Communicating with Students about Conducting an Analysis and Setting Them Up for Success

by Emily Tingle, Sociology

In too many undergraduate classes, instructors of record ask their students to conduct an “analysis” in short and long assignments, assuming our students know exactly what we mean, and how we expect them to do that, and communicate their thoughts in ways that are clear to us. Teaching assistants, (I am also guilty of this), tend to be just as vague as instructors often commenting back on students’ work:

“Where is the analysis?”

“Need more analysis!”

“This is mostly a lot of summary. Can you add more analysis?”

This form of short, and sometimes confusing, feedback is easy to fall into. As teaching assistants (and potentially as instructors), we are saddled with a variety of responsibilities ranging from taking our own classes, conducting research, and contributing to our fields where teaching and pedagogy often fall by the wayside on our long to-do lists, especially when we are in a time crunch. However, these types of responses tend to be unhelpful for students. Students often feel discouraged and frustrated by short, vague responses that do not indicate thoughtful feedback and often feel unsure of how to proceed with changes; rather, it is helpful to approach feedback as readers in conversation with our students (Gottschalk and Hjortshoj 2004).

Furthermore, what underlies these statements and questions is the assumption that students understand what we mean by “analysis” and what conducting analysis looks like in our field. Additionally, it also assumes that both the instructor of record and the teaching assistant are automatically on the same page about what type of analysis we expect of students when reviewing their work. Establishing clear expectations saves us time grading later and helps students improve through feedback aimed at writing skills and the deeper development of their papers instead of comments focused on how their writing did not meet the goals of the assignment. Instructors of record and teaching assistants should develop a clear definition of what analysis in their field looks like at the front end of the semester rather than waiting until an issue arises.

This semester, as a writing-intensive teaching assistant, I realized something: while I know what analysis looks like in my field, it can often feel challenging to communicate to students on the spot. For our Honors Intro to Sociology (Writing Intensive) courses, Dr. James Coverdill formed an accessible go-to definition of analysis for our students, many of whom are taking their first sociology class. Dr. Coverdill describes the analysis he expects of his students:

Thinking hard about, say, a reading, and what it might have missed, how things might be different in some other context, how the argument might be extended or elaborated in some way, and so forth.

Dr. James Coverdill

This definition, while it may sound broad, allows for significant creativity of the students. The course also allows students to practice this form of analysis in low-stakes weekly writing quizzes where most have a good grasp of our expectations before they write full essays. Additionally, students are able to experience the process of analysis through in-class discussions of academic articles/book chapters where they can both listen to each other and voice their own thoughts and contributions. Through trial and error in the classroom, Dr. Coverdill has been able to clearly communicate his view of what analysis looks like and provide a plethora of individual and group opportunities for students to learn in a low-stakes situation. The result of this course design allows us to delve deeper into students writing than spend time “correcting” students when they fail to meet our expectations as to what we think conducting an analysis looks like.

As an instructor of record, I plan to keep these experiences in mind when designing my own courses. Before students begin any work on writing assignments, it is imperative for us to fully explain what we mean by analysis within the context of the class. Second, we must demonstrate what analysis may look like and provide multiple examples in class. If we expect students to be able to conduct analysis on their own, they need practice in a low-stakes environment. Using low-stakes assignments and scaffolding the class is extremely important as it provides students a variety of opportunities to grasp conducting analysis before it is too late in a high-stakes situation such as a major class paper. Another helpful tactic used by one of the professors is to provide key questions for them to ask themselves when reading academic articles. Not only does this make sure that they are paying attention to key concepts and the main points, but it can also serve as a starting point to get them thinking in the direction of analysis. Overall, defining what we mean by terms like “analysis” before the semester begins should be an essential part of course design and preparation as well as an important conversation between instructors of record and their teaching assistants.