UWP 390 is the University Writing Program’s seminar in the theory and practice of teaching in university-level English composition courses. It is a core seminar in the PhD Designated Emphasis in Writing, Rhetoric, and Composition Studies. As most of the members of this seminar will soon be teaching UWP 1 (our introduction to academic writing across the disciplines at UC Davis) one aim of this seminar will be specifically to prepare members to teach that course.
Fridays 9:00-11:50 AM
207 Wellman
Professor Chris Thaiss
Email: cjthaiss@ucdavis.edu
Office: 385 Voorhies
Hours: M 1-2 PM, F Noon-1:30 PM, and by appt.
Description
UWP 390 is the University Writing Program’s seminar in the theory and practice of teaching in university-level English composition courses. It is a core seminar in the PhD Designated Emphasis in Writing, Rhetoric, and Composition Studies. As most of the members of this seminar will soon be teaching UWP 1 (our introduction to academic writing across the disciplines at UC Davis) one aim of this seminar will be specifically to prepare members to teach that course. Since a few members of the seminar will be preparing to teach other courses (e.g., Native American Studies [NAS] 5) that meet UC Davis’s lower-division English composition requirement, the seminar will also attempt to meet those members’ needs.
UWP 1 is meant to prepare students for the varied challenges they will face as writers in their courses across the curriculum, including courses in their majors and courses that meet the University’s general education (GE) requirement in “writing experience.” Since Davis students major in a wide variety of disciplines, all sharing some principles of discourse but each also distinctive in its ways of thinking, its modes and tools of research, its types of evidence, and its modes of expression, the purposes of the first-year writing course are multiple and complex.
In UWP 390, you will do the practical work of (1) designing assignments and class sequences and (2) learning methods of responding productively to student writing; but even more essential than those creative challenges will be your thoughtful encounters with models of theory and practice in composition studies, including your delving into some controversies of the field, probing several–sometimes conflicting–models of how writers learn and how writing can be taught. We will study a very small part of the 2500-year history of the field of rhetoric and writing studies, and how our own local version of the first-year writing course course has evolved under the pressures of cultural change, developing theory, and technology innovation. I trust that our discussions in class and online, as well as our sharing of methods and principles, will have the same energy that characterizes the entire field. I look forward to working with you.
Required Readings
Cheryl Glenn and Melissa Goldthwaite (2014).The St. Martin’s Guide to Teaching Writing. 7th Ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s. (SMG) (To be distributed free to all members at the first class meeting
Paul Kei Matsuda, Michelle Cox, Jay Jordan, and Christina Ortmeier-Hooper, eds. (2006) Second-Language Writing in the Composition Classroom: A Critical Sourcebook. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English and Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s. (SLW) (To be distributed free to all members at the first class meeting.)
John Bean (2011). Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. (EI) (In the UCD Bookstore.)
I will expect you to become familiar with and to use for your seminar presentation and book review project various composition journals and professional books located in Shields Library, as well as in the UWP collection in 378 Voorhies.
I strongly recommend your joining (at the greatly reduced student rates) the National Council of Teachers of English. Membership includes a subscription to a journal of your choice.
In this seminar, you will also be visiting a number of websites devoted to composition at various places in the U.S.,among them the Council of Writing Program Administrators and the WAC Clearinghouse (which includes a searchable database of research in rhetoric/composition topics). Among local websites of interest are the UWP homepage and the Campus Community Book Project.
Of particular interest to students of composition at Davis are our annual magazine of excellent student prose, Prized Writing, and our peer-reviewed journal of the teaching of writing, Writing on the Edge.
For background for your demonstration/lessons and for your further inquiries into all matters compositional and rhetorical, I also recommend the CompPile database (maintained by Richard Haswell and Glenn Blalock).
Schedule of Classes
4/5 Introductions and Overview:Introduction of assignments “Position Paper on the Teaching of Writing,” “Twice-Weekly Forum/Communal Blog,” and “Demonstration Lessons.”
Following this class meeting, please do the readings for 4/12 and use these as the basis for your first posts on the twice-weekly blog on Smartsite Forums.
4/12 Models/Theories of Teaching College Writing: Please have read SMG essays by Devitt/Bawarshi/Reiff, Rose, and Matsuda, plus two current policy statements at www.wpacouncil.org, the “Outcomes for First-Year Composition” and “The Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing.”
DUE: Submit by this date to Smartsite your Position Paper on the Teaching of Writing.
4/19 Models/Theories of Teaching College Writing II: Guest consultant: Dana Ferris, UWP Associate Director for the Lower Division. Please have read EI, Ch. 2-3; SMG, Lunsford/Lunsford essay. DUE in class: Proposals for Demonstration Lessons.
4/26 Designing Assignments: Please have read Chs. 6 and 7 from SMG; EI, Ch. 5-7. Guest consultant: Hogan Hayes, PhD candidate, manager of the UWP 1 e-portfolio system. DUE in class:Proposals for Visits to Classes.
5/3 Teaching Writing in the Multilingual University: Please have read SLW: CCCC Statement, Matsuda, Silva, Johns essays.
5/10 New Technologies and the Teaching of Writing: Please have read Ch. 10 and Selfe and Wysocki essays from SMG. We will meet this morning in an Olson computer classroom, TBA.Demonstration lessons begin.
Note: To prepare for this class, part of the “reading assignment” is to browse a number of online tools in composition and rhetoric, including
- blogs (such as those for teachers and program leaders on the NCTE and CCCC websites)
- multi-media journals, such as Computers and Composition and Kairos.
- resources for writing students, such as the OWLs at Purdue, George Mason, and MIT
- online “communities” for teachers and schools, such as The WAC Clearinghouse/International Network and the National Writing Project
- Computers-in-writing resources in the UWP (Wrye Sententia, coordinator)
5/17 The Writing Class Environment: Please have read SMG, Ch. 3; EI, Ch. 8-10. Demonstration lessons continue. DUE on Smartsite: Proposal for Design of Major Writing Assignment.
5/24 Responding to and Evaluating Student Writing I: Please have read SLW: Land and Whitley essay; EI, Ch. 13-14. We will apply some of these techniques in class on sample writings. Demonstration lessons continue.
5/31 Responding to and Evaluating Student Writing II : Please have read EI, ch.15 : SLW, Ferris and Roberts essay. We will apply more techniques in class on sample writings. Demonstration lessons continue. DUE on Smartsite: Report of Visits to Classes.
6/10 DUE in print copy in my Voorhies mailbox or my office: (1) Book Review; (2) Design of Major Writing Assignment (3) Second Position Paper.
Grading
I’ll base your grade (Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory) on holistic assessment of all the work you hand in and perform online; on your active, thoughtful participation in the seminar; and on your presentation. Since so much of the work is experimental and exploratory, I’ll be looking most closely for creative and critical thinking: your adaptation and synthesis of readings, speculative thought, trying out different ideas (including those you might feel initially uncomfortable with), asking questions, probing your assumptions and those of others, writing with imagination and a sense of possibilities.
I encourage you to express your reactions and opinions in regard to readings, issues, etc., but don’t be satisfied (I won’t) with just expressing your impressions. Look at pros and cons and try to entertain alternative points of view. All the issues we deal with in this course are controversial, and I’d like you in your writing to try to see through the eyes of persons who hold different views from those you bring to the discussion of each issue. Please don’t hesitate to ask for my feedback or that of others.
Please remember that throughout the seminar I’ll be getting to know you both as a scholar/thinker/writer and as a potential teacher of UC Davis writing students. How you engage with me and others in the seminar and how you work with the assignments and deadlines of this course will help me imagine your future as a college teacher.
Assignments
Twice-Weekly Forum/”Communal Blog”
Following our first meeting (April 5), I’m asking you to write two entries per week in an electronic Forum (you might think of it as a kind of blog) on Smartsite. Each week I’d like you to write reflectively about two topics: (1) the reading that you are doing and (2) your evolving self as a teacher or prospective teacher of writing.
We’ll keep up the Forum for the first five weeks of the course (last entry by May 16). After that point, the press of other assignments takes precedence.
Each week I will give the seminar a prompt that springs from our topic or readings for that week or from our in-class discussions. I ask you to make two entries to the electronic forum each week: one between Friday and Monday and one between Tuesday and Thursday.
In this way, all of us will take part early in the week between classes and then later. These later responses can be reflections on comments made by other members of the seminar. There is no minimum or maximum length requirement. In my experience with this assignment over a number of years, writers usually let the prompt dictate the depth of a response. (I will say this: if you find yourself spending more than an hour on an entry on this part of the course, that’s probably too much.) Entries should always maintain professional courtesy but should not avoid an honest, critical analysis of issues or of comments by other members of the seminar. When it works well, this forum has provided a great way to let us delve into important issues, think logically and creatively, share expertise and ideas, and get to know one another better as professionals
Design of a Major Assignment
Due on June 10, the Design of a Major Writing Assignment will require you to create one major assignment for a multiple-draft writing project that students would complete mostly out-of-class (but with supportive in-class work). If you are preparing to teach UWP 1, the target audience for the assignment description will be UCD first-year students. (If you are preparing to teach a different course, your target audience may be students in that course.) You will need to make it clear in your project what the target class context is.
The Design document will consist of three parts:
1. A detailed writing assignment sheet meant for students (1-2 pages)–the assignment will describe the purposes, audiences, formal criteria, and process of the assignment.
2. A 2-3 week, class-by-class, step-by-step outline grid that explains how you would teach that assignment in a writing course (1-2 pages). This would include specifying some of the subskills that might be necessary to complete the particular assignment (e.g., a library day for a research paper) and how different stages of your projected writing process (e.g., reading, gathering, proposing, designing a research method, drafting, feedback, revision, editing) would fit into the overall plan.
3. An explanation of parts 1 and 2 that describes (a) your sense of how this assignment and sequence fit into your overall vision and goals for the course–and reflects/adapts ideas from your readings, (b) your sense of how each part of the sequence contributes to achieving your goals and helps students become gradually more proficient (900-1200 words, plus works cited)
Review of a Professional Book
On June 10, hand in as part of your folders a three-page analysis (about 750 words) of a professional book you have read during the course. The book is of your choice and may be related to the theme of your demonstration lesson or to another theme of the course. Please approve the choice with me by the fifth week of class. If you wish, you may use the Shields Library collection or that in Voorhies. Write the analysis as if you were reviewing the book for a professional journal (e.g., The English Journal, CCC, Composition Studies).
Focus on specific benefits the book would have for other teachers (or students, parents, policy makers, etc.). What are its strengths? What does the book lack that you feel it should have? What questions does it raise in your mind? How might you use the book? If you wish, feel free to submit a draft of your analysis up to two weeks before it is due, for my comments.
Position Papers on the Teaching of Writing
By April 12 and then again by June 10, you will write 500-750-word statements of your “position” as a teacher of writing: your goals, your sense of the issues, your sense of the students’ needs, your questions, your doubts, your joys–anything that helps to define you as a teacher or prospective teacher at the present moment. If you have not taught writing before or have not done so at the college level, you may feel presumptive about having a “position” at this point. However, one purpose of the assignment is to push you to analyze your experiences and perhaps assumptions as a writer in a college environment.
The second paper should take the first as its starting point and explore changes that have occurred in your position since the start of the course. I’ll give you feedback on the first position paper by the time of our second class meeting on April 19.
Report of Visits to Two Teachers’ Classes
By May 31, please submit online in Smartsite a detailed report (about 1500 words) on
(1) a visit you have made to a UWP 1 class taught by an experienced teacher (having taught the course for at least four quarters). (If you are preparing to teach a different course, you may choose an experienced teacher of that course.)
(2) a visit you have made to another experienced UWP 1 teacher’s course or to an upper-level UWP teacher’s course. (Again, if you are preparing to teach a different course, you may choose a second experienced teacher of that course, or a teacher of a more advanced course in a similar sequence, or a teacher of an upper-level UWP course.)
Describe in detail and reflect on the class session. How was learning taking place in the class? What did the teacher do? The students? What ideas or techniques would you adapt to your own teaching? How might you modify what this teacher was doing? Why? Please take the opportunity to talk with the teacher about his/her philosophy of teaching, review some materials for the course, and include your reflections on these parts of the observation as part of the report.
Presentation/Demonstration Lesson
By our third meeting (April 19), I’d like you to have chosen a subject (for my approval) for a twenty-to-thirty-minute presentation/demonstration pertinent to the teaching of writing. Previous classes have chosen such subjects as peer response techniques, ways to spark good descriptive writing, ways to build arguments, student writing across disciplines, celebrating cultural diversity in the classroom, ways to work with ESL students, ways to work with students with learning differences, computer applications, use of films and music in the comp class, etc. You have these themes and many others open to you for this assignment.
The presentation/demonstration should include two parts: a very brief overview (no more than 10 minutes) of the issue and summary of several sources (books, articles) you have consulted, and a “hands-on” activity (about 15 minutes) that involves, for example, in-class writing, small-group discussion, etc.–showing how you’d apply your idea to the classroom. You should leave about 5 minutes for questions. Let me emphasize that these presentations are experimental–first drafts as it were. They are an opportunity for you to share with us techniques that you are thinking of using when you teach.
Plan to ask us to read an article (no more than ten pages) or give us some other type of homework (e.g., a writing or research exercise) in preparation for the presentation. You’ll have to make enough copies of readings for the class, including me, or make them easily available on Smartsite.
In preparing the presentation, I’d like you to consult at least four print or online sources closely pertinent to the subject. Your working bibliography of sources must be handed in for my comments at least two weeks prior to the scheduled date of your presentation. The field of composition and rhetoric possesses hundreds of useful journals. Shields Library has many titles from which you may choose.
You may work with one other person on this project, if you so choose. If so, the pair of you will have an hour for your presentation, and I’d expect you to consult and include in your bibliography at least seven sources. The additional time will allow you to give a more detailed intro (but no more than 15 minutes) and allow us more time for the “hands-on” exercise. If you do a joint presentation, it must be clear that there has been equal participation by both persons.
At the time of the presentation, please distribute to the class and to me (as one of your handouts) a one-to-two-page document that briefly summarizes your lesson and that briefly annotates the works you consulted.
