Conflicting Modalities
Programmatic Concerns
Last week, our WPA sent out an email about Registrar-scheduled timed writing sessions so that students could do their “in-class” blue book writing without taking up regular class time. That email, plus our pre-semester professional development, made me feel like a fully blue books class was a possible, WPA-sanctioned path forward. Interestingly, today we received an email from our WPA clarifying that these Registrar blue book sessions aren’t meant for the major assignments in first-year writing at Rice. So I’m currently reassessing modalities.
Rice, unlike other Universities I’ve taught at, allows for grad students, faculty, and qualified staff from any discipline to propose and teach first-year writing. While this discredits writing studies as a discipline, it allows for a wide variety of themed first-year writing courses and students love it. I suspect the follow-up email about blue books writing has some root in making sure instructors maintain the integrity of the writing process—rather than assigning a test, like some instructors might do in their home disciplines.
I echo our WPA’s concerns: How can we account for the writing process, including revision, if students are doing all their writing in class? Having students sit for an in-class essay with no scaffolding doesn’t leave space for the growth that happens in the writing process.
What this looks like for me this semester is doing a lot of prewriting in class and possibly changing at least one essay’s format. I don’t want to break the writing program’s rules, of course, so I’m asking myself how I can balance in-class writing with the reflective, circuitous writing process that I want students to engage in.
Maintaining the Integrity of the Writing Process
After receiving this update from our WPA, I decided to have a conversation with my students. I told them today that we’re going to try out the blue books for our Rhetorical Analysis and change our essay modalities from there if needed. My class seems fairly laid-back and adaptable, so they received this news well. I told them I’m taking advice from the writing program and that I’ll make sure we adhere to their suggestions.
What differentiates my approach to in-class writing from a more formal written test—what I suspect my WPA was warning against—is the pre-writing students will do. For the Rhetorical Analysis essay, I will share the texts students will select and analyze for the essay one week in advance. I will share these texts (fake dating app profiles) in class, on paper. Students will draft thesis statements and return both the fake profiles and the thesis statements to me. I will offer them feedback on their thesis statements in advance of the essay. They will also create their own “cheat sheets” (aka blank pieces of paper) for the essay—essentially outlining and preparing two class periods before the essay. Students won’t have the opportunity to take the profiles home or view them outside of class, but they will have the time to ruminate, take notes, write a draft, etc. We’ll see how that goes.
For the Researched Argument essay, I’m debating offering students the ability to take take the essay home and revise it on a computer. I’d read their in-class, blue book drafts, offer feedback, and then they’d type up their essays with revisions at home. That opens the door for AI, but I hope that reading the essays in advance—along with the outlining and individual meetings and some parameters—will minimize their reliance on AI.
That’s what I’m thinking about for now. I’m confident that the pre-writing students are doing will lead to polished in-class essays—save a few spelling errors. I’ll keep an eye out for guidance from our writing program and, of course, adhere to their requirements. For the time being, we will go through the Rhetorical Analysis unit and see how things unfold.