OoSes: Authentic Learning (Paper 5, ODU810, H. Gold)

Rhetoric > Composition> Authentic Learning > Authentic Writing

Writing is not like painting where you add.…

Writing is more like a sculpture where you remove,

you eliminate in order to make the work visible.

- Elie Wiesel (1988)

Problem Statement

College undergraduates often do not understand the importance and value of writing a formal, well-researched essay. After graduation, their prospective employers have a reasonable expectation that students with a bachelor’s degree should be able to write lucid materials worthy of distribution or publication. However, that basic expectation is often not satisfied (Hart, 2008). College students do not have a consistent program providing proof of that capability (Buckman, 2007), and there is no reasonable and tangible means to encourage students to strive for personal excellence in writing skills (CCCH, 1995).

Nearly 50 years ago, the CCCH concluded that it is impossible to provide a basis verifying a teacher’s competence or expertise on subject matter skills, classroom habits and style.  Even if we had such tools, these would not measure the how much or how well students learn (CCCH, 1959). Recent views offer that good teaching engenders creative assessments, “leaving space for the student to become fully active, to learn and grow” (Case, 2002).

Study Proposal

Carol Mullen stated that college writing projects should prepare students to be academic authors and researchers (2001). The goal of any college level writing program is to perfect a vital form of communication extending far beyond the ivory towers of academia.

This study will show that Actual Learning writing assignments at the undergraduate college-level student writings are themselves, assessments that do not rely on an instructor-determined grade. When students select writing topics then aim towards “real-word” publication, these opportunities effectively improve students’ grades, provide professional writing experiences, and better prepare students to enter the workforce.

Studying OoSes!
Taking a Break from Papers.

This study considers four categories of students, all of whom attended Farmingdale State College (FSC) and were enrolled in writing classes with this researcher/instructor between the fall 2005 through spring 2018 semesters:

1. Students who submitted work for publication and saw their work printed.
2. Students who submitted work for publication but whose work was not printed.
3.  Students who wanted to submit for publication but whose work was not submitted.
4. Students who opted out of publication.

We will look at undergraduate college students who, over the course of this study (fall 05 - spring 18), had opportunities to improve their writing with the goal of publication. We will also find out how those students judge their writing skills afterwards.

Motivating Factors

Factors for motivating students of writing include knowing “who one is writing for…, why one is writing…, when one is writing…, and how much control one is allowed in the writing” (italics by the author; Hutchings, 2006). A study of how assessments impact college students concluded that academics required a “much more thorough accounting of student motivations and heeding them” (Lord, 2007).

However, difficulties in standardizing collegiate assessments include considering a broad range of writing requirements from different professors. Some researchers believe that that the writer’s topic directs the outcome, and therefore the assessment (Ruth and Murphy, p. 410). Students’ become confused when faced with differing and, perhaps, conflicting, academic writing guidelines (Lea and Street, 1998). Grades resulting from such writing classes provide meaningless assessments. Neither the student, faculty (other than those grading the papers), nor administration have any understanding of the grade’s basis.

Study Background

From fall 2005 through this semester, one particular Professional Communications Course at FSC stressed writing-as-process over writing-as-product (Wolcott, 1987). The assignments were dependent on previous course work, with a recursive element of submitting new documents based on previously researched and reported information, then following up with revisions of each document. The primary objective of the course is to help students improve their professional communication and writing skills. A secondary goal, not stated as an official objective as it lay outside the academy’s scope of influence, above teaching writing skills, was (and remains) providing students a chance to see their work published in real-world, professionally-edited periodicals as selected by editors of main-stream venues (newspapers, web sites, and other consumer-facing periodicals and output).

The CCCH Committee on Assessment believed that students should

§  demonstrate writing skills through repeated outlines, drafts and revisions;

§  write based on real-world practice;

§  “be informed about the purposes of assessment”;

§  and have their outcomes assessed by more than one person - - especially in situations that escalate the stakes from the classroom to publication (1995, p. 434). 

The same CCCH paper on assessments charged faculty with making time to assess each student paper fairly, supporting assessments with classroom teachings, helping students prepare for the assignments, and continue researching the value and methods of writing assessments (p. 435).

Willa Wolcott notes that, “In the real world, product is all we can share with each other” (p. 44). Writing is a reiterative, process-based exercise. However, academic grading of writing skills is based on one product or outcome at a time, breaking the whole into parts (grammar, spelling, research and citation, composition).

For this study, student papers considered for participation will meet 90% of the course requirements (not necessarily receiving high grades), and would be considered valid for submission to the editor of a local or regional periodical (not necessarily being selected for publication). 

Works Cited

Bartleby.com (2001) Elie Wiesel. Interview in Writers at Work, Eighth Series, ed. George Plimpton (1988). Retrieved on April 25, 2008, from http://www.bartleby.com/br/66.html

CCCH (1959). Determining the Quality of Composition/Communication Teaching. College Composition and Communication, Vol. 10, No. 3, Panel and Workshop Reports. CCCC Tenth Annual Meeting, 1959 (Oct., 1959), pp. 146-148   http://www.jstor.org/stable/354355

CCCH (1995). Writing Assessment: A Position Statement Author(s): CCCC Committee on Assessment. College Composition and Communication, Vol. 46, No. 3, (Oct., 1995), pp. 430-437. http://www.jstor.org/stable/358714

Case, R. (Fall 2002). Plato’s Premise: Fostering Student Autonomy. Thought & Action. NEA, Washington, DC.   http://www2.nea.org/he/heta02/images/f02p33.pdf

Hart (Peter D.) Research Associates, Inc (2008). How Should Colleges Assess and Improve Student Learning? Employers' Views on the Accountability Challenge. Washington, DC. Association of American Colleges and Universities. 9 pp. (ED499718)

Hutchings, C (August 2006). Reaching students: lessons from a writing centre. Higher Education Research & Development, 25, Issue 3, from EBSCO database.

Lord, R. (September, 2007). Writing Assessment at Plymouth State College. Writing Across the Curriculum, 18. http://wac.colostate.edu/journal/vol5/lord.pdf

Mullen, C.A. (Feb 2001). The Need for a Curricular Writing Model for Graduate Students. Journal of Further & Higher Education, Vol. 25 Issue 1. EBSCO database.

Wolcott, W. (Feb., 1987). Writing Instruction and Assessment: The Need for Interplay between Process and Product. College Composition and Communication, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 40-46   http://www.jstor.org/stable/357585

Theories and Methods: Grounded Theory (Paper 4, ODU810, H. Gold)

Rhetoric > Technical Communication > Methodologies and Techniques > Authentic Writing > Grounded Theory

 

Conversation with Dr. Joyce Neff, PhD, Professor Emerita, ODU English Department, 01 Nov 2016.

My discussion with Dr. Joyce Neff, Professor Emerita, took an unexpected turn after 25 minutes of conversation about her publications, work with federal agencies, and expectations of a chapter publication for by Southern States Accreditation Board (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools™) focusing on Quality Enhancement Teaching (an acronym which she laughingly admitted was certainly the creation of a businessperson or a bureaucrat). The shift resulted when she asked me what my dissertation was focusing on. I fumfered a moment, and admitted that I was lost. My original plan, I explained, was to focus on reviewing pedagogy to develop, or at least present an overview of, writing programs designed for STEM students. The reasoning is that scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians are not often clear communicators, but that communication is a skill required for success in academia, the nonprofit sector, and the corporate sector. But by the time I reach my comps in 2020, my concern is that teaching writing to STEM students (now STEAM, so as not ignore the arts), will have, well, lost its steam. What new value will that offer to the academy?

Me, with three of our published students.

Conversation Gone Sideways

Instead, I mentioned my plan to quantify or codify my students’ success with “Authentic Writing” teaching experience. During my past eleven years at Farmingdale State College, my teaching style helped over sixty students see their work published in paper and digital media, from The New York Times to local Anton papers, from non-profit websites to in-office kiosks. These papers have not all earned an “A”, and students’ course grades run the bell curve from “C” to “A”.  My study would try to find the common link (besides me) that urges these students on. Dr. Neff suggested that I consider the sociological methodology of ‘grounded theory.” 

The Theory

Grounded Theory is an approach for developing theory that is "grounded in data systematically

gathered and analyzed" (Strauss & Corbin, qtd by Cohen). Instead of focusing on the question or thesis, grounded theory studies all the players in an arena. In the case where undergraduate students are being published at an unusually high rate for a small major at a small school, Dr. Ness pointed out that the payers in my study could be the instructors, the students (published and unpublished), editors or those accepting student work for publication or distribution, and the audience.

Grounded Theory is also called the Constant Comparative Method, as data is continually collected and analyzed though several iterations (Glaser). It begins with a generative question designed to identify a Theoretical Sampling. The initial data collection leads to a deeper theoretical sampling process, which repeats until all reliable data is collected and analyzed.

In my case of determining the elements necessary to successfully design a standard and reliable pedagogy for teaching authentic writers to target their work for publication, I need to include three types of coding:

1. Open coding, assigning preliminary categories to be examined, such as students who initially wanted to be published and succeeded, students who did plan on publication but were, students who desired publication but did not, and students who did not seek nor achieve publication.
2. Axial coding, after open coding, group like categories to create new ways of examine the data.
3. Selective coding, which finally “integrates the categories…in a way that articulates a coherent understanding or theory of the phenomenon of study” (Cohen).

I first imagined performing this study some time ago, but my small sampling of only three years’ data was insufficient to develop a clear conclusion. Now I have over a decade of data from my classes, and can move on to compare the next three year’s results with a control class run by another faculty member.  Then we may have results that can be quantified, codified, and shared as a pedagogical model foe teaching Authentic Writing to students seeking mainstream publication.

Works Cited

Cohen D, Crabtree B. "Qualitative Research Guidelines Project." July 2006. http://www.qualres.org/HomeGrou-3589.html. Retrieved 01 November 2016.

Glaser, Barney G. (1965) “The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis.” Social Problems, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Spring, 1965), pp. 436-445. Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/798843?origin=JSTOR-pdf&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Ness, Joyce (Professor Emerita, ODU English Department) in discussion with the author, October 2016.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1994). "Grounded Theory Methodology." In NK Denzin & YS Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 217-285). Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.