by Meko McFadden
Fall 2020 was shaping up to be a rollercoaster ride. After a quick pivot in the spring and a summer of uncertainty regarding the upcoming semester, I was beyond nervous. I was standing underneath the rollercoaster dreading what was to come. There were no refunds to be given for my ticket and no backing out.
Best Laid Plans
I would be teaching my first literature course in the fall (Introduction to Latino Literature), after having been a TA for the course in the spring. It is a survey course that requires a number of low-stakes writing assignments and a final, high-stakes analytical paper at the end. Because of the pivot to online in the spring, my TA training had been interrupted. I knew what to do and the objectives of the course, but I didn’t know how I would get my students there. I also knew that I would be serving as a WIP TA for a class in Women’s Studies while simultaneously taking a weekly seminar designed to teach WIP principles. My fears became amplified: I would be learning how to teach writing while I was teaching my literature class. How would I actually implement those principles in my own classroom when I’m learning to teach writing at the same time? I had to accept several possibilities. First, I needed to accept that I would be implementing WIP TA principles on the fly. Second, there was a high possibility that whatever I had planned for my own class would be out of line with what I was about to learn in the WIP seminar. And finally, while students are familiar with writing in English, would that knowledge translate (pun intended) into the foreign language classroom? Still, there was another possibility as well. Perhaps, I would find that at least some of what I did in the classroom was indeed aligned with WIP principles and that I already possessed sound writing strategies that would help my students. Only time would tell. Reflecting back now, I confess that all possibilities came to fruition.
Welcome To The Resistance
Many students are uncomfortable with the writing process. They may not like research or maybe they just don’t know how to do research. They may be resistant to producing multiple drafts and the revision process. Of course, some of this is warranted. Many university and college courses aren’t designed to give students enough time to successfully engage in the writing process. After having taught during the summer, I was highly cognizant of the challenges that students might face as they “float about in that void called Zoom.”
Around August, I started to think about strategies I could implement that would support my students’ writing while taking into consideration the emotional labors of navigating the pandemic. Processing my own feelings during this time, the word “isolation” kept circling in my head. I decided that in the first drafts of my own syllabus, I would concentrate on two areas: (1) capitalizing on community so that students felt supported during the process and (2) designing a class calendar that would allow enough time for good writing to occur. I decided to contact people who could help me with my plans. One of those people was Dr. Sharina Maillo-Pozo, Professor of Latino Studies, in my home department. In a workshop done in class around week 3, Dr. Maillo-Pozo guided students through choosing a thesis, emphasizing that a thesis will evolve as they write. Students embraced that freedom and while speaking with students as they turned in drafts and conferenced with me, I would hear things like:
“I think I want to revise my thesis after reading this article”
“What if I. . .”.
Students felt free to change their minds and to think independently about and through their research. The workshop cemented the idea that even the most accomplished writers did this routinely! On the advice of Dr. Maillo-Pozo, I contacted Dr. Laura Shedenhelm, Bibliographer and Liaison for Latin America at UGA Libraries. Dr. Shedenhelm conducted a research workshop, even creating a database designed specifically for our class. For the students, the database was something that was “theirs” to explore, sort of like an academic playground.
One of the WIP principles is to give students examples of good writing. So by searching within the database and skimming articles they might use, students were exposed to what good writing looks like in our discipline. In the end, as students conducted their research and revised their drafts, there was the safety of knowing that we were all available to support them.
Revision Decisions
To address the question of time, I decided to expose students to as many different iterations of “revision” as possible by using the rubric. My idea was to have students revise with intention in chunks rather than waiting until the final draft. Students already had the rubric, but I was determined to have them engage in the rubric in different ways at different points during the semester. In one iteration of the rubric, I put the grading criteria in the form of a checklist for students to use during peer review. A second iteration presented the criteria as a list of questions (in Spanish) that students had to respond to in written form. It also asked students to use highlighting, underlining, and other graphic means to assess what they had written. The final iteration was an idea that is popular in many English classes: a post-analysis of one’s essay. Many times, this is given after a paper is graded in an effort to justify the grade and/or have the student reflect on what they could have improved but doesn’t always require that the students make changes. In fact, many English professors jokingly call this activity a “post-mortem.” However, this renders the activity powerless in its ability to improve writing. It doesn’t promote the kind of persistent, life-long learning that we aspire to instill in our students. Nevertheless, after the essay was graded, I made this activity available to students so that they could reflect on what they had turned in. While I felt pretty good about it at the time, I realized later that it falls short as it reinforces the notion that writing is not a process. I started to consider that this type of activity, as normally practiced, could be incongruent with WIP principles.
I’m Buying Another Ticket For This Ride
Some of the strategies from fall worked for me and the students (I think that’s an important point to make). However, there are elements that still need work. So, I’m buying another ticket for this ride, building on what worked and chucking what didn’t.
I have a better theoretical base now, thanks to the WIP seminar, and I’m not afraid to critique my own failed strategies. The post-analysis checklist that I gave students will now count as a small percentage of their grade, thereby rewarding them for staying engaged in the writing process. I reject the notion that this activity is a “post-mortem” because what they write is not dead. Their writing is not without hope of revival and renewal. On the contrary, it is an opportunity for students to learn, to see that their work has value and that “good writing” doesn’t occur after three drafts or five or even ten. Writing well is a process and they should be rewarded for participating in earnest in that process even after an essay has been turned in for evaluation. I will encourage my students to continue to revise their work even after the semester and I will work with them in the hopes of having it published. I’m proud to say that I was able to use these strategies without sacrificing content. So, I’m punching my ticket again, heading into another uncertain semester. I go forth with new ideas and will reconceptualize old ones that are flawed. I will forge ahead with confidence, surrounded by a community of colleagues that will guide me to be a better instructor in order to help my students become the best writers they can be!
I will forge ahead with confidence, surrounded by a community of colleagues that will guide me to be a better instructor in order to help my students become the best writers they can be!