Category Archives: Teaching

A situated perspective on form in writing

Posted on 103118 | Comments Off on A situated perspective on form in writing

In WRDS 150, we think of writing as a situated activity. When we study published journal articles, we think of them as scholarly conversations. To say these articles are situated means that aspects of the content and presentation of ideas respond to the expectations of the field or publication venue. We analyze discourse features as we determine the conventions of research in a field.

But we can also think about writing as a situated activity in which we engage certain tools and technologies for taking notes, organizing ideas, creating written conversations, and communicating ideas. Researchers in situated cognition describe how the technology of writing not only supports but changes thought (Norman 1993, Kirsh 2010). From this perspective, writers use technologies to focus awareness on some information in a way that allows certain types of links and connections to occur. Information can be organized in ways that make it easier for us to make inferences and see connections. Gopen and Swan (1990) have built upon these ideas to offer principles for organizing written text. They offer a theory of reader expectation that can help us think in a new way about form in scholarly writing.

This was the topic of today’s class: how to take a situated perspective on form in scholarly writing. Our approach to thinking about form is not focused on identifying modes of development like description, narration, exposition, persuasion, comparison, or cause/effect. Rather, we were interested in learning about how readers interact with written information to understand how to organize and create patterns out of our ideas and improve coherence.

Gopen and Swan (1990) tell us that readers expect information in two key positions: the “topic position” and the “stress position.” These positions scale up and down to different discourse units (e.g. sentence, paragraph). At different units and levels in the paper, we establish a context for ideas and position new information with respect to that context. Failing to do so may result in a failure of communication between writer and reader.

  • “If these structural expectations are continually violated, readers are forced to divert energy from understanding the content of a passage to unraveling its structure. As the complexity of the context increases moderately, the possibility of misinterpretation or noninterpretation increases dramatically” (Gopen & Swan (1990) p. 552).

In the scholarly literature review, we are using reporting expressions to give context and positioning to the ideas in the sentence. *It is important to remember that your scholarly conversation should be emphasized throughout the paper. Put the ideas together for others. Give your ideas a context, a pattern, a shape.

To revise your scholarly literature review, keep in mind these structural principles from Gopen & Swan (1990):

  1. Follow a grammatical subject as soon as possible with its verb.
  2. Place in the stress position the “new information” you want the reader to emphasize.
  3. Place the person or thing whose “story” a sentence is telling at the beginning of the sentence, in the topic position.
  4. Place appropriate “old information” (material already stated in the discourse) in the topic position for linkage backward and contextualization forward.
  5. Articulate the action of every clause or sentence in its verb.
  6. In general, provide context for your reader before asking that reader to consider anything new.
  7. In general, try to ensure that the relative emphases of the substance coincide with the relative 
expectations for emphasis raised by the structure.

References:

Gopen, George D. and Swan, Judith A. (1990). “The Science of Scientific Writing.” American Scientist, Volume 78 (Nov-Dec 1990): 550-558.

Kirsh, David. (2010). “Thinking with external representations.” AI & Society. Volume 25, Issue 4: 441-454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-010-0272-8

Norman, Donald A. (1993). Things That Make Us Smart: Defining Human Attributes in the Age of the Machine. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

 

Comments Off on A situated perspective on form in writing

Posted in Teaching

Tagged ,

The role of peer feedback in musical training

Posted on 091118 | Comments Off on The role of peer feedback in musical training

Hanken’s (2016) recent review of the literature on peer feedback in instrumental instruction confirms that this topic has not received a lot of formal attention in the scholarly literature. Indeed, as we discussed in class on Monday, we Western Art Musicians typically rely on an ad hoc sense of etiquette around the roles we play in our social circles, whether we define our social circle by instrument, instrumental teacher, ensemble, or ensemble section. Though the world has changed tremendously, we still participate in an apprenticeship model the age of which can counted in centuries.

That’s not to say that peer learning is irrelevant to us. In fact, Hanken utilizes a situated theory of learning (Lave and Wenger, 1991) as motivation to characterize in more detail the implicit role of peer learning in our WAM tradition. She notes that peer learning is already an important part of our apprenticeship, whether we pay attention to it or not. Her research aims to increase awareness of peer learning among musicians and teachers to effect positive social change.

She offers three case studies of studios that embrace aspects of peer learning in the apprenticeship model. Two of these studios are run by instrumental teachers who have created instructional roles for students in masterclasses and group lessons. These teachers step back and allow students to provide feedback to each other, offering mentorship as needed along the way. The third case study employs Liz Lerman’s Critical Response Process as more of an intervention for peer feedback, and I think it may be useful to consider this intervention as we carry out peer feedback activities in our class.

  1. Peer offers descriptive response
  2. Performer asks for specific feedback
  3. Peer asks open-ended questions to stimulate reflection
  4. Peer asks permission to offer opinion to performer

Students in my class will notice, very coincidentally, this list starts with “descriptive response.” We are currently working with descriptive responses in our peer review training module (though our instructional module comes from an integration of ideas from a different scholarly tradition). Kristin Kjølberg, the vocal teacher who uses this intervention, reported that students initially had difficulty forming a response other than an evaluative one (great job, too bad it was out of tune). Their experience seems to have highlighted the specific problem inherent in description – what are we paying attention to? I’ll leave that with you for now.

Whether or not our instrumental teachers explicitly embrace a role for peer feedback, it is useful for music students to think about how we manage our social interactions – we are only as good as our peers, so anything we can do to support each other will ultimately reflect well on us.

References:

Hanken, I. M. (2016). “Peer learning in specialist higher music education.” Arts & Humanities in Higher Education. 15(3-4): 364-375.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning – legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lerman, L. & Borstel, J. (2003). Critical Response Process: A Method for Getting Useful Feedback on Anything You Make, From Dance to Dessert. Tacoma Park: Liz Lerman Dance Exchange.

 

Comments Off on The role of peer feedback in musical training

Posted in Peer Review, Teaching

Tagged , ,

The Short Bio

Posted on 090618 | Comments Off on The Short Bio

One of my first content lessons in WRDS 150 develops situational awareness around the activities of writing. Genre studies is based on the idea that the situations of writing shape the content and presentation of written material (see Giltrow et al. 2014, chapter 1). Over the next few weeks we will explore different genres of scholarly research on music performance. Specifically, we will critically engage the way genres of music scholarship portray the activities of music performance. For now, we are simply looking at how our own writing changes in response to different writing situations.

This second writing activity presents a similar opportunity for cultivating self-regulation (see previous blog post), but in a very different genre. This time, the goal of the writing was to present me with a short bio to inform me about the experiences and interests that led to choosing a degree in Music. This provides a an opportunity for students to organize and present their goals and experiences on their own terms. This low-stakes writing also allows me to get to know my students better. I am, after all, a 20th century musician teaching 21st century students!

Your Bio:

TASK: Please write a short bio for yourself and hand it in. 10 minutes.

PURPOSE: To inform me about your background and interests.

FORMAT: Hand written, on paper, with name and date at the top of the page. Structure the bio as you would for a professional opportunity. Write about yourself in the third person.

KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED: Your decision to earn a degree in Music is an important one. As you write your bio, consider how your experiences have led you to that decision.

DISCUSSION: Musicians write many versions of their bio for different professional situations. Consider how your bio changes for each performance situation. What aspects of your experience do you put forward? What do you want your audience to know about you? What information might contextualize your performance for those who are there to witness it? How long should it be? Consider collecting bios from the concert programs you attend this year. Keep them in a scrapbook, or gather them as your corpus for analysis in WRDS 150.

Our course textbook: Giltrow, Gooding, Burgoyne & Sawatsky. (2014). Academic Writing: An Introduction. 3rd edition, Peterborough: Broadview Press. On Reserve in Koerner Library PE 1408 .G53 2014

Comments Off on The Short Bio

Posted in Teaching

Tagged , ,

Sorting Hat Writing

Posted on 090618 | Comments Off on Sorting Hat Writing

We began WRDS 150 with a Sorting Hat Writing exercise – a private, stream-of-consciousness activity that I designed as a welcome activity for first year Music students. Research shows that students perform better when they feel a sense of agency, what some researchers call “self-regulated learning” (Nicol & MacFarlane-Dick 2006). Self-regulated learning refers to a learner’s ability to set reasonable goals, to choose appropriate strategies, to manage resources, time, and effort, to incorporate feedback, and to provide evidence of mastery over the material (p. 199). Throughout their paper, Nicol & MacFarlane-Dick draw out the relation between self-regulated learning and successful feedback activity, what I am calling the giving, receiving, and incorporation of feedback on written work. These authors support the idea that student authors should maintain a level of control over the feedback they receive. They also suggest that good feedback practice requires good assignment design (instructor) and self-regulation (student) in meeting the assignment goals.

Their seven principles of good feedback provide a solid starting place for thinking about the interaction involved in feedback activity. I include them here for reference:

Nicol & Mac-Farlane-Dick’s good feedback practice:

  1. helps clarify what good performance is (goals, criteria, expected standards);
  2. facilitates the development of self-assessment (reflection) in learning;
  3. delivers high quality information to students about their learning;
  4. encourages teacher and peer dialogue around learning;
  5. encourages positive motivational beliefs and self-esteem;
  6. provides opportunities to close the gap between current and desired performance;
  7. provides information to teachers that can be used to help shape the teaching.

(Nicol & MacFarlane-Dick 2006, p. 205)

I developed the Sorting Hat Writing activity to support principles 2, 4, and 5, above (later I will talk about how this activity informs our situational awareness of writing). The Sorting Hat Writing activity is inspired by fiction, by psychology, and by process-oriented writing instruction (see further resources below). Writing is a technology that we use to harness and direct thought (Menary 2007). We use it here for self-reflection.

 

Sorting Hat Writing

This Sorting Hat Writing activity asks that you allow your pen to guide your thought process as you sort yourself into a fictive house in the School of Music.

Task: Write, non-stop, for a timed period. If your pen gets stuck, ask questions with it, or repeat words with it until it becomes unstuck. The only rule is – don’t stop writing. No one will read this but you.

Purpose: The activity serves two purposes: 1. to develop a situational awareness of the activities of writing, and 2. to take time to touch base with personal goals for learning. 

Knowledge: Students will draw on their experiences and self-concepts as they write.

Format: There are no format requirements on this exercise.

[NOTE: Because this was our first timed writing exercise, we wrote for 5 minutes. But for a regular practice, I suggest gradually increasing the time to 10-20 minutes per day. Use this prompt, a different prompt, or no prompt at all for regular practice. You may discover yourself in new houses altogether.]

The Houses:

Beaks – Prefer verbal modalities (reading and writing, speeches, concepts, laws)

Wiffles – Prefer social interaction (groups, ensembles, friends, parties)

Strings/Springs – Prefer the technical and mechanical (know-how)

Batons – Prefer leadership and distinction (standing on podiums, taking chances)

Blank Pages – Prefer the new and the unexpressed, creativity, invention, improvisation

Of course, there are no right answers in this activity. There is only the opportunity to observe. It is the process of connecting your goals and experiences with your situations of learning that will help cultivate the self-regulation skills for success in University.

References:

Elbow, Peter, (1998). Writing Without Teachers. New York: Oxford University Press. Library call number: Education Library PE1409.5 .E5 1998 (an older edition is in Koerner).

Menary, R. (2007). “Writing as thinking.” Language Sciences 29: 621-632.

Nicol, D. J. & MacFarlane-Dick, D. (2006). “Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice.” Studies in Higher Education (2006), Vol 31(2), 199-218.

To try some more scientific personality tests please visit:

https://openpsychometrics.org/

To discover your magical house at Hogwart’s:

https://www.pottermore.com/explore-the-story/the-sorting-hat

To read more about Freewriting, check this book out of the library:

Elbow, Peter, (1998). Writing Without Teachers. New York: Oxford University Press. Library call number: Education Library PE1409.5 .E5 1998 (an older edition is in Koerner).

To bravely wrestle with the cognitive integrationist account of writing as thinking:

Menary, R. (2007). “Writing as thinking.” Language Sciences 29: 621-632.

Comments Off on Sorting Hat Writing

Posted in Teaching

Tagged , ,

Peer-Assessment and Self-Assessment in Musical Performance

Posted on 072318 | Comments Off on Peer-Assessment and Self-Assessment in Musical Performance

Until recently, very little scholarly attention has been paid to peer- and self- assessment in instrumental music performance. What research there is tells us that self-assessment is often out of touch with the assessments of teachers and peers (Bergee & Cecconi-Roberts, 2002). Instrumental teachers and ensemble coaches typically assume that players can evaluate their own performance correctly (or hope they will learn to do so over time), but the evidence compiled by Bergee & Cecconi-Roberts suggests that accurate self-assessment in musical performance is elusive at best. The studies of small group peer interaction carried out by Bergee & Cecconi further demonstrate the complexity of peer-assessment in music performance. These studies showed no consistent positive effect of peer feedback on the accuracy of musical self-assessment. Worse, if peer feedback is not handled well, they report that an even larger disconnect between self-assessment and teacher assessment can occur. So, what is happening here?

Based on my research, I suspect that the results of this study might accurately reflect two very important aspects of musical training that have been mostly unexplored:

  1. The goals of instrumental instruction are largely tacit.
  2. Musical self-assessment cannot be based on external measures of sound production.

From 2014-2016, I carried out a study of instrumental masterclasses created by members of the London Symphony Orchestra to guide instrumentalists in preparing audition materials for the YouTube Symphony (Kaastra, 2016). I adapted Herbert H. Clark’s conceptual framework for analyzing tacit processes in language use (H. H. Clark, Using Language 1996) to explore the tacit aspects of musical activity. These analyses demonstrate that instrumental teachers do more than just measure sound output and give feedback to students. Teachers demonstrate ways of attending to musical activity at different levels. These levels are discussed in detail in my paper (see reference below).

Self-assessment cannot be based on external measures alone. Yes, we can and should record ourselves and critique our performances as objectively as possible afterwards. But to succeed in real time, we need to learn to engage what Donald Schöen calls, “reflection-in-action” and “reflection on reflection-in-action” (Schöen, 1989). We engage metacognition. We learn to attend to the physiological processes that support our performance goals. If we are rehearsing intonation, the target of focal awareness is pitch. But pitch is a complex percept. On the bassoon, playing in tune requires monitoring and manipulation of air support, air speed, embouchure formation (lips, jaw, and tongue), articulation, head position, fingerings, and posture. We feel our sound and position our sound in the context of what we hear happening around us. Accurate self-assessment means that we feel in control of our self-positioning with respect to any number of performance goals – dynamics, pulse, tempo, tone quality, phrasing, etc. The more we learn to name these targets of focal awareness, isolate them, and work on them, the more mastery we gain and the more accurate our self-assessments will be as a result.

Next time you are in a lesson, think about how your teacher is identifying targets of focal awareness for you. Write about these in your reflective journal.

References:

Bergee, M. J. & Cecconi-Roberts, L. (2002). Effects of Small-Group Peer Interaction on Self-Evaluation of Music Performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50(3): 256-268.

Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge University Press.

Kaastra, L. (2016). Tacit Knowledge in Orchestral Performance. College Music Symposium 56: n.p. Available online at: https://ubc.academia.edu/LindaKaastra

Schöen, D. (1989). “A Masterclass in Musical Performance.” Chapter 8 in, Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.

 

Comments Off on Peer-Assessment and Self-Assessment in Musical Performance

Posted in Teaching

Tagged , ,

Choosing a topic

Posted on 072018 | Comments Off on Choosing a topic

Participants in WRDS 150 work on one research project for the whole semester. The research is carried out in stages, so that students can practice their research skills while learning about scholarly discourse. We spend a lot of time on discourse studies in class, so I will focus more on the writing process in this blog.

One of the first major challenges students face is choosing a topic to write about. Topics should be both interesting and specific. Interesting to who? To you, of course. A research topic is interesting when it excites you, and when you want to learn more about it. Good topics are ones that make you want to uncover, expose, argue, discover, investigate, and share. Buyer beware: good research will challenge you to think differently than you already do, to understand different points of view, and to ask new questions. Good research requires you to learn something and then share not only what you have learned, but how you learned it. You may not change your mind, but your explanations will be stronger as a result of your work.

In this course, we choose both a topic and a research perspective. A research perspective is a way of organizing a topic area to cultivate a certain kind of scholarly discourse. Research perspectives will have questions that they can and cannot ask of a topic. While we study the discourse features of scholarly articles in class, practice asking questions from each research perspective we study. Ask these questions in class and we will start some very interesting conversations! These conversations will help you identify your research topic.

Comments Off on Choosing a topic

Posted in Teaching

Tagged

WRDS 150 Changes – Graded Peer Review

Posted on 071918 | Comments Off on WRDS 150 Changes – Graded Peer Review

Good News! ASRW has decided to eliminate the final exam for WRDS 150. To make up the 20 percentage points normally assigned to the final exam, I have chosen to more formally assess the peer reviews that take place throughout the semester. I view this as a wonderful opportunity to make some positive improvements to support student success in the course.

Why did I choose to focus on the peer reviews?

First, I already incorporate peer feedback at various points in the writing process. My students tell me that they learn important things about their own writing by reading the work of classmates, they understand the assignment criteria better by applying them to the work of another writer, and they benefit from the research conversations with classmates interested in similar topics. (I try to group students together based on their topics and research perspectives whenever possible.) These anecdotal reports seem to be supported by recent research on peer review which finds that the task of providing feedback to others exercises a type of evaluative judgement that can later be employed in self-assessment, which can [I assume, over time] reduce the need for external feedback (Nicol, Thomson, & Breslin 2014).

Second, scholarly research on peer review has shown that peer evaluation can encourage an increased motivation for learning, a sense of autonomy and responsibility among members of the class, and the development of transferable, lifelong skills (see Carvalho 2013).

Third, I now provide additional training to help students understand the task, scope, format, and motivation for each assignment. Since our writing assignments are scaffolded, each assignment builds on the lessons and products of the previous one, students will also be learning different peer review strategies for different stages of writing. This should support the development of self-regulation skills necessary for success as researchers (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick 2006) and build a community practice of high quality peer feedback not only for writing and research, but hopefully by extension, for musical activity as well.

References:

Carvalho, A. (2013). Students’ perceptions of fairness in peer assessment: evidence from a problem-based learning course. Teaching in Higher Education, 18 (5), 491-505.

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in higher education, 31(2), 199-218.

Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39, 102-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

 

Comments Off on WRDS 150 Changes – Graded Peer Review

Posted in Teaching

Tagged ,