Susie J. Pak
Assistant Professor, Dept. of History
In Fall 2008, I taught two upper-level history classes; one was on
the Gilded Age and the second was on Race Relations and American
Foreign Policy. Despite the differences in content, both classes
had the same emphasis: the development of historical writing
skills. Students were required to read approximately 80-100 pages
and write a two-page reading analysis per week. The goal was for
the students to be able to identify the authors’ main arguments and
write a concise thesis supported by relevant evidence. The reading
analyses served as the stepping-stones to two longer papers, the
midterm and final. Through consultation with Anne Geller at the
Writing Institute, I developed tactics to encourage, structure, and
assess the students’ progress. In many ways the class was a
learning experience for me on giving constructive feedback and
structuring a class with a heavy writing requirement.
For the first week’s reading analysis, I gave the students little
formal instructions so that I could also get a sense of their
writing abilities and styles. After this initial assessment, I
devised and handed out a more formal list of guidelines in what was
called an “expectation sheet.” Every week thereafter I gave
feedback in the following manner: First, I did not write extensive
corrections or comments on the papers themselves. Instead, I
identified 2-3 issues on which the student had to improve based on
the guidelines. I wrote these notes on an index card, which was
given to the student when the reading analysis was handed back.
Second, once a week, at the beginning of class, the students wrote
out these comments in their own notebooks. During that time, I went
around the class, explained my handwriting, and addressed any
questions they had about my comments. This process was done in an
open way as a group and reinforced the importance of the writing
assignment to the class as a whole. It also emphasized that
feedback was a natural part of the class organization in general.
For example, each student was also required to give an in-class
presentation and lead the class in a discussion of the reading.
After each presentation, the class gave the presenter feedback on
what s/he did well and what s/he could improve. The ritual of
writing out the comments also gave the students some time to
reflect on the comments and keep a record for themselves in one
location. Afterwards, I collected the index cards, which were kept
in a file. Before the midterm and the final, I met with each
student. During that time, we consulted his/her file to identify
areas that had improved, needed improvement, etc. These meetings
also gave me the opportunity to check in with the students
individually and see what they thought about the writing
assignments and the class organization. Finally, throughout the
semester, I encouraged the students to get feedback on drafts of
their writing by going to the Writing Center. As an incentive, if a
student went to the Center to discuss his/her reading analysis,
this effort was reflected in the grade of the analysis by one-half
a grade.
In general, I identified three main issues throughout the semester.
First, identifying the difference between a descriptive and an
analytic thesis statement is a basic but difficult skill to
acquire. Second, structural issues, grammar, and citation
formatting constantly have to be reinforced. Third, individualized
attention within a community-like setting can reinforce the value
of learning writing skills even if it does not guarantee short-term
results. Finally, instructors also benefit from feedback and
self-assessment. Working with Anne and the Writing Center helped me
to do my own analysis of the class, its goals, and results. It also
reinforced my belief that the learning process is strengthened by
community building at both the student and faculty levels.
[To see Dr. Pak's assignment, read more...]