Sample Teaching Assignments for a First-Year Composition Class

INTRODUCTION

Since I have never taught a first-year composition course, I checked out the WPA Outcomes Statement for the course.  I have come up with a set of assignments that I could really see myself using in an actual course.  I have tried to incorporate a lot of connections for the students including connecting each assignment to the one previous.  The notion of these connections, I believe, closely mimics my teaching philosophy statement.

I’ve included the potential for a reading assignment, although I have purposefully not specified any text.  In the sciences, we have some textbooks which are just later editions of essentially the same material.  What I have found very useful in the TCR program readings is the incorporation of multiple books and papers by a wide range of authors.  This has given me insight into a variety of styles and topics.  I believe I would want to customize the reading assignments in a similar way.  I also recognize, however, that I might be just one of many instructors teaching a course and if there was a ‘required’ textbook, I would have to figure out a way to make that work within the parameters of my assignments.

Additionally, these assignments, while assessed individually, will take into consideration all previously listed assessment focuses as well so as to continue building on information.  The final assignment will be a culmination of the use of the tools and techniques acquired throughout the semester.

ASSIGNMENTS

Written Assignment 1:

Use the pen/pencil and paper provided to you to write a page describing something interesting that you recently read.  It can be anything-a book, magazine article, street sign, twitter trend, facebook post, email……anything.  Include the following information:

• Details regarding format (electronic, visual, etc.)
• Why you found it interesting.
• Where you were when you read it.
• If anyone was with you when you read it.
• If you told anyone about it.

Assessment focus:  Content

Reading Assignment 1

Written Assignment 2:

Use the pen/pencil and paper provided to you to review and respond to the comments and questions posted on your first assignment.  Re-write the assignment incorporating any corrections to grammar and punctuation that have been noted or that you were made aware of in the readings.  Also add to your topic by including:

• Introducing a research question related to your topic.
• What resources you would use to address your research question.

Assessment focus:  Grammar and punctuation.

Reading Assignment 2

Written Assignment 3:

Use the computer workstations to transcribe your written essay into Microsoft Word.  Review and respond to comments and questions posted on your second assignment.  Address your research question by utilizing the resource(s) you have described.  Add to your essay by including:

• An appropriate title.
• An abstract that describes your essay.
• The name of a project that has also addressed your topic.

Assessment focus:  Style and detail.

Reading Assignment 3

Written Assignment 4:

You are going to be placed in randomly assigned groups of six to eight.  Before proceeding, you will need to read each of your group member’s essays from Assignment 3.  Next you will need to:

• Write down how your essay topic is connected to at least half of your group members topics.
• Make a flow chart showing the hierarchy of connections for all topics.
• Decide on an overall theme for the essays of your group based on the connections.

Assessment focus:  Depth of connections.

Reading Assignment 4

Written Assignment 5:

Working with your group, use the publishing software at the computer workstations to compile your groups essays into a publication.  Include a cover design and any other visuals you think would enhance your publication.  You must also include:

• A written description of your publication that could be included on a publisher’s website.
• A  description of the intended audience or who you think might best appreciate or enjoy your publication.
• A list of two other publications that readers of your essays might also enjoy.

Assessment focus:  Audience appropriateness.

Reading Assignment 5

Written Assignment 6:

Provide an individual, compelling, written review of one of the other groups ‘publications’.  Include a review of:

• The finished product.
• The topic connections.
• The audience appropriateness.
• The related materials.

Assessment focus:  Analytical skills.

Reading Assignment 6

Final Written Assignment:

For the remainder of the course, you will be composing a 10-page essay on a topic of your choice that includes proper grammar, good style, relevant connections to other materials, good research techniques and sources, analytical skills and audience appropriateness.  Periodic drafts of the final essay will be submitted electronically for evaluation and commenting.

Assessment focus:  All

Additional Reading

DISCUSSION

I have to admit that I have not had experience with so-called ‘remedial’ writers, but I have tried to imagine the range of students that I get in introductory chemistry classes.  I have really tried to consider that besides differences in experiences and aptitude in general, there will most likely be large differences in ‘cognitive style’ and ‘mental processes’ as well (Rose, p. 327).  And in a way, my lack of experience in teaching first-year composition has prevented me from being ‘tainted’ by some theories regarding understanding mental processes.  “…their [the theories] richness should not keep us from careful consideration of their limits” (Rose, p. 326). 

Overall, my assignments support my belief that connections are important and that part of those connections include those made with colleagues and classmates.  I have tried to put into practice what is really my teaching rationale which supports the idea of collaborative learning.

My Philosophy of Teaching Composition

Teaching Philosophy Statement

Making connections is at the core of my teaching philosophy.  I believe that the learning experience is greatly enhanced when:

   1)  Students can make connections to the tools and topics being introduced to them.

   2)  Students can make connections to their fellow students, their community and the world around them. 

♬ Teaching Philosophy  ♫

Since I teach chemistry, biochemistry and biotechnology, I decided to do a little research related to teaching college writing composition before addressing this blog topic.  I explored various resources including syllabi and curriculum associated with a first year composition course as well as Richard Fulkerson’s Four Philosophies of College Composition.  I used simple search engine phrases such as ‘teaching composition’ to retrieve a collection of works related to the subject.  The search results included not only writing composition, but also several sources related to music composition.  At first, I spent some time revising my search phrases so as to narrow the results, but then it occurred to me that music was the perfect analogy for describing my teaching philosophy and teaching style.

Consider any musical composition.  Nearly all pianos have the same eighty-eight keys.  That means that every song, melody or jingle is just a different combination of connecting those keys.  And the possible new combinations are limitless.  Some people have a natural gift when it comes to connecting the keys, but that gift can be nurtured if they are exposed to other compositions or musical instruments.  Other individuals require more rigid instructional methods and theory in order to understand the outcome of their composition or how it will be received/perceived. 

Students in writing composition are essentially presented with the twenty-six letters of the alphabet.  From this, they must compose a broad range of written materials.  It is my goal to show students some ways in which they can use the tools presented to them without limiting what they do with those tools.  Spelling and punctuation in written composition are important because they help to deliver the message, but they are by no means the only tools.  In fact, the tools associated with composition have evolved as technology has evolved.  Spell-check tools in word processing software programs are typically automatically invoked to help guide the spelling correctness of a composition just as Auto-Tune (Antares Technologies) is a software program that can be used to correct for pitch ‘inaccuracies’ in voice and instrument recordings.

In order for me, as a teacher, to even begin to help students connect to the tools available to them, I must continue to learn about the new technologies as they develop.  This doesn’t mean that I need to be an expert in using the technology.  In fact, it is quite the contrary.  I would rather introduce the tools to students and have them show me what they are able to do with it.  Furthermore, the various topics of technology can be a way to connect students directly to the material.  For example, some writing composition students may already use Auto-tune or other software or gaming as a hobby.  Having students write about their experience with that technology is a way to bridge the subject of composition with a topic of interest.

Students can bring their own individual experiences to an instructional setting and deliver beautiful and meaningful messages much like a solo performer would.  But if you take a solo pianist, add some string, horns and percussion, you get an orchestra where everyone is making a contribution.  This becomes an experience for all of the musicians as well as anyone within listening distance.  The same can be said of the writing experience.  I believe that collaborative writing and review can help students see how writing connects them to others and the world around them.

Using Fulkerson’s classifications, my teaching philosophy can be broadly defined as expressive.  In fact, I do “desire to have writing contain an interesting, credible, honest and personal voice” (Fulkerson, 1979).  But I think there are also elements of the formalist, mimetic and rhetorical philosophies all interwoven into my teaching style.   The rules adhered to in the formalist approach must be taught so that a composition makes sense or can communicate to the reader.  This leads to my adoption of the rhetorical philosophy.  Namely, “good writing is writing adapted to achieve the desired effect on the desired audience” (Fulkerson, p. 346).  Finally, the mimetic philosophy is supported by my desire to have students connect to the topic by their understanding of the topic.  This may require research on the student’s part in order to gain an understanding of the topic.

Berlin discusses expressionist textbooks and how most “emphasize the use of metaphor either directly or by implication” or how they “specifically recommend the cultivation of the ability to make analogies” (Berlin, 1982).  And again, upon reflection, I certainly see myself in this description.  As an ‘expressionist’ and a scientist, I found Flower and Hayes’ protocol analysis of writers in action extremely informative (Flower, 1981) and the resulting writing process, with it’s de-emphasis on the timing or linearity of that process aligned well with my teaching philosophy.

While I posted this teaching philosophy with respect to composition, it is in fact the same philosophy I ascribe to in my science classes.  And if you were thinking that a scientist is more of a formalist than an expressivist, I would respond by saying that science is art and the living world is a composition.  After all, nearly all living things are made up of only six elements (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorous and sulfur) from the periodic table.  It is the limitless connection of these elements to each other that provides nature with its harmonious diversity.

Berlin, James A. (1982).  Contemporary Composition The Major Pedagogical Theories in Cross-Talk in Comp Theory A Reader.

Flower, Linda and John R Hayes (1981).  A Cognitive process Theory of Writing in Cross-Talk in Comp Theory A Reader.

Fulkerson, Richard (1979).  Four Philosophies of Composition, College Composition and Communication, 30(4):  343-348.

What is the most difficult thing to me about teaching writing and how do I go about doing that?

Writing instruction in a science class presents some unique and some global challenges.  The most unique is probably the vocabulary as terms are introduced and defined that have not previously been encountered.  A global problem that I consider particularly challenging is that of teaching students to prepare audience appropriate materials.

A couple of years ago, I asked students in a Biochemistry Laboratory to compose an essay about something called the Maillard reaction.  The Maillard reaction, also known as the browning reaction, is the phenomenon responsible for turning meat brown, converting bread to toast, turning beer brown, along with hundreds of other examples. The Maillard reaction is named for Louis-Camille Maillard, a French chemist who studied the science of browning during the early 1900s. The Maillard reaction is actually a complicated biochemical reaction that happens to have an important effect on foods and other protein-based technologies.  I assigned the essay to be completed during the Thanksgiving holiday as the material could be applied to roasted turkey, etc.  I gave the students a series of questions to prompt their research and writing.

The essays were, in general, well constructed although I stressed to the students that I would not be technically grading them on their written style.  What was interesting was the diversity of context and style that was used.  It occurred to me that I had not told the students who they should be writing this for.  My goal was to have them be able to explain the Maillard reaction to someone who had not any Biochemistry which some of them did.  Others, however, chose to make the essay more technical, which was admirable, but did not demonstrate to me that they could contextualize the technical information.

For the next written assignment, I asked the students to prepare a diagrammatic representation of cellular respiration and targeted to high school students and again, the completed essays were quite varied in style and content.  It occurred to me that not everyone has had the same high school experience, so naturally, the audience definition and experience might be different for each of the students.

I decided that regardless of the style and content used by each student, the sheer process of writing about these topics contributed to their learning.  “Because writing is often our representation of the world made visible, embodying both process and product, writing is more readily a form and source of learning than talking” (Emig, 1977).  But I wanted the writing to also represent a measurable outcome.  How well could the student, based on my measurement, describe the processes assigned to them?  To be able to do this, for the next assignment, I had the students tell me who their intended audience was.  This forced them to think about their writing style as they did it.

Next semester, I’m going to assign another essay topic, but describe a single individual, in detail, with background and history, as the audience.  Then, I’ll have the students tell me how their chosen style specifically addressed this fictional audience.   

What is Rhetoric, What is the History of Rhetoric and What do I, as a Science Professor, Hope to Do with this Information?

Rhetoric to me means persuasion.  I’ve seen it defined more in terms of argumentation, but I think that can sometimes have a negative or confrontational connotation.  In trying to persuade, a ‘rhetor’ may use a variety of discourses including written, oral and visual.  In analyzing these discourses, ‘rhetoricians’ try to understand the effect of modes of delivery on different audiences. 

Ede and Lunsford (1984) specifically address the role of audience on written discourse.  In their essay “Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked The Role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy”, they discuss and provide an interesting visual (p. 89) to describe the concept of audience and the writer’s relation to specific audiences.  In describing the difference between the addressed and invoked audience, the authors state that “Those who envision audience as addressed emphasize the concrete reality of the writer’s audience; they also share the assumption that knowledge of this audience’s attitudes, beliefs, and expectations is not only possible, but essential” (p. 78).  Comparatively,   “Those who envision audience as invoked stress that the audience of a written discourse is a construction of the writer, a created fiction” (p. 82).   To understand the distinction, it is necessary to examine oral discourse as compared to written discourse.

In a traditional sense, speakers engaging with a direct audience have the ability to analyze an audience and adapt the discourse accordingly.  They address the audience.  Conversely, “The central task of the writer is not to analyze an audience and adapt discourse to meet its needs.  Rather, the writer uses the semantic and syntactic resources of language to provide cues for the reader-cues which help to define the role or roles the writer wishes the reader to adopt in responding to the text” (p. 83).  They invoke the audience.

While I found these descriptions of audience useful, I couldn’t help but think of digital delivery, something that would not have been widely used when the essay was written.  Presenters of oral discourse, who intentionally prepare their work for the Internet or other forms of digital delivery, belong more with the audience definition provided for writers above, or the invoked audience.  Even though the digital delivery is intended for a certain audience, no direct interaction takes place and thus the author has to rely on the audience definition that they have created.  Simply put by Emig “With writing, the audience is usually absent; with talking, the listener is usually present” (p. 9).  However, in video (and audio) production, the listener is usually absent.

Rhetorical theory and definitions may change then, as technology changes.  Historically speaking, rhetorical studies have been traced back to Ancient Greece when Greek philosophers tried to persuade their audiences with grand orations, written text and detailed visuals.  Rhetorical theory evolved across the centuries as different civilizations developed new modes of persuasion and this evolution continues to take place as not only the modes of delivery change, but also the way historical messages can be reconstructed.

Rhetoric has been and continues to be a part of our daily lives.  In a way, it’s hard to define because it’s just ‘something that is there’.  We know we use it, but perhaps we take it’s power for granted.  In an analogous way, we do the same thing with science.  Specifically chemistry and physics which include concepts we can’t see, but we know are there.  I hope to be able to continue to build on the parallels that exist between the teaching of writing and the teaching of science and ultimately implement a trans-disciplinary approach that has appeal to students and educators in different fields.  

Page references taken from Cross-Talk in Comp Theory a Reader, Victor Villanueva and Kristin L. Arola, editors, 3^rd ed.

Who am I and What is Composition?

"The picture to the left shows two tubes that contain 'Red Fluorescent Protein' (RFP).  The history of RFP is fascinating and begins in a pet shop in Russia.  A noted scientist was visiting the shop, and noticed a bright red sea anemone in the window.  Intrigued by the color, he inquired about purchasing the anemone, but the shop owner declared the sea creature was 'on hold' for someone else.  Undaunted by this information, the scientist convinced the shop owner to release the 'hold' and thus he purchased the sea anemone.


The scientist proceeded to isolate and identify the compound that was responsible for the bright red color-a particular protein that transmits red.  While this information was fascinating to the scientist, the knowledge had significant implications for science and medicine as well.  Other fluorescent proteins had been isolated and were being used to track the movement of medicines internally.  Additionally, fluorescent proteins were being used in research labs to visually 'see' the results of experiments once they were completed.


What is particularly interesting about the photo shown above, is that it contains RFP that has been isolated by high school students.  Specifically, the students are taught to genetically alter bacteria to carry and express the RFP gene.  As a result, the bacteria then 'make' RFP which is visible as the fluorescent glow shown.  The technology the students learn and conduct is exactly analogous to the technology that has been used to make important 'recombinant' human therapeutic proteins such as Insulin (Eli Lilly) for Diabetes, Epogen (Amgen, Inc.) for Kidney Dialysis patients, and Neupogen (Amgen, Inc.) for Chemotherapy patients.  While the history, research techniques and methodology are fascinating, they are meaningless without the proper audience appropriate communication."

I am a Science Communicator.  I have a Bachelor's Degree in Chemistry and a Master's Degree in Biochemistry.  I worked in industry (at Amgen, Inc.) from 1988-1996 in laboratory research and clinical research.  I have been teaching undergraduate chemistry, biochemistry and biotechnology since 2005.  I am also involved in a variety of special projects and science outreach programs.  I have noticed that students sometimes struggle with information due to the composition of the materials.

I view composition as structuring information to tell a story or make an argument.  That information can be in the form of written text, visualizations, online sources and other modes.  The information can be delivered 'top down' (teacher to student) as an instructional tool or 'bottom up' (student to teacher) as a learning and assessment tool.

It is my goal in the TCR PhD program to investigate instructional materials (across a variety of delivery modes) for their visual and textual rhetoric as well as their use of composition not only to deliver the message, but also as an assessment tool.  In particular, during my studies at TTU, I have come across a variety of papers that discuss the parallels of teaching English Composition and Laboratory Report Composition.  Traditionally, laboratory notebooks or reports often consist of restating steps (literally word for word) from a laboratory procedure.  This has not proven to be an effective way for students to conceptualize and contextualize the procedures they have just completed and I would advocate for the incorporation of a more deliberate laboratory report composition to enhance student's understanding of methods learned and application to real-world scenarios.  Assessing the students compositional work will provide a way for educators to evaluate how well the student has been able to incorporate the skills learned as well as then communicate those skills to others.

Moving forward in my career, I would like to implement changes to instructional materials and modes of assessment in the undergraduate science laboratory.  The overarching goal of these changes would be to provide an educational and meaningful experience for students in the undergraduate laboratory setting.