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:
- Students who submitted work for publication and saw their work printed.
- Students who submitted work for publication but whose work was not printed.
- Students who wanted to submit for publication but whose work was not submitted.
- 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
