Jared R. Pike – Writing Across the Curriculum

March 20, 2017March 25, 2017

DigitalWAC and Asynchronic Learning

It seems that a prominent feature on every syllabus I write is a stringent, punitive attendance policy that grants students a limited number of “free” absences, after which they lose points on their final course grade. This strict attendance policy is partly dictated by the school and department; and I have justified the policy to myself because I teach theatre—a collaborative art form that requires everyone to be present and participating. However, the longer that I teach, the more I have come to believe that such an attendance policy is problematic. Especially at an intuition like CUNY, where many students have outside obligations to support their families and/or long commutes complicated by inclement weather and the unpredictable service of the MTA, I believe we need to rethink our classroom practices to accommodate the everyday lives of our students.

The strict attendance policy is based on an antiquated system of education in which students had to be present in the same room with the professor at the same time in order to receive the knowledge that the professor had to impart. This notion is problematic in two senses:

It encourages what Paulo Freire has termed the “Banking Model” of education. This model sees the student as an empty vessel waiting to be filled with knowledge by the “expert” professor. While the “Banking Model” is successful in some instances, it limits the student’s educational horizon to what the professor knows, which is necessarily limited. The student becomes dependent on the professor for the expansion of knowledge. Our mission as professors should be to provide our students with the skills to become their own professor—to ask questions and find solutions on their own.

A strict attendance policy that requires students to gather within the same four walls during a given period of time ignores advances in digital technologies that allow students to participate in class discussion and projects from remote locations and on their own time.

Blended classroom environments that combine face-to-face class meetings with online components help provide a solution to these problems. They allow students to pose their own questions and work together using internet resources to find solutions—under the supervision of the professor who acts as a guide rather than ultimate authority. Blended classrooms also allow students to work in an asynchronic atmosphere—each working within their own time schedules—to complete tasks and work collaboratively.

At the same time, blended classrooms present their own challenges and may not be right for every classroom. They require that students have a certain level of maturity and willingness to complete the tasks on their own time. They also require that all students have equal access to the digital tools necessary for the course. Additionally, Professors must rethink how they deliver content and develop effective digital assignments that engage students in their own explorations of the course content.

Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) is uniquely situated to help our City Tech classrooms explore Blended Classroom options. Asynchonic digital learning will, by its very nature, require students to complete a variety of low-stakes and formal writing assignments from blogs to collaboratively written Wikis. Therefore, I am excited to announce that over the course of the next couple months I will be developing a new section of our WAC website devoted to applying digital tools for writing in City Tech courses.

I would love to hear from our City Tech community regarding the use of digital tools as I develop this resource. Do you have questions or concerns about the use of digital tools in your course? Have you used digital tools and assignments that you have found effective? Please feel free to contact me (jpike@gradcenter.cuny.edu) with any thoughts you have that will improve this new resource.

November 23, 2016

Writing Vs. Penmanship

At a recent holiday gathering I overheard a group of people from an older generation than myself lamenting about the decline of writing in the younger generations. The complaint went something like this:

“When I was in school we were taught reading, writing, and arithmetic. Kids these days aren’t even able to write. The schools are too focused on the common core that they don’t teach script anymore! Can you believe it! Too many of these kids are not able to read cursive script!”

Yes. It is true that penmanship has taken a backseat to other concepts within the common core requirements and student handwriting has suffered as a result. There have been numerous times that I have received handwritten assignments back from students and had to spend time deciphering the squiggles to make sense of their papers. However, hearing this complaint raised a series of questions for me. What is the purpose of teaching penmanship in the 21st century? In a world that is increasingly moving away from handwritten communications, in what way does penmanship serve our students?

As instructors we must be very careful not to conflate penmanship with writing. One of our main ideas in the Writing Across the Curriculum program is that writing is more about the exploration, organization, and expression of IDEAS. We divide the evaluation of writing into higher order and lower order concerns. Higher order concerns consist of a strong thesis statement, development of a strong argument using valid evidence, and the clear and concise organization of thought that carries the reader through the argument; meanwhile, grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, and the like make up lower order concerns when it come to writing across the curriculum. Lower order concerns need to be addressed but it is more important to foster the student’s development as a critical thinker than as a grammar machine. I argue that penmanship, in our increasingly digital world, is an even lower-level concern.

We are now living in uncertain times where digital literacy– the ability to navigate the digital world and question the validity of the “facts” presented there– is more important than ever. We have a responsibility to teach our students how to think critically about the worlds, both real and virtual, in which they live. As handwritten communication is evermore replaced by the digital, we must push beyond a mere nostalgic impulse to teach penmanship and prepare our students for the times that lie ahead.

September 19, 2016October 24, 2016

Writing to Learn: From WAC Principle to Life Practice

As anyone who has spent much time around the Writing Across the Curriculum program is well aware, those working in WAC have a near religious devotion to the inclusion of low-stakes informal writing assignments in every curriculum. These exploratory writing exercises which we call “writing to learn” include activities such as journaling, free-writing, and reflective in-class writing. Following WAC philosophy, “Writing to Learn” helps develop the students’ critical thinking skills and fosters a deeper engagement in thought surrounding the course content.[1] While writing to learn has proven to be a very successful tool in the classroom, its benefits carry over into non-academic settings.

I recently took a graduate level course taught by a former WAC fellow. One of the requirements for the course was to join the website 750words.com and develop a daily writing habit by writing at least 750 words five days out of the week. There were no guidelines beyond the simple stipulation- 750 words, 5 days a week. We were required to generate a monthly report through the site which stated the days on which we wrote and the word count for each day. The words themselves remained private.

I admit, I was resistant to the idea at first. What could I possible have to say that would take up 750 words everyday; however, it didn’t matter what I was writing—it only mattered that I wrote. So I began. On some days I was inspired by the course reading for one of the classes that I was taking and I used my time and 750 words developing my thoughts on the readings. Some days I developed research problems; or thought through other course material that I was struggling with. But some days I was stuck. There were days that I didn’t want to write, days that I could barely get out of bed. But I forced myself to sit down in front of the computer. On these days I wrote about not wanting to write. I wrote about the barrage of personal problems that blocked me from wanting to get work done. Often I would pose a question to myself and write until I was able to answer my question.

Over the course of the semester, I found that the days I began with my freewriting were vastly more productive than those which didn’t begin with writing. The morning writing helped me jump-start my brain in the morning, work through problems that I was having, and organize my day. It allowed me to get all the mental junk out of the way so that I could focus on the day’s tasks with more focus and clarity. By the end of the semester I had been converted and to this day continue to use writing as a way to start my productive days and to work through problems.

As we encourage students to utilize various writing techniques and tools in our classrooms, it can be helpful to point out that these exercises are not merely classroom tricks or ways to take up their time. Writing is an integral part of thinking and organizing. We should help our students see that a writing practice can extend beyond the educational setting and help them live fuller and more

[1] For more information on the philosophy behind “writing to learn”, as well as example activities, see John Bean’s Engaging Ideas chapters 2 and 7.

Author: Jared R. Pike

DigitalWAC and Asynchronic Learning

Writing Vs. Penmanship

Writing to Learn: From WAC Principle to Life Practice

The OpenLab at City Tech:A place to learn, work, and share

Support

Accessibility

Copyright

Creative Commons

The OpenLab at City Tech:A place to learn, work, and share

Support

Accessibility

Copyright

Creative Commons