Giving Up Control

One more example of the value of yielding some of that “classroom control.” This program, by embracing both Learner-Generated-Content and Learner-Generated-Context is embracing what students bring to the course rather than rejecting that mountain of creativity and differing abilities. It also realizes that there is more to communication than the stilted historic forms most schooling privileges. In doing so, it not only opens up education, makes it relevant and worth participating in, it re-aligns our notions of ability and disability.

Ira Socol, Michigan State University, at 9:45 am EST on November 19, 2007

A team effort

Having led a team of faculty who taught English to first year engineering students since 1989, I had accumulated a body of knowledge about how to engage reluctant though talented students with authentic projects. With the help of an enthusiastic IT group and a willing, though occasionally “reluctant” faculty, I synthesized much of that experience into English Alive for the entire student population. Although only some elements of the pilot have been adopted, more faculty are getting interested as they become comfortable with the idea of multi-modlaities being informed by age old objectives: clarity, appeal to audience, evidence of valid research, etc. The surprises are telling. Students are enthusiastic about online conversations and recognize the propriety of language required. They also need virtually no instruction on the mechanics of various media, though the requirements for the objectives may be new. The surprises for faculty include the discovery that students allowed to “design” their project can be more creative and demanding of themselves than teachers may have recognized. Some teachers are also surprised to discover that their literary training does provide them with the rubrics to evaluate projects they might not have “assigned,” such as brochures or posters. And the technology is not a problem or a privilege. Every teacher does not have to have the technical expertise of a Scott Warnock or Dan Driscoll anymore than having had to write the text book to use it. I am indebted to many team mates who did not participate in the presentation but who have contributed to the ideas and the technological development of English Alive: Ken Bingham, Robert Finegan, Valerie Fox, Andrew McCann, Christine Qualitieri and Robert Watts

Valarie Arms, Drexel University, at 1:55 pm EST on November 19, 2007

Why LM?

Because, eventually LM, even in American education, what you know will begin to trump arbitrary formatting... as it does everywhere else in the world. And even in the rare cases where it does not, “teachers” will learn that students learn to write by writing. And they get real practice writing by writing what matters to them, in ways that communicate with real audiences.

Ira Socol, Michigan State University, at 11:45 pm EST on November 19, 2007

First Year Writing

While the class described sounds fun and exciting for the students, I do not believe it prepares them for what they will encounter as they further their education. Because of that, it does the students a grave disservice.

Many of us English teachers gripe about writing across the curriculum (meaning that other classes aren’t reinforcing writing skills), but the program describes shows that, as Pogo said, we have met the enemy and he is us. How does such a program for first-year students help them when their Psych or History professor assigns a formal essay or research paper (which precludes first- and second-person, and which must be supported with empirical data to support student-synthesized ideas)? We blame other departments for accepting poor writing skills — but then we congratulate ourselves for teaching them only to “find their inner writer” or some such nonsense. Those things are great once the student has learned the basics of structure, rhetoric, grammar, punctuation, etc. etc. — but they are deadly when it comes to writing across the curriculum. How are we helping students when we tell them, in a formal writing class — that poor grammar and emoticons are acceptible in an academic setting?

It’s time we changed our approach. There is nothing wrong with teaching the fundamental discipline of writing.

Mickey Kessler, Chair, Liberal Arts at Washington State Community College, at 9:25 am EST on November 21, 2007

Relevance

Thanks to all for the enthusiastic responses. Of course, we strongly agree with the WAC advocates above. I also want to clarify the writing and communications goals of the course. One respondent above says, “I want [students] to be able to follow instructions […] and understand that there are times to format and use formal language.” Another says, “There is nothing wrong with teaching the fundamental discipline of writing.” Our projects allowed for creativity, but they were indeed structured—all part of Valarie’s initial conception of English Alive.

For example, one project asked students to research a technology in a profession of interest to them (by going to that workplace in Philadelphia). They took on the role of a member of a Science and Technology Administration (a mythical FDA-like government entity invented by Jason Ohler), and the final product was a report memo “white paper”: certainly a challenging and “real” format of communications.

Also, the use of informal digital writing environments like message boards provides students with the ability, simply put, to write a lot in the course. Thus, the instructors had a tremendous amount of raw writing material to use to help students talk about audience, purpose, and, yes, the fundamental nuts and bolts of their writing. I think the keys were our efforts to create project with relevance and authentic experience, but that did not mean an unstructured, anything-goes environment. Ira Socol puts it superbly: “And they get real practice writing by writing what matters to them, in ways that communicate with real audiences.”

Scott Warnock, Assistant Prof English at Drexel, at 3:55 pm EST on November 21, 2007

My experience teaching English Alive at Drexel

I was fortunate to be part of the team working under Dr. Valarie Arms that used the English Alive approach last year. I’m still using that approach in my classes this year. Our approach, I believe, will be increasingly deployed by colleges and universities across the land. Many businesses, including many elite consulting firms, already use a multi-media approach, in their communication. Just to reassure some of the people who might think this approach is strange: 1.) We have weekly online writing assignments, where students respond to articles and essays and stories and books in traditional writing form. They get a lot of traditional writing practice. 2.) Rest assured: I have never had a student use an emoticon in a project. 3.) Students aren’t allowed to just write about “anything.” Rather, I do as my graduate school professors did. They allowed us to write on anything of interest as long as it connected to the course and the course readings! And the “further out” their approach, the more I require my students to get my approval of topic and approach ahead of time. 4.) To present on example of a project that combines traditional writing with the ALIVE approach, I had several students who created their own soundtracks for particular readings, including “Sonny’s Blues” by James Baldwin and the book, “Black Hawk Down” by Mark Bowden. Yes, they handed me CD’s with music on it that I listened to ... now here’s the second part: I required a two to four page essay justifying and explaining their music choices. And if the writing was sloppy or unclear or awkward, I penalized them. But I got some amazingly interesting work. 5.) I also got some amazingly well done posters with lots of primary research. I had design students that created truly spectacular poster work. And yes they included an essay justifying and explaining their design. 6.) I do not know why Drexel placed our program on hold. But as a full-time writing instructor, I’m using the ALIVE approach right as much as I can right now. For term 1 (we’re on a quarter system at Drexel), I tend to be more conservative, wanting to help the students absorb some of the basic etiquette and requirements of college and professional writing. But I’m already asking students to include photos with assignments that require them to go out into the city to attend a concert or play or sit in park for two hours and observe and record everything that happens around them. 7.) Final point: there is something about asking this generation of students to include a visual element that really prompts better writing. 8.) I realize not everyone sees the merit of this approach. I think it’s well aligned with the communication is evolving in the professional world and certainly on the web. Just check out the long articles/projects done by the New York Times.

Robert Watts, English Alive at Drexel University, at 5:40 am EST on November 27, 2007