Keynote: David Bartholomae
David Bartholomae, University of Pittsburgh
Chair, Department of English
Dr. Batholomae will report on a two year study of writing and the teaching of writing conducted in the University of Pittsburgh's College of Arts and Sciences. After presenting the study's findings, Dr. Bartholomae will move to a discussion of how a first year writing program can best serve and support a "culture of writing."
posted by Nick Carbone @ 7:40 PM
1 comments
1 Comments:
David's presentation was in two parts. First, an overview of the methodology of the two year research project into views of writing and the teaching of writing in Pitt's College of Arts and Sciences, and second, a summary of some of the findings.
Rationale
David conducted this study with Beth Matway, a colleague in the English Department. There were a number of reasons he mentioned for launching it. One, he had seen how the four year Harvard study that Nancy Sommers had conducted became a useful tool for having a discussion at Harvard about the role of writing and teaching writing. Second, as a WPA and WAC coordinator for many years, David knew of course that writing was being taught, but he didn't know, precisely what was going on in the WAC elements and how it was being taught. And third, with the calls for greater assessment of student learning that Pitt and other colleges are feeling being prevalent, he wanted to establish first what was happening and to identify good practices so that when the time comes, a sound assessment model can be used.
Methodology
There were four pieces to study:
• A paper survey of existing Arts and Sciences couses with a writing requirement, courses that have a W designated in their course title or catalog description.
• Focus groups on writing and teaching of writing: 10 groups of undergraduates; three groups w/ TA/TF’s
• An online survey: 1,000 A&S juniors and 1,000 A&S seniors invited to participate;600 students responded.
• Faculty interviews: 27 faculty from across the academic departments. Faculty identified by their chairs as being into wiriting and teaching of writing.
The paper survey was used as instrument to inform the online survey, gathering from respondents the vocabulary and terms that would go into the online survey.
Sampling of Findings
I don't want to go into everything, here, so I'll only mention things that still stick out:
In focus groups, one of the themes that students identified professors wanting was "clarity and conciseness." At the same time, however, students said professors also wanted them to provide details, explanation, evidence, and to development their ideas.
So students are in a kind of bind -- concise, but developed; clarity, but details. Experience writers know how to balance these elements, but to novice writers they seem contradictions in terms.
Students said that as they continued writing in their upper division courses, they were asked to do something deeper, something more, beyond the obvious with their writing.
Students say as their writing changes to be more developed, they describe that how writing that way reflected a change in how they think. They synthesize better and can apply theory better and learn to read critically. So much writing they said is based on reading. Further, their writing has to move beyond agree/disagree black and white based arguments; those are too easy, too rash. Now they look at where what they're reading comes from, and seek nuance and ask better questions about it. That nuance extends to their writing.
Professors in their interviews, not conincidental, told about teaching strategies that were in large part designed to get students through this seeming contradiction (more on that below).
Other student highlights
Students do best work:
* when writing matters to them and they seem some connection to it, or they see a connection with the writing to the course material they are learning or the disciplinary knowledge and theories they're being asked to understand.
* When they move to new ways of thinking and have to learn to get beyond summary and response.
* When profs provide guidelines, handouts, and other assignment structure and help, including models of the kinds of writing they want students to do.
* When they get feedback and revision ideas from their professors, and they feel like the ideas they're expressing and arguments they are making are being engaged.
* One student said: "professors need to be not just a voice behind a desk, but to have compassion and to address the ideas in our writing, not just how they’re expressed."
Students thought too much of the writing they're asked to do in college overall asks for regurgitation. They also reported in their surveys that they preferred research-based writing and didn't like writing that felt like busy work.
Findings from Faculty
Faculty all said that students needed help in writing better and that students weren't were they should be. Clarity and coherence were big concerns, but what counted as clear and cohere depended upon the discipline.
Faculty who taught writing in those disciplines therefore developed strategies and assignments specific to their disciplines' understandings of what makes for clear, coherent, and developed writing.
The faculty worked to make connections between the writing they assigned and both the content of the course and the knowledge and theory building of their disciplines. Writing was consciously used by faculty interviewed to help students take the next professional steps.
Faculty used models from their field, sequenced activities that built on prior writing abilities and activities, and frequent feedback and opportunities for revision. In some disciplines faculty invited students to submit articles to journals in the field, sometimes as co-author with faculty member.
Post a Comment
<< Home