Access concerns also play out in OWI with respect to how an OWC is de- fined institutionally, making OWI Principle 1, which calls for inclusivity and accessibility (p. 7), relevant to course description. Take the aforementioned fully online course that requires any kind of onsite meetings. In the strictest sense of the OWI environment, requiring onsite meetings means that the learning no longer is fully online, and using this terminology not only may confuse stu- dents and teachers but likely will limit access to some. For example, generally it would be impossible for a geographically distributed student in Colorado to attend a meeting at a Virginia institution in which she is enrolled as an online student. An accessible OWC would not ask such travel of its students. Howev- er, Texas is one state with state-mandated definitions for instructional settings, and it defined a “fully distance education course” as, “A course which may have mandatory face-to-face sessions totaling no more than 15 percent of the instruc- tional time. Examples of face-to-face sessions include orientation, laboratory, exam review, or an in-person test” (Texas Administrative Code, 2010, RULE §4.257). Anecdotally, I have seen another interesting case occurring in Speech Communications. Since the majority of a student’s grade is based on speeches delivered to the class, some programs have instituted a requirement that students taking a fully online class must be prepared to come to campus periodically throughout the term in order to speak in real-time in front of a live audience; it is easy to imagine similar scenarios with Technical Communication, multimodal writing, and even some FYW courses. Having online students record themselves speaking and then supplying that file to an instructor presents a number of dif- ficulties, not least being how to manage large video files. In any case, when fully online classes are defined in this manner, they are neither one-hundred percent online nor fully accessible, which detracts significantly from the nature and ben- efits of a fully online course.
In the CCCC OWI Committee’s national surveys, respondents indicated that while training relative to the LMS was mandatory and other training included peer mentoring and instructional design as part of campus outreach and sum- mer institutes, “training is inadequately developed at the level of onlinewriting pedagogy and somewhat unevenly applied” (CCCC OWI Committee, 2011c, p. 34). Experts/stakeholders from the CCCC OWI Committee’s panel, site visit interviewees, and survey respondents strongly agreed that not only should OWI teachers receive training relative to teaching writingonline (as opposed to ge- neric onlineinstruction), but that they should be experienced teachers of writ- ing from the outset. This concern stems from OWI teachers’ almost universal need to understand student writing issues without body/face/voice connections. It means they should be able to read the writing, “listen” to students’ written self-reflections, understand potential difficulties of an assignment, and decide how to help students using primarily written and asynchronous media. While some OWI courses are synchronous, anecdotal evidence suggests that many are fully online asynchronous courses. The ability to communicate about writing us- ing writing is crucial (Hewett, 2010, 2015a, 2015b). This work cannot be done well by inexperienced writing teachers who do not have the fuller understanding of, or vocabulary for, describing writing. While it is not only fine but often in- credibly helpful to pick up the telephone for a voice conversation or to use free audio/video software for connection, no teacher—regardless of experience—can manage the OWC load if every teaching interaction has to be accomplished as a scheduled voice conference. The CCCC OWI Committee offers this guidance with the full knowledge that following it may tie the hands of WPAs and gradu- ate advisors seeking to flesh out their teaching pool or to educate their graduate students with OWI. However, a combination of experience with onsite writing teaching (environmentally familiar in some sense to all who have ever been in the onsite student seat) and training with mentoring or even co-teaching in hy- brid and fully online settings is preferable to putting novice teachers in OWCs and expecting a strong outcome for the teachers or the students.
On the institutional level, Freshman Composition matured into a coherent course. The Writing Center emerged as a presence on campus, with Muriel Harris at Purdue developing the model most Writing Centers would follow, using peer tutoring and collaborative learning through consultation and conferencing. Harris's book, Teaching One-to-One, was foundational in establishing an intellectual foundation for the writing center (Harris, 1986). Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) was born of a belief that writing in the disciplines needed to be ‘owned’ by the disciplines (not the composition program) and WAC became a faculty development program for all faculty. Best practices for WAC were codified in Programs that Work: Models and Methods for Writing Across the Curriculum (Fulwiler and Young, 1990). By the 1990s, Composition and Rhetoric had evolved into a coherent academic ‘subject’ with maturing theory and tenure-track specialists mentoring new teachers and directing composition programs. Being a college instructor in the environment allowed us more time (and more permission) to theorize instructional practices teaching writing. Looking back, I can see now that my emphasis was (like most of my colleagues) on the internal processes of the writing student. We were coaxing writing out into public space and disciplining it to academic norms.
This reflective essay is my attempt to start examining the cultural values and practices of my own work with an eye towards unraveling the ways in which I am upholding a culture that maintains white power. In this essay, I reflect on how my current cultural practices maintain whiteness and try to imagine a different set of cultural values that might help me turn towards solidarity (and away from whiteness and racism). Mostly I write this essay to speak to the white people in the field of art education (and we are plentiful), though I hope that many people who do not identify as white will find value in naming what they likely already know to be true: that our field is dominated by specific white cultural values. Hopefully, there will be something in here that supports a collective dialogue about what we want to do about this. I realize already that this work is a flawed and problematic attempt; but it’s where I am at today. And it comes, thanks in part, because of an invitation to engage more deeply in concepts of whiteness in art education; an invitation, I hope to accept in my writing, teaching, and daily being.
an instructional model could be designed to inculcate problem-solving to transform TVET education into a vehicle for developing a thinking workforce, rather than as training in the application of specific procedures. The focus should be on the application of knowledge or ‘know- how’ or ‘know-why’, rather than focusing on ‘know-what’ or just procedures (Masek & Yamin, 2012). Considering the novelty of introducing problem-solving skills within Community Colleges, it appears that much needs to be done. For instance, instructors could benefit from the access to a teaching model template which supports the design and delivery of problem-solving instruction using selected instructional design theories such as the FPOI (First Principles of Instruction)(Merrill, 2012). Studies done by other researchers (Frick, Chadha, Watson, & Zlatkovska, 2010; Lo & Hew, 2017) have also suggested that the use of the First Principles of Instruction can improve students’ motivation and learning when compared with other forms of instruction.
Additionally, the transcripts indicated that the blogging had made the participants more engaged in learning how to write better and more responsible in what they posted. For instance, Mahsa said, “the visibility of my writing tasks made me feel more responsible . . . I tried harder to produce better drafts . . . .” Also, Elaheh added, “I used to check the blog very often . . . I was more active and more engaged in language learning than ever . . . .” Moreover, the participants pointed out that due to relatively quick feedback by the peers and the teacher, they had had the opportunity to learn how to evaluate their own essays more effectively. For example, Elaheh said, “once I used to evaluate my essays very quickly, focusing on just correct usage of words and grammar and ignoring other aspects, but after frequent feedback of the others through blogging, I got more self-aware of any aspect of a written task.” Reza, highlighting the feedback of the peers, added, “due to the feedback of my classmates, I learned to self-evaluate not only my spelling and grammatical mistakes but also my development of the idea . . . I tried to put myself in the shoes of the reader to see whether if I have provided adequate examples or facts to clarify and present my points.”
To locate the origins of nonviolent sympathies within rhetoric and language studies, we might go at least as far back as Kenneth Burke, whose early cold war Rhetoric of Motives is offered as a small gesture “to counteract the torrents of ill will” he observed in the world of his time, sentiments that drove him ever more to believe “that books should be written for tolerance and contemplation” (1969, p. xv). Burke takes pains, for instance, to point out the irony of war, “that ultimate disease of cooperation:” a thousand instances of rhetorically in- duced coordination must occur to make a single destructive martial act possible (1969, p. 22). Elizabeth Ervin argues, meanwhile, for the impact of Wayne C. Booth’s World War II experiences on his development as a rhetorical theorist, and quotes a late piece of his writing: “human love, human joining, ‘critical understanding’ as a loving effort to understand—that has always been at the center [of my endeavors]’” (Booth, as quoted in Ervin, 2003, p. 190). But in the contemporary era of composition and rhetoric, O’Reilley’s The Peaceable Class- room is probably the best-known work explicitly focused on nonviolent English teaching, and not only because of its very quotable articulation (borrowed from Ihab Hassan, one of O’Reilley’s graduate-school professors) of the “Is it possible … ?” question. Much of the book’s impact stems from O’Reilley’s honesty about her life, about the situatedness of her perspective on nonviolence, and about her failures. Relatable yet provocative, and endlessly quotable—“bad teaching … is soul murder” (1993, p. 47)—the book follows O’Reilley’s attempts to enact a pedagogy of nonviolence, from the beginning of her career in the Vietnam era up through the then-recent first gulf war. The primary foundational element of her pedagogy is teaching personal writing (in perhaps all three of the senses artic- ulated by Peter Elbow in this volume) to her students: “First of all, as teachers in the humanities, we encourage students to explore the inner life” (1993, p. 32). But—and this point is crucial in a discussion of critical expressivism—O’Reilley insists that
The explicit instruction option offers either an explicit teaching of rules or a chance for the learners to discover the rules for themselves. Oral and written explanations of grammatical rules with or without follow-up exercises are common procedures to be applied. An activity for this option is the use of consciousness-raising tasks. In these tasks, learners are required to study texts describing how a specified grammatical rule operates. Research has been conducted in the line of this option (e.g. Fotos, 1994). However, according to Ellis, the applicability of the results is questionable because the longer effects of these studies are not known as the studies usually do not include a delayed test. Another limitation persists because communicative behavior tests have been excluded from the studies, putting the reliability of the test used in doubt. Ellis concludes that the results of research in this option cannot be applied directly for pedagogical purposes.
From the Table 4, we can see participants took up a higher mean level of Collaborative Consciousness 1, Collaborative Consciousness 2, Collaborative Consciousness 3 and Collaborative Consciousness 4 after Weblog writinginstruction, which prove that students improve their collaborative consciousness in the Weblog writing course. The standard deviations of Collaborative Consciousness 1, Collaborative Consciousness 2 in the post- questionnaire are lower than that in the pre- questionnaire, while the standard deviations of Collaborative Consciousness 3, Collaborative Consciousness 4 in the post-questionnaire are higher than that in the pre-questionnaire, which indicates though the most participants shared a similar idea that the use of Weblogs on college English writing has an obvious effect, there are some exceptions. 4.3 Findings
With an academic course academic standards are set, as are the learning outcomes required from all levels of teaching. This means tutor control, needs to mirror that exercised in a classroom, wherever teaching takes place. Additionally students need to be equally well supported when learning moves outside of the classroom. Industrial simulation using an enquiry based learning pedagogy is practiced during some tuition for the BSc Building Surveying course at the University of Salford, (UoS). Industrial simulation is where an activity is designed. often with the support of an industrial partner, operating under industrial conditions. It requires the students to undertake tasks which simulate those undertaken by practice. Experience of running these activities over a couple of decades shows that the more realistic the simulation the better the levels of student engagement. The tutor needs to create control over the material studied. That can be exercised by creative brief writing. In building surveying terms this would be writing an instruction which requires the student in order to satisfy the instruction, to research material that would otherwise have been delivered by lecture, or requires them to develop practical skills based upon knowledge previously delivered to them.
To see what factors contributed to such a difference between writing quality of the two forms of writing, different components of writing measured when evaluating writing quality were examined individually. These components included idea, organization, voice, word choice, sentence fluency and conventions of writing. The results showed that the way students developed and united ideas in conventional and onlinewriting was not different. Also, in both forms of writing the way the students considered the audience and the writer’s personality were more or less the same. Furthermore, sentence fluency and effectiveness, as well as variety in length and structure of sentences were the same in conventional and onlinewriting. Therefore, we can claim that these were not the determining factors in the existing difference between the quality of online and conventional texts.
The theory of “Evaluating Classroom Learning Environment” and “ABC Learning and Teaching” underpins Lecturer Assessment Practices in this study. In the context of evaluating classroom learning environments, teachers should integrate students into relationship areas with necessary skills programs by emphasizing task oriented support (Moos, 1980). In ABC learning and teaching theory, teachers should ensure that they support students in efficiently dealing with learning information that enables students to access broad information sources. These theories comprise the basis of a questionnaire that meets teacher elements of assessment to ensure adequate skill in doing a task. Specifically, the Trinity Inclusive Curriculum (2012) focusing on written work assessment and Brown and Hudson (1998) focusing on alternative assessment of language. These two issues are considered related to the form of assessment by EFL lecturers.
space of the classroom by publishing teacher practice and reflection on the internet. He argues that this would help teachers take a more “productive, critical stance” toward their work (100). As these examples show, this collection focuses on teacher self-assessment and student- generated feedback. There is an opportunity here to address teacher-student communication, since it is implied by so many of these metrics: synthesized and contextualized evaluations, for example, might serve to reconstruct how teachers and students have interacted, as well as what the results of those interactions have been. Similarly, SGIDs would surely produce feedback on teacher-student communication. However, the text does not explore these sorts of implications, as it is focused on deliverables: what materials can teachers produce to make their classroom labor visible. This is surely a worthy pursuit. However, as I discuss in this introduction, this is an example of how writing scholars might explore the experiences of classroom participants— teachers and students—without focusing on the dynamics of those participants’ interaction. One text that does seem to focus more directly on teacher-student communication is Between Talk and Teaching: Reconsidering the Writing Conference, by Laurel Black (1998). Black argues that there seems to be a “widespread disciplinary assumption” that conferences are “casual, comfortable” conversations about writing, or “a form of individualized teaching,
The next most important factor, input from an academic advisor, received less than half as many “most important” responses. This finding is significant in at least two ways, and it also raises questions that can call upon the resources of computational linguistics. One dimension of the significance of the confidence issue is that confidence is central to the theory underlying Directed Self-Placement. The literature on DSP positions confidence as the goal of a develop- mental course and a desired result of a FYW course is that students will develop “writing confidence.” Indeed some scholars have sug- gested that DSP may be more a measure of con- fidence than of writing ability (Reynolds, 2003). The importance of confidence is magnified by the fact that confidence is frequently equated with competence in writing; it is also credited with driving out apprehension about writing, and with enhancing the authorial identity of students.
There are also options for interactive content. One of the better ones, established in 1997 by a college English teacher, is Grammar Bytes! Grammar Instruction with an Attitude (http://www.chompchomp.com/menu.htm),which offers explanations of grammatical terms and (print-friendly) exer- cises. The exercises come complete with cheeky feedback, including virtual prizes—for instance, a wrong answer may get you a purring guinea pig as a consolation prize (rather than a sports car), followed by an explanation of the error. A word of caution: grammar exercises can backfire. Given the range of conventions, it is not uncommon to find your- self disagreeing or being confused by an answer. Therefore, faculty should review exercises before using them to ensure that they fit the intent and can be explained. Also, to be ef- fective, exercises should be incorporated into context and used as learning opportunities, as opposed to being assigned as stand-alone events or tests.
Librarians and writing instructors have attempted to integrate library instruction into first-year writing courses in a variety of ways: the ‘one shot’ library visit (Gavin, 1995; Jacobs & Jacobs, 2009), a program-wide ILcomponent (Holliday & Fagerheim, 2006; Jacobson & Mackey, 2007), embedded librarians (Bensen, Woetzel, Wu & Hashmi, 2017; Deitering & Jameson, 2008; Kesselman & Watstein, 2009; Samson & Granath, 2004), and team-taught courses (Alvarez & Dimmock, 2007; Jacobson & Mackey, 2007; Peary & Ernick, 2004). It seems that there is a dearth of research conducted after 2011 on collaborations between librarians and first-year writing faculty on integrating library instruction into courses (Bailey, 2017; Gocsik, Braunstein, & Tobery, 2017; Scheidt, Carpenter, Middleton, & Shields, 2015; Wojahn et al., 2017). With the introduction of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) IL Framework, more librarians are becoming aware of the need to promote and assess students’ metacognition (thinking of one’s own thinking) as it relates to the process of research and writing (Bailey, 2017; Negretti, 2012; Wojahn et al, 2017). The recent introduction of the ACRL Framework is
approach is effective for teaching argumentation (Englert, Raphael, Anderson, Anthony, & Stevens, 1991; Graham, 2006; Kuhn & Udell, 2003). The second approach is based on the view that implicit or situated knowledge underpins genre writing (Freedman, 1993; Freedman & Medway, 1994). It has led to instruction that focuses on context: Students read authentic texts, analyze rhetorical situations, and engage in writing for purposes important to them. In this approach, students frequently learn about argumentation as a function of engaging in writing about specific topics (Coe, 2002; Purcell-Gates, Duke & Martineau, 2007). A third approach is to combine the first two methods; stu- dents are explicitly taught about genre and immediately apply this knowledge to writing about substantive topics (Pang, 2002; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). This third approach was used in the present study. Researchers and teachers drew on the First Steps Writing Resource (Raison, Rivalland, & Derewianka, 1994), which combines explicit and contextual instruction; more on this below. The first hypothesis was that students who participate in argument instruction would subsequently learn more than a control group during an argument-writ- ing activity in science and improve on other writing-related variables such as text quality.
theory covered throughout the course, including creativity application. The study instruments were part of an online course in critical thinking in an Intelli- gence and Creativity Module. Instruments included creativity readings and as- signments made up of lesson design and project activities. Lesson designs re- quired selection of a topic to teach based upon State Standards with a design in- corporating the reading. Project designs were culminating group or individual work incorporating creativity theory into projects.
WritingInstruction that Supports Adolescent Learners Research on Effective Literacy Instruction for Adolescent Writers In a report for the National Reading Conference, Donna Alvermann (2002) identifies the qualities of effective literacy instruction for adolescents. She argues that it is important to keep ―adolescents‘ interests and needs in mind when designing literacy instruction at the middle and high school level‖ (p. 189). Effective instruction must (a) address issues of self-efficacy and engagement; (b) develop students‘ abilities to comprehend, discuss, study, and write about multiple forms of text (print, visual, and oral) by taking into account what they are capable of doing as everyday users of language and literacy; (c) utilize instruction that is developmentally, culturally, and linguistically responsive to the needs of struggling readers and writers; (d) teach youth to read with a critical eye toward how individuals who make texts make those texts work; and (e) use participatory approaches that actively engage students in their own learning and that treat texts as tools for learning rather than as repositories of information to be memorized. Applied to writinginstruction, these qualities reveal that effective instruction involves student motivation and engagement, participatory approaches, critical pedagogy, consideration of under-achieving readers and writers, and recognition of multiple literacies.
Research instruments. The data was collected from the research participants using an online student questionnaire, which was administered once, and individual teacher interviews. The student questionnaire was administered online via Survey Monkey and comprised two main sections with sixteen items which examined students’ learning styles and preferences, their teaching delivery preference, their academic writing needs and their expectations. Students were informed via email of the research purpose and were asked to assist in the process of customizing onlinewritinginstruction by completing the questionnaire. The email also included the link to the research survey.