The Challenges and Rewards of Revision

When it comes to writing intensive courses, oftentimes, students are not excited to write in the first place. They are either taking a required English course, such as Composition or a writing intensive first-year literature course, or they are writing longer pieces for the first time in the courses of their majors. One of the most frequent errors is not in the students’ abilities in approaching critical analysis or building strong arguments, but in the time they are devoting to developing their writing. In particular, there is the challenge of switching from a writer’s perspective to a reader’s perspective that keeps students from revising their work, in addition to the difficulties that arise with a screen-based format, as opposed to working with a hard copy of their work (Bean 34).

Often, where drafts or first submissions falter is in the structuring of the essay, in that students have not spent enough time on this. Scaffolding activities that encourage spending plenty of time planning in order to give their ideas space to flow better on the page are often helpful for this. Therefore, there is a strong case to be made for devoting more class time to developing each written assignment, and as a result, students are learning the process of developing stronger pieces of writing, the skills for which they can apply across their studies. Given that students do not always delve fully in to the revision process, perhaps only changing a few sentences or grammatical errors pointed out in their feedback, there exists the need to engage and encourage receptiveness to developing and revising their drafts. Additionally, concerning resubmission of work, it is beneficial to include some requirements that accompany the resubmission.

Some suggestions for improving the revision process that have been particularly helpful in my own writing and literature courses are the following[1]:

  1. Having students come to class prepared with a guiding question for that session’s reading in which to direct the class discussion. This encourages active learning, critical thinking, generative topic discussion, and leads into how they develop their major written assignments through independent planning and groupwork.
  2. Scaffolding writing assignments to allow for extra writing and revision time, including one-on-one conferences which they attend prepared with an essay plan to discuss, active peer reviews, and writing days to address specific challenges in their individual writing processes.
  3. Enabling more active participation in peer reviews. Rather than students simply reading through their group’s essays and commenting here and there, it is generative to provide a worksheet that asks them to address specific elements of the work they are critiquing. These sheets are then uploaded to a shared folder that both their instructor and the members of their group can access.
  4. Implementing a resubmission policy that requires students to attend a writing center appointment to discuss the instructor’s feedback and write a new cover letter that addresses what they have changed about their essays.

Ultimately, the goal of good writing is to develop good thinking, and this is something that we can achieve in teaching thinking through teaching revision. An important idea is that “for expert writers, the actual act of writing causes further discovery, development, and modification of ideas” (Bean 29). It is therefore beneficial to spend even more time planning and revising work during class. In the era of instant gratification and ever-evolving technologies and AI, students are shown to be less inclined to spend enough time on each step of the assignment. There is a lot of value in slowing down and learning and relearning the process.

[1] For more examples, see p. 36 of John C. Bean, Dan Melzer, Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking and Active Learning in the Classroom, third edition, Jossey-bass, 2021.

The Neuroscience of Active Learning

Traditional teaching styles typically rely on students learning class material passively, which encompasses listening to lectures and taking notes. However, research examining effective pedagogy tends to support teaching styles that are geared more towards students learning actively (e.g., by engaging students in problem solving; Michel, Cater, & Varela, 2009; Wingfield & Black, 2005).

We can turn to the neuroscience of learning to appreciate why active teaching styles may lead to improved student outcomes. With the advent of neuroimaging techniques in the 1970s and functional imaging in the 1990s (i.e., fMRI), researchers have studied how the brain processes different types of information for several decades. Naturally, scientists have had a great interest in studying learning and memory specifically, and these studies generally show that multimodal or multisensory learning leads to the most long-term physical changes in the brain, and improves memory retention and recall.

A Multisensory Approach to Learning

It appears that learning is enhanced when multiple neural pathways are activated at the same time. In plain terms, the more we can activate students’ brains in different ways, the more they learn. This means that engaging as many sensory, cognitive, emotional and social processes in students will increase their learning potential. This can be accomplished by:

  • Making class activities problem-based
    • This activates brain regions involved in executive functions (e.g., prefrontal cortex) that aren’t as active when learning passively. Read more about the benefits of problem-based activities here.
  • Incorporating short, low-stakes writing assignments
    • This introduces tactile stimulation (Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014), visual processing (through imagination; Shah et al., 2013), and increases activation in prefrontal regions involved in executive function. Read more about this approach here.
  • Using varied modes of teaching
    • By approaching a topic in multiple ways, students can integrate class content by activating a variety of different interconnected brain processes (e.g., writing, listening, speaking, interacting, moving, etc). Read more about this approach here.
  • Asking students to incorporate new knowledge with personal experiences and older knowledge
    • This activates older memory pathways and allows new information to be physically linked with them. Read more about this teaching style here.
  • Having students work in pairs or groups
    • This engages social, emotional, auditory and motor networks. We’ve previously posted about the benefits of peer activities here.

When students work with each other, for example, more cognitive and sensory networks are involved. These processes include talking and listening to others, experiencing positive emotions, moving physically, and problem solving. In comparison, passive learning typically involves less varied activation throughout the brain, in that students sit still and listen. By engaging multiple processes, students learn and retain more information.

Why is Multimodal Activation Important for Learning?

Learning involves physically storing new information- or new connections – in the brain. Therefore, forming new memories requires physical changes to occur between neurons, and this process is aided by the hippocampus. We need our hippocampus for most (but not all) types of learning, and I will explain why a multisensory approach maximizes the work done by this brain region. Many of us have likely heard that the hippocampus ‘does’ memory, but often it is unclear what that means exactly. Some individuals erroneously assume that all of our memories are stored within the hippocampus, but the actual story is much more interesting.

Here is an illustration of where the hippocampi are located (bilaterally):

image of hippocampi

 

 

 

 

 

[image from brainconnection.com]

As you may notice, the hippocampus is centrally located, meaning that it can connect with various cortical regions throughout the brain. Cortical regions are the outside layer of the brain, where all higher order processes take place.

When we learn new information, neurons that code for different aspects of this information begin firing at the same time and “wire together” as a result, physically connecting pieces of older knowledge to create new knowledge. When neurons are firing at the same time, this sends a signal that the two areas (or groups of neurons) are responding to the same information source, and the two areas or clusters should ‘meet’.

Neurons becoming friends after responding to the same stimuli:

two neurons firing togethertwo neurons after firing

But what if these neurons firing at the same time are nowhere near each other? Then we need the help of our hippocampi in order to physically connect these distant neurons. First, the hippocampus connects to the cortical regions that are firing together (e.g., perceptual, linguistic, emotional, etc.). Over time, the hippocampus facilitates a direct connection between the two cortical modules, or clusters of neurons, and the specific memory no longer depends on the hippocampus. The memory is now permanently stored in our cortex, or the outer layer of our brain.

Here is an illustration of how the hippocampus connects different cortical neurons by first binding to them, and then aiding memory storage in the cortex itself (Ward, 2015):

mechanism of hippocampus

The hippocampus is like a friend introducing two other people who didn’t know each other previously. While the person is needed for the initial introduction, they are no longer needed later on. In this way, memories get permanently stored throughout the brain.

In summary, as more brain areas are activated, there are a higher number of cortical modules the hippocampi have to connect. This, in turn, makes memories more deeply embedded in the brain, and more easily retrievable.

While passive learning may lead to a weak connection between neurons, active multisensory learning leads to deeply embedded neural connections:

passive vs active

References:

Michel, N., Cater, J. J., & Varela, O. (2009). Active versus passive teaching styles: An empirical study of student learning outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly20(4), 397-418.

Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking. Psychological science, 0956797614524581

Shah, C., Erhard, K., Ortheil, H. J., Kaza, E., Kessler, C., & Lotze, M. (2013). Neural correlates of creative writing: an fMRI study. Human brain mapping, 34(5), 1088-1101.

Ward, J. (2015). The student’s guide to cognitive neuroscience. Psychology Press.

Willis, J. (2011). Writing and the Brain: Neuroscience Shows the Pathways to Learning. National Writing Project, 3.

Wingfield, S. S., & Black, G. S. (2005). Active versus passive course designs: The impact on student outcomes. Journal of Education for Business81(2), 119-123.

 

WAC Workshop–Tuesday, November 13th, 1:00-2:15pm, V806

Please join us for our next WAC workshop, “Learning Course Content
through Writing.” Writing can be a tool to demonstrate what one has
learned; it can also be a tool to facilitate learning. In this workshop
lead by WAC Fellows, we will explore various methods for fostering
learning through writing in courses across the disciplines. Please see
below or click on the poster for further details.

“Learning Course Content through Writing”

Workshops are open to all City Tech faculty and staff.

DATE: Tuesday, November 13, 2012
VENUE: V 806, Voorhees building – 186 Jay Street
TIME: 1.00 p.m. – 2.15 p.m.

RSVP: facultycommons@citytech.cuny.edu
Lunch will be served.