with actual learning and ultimately produce some good writing.
Theresa Kaminski
Dept. of History
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
P.S. But some still do grumble "This is not an English class."
Author: MICHELLI@LFC.EDU
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 08:20:50 -0600
Returning to this thread after an absence of several days, I determinedly refused to try and add my egg untill I'd read all the postings on the subject. Predictably, they covered most of what I would have wanted to say, except for one thing, and I must add that Barbara Kelly's partner review system is inspired! I have always thought that teaching forces one to come to grips with a project in a uniquely effective way and I continually try to generate this experience for my students. Thank you, Barbara. I think I'll have a go at your idea too.
But now here is my egg: I routinely allow all my students the chance to rewrite in light of my comments but have found that, unless I pre-empt it, the students will merely "tweak" at the paper. Typically, they will modify the odd sentence slightly (and insufficiently) where I have made a comment, but there will be no real attempt to improve the content. This leaves me in the awkward position of not wanting to raise the grade, while the students feel they have met my demands. They are so legalistic!
So I always talk to them now about what the paper is for. Along with giving pointers on how to write a paper, I tell them that it is a thinking tool - a thought processor, if they like - which is designed to develop their grasp on a subject, to develop their ideas and understanding, test them out, support them, refute them, put them into dialogue with other authorities, and generate a conclusion. We go through this process repeatedly in class, so they really are equipped to do it themselves, and I want to see evidence of it in their papers. It follows (I tell them explicitly) that the rewrite is an opportunity to rethink their take on the topic, not a quick fix for their grade.
While the students have a standing invitation to rewrite their papers, they may not do so until they have discussed the project with me, and begun the process of thinking in new ways about the topic. I also require a complete rewrite to qualify for a new grade, and the original version must be submitted along with the rewrite. Only the most highly motivated students take me up on this invitation, and their work generally does improve. The rest don't waste my time any more.
Pippin Michelli
Lake Forest College
Author: Kirk Jeffrey
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 11:08:17 -0600
If I may expand this discussion a bit, is there anyone out there who tells students to turn their papers in electronically, that is, over e-mail, and who reads the papers on the screen and sends comments by e-mail? I am thinking of doing this next term. I anticipate that there will be some students who don't know how to append a text to an e-mail message; but will I encounter other problems? Does it cut down on time spent reading and commenting?
Kirk Jeffrey
Carleton College
Author: Kirk Jeffrey
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 12:13:44 -0600
Co-Editor's Note: Kirk Jeffrey has asked whether anyone has had experience with receiving student essays via e-mail.
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 96 12:50:22 EST
I have tried this, not with e-mail, but with diskettes. It does cut
down on comment time, for I can type much faster and more clearly than
I can write by hand. It makes it more difficult to grade except in
front of my computer, and it prohibits the student from seeing
feedback until he/she can get to a computer. The student cannot take
and refer to the corrected document, unless at a computer. I find the
advantages and disadvantages balance pretty much. Again, I stress that
this uses diskettes, and not e-mail.
I have done e-mail once or twice, but my college does not give all
students e-mail accounts, so this practice has been restricted to
those few students who had accounts because they held club office, or
worked as work study students, or something like that.
Tom Powers
Professor of History
The University of South Carolina at Sumter
TPOWERS@USCSUMTER.USCSU.SC.EDU
Subject: Re: writing essays
Author: "H-NET List for Teaching U.S. Survey Courses" at
INTERNET
Date: 2/26/96 12:07 PM
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 09:58:31 -0600 (CST)
If I may expand this discussion a bit, is there anyone out there who tells students to turn their papers in electronically, that is, over e-mail, and who reads the papers on the screen and sends comments by e-mail? I am thinking of doing this next term. I anticipate that there will be some students who don't know how to append a text to an e-mail message; but will I encounter other problems? Does it cut down on time spent reading and commenting?
Kirk Jeffrey
Carleton College
Author: Kelly A. Woestman
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 08:31:40 -0600
I've been having students in my US As a Superpower email their essays over chapters in Major Problems in American Foreign Policy (Since 1914. Only 2 students have done it so far but they are also more willing to spend the time to utilize computer resources.
Right now, I make it a choice since student access is a problem. I am one of several faculty members who will be teaching courses to fellow professors about how to use our newly arrived computers and we will cut out quite a bit of student time in the labs for the next three weeks.
I also run into the problem of getting a busy signal when I use dial-up access from home. I don't have a connection in my office (although one is promised) and can't rely on the department connection.
Even though I've been using a computer since the beginning of graduate school, I still feel most comfortable grading "papers." A few years ago at another school I had students turn in their assignments and long papers on computers without an option (there was more access there). You can save trees and speed up reply time--as long as your eyes don't get computer fatigue.
Of course, this medium brings up a whole new range of excuses:
The mouse ate my paper...............
Kelly Woestman, Pittsburg State
--
Kelly in Kansas
kwoestma@pittstate.edu
316-235-4316
--
Author: Kenn Hermann
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 08:32:28 -0600
Kirk,
As a matter of fact I just started this practice last fall as an option. I have found this to be an excellent, efficient way to make comments as I need to (in a different font) wherever needed as I can insert spaces as necessary. Actually, I download to a WP file, make my comments, then print it out on the backs of recycled paper. Some students aren't so sure they like this since I am able to make more extensive comments than if I had to scrawl them in the margins and wherever else I can find room. So far, though, students appreciate the extra effort I take, the LEGIBLE comments, and the clean copy in return.
Kenn Hermann
Dordt College
--
Author: ThomABD@aol.com
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 08:33:58 -0600
Your suggestion is a good one for short essays, as pointed out by Mr. Byrnes, although I too would discourage it for longer works. For essays of greater length, particularly those involving footnotes or any other citations which require specific paragraphing and punctuation styles (which tend to be lost in e-mail format), I also believe that good old ink scribbling is best. The diskettes suggested by Professor Powers are a good alternative, especially since diskette files can be sent via e-mail if they are sent as an attached file.
However, I have yet another suggestion that allows me to transmit even manually edited documents back to students electronically. I found that many of my students have access to fax-modems or regular fax machines, and thus many of them have turned in rough drafts of their papers to me via fax. Once I received their fax on my computer I would print the paper, scribble my notations on it in ink, and then pull out my scanner (I have a portable, full-page scanner made by Logitech), scan the edited document back into my computer, and return it to the student's fax number via my own fax-modem. This method works very well, especially for students who commute and cannot make it to campus very often.
Cathleen Thom
Marquette University
Return to H-SURVEY Home Page.
| ||||
