|
|
Post by Mike--LFAC on Aug 20, 2013 7:19:02 GMT -5
First, a little background on HUM 186. Back when the latest iteration of the First Year Sequence (FYS) came out (late 2010 if memory serves), HUM 186 was part of the FYS, typically after COM 172 and before HUM 114. The placement of HUM 186 was not in stone but we tried to make HUM 186 the penultimate class in the FYS. Fast forward to today and the FYS page on the Phoenix website shows the following bachelor’s sequence for the FYS: GEN/195, SCI/163, FP/120, COM/170, COM/172, PSY/211, HUM/114. Notice HUM 186 is no longer in the FYS.
While HUM 186 is longer an official part of the FYS, it is often scheduled as the second class out of the gate—GEN 195 and then HUM 186. This sequence is not in stone but it is becoming more common. I recently completed a HUM and of the 12 students, 10 were fresh from GEN 195, one was a 2nd year student and one was a 3rd year student. The reason this is becoming more common is HUM186 is being used as a merge class. What this means it HUM 186 permits smaller cohorts to merge into a larger group while also allowing older students to mix in if they need to satisfy an elective requirement.
The problem that has started to surface with this tactic is two-fold. First, there can be a wide disparity of student abilities in a single class. This is not unique to HUM 186 but there can be some wide difference as I noted in my group. The second issue is more HUM 186 specific—that a student fresh from GEN 195 may have difficulty with the HUM 186 CDG when used as written. This has happened at least once. When HUM 186 was scheduled near the end of the FYS, there was an expectation of writing skills. When the class is moved earlier, this expectation can cause friction between the instructor and the class when the expectation and the results are quite far apart.
QUESTION--how can we better match student academic maturity with expectations AND what can we as instructors do to match the students ability with the class and the deliverables associated with it. This question is germane to HUM 186 but is also applicable to any/all classes we teach.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisat on Aug 20, 2013 18:42:52 GMT -5
I believe that with the first assignment that a student turns in it becomes clear where their academic maturity lies. However, I do believe we have to be careful as to lowering our expectations. We may see that the student will not meet the expectations of the class but to lower our expectation of the student can leave the student in their current condition. I believe there is some form of balance in which we can keep a high expectation of the student in the class but at the same time help them where they are so that they can move toward our expectations.
Chris Taffanstedt
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike--LFAC on Aug 20, 2013 21:39:12 GMT -5
Chris
There is much truth in your comment "I believe that with the first assignment that a student turns in it becomes clear where their academic maturity lies."
That is part of the reason I like a written assignment early in the class--typical week one for me is a 1000 word expository paper. This allows a good feel for students writing ability AND allows the week 2 discussion on common errors. I have found that the common errors slide is almost universal--regardless of the class or the maturity of the students. What changes is how the mistakes are presented and corrected.
QUESTION--How do we meet your double-edged mandate of maintaining high standards while also creating a productive (almost empathetic) environment that makes the students want to strive for more?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert on Aug 21, 2013 16:48:49 GMT -5
The way in which I have resolved this issue is with student growth. I suppose my public school influences have convinced me that if we can't get everyone on "grade level", we should at least be moving them in the right direction. As a GEN 195 instructor, my main objective is to send each student out the door (to SCI 163 or wherever) with a more equipped tool belt than which they arrived. I have taken a holistic approach to the GEN 195, knowing that not every student will master every objective, but every student will develop skills and confidence to drive their learning as they proceed to their next class.
As far as writing goes, we write in GEN 195 from night one. We spend 5 weeks writing about everything from personal and educational goals to current events, sports, World War II; pick a topic...I like to have students take a writing prompt on week one, and then give the same prompt on week four, and have them compare their writing from over a three week period. For 90% of them, the change is significant. (And in the back of my head, I know that these guys need to be able to formulate opinions and put them in writing long before Breakey has them tearing apart the U.S. Constitution.)
Where should HM 186 fall in the course schedule? What course should follow GEN 195? I have no idea. Regardless of the content, GEN 195 students, for the most part, will struggle to some degree. It is just a part of the process. Welcome to college.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisat on Aug 21, 2013 22:44:42 GMT -5
I believe we keep both first, by never allowing the high standard dip. The student sees this and experiences this. Thus, a lot of red on their papers (or purple for the postmodernist out there). Yet, we have to then take the time to go over this with the students. Now some of them will not take the time with us but we can open that door. Also we can explore the various problems in class. We must let them know that we are open to help them raise their own bar. I also believe we have to do a bit of educational cheerleading during our classes to remind the student that what they are doing by expanding their knowledge is an awesome thing. Create that hunger and their bar will rise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike--LFAC on Aug 22, 2013 6:42:17 GMT -5
I agree--students realize who offers worthless feedback--the good job, good point comments and nothing more. I also like the idea of revisiting the red. A lot of red in a paper is not necessarily a bad thing, yet it can become white noise if we do not revisit why it is red.
Here is a thought--revisit it twice--once in the summary of the assignment (feedback) and once with a class review the following week.
When summarizing the overall effort in your feedback--I suggest using a Big Three approach. Now, this is not a hard and fast number but focus on the main items for the student to work on next time. In the body of the paper I will note what I see but in summary, I try and leave them with a vector for the next time. Here is an example from a recent Media and American Culture class (and yes, I use red).
Anxxx—yes, much red—but really this is a good paper for a freshman just out of GEN 195! The best part is you hit the main points from the syllabus. Three things to work on—first is the conversational style of your writing. This is not all bad but it does get in the way or make for awkward writing. It is common for younger students to write like they speak but you want to be clear and concise! Work on clarity and clinical writing. If I am looking for an answer to X, I want it to be to the point. Couple others to work on for your next paper—eliminate the WE, OUR, and YOU. Also eliminate contractions—both of these are easy fixes. Write Point can help catch these as they tend to slip through (I check my papers that way and almost always Write Point catches 2-3 of these buggers). Finally, clean up the citations. We will hit this in class next week as you are NOT (oops) not alone!
Weak, esoteric feedback does not keep the bar high and a warranted pat on the back can go a long way.
So Chris--you are saying we are teachers, coaches, and mentors who vary the feedback for each student and each assignment--boy, that sounds like a lot of work! Oh, and I agree!
|
|
