To End Zionism and For a Free Palestine: How Do We Do ‘Very Effective’ Writing?

A note to the reader: I am a Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) fellow at New York City College of Technology (City Tech) for the academic year 2024-2025. One of the requirements of the fellowship is to contribute a blog post per semester on the Open Lab. I posted mine on Friday October 25, 2024. It was called: “To End Zionism and for a Free Palestine: How Do We Do ‘Very Effective’ Writing?” The following Monday however, my blog post was taken down because the City Tech administration evaluated that it was “outside the scope of content specified for blog posts in the WAC Fellows Handbook.” An email exchange ensued, with the conclusion that I was “free to resubmit a blog post that is within the scope of the assignment.” To this end, you will find below the initial blog post a new submission (“Addendum: what this has to do with WAC“) which places the issues at hand in conversation with WAC principles and teaching writing in the (CUNY) classrooms. I am very grateful to my friend and comrade A. formidable scholar of composition and rhetoric, who shared their expert feedback on previous drafts.

To End Zionism and For a Free Palestine: How Do We Do Very Effective Writing?
October 25, 2024

Seventy-six years into the colonization and ethnic cleansing of Palestine, and a year into what legal scholar Maryam Jamshidi has described as an “exceptional display of annihilation that other genocidaires could only dream of,” the Israeli army, with the full financial and diplomatic backing of the United States, further reinforced its barbaric siege on the Palestinian people living in Gaza. Journalist Hossam Shabat reported: “what’s happening in the Jabalia refugee camp can be summed up as a rapid extermination mission; we have never seen anything like this.” As I write this, the Israeli army is rounding up dozens of Palestinian men, with their hands tied and blindfolded — they will be buried alive or join the approximately 10,000 Palestinians in Israeli jails and be subjected to torture, organ theft and rape. The fact that the Palestinian people are still standing on their land is a testament to their steadfastness.

This blog post is part of a series of reflections authored by doctoral fellows at New York City College of Technology on teaching writing to CUNY students. As a Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) fellow, I am responsible for improving the writing skills of CUNY undergraduate students. The WAC program organizes workshops with faculty to share best pedagogical practices and workshops with students to help them write strong and well-rounded arguments supported by evidence. But when the earth-shattering horrors in Gaza make the heart break a hundred times a day, when depraved monsters celebrate the killings of heroic fighters, when the mainstream media broadcast genocidal propaganda, and when our very own university represses and brutalizes the students who protest that genocide, it is tempting to be skeptical: what could a pen and paper possibly do? Admittedly and to paraphrase Leila Khaled, writing “doesn’t liberate land.” Khaled who was in fact asked about the Boycott Divestment Sanction (BDS) movement recognized its effectiveness: “BDS, of course, on the international level it is very effective. But it doesn’t liberate, it doesn’t liberate land. If there’s BDS all over the world, and the people are not resisting, there will be no change.” Could the same be said about writing? The task at hand for us, academics, graduate students, writing fellows, is to figure out how to do “very effective” writing, and how to put it to good use, hoping that we remain loyal to the martyrs. 

CUNY for Palestine, a solidarity group of students and workers organizing for Palestinian liberation at the City University of New York, recently invited Professor Rabab Ibrahim Abdulhadi of San Francisco State University to give a talk “One Year Since al-Aqsa Flood: Reflections on a Year of Genocide & Resistance” at the CUNY Graduate Center – a talk that had previously been censored by Wake Forest University. Professor Abdulhadi’s talk offered historical elements to locate the attacks of Al-Aqsa flood of October 7, 2023, within the long and proud tradition of indigenous resistance to settler colonial occupation and described the apocalyptic scale of the ongoing US-backed genocide of the Palestinian people [1]. Throughout her remarks, Professor Abdulhadi also shared a few personal anecdotes: among those was the story of a younger Rabab Abdulhadi – not yet the award winning and widely read university professor – who wanted to take up arms and join the Palestinian resistance but was told by her elders that she would serve the resistance better if she stayed far from the frontlines and firearms. Rabab Abdulhadi followed that advice and became a writer and an educator with a scholarship deeply grounded in the material needs of the Palestinian liberation struggle. Revolutionary writing has always been an essential part of liberation struggles. The writings of Palestinian scholars from Ghassan Kanafani to Basel Al-Araj to Rabab Abdulhadi both narrated and strengthened the resistance because the analysis wasn’t intended “as academic exercise or to fill a gap in the literature […] its real value is in its potential to transform the way we look at, and interpret, the world around us.” 

I can’t know for sure why Professor Abdulhadi shared that story of her younger self, but one thing it did for her audience of CUNY students and workers is to immediately raise the stakes of our academic work, here in New York, in the belly of the beast. If we weren’t going to fight the settlers that occupy Palestine, we should at least try to write something useful. As we salute the courage of the resistance fighters defending their people on the frontlines, we who are not sacrificing our lives in the struggle for liberation, and have made a living of producing academic scholarship, must take our writing seriously. 

The goal is to sabotage the fabrication of that liberal veneer that transforms settler colonialism and genocide into glossy academic talking points [2]. As university workers we write articles, books, conference papers, syllabi and assignments, occasionally department statements and union resolutions, which together help sustain the myth of the university as a great producer of knowledge, a champion of learning and democratic debates. At CUNY this myth is particularly easy to dispel because our university has partnered with Zionists organizations and received funding from Zionist policymakers. The claim that CUNY builds knowledge “for the public good” only stands if one leaves the humanity and dignity of the Palestinian people out of the equation. And so, it’s a moral duty to figure out how our work (and for me here, our writing) fits into that system, even more so because CUNY directly collaborates with the U.S. and Israeli institutions that have caged in Palestinians without food or water, have relentlessly targeted them with terror airstrikes, and have burned down hospitals. It is a moral duty to figure out how our work (our writing) can unequivocally support the resistance against Zionism, so that the children of Palestine can grow up free, and in the words of the martyr resistance leader Yehia Sinwar, “be safely Palestinians, so that they can be much more than Palestinians” — in an interview published in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica on October 4, 2018, the journalist asked Sinwar what kind of life he hoped for, Sinwar replied: “ I want my kids to dream of becoming doctors not to treat only the wounded, but cancer. Like all the kids of the world. I want them to be safely Palestinians, so that they can be much more than Palestinians” [3].

Endnotes:

[1] The talk was not recorded, however a separate event titled “One Year of Genocide in Gaza: Dispatches from Palestine & Lebanon,” a panel conversation hosted by Professor Abdulhadi on Oct 10, 2024, is available on YouTube.
[2] See for instance: Chatterjee, Piya, and Sunaina Maira, eds. 2014. The Imperial University: Academic Repression and Scholarly Dissent. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; Edwards, Erica R. 2021. The Other Side of Terror: Black Women and the Culture of US Empire. New York: New York University Press.
[3] For an English version of the interview, see journalist Francesca Borri’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/francescaiaiaborri/posts/yahya-sinwarinterview-with-the-leader-of-hamas-in-gazafrom-la-repubblica-italy-o/1954610794582074

Addendum: what this has to do with WAC (a response to City Tech administrators)
Jan 24, 2025

The question in the title of the original blog post (“how do we do very effective writing?”) is a common starting point in Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) conversations. WAC pedagogy at its core is about centering writing in the classroom with the understanding that students who engage in consistent and repeated writing activities are more likely to deepen their understanding of the course materials. WAC workshops and certifications equip educators with pedagogical strategies so they can move away from the model of the lecture-based class and instead incorporate writing activities in their classes (of different lengths, scopes and levels of difficulty) throughout the semester. 

For the WAC movement, “effective writing” happens when students “write to learn.” John C. Beans’s Engaging Ideas, citing writing theorist Peter Elbow, makes the case for writing “not as a way to transmit a message but as a way to grow and cook a message.” His book describes a wide range of writing activities for educators to adopt so writing remains frequent and enjoyable (for varying audiences, with different purposes and stakes, and within different genres). WAC promotes a pedagogy of iteration, revision, and interaction. Foundational to WAC is the principle that teachers must approach writing as a process (keywords are scaffolding, exploratory writing, free writes, low stake assignments, peer-reviews, revision) instead of teaching writing as a product.

Departing from this perspective, the above blog post was an invitation for college educators to consider that their own writing and their students’ writing are still a product. Colleges and universities are institutions actively participating in the capitalist, settler colonial, genocidal U.S. economy (see for instance Kannan et al.; Bousquet et al.; Hubrig; Kareem from the field of composition studies, but also Wilder, Mahadeo, Bradley, hooks, Ferguson and more from across the disciplines). When students and professors write, their writing is part and parcel of a wider enterprise that culminates with the university’s outputs: cultural and political discourse (CUNY calls it “being at the center of the conversation”), data analysis and policy recommendations (“knowledge as a public good”), as well as a trained workforce for City and State employers (“New Yorkers from all backgrounds with in-demand skills”). 

At a time when CUNY’s claim to serve the people has been shattered by its blood-soaked commitment to stand with Israel’s genocide, I wrote this blog post to ask how our writing fits into that system. Specifically, I considered the possibility that WAC-infused pedagogical spaces with their emphasis on “writing as a process” have obscured the very material effects of our writing and our students’ writings on the world. Nothing new here. Many (Maraj; Kynard; Alexander and Jarratt) have noted how institutionally vetted pedagogical spaces on campus are unconcerned with (and maybe strategically obfuscate) students’ writing because of the fear it might be revolutionary and transform the way we look at, and interpret, the world around us.” To bring it back home: when City Tech students write flyers, banners, and social media posts (and more) in beautiful prose, presenting evidence and with a compelling thesis statement, to call out their administration and demand CUNY divest from settler colonialism and genocide, their writing isn’t featured on the Open Lab website, they are targeted with repression and violent intimidation. 

Writing scholar-administrators like LaGuardia Community College’s Dominique Zino directly locate the project of WAC in the recent history of CUNY, suggesting that this history can inform writing instruction and administration on campus. In the late 1990s, CUNY students faced the brutal force of budget cuts, a scrapping of the Open Admission rule, and increased militarization of the campuses, i.e. reforms of austerity and abandonment targeting the Black and Brown working class student body. Mayor Giuliani and his appointees on the CUNY Board of Trustees led the charge with the racist and classist idea that CUNY was “an institution adrift” and in need of neoliberal transformation. Strategically, they embraced the white moral panic over the decrease in “academic excellence” (also known as “our students can’t write”). To address this fabricated crisis, college instruction was to focus on the “basic skills” of reading and writing. So in 1999, the Board of Trustees mandated that each college “intensify and expand its programmatic efforts to strengthen the teaching of writing in courses across the curriculum.” This was to be done with the assistance of CUNY Writing Fellows, advanced and specifically trained doctoral students that would assist in the development of Writing-Across-the-Curriculum programs on the campuses. 

This terrible origin story requires that we (the CUNY writing fellows in question) think critically about the institutionalization of WAC at CUNY and its implications two decades later. My blog post drew inspiration from composition scholar-teachers like Aja Martinez, Eunjeong Lee, Sara P. Alvarez, Amy J. Wan, and Carmen Kynard (the latter three of whom are current/former CUNY faculty and/or writing-program administrators) who have observed how WAC and adjacent programs can function as norm-making spaces at the service of “raising academic standards” through the delineation of acceptable vs. unacceptable writing (the weaponization of writing pedagogy to control students).

This does not mean that teaching and learning writing at CUNY has always been unidimensional and hierarchical. There have been a multitude of counter-hegemonic initiatives to reclaim writing pedagogy from institutional capture. In fact, a call for papers for a 2025 special issue of The WAC Journal noted how WAC at CUNY predates and exceeds its institutional framework. Liberatory and community-oriented writing practices have shaped our institution throughout the 20th century, with CUNY undergraduate students at the forefront (see Zeemont’s The Act of Paper and Okechukwu’s To Fulfil These Rights). Recently, students and faculty have collaborated in shaking up entire WAC programs to make them anti-racist, multilingual, multi-generational, public-facing and accountable to the community (see the transformation of the WAC program at Lehman under the leadership of Vani Kannan). Oftentimes, these initiatives were met with administrative repression (see the recent censorship of the “Globalize the Intifada!” panel at a CUNY WAC conference). Taking inspiration from these efforts, I consider it is imperative that writing pedagogies at CUNY move toward practices that actively stand by the heroic Palestinian and regional resistance, who fight (in the words of CUNY alumna Fatima Mohammed) the “most advanced, immoral and lethal forces of the world.” My blog post was an invitation to locate the work we do at the City Tech WAC program within the ongoing struggles for a liberated Palestine that shape our students’ and colleagues’ lives as writers in and beyond the classroom.

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.

Storytelling : an engaging and reflective practise for students of all fields

Writing-Intensive classes have the advantage of enabling learners to use writing as a communication tool in a variety of ways, regardless of their field of study. Storytelling emphasizes the essentially narrative aspect of writing and reading. As a result, it highlights various layers of meaning in a text, and among others ‘subjectivity’. In this post, we will look at examples of informal assignments that encourage students’ engagement and self-reflection through their own narratives and some storytelling writing activities.

Analyzing material using exploratory writing lenses
WAC pedagogy not only promotes writing as a pedagogical practice, but it also underlines its importance in everyday life. As communicative beings, we all write, whether through texts or emails, to express ourselves first and foremost. Making writing directly related to daily issues in its most spontaneous form in class can enhance individual commitment to a course. To that aim, here is an exhibit that can help students engage by articulating their perspectives on a reading in a creative way, as well as an exhibit designed to stimulate students’ interest.

Exhibit 1: A freewrite or exploratory writing activity to identify an argument addressing an issue.
Consider these steps:
Start organizing the reading’s major point by idea mapping on a draft.
What are the key reasons and evidence presented to support that position? As you develop arguments and evidence, you are likely to discover gaps. Where could this argument be strengthened with more evidence such as statistics, examples, and expert testimony? Where and how will you do research to fill these gaps?
2. How can you respond to these objections and counterarguments? Take them one by one and brainstorm possible responses.
3. Also explore again why this issue is important. What are its broader implications and consequences? Why does it matter?
4. Work with a peer to free write a dialogue demonstrating arguments and counter-arguments. Consider the following setting:
Where: a specific context where a debate could possibly take place ;
Who: individuals or experts in the subject who address the reading ;
When: when this conversation occurs ;
In that order, write down each other’s parts: a) background; b) character assertions and examples; c) counter arguments and examples; d) broader implications.
5. Finally, when role-playing with a peer, recount that dialogue, starting with the claim’s eventual threat to the writer’s beliefs and ending with the audience’s potential counterarguments.

Exhibit 2: A freewrite based on a title or a single element that engages students’ imagination.
This type of writing might take several forms, such as the title of a novel or an essay, an initial image, or a piece of artwork. As a warm-up exercise designed to encourage students’ intellectual exploration, ask them to:
1. Generate a list of ideas and imagine a brief prompt with just a single opening element (title, image, artefact, etc.). What do you suppose the topic will be? Can you guess the backstory of that element?
2. Write down the plot that most inspires you in a paragraph (or the story related to an object in the case of an artefact).
3. Present that story to the class and find out how many of you had similar ideas.

The benefit is that both exhibits 1 and 2 can be used as in-class exercises at any point during the semester. They also follow a minimal marking pedagogy and don’t require any particular grading, which might be helpful in reducing a teacher’s workload. That being said, it is worth mentioning that any written activities that engage a sense of intellectual engagement and critical thinking regarding class material can be considered constructive scaffolding tasks that facilitate students’ journey toward a final formal assignment.
Exhibit 1 can serve as a brainstorming tool for a formal assignment on « Processes » rubric (refer to Bean’s book, exhibit 5.3) for the final assignment criteria. Revising and informal writing overall could be included in this rubric. Exhibit 2 can be incorporated into any introductory session of a class or used as a first step of a bigger project. It may, for example, be transformed into a teaser in the style of a movie trailer. For more multimodal scaffolding activity ideas, check out Derek Bruff’s book Intentional Tech.
Whether part of a final project as a scaffolded assignment or an in-class stimulating exercise, storytelling writing tasks contribute to creative learning. While the exhibit 1 assignment fosters critical thinking on disciplinary-specific issues and encourages collaborative projects that promote a sense of community among students, the exhibit 2 assignment aims to engage students through their own imagination and subjectivity, thus expanding their sense of implication. Taking into account their own stories would be an additional step in committing to what they learn. In other words, a self-reflective way to introduce storytelling into class is to make it personal.

Recentering student engagement through life stories
Writing assignments that disclose personal experiences not only acknowledge students as individuals, but also enhance their sense of belonging in the classroom. Why are they here? What brought them to that college, discipline-specific field, or course? Giving students the opportunity to reflect on their own life stories through an informal storytelling assignment can lend meaning to what they do.The Meaningful Writing Project investigated what constitutes a meaningful writing assignment based on college students’ and teachers’ reflections. According to surveys and interviews, three strong patterns appeared in the writing activities that students believed most meaningful:
« The assignment gave students agency to pursue a topic that they were passionate about or that they found especially relevant.
The assignment required students to engage with the instructor, peers, and the disciplinary content of the course.
The assignment made a connection for students: connecting to previous experiences, connecting to a student’s passion, connecting to future aspirations and identities. »
To that end, exhibit 3 is a module meant for students to reflect on their own life narratives. This assignment is intended to provide a space for self-reflective practice that fosters students’ sense of connection to their own experiences, identities, and sense of self, in relation to the course’s disciplinary content.

Exhibit 3: A personal metacognitive free writing.
Guide students on journaling a part of their life story by asking them to identify at least two of these points in a two-page reflective free writing essay. The latter can be part of a diary or a scaffolded assignment included as an annexe to the final project:
1. What motivated you to embark on your professional path? Under what life circumstances did it occur? What drew you to this particular subject?
2. How does what you learn at university relate to past experiences, a passion, or future goals?
3. Why do you want to research that final paper topic or project? Whether a problem/issue/social conflict prompted you to look into a question?
4. Feel free to share any personal anecdotes that brought significant meaning to that class or exemplified something you have learned about.

Overall, storytelling as a pedagogical tool allows students to engage in writing assignments and reflect on their personal narratives. As a result, they are more likely to understand how knowledge can be an empowering tool. In WAC Pedagogy, students are encouraged to be lifelong learners and critical information consumers by actively interacting with consistently critical content, as well as reflecting on their own subjective biases. Educators like Bell Hooks reminds us “the personal is political », whereas Gianni Rodari advocates storytelling as a teaching method “for all those who know the liberating value of the word.” Whether it is a historical event, an idea, a people’s struggle, or an aspiration, there is always a story waiting to be told…

References:
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, p.113 ; p.65.
Derek Bruff, Intentional Tech : Principles to Guide the Use of Educational Technology in College Teaching. First edition., West Virginia University Press, 2019.
Eodice, Michele, et al. The Meaningful Writing Project. Utah State University Press, 2016.
Bell Hooks. “Sharing the Story.” Teaching Critical Thinking, 1st ed., Routledge, 2010, pp. 55–58.
Gianni Rodari and Jack Zipes. The Grammar of Fantasy : An Introduction to the Art of Inventing Stories. Teachers & Writers Collaborative, 1996.

Teaching Writing: Nobody Knows the Rules, Just Write

An earlier post, “Perceiving Writing as a Process, Not a Product”, began with a potentially apocryphal quote by a well-known author. In that spirit, I would like to start and end this post with two potentially apocryphal quotes by well-known authors. The quotes may be fabricated, but I think that the insights are real.

Somerset Maugham, the author of one of my favorite novels, was quoted as having told the students of a class on English literature “there are three rules for writing a novel. Unfortunately, no one knows what they are.”

I’ve never tried to write a novel, so I can’t say with certainty whether Maugham (if he ever said such a thing) is right. But I’ve tried to write plenty of papers, and on that subject I’m certain: if there are three rules for writing a paper, no one knows what they are.

This has turned out to be a bit of a problem for me, because part of what I’m trying to do as an instructor is to teach writing. Sometimes it’s pretty clear that students want me to tell them the rules for paper-writing that they need to follow in order to be successful. They want the writing equivalent of a mathematical formula: take your idea, apply these rules, and BAM! Good writing.

I completely understand that desire. Heck, I want those rules too. But unfortunately, as Maugham allegedly observed, no one knows the rules for writing. I certainly don’t know of any rules that are necessary for good writing. For any writing rule I’ve ever been told (“don’t end a sentence with a preposition”; “avoid run on sentences”; “avoid repetitive phrasings”, etc.) I can find several examples of great writing that break that rule. I also don’t know of any rules that are sufficient for good writing. A paper might follow all the “best practice” rules and guidelines in the world, and still be unclear and confusing to read.

So what then, as an instructor, can I do to help my students who want me to teach them rules for writing that I just don’t have?

The answer, or at least the answer I’ve come to accept, is to get them to write. This doesn’t mean getting them to write more or longer term papers, but getting them to write constantly and in different contexts: write out their ideas, write down questions they have about readings, write notes and questions about what they’ve already written, write responses to what their classmates have written, etc. I can help my students learn the writing skills they need by teaching them to think of writing as a tool, and then teaching them to use that tool as often as they can.

I can’t speak for everyone. But when I write papers, I find that for every page of the finished paper, there are about 3 legal pads full of handwritten notes, questions, false starts, and half-baked ideas that eventually (after a long recursive process) end up fully baked. The finished paper full of polished writing owes everything it has to the pile of informal writing that came before it. And each polished paper owes an awful lot to all of the writing that came before it, both formal and informal. Having more writing experience has never made anyone a worse writer.

I don’t think I’m alone is using a process like this. But I didn’t learn to use this sort of process until graduate school. College students often don’t think of writing in this way, and one of the best ways we can help them learn writing skills is by getting them to start using writing as a tool in both formal and informal contexts.

WAC pedagogy has a ton of useful methods for doing this. Freewriting, exploratory writing, scaffolding, problem-oriented assignment design, etc. Bean’s “Engaging Ideas” is full of them, and the other posts on this site are chock-full of discussions of different methods and ideas on this subject. I have personally found them very helpful, and I doubt I’m the only one. I think it’s a good place to start for anyone looking for ideas on how to engage students in this sort of recursive writing process.

So even if we can’t give students Maugham’s three rules for writing, we can help them by giving them writing experience, and specifically giving them experience using informal writing as a tool to develop ideas and to develop formal papers.

And maybe, just maybe, it turns out that we do know the three rules for writing after all. In what is almost certainly a fabricated quote, Mark Twain supposedly said: “there are but three rules for writing. Namely, first, write; second, write; third, write.”

I suspect that the best thing we can do to help our students with their writing is to teach them to stop looking for Maugham’s three rules, and to start following Twain’s.

This Friday: Presenting on a Writing Across the Curriculum Collaboration

 

Hostos Image.png

This Friday May 13, 2016 we’ll be presenting our assessment of a WAC Collaboration at the 12th annual Coordinated Undergraduate Education (CUE) Conference “Walk the Talk: Inspiring Action on the Concourse and Beyond”.

The conference is focused on “showcasing action, articulating outcomes with evidence based results, and engaging in continuous improvement.”

We’re excited to share our journey working to assess and improve our collaboration with the Honors and Emerging Scholars Programs at City Tech. Specifically, we provide a workshop on abstract writing, which is part of a mandatory series of workshops for students. As part of this workshop, we focus on when and how abstracts are used and review the 5 main components that make up an abstract (i.e., motivation/significance, problem / objective, methodology, conclusions / results, and implications).

Abstract Workshop image

Our project aim was to enhance learning outcomes for students in the Honors and Emerging Scholars Programs, as related to their student project carried out with a faculty mentor that results in a poster and abstract. The two outcomes we focused on were abstract quality and student perceptions (of conceptual understanding, utility and satisfaction with the workshop).

To improve abstract quality, we developed an assessment framework utilizing the standards that we communicated to our students as our own assessment rubric. Over the course of 3 semesters, we quantified and reviewed abstract quality, to inform improvements to the workshop.

Results showed that students typically had a strong introduction to their abstract (motivation, goals, methodology) but abstracts weren’t as well-developed at the end (conclusions, implications). Given these data, we amended our workshops to increase the focus on conclusions and implications, and taught students techniques to help them develop these sections further.

Abstract Quality

Student perceptions were collected using a standard student survey. Students reported strong conceptual understanding after the workshop, and high satisfaction, though students felt less well-prepared to write an abstract in the future. This is an area we can address to improve.

Student Perceptions Image

What have we learned so far? Reviewing data from past semesters is useful for improving the workshop and student outcomes in following semesters. Further, it would be useful to incorporate other measures of student progress and student perceptions, especially those that are validated.

From the lower ratings of student preparedness to write their own abstract, we also learned that scaffolding the abstract workshop would be helpful, such as incorporating a second follow-up workshop later in the semester. Further, to improve assessment, we could collect and rate abstracts both before and after the workshop, rather than only after workshop completion.

Come join us at Hostos this Friday to learn more about our approach and join in on a discussion. You will also have a chance to learn about projects led by other fellow CUNY faculty. Our presentation is part of the “Assessing the Effectiveness of Action” track and we’ll be presenting at 10:50 am in room B-506.

We hope to see you there!

CUE conference