Teaching & Learning: Creative Writing

One way to think about your lecture or mini-craft talk is to think about it as a cycle you move your students through. One example of a complete and satisfying learning process includes four parts: Concrete Experience, Reflective Observation, Abstract Conceptualisation, and Active Experimentation. This is a tried and true educational theory, established by David Kolb in 1984.

When I am planning a lecture or learning activity, I determine what I want my learners to know and/or do by the end of our time together. In this example, I want my learners to understand the aesthetic and rhetorical power of repetition in a poem. This is a simplified version of an activity I do in my introductory class:

1. Concrete Experience: Read a poem together that features repetition.
2. Reflective Observation: Before judgement or assertion of opinion, students describe their reading experience of the poem, and then I’ll ask questions that focusses on shifting a pre-existing notion about repetition as a device.
3. Abstract Conceptualization: Learners begin to pose their own theories about repetition and poems, including answers to the questions: How does repetition in a poem effect your reading? What happens when the repetitive elements are removed from the poem? Why would a poet choose repetition as a device?
4. Active Experimentation: Learners write a poem using their own words, but borrowing the repetitive structure from the model poem.

I’m a big fan of this learning process, because it feels very satisfying for students to draw on what they already know, connect this to new knowledge, and apply that knowledge. It also gets students actively engaging with the messy work of learning. The more thoughtful and considered the questions I pose are, the more connections students are able to make.

One challenge I face is trying to tackle a subject that is too unwieldy. This learning process also reminds me to keep things simple and straightforward.

There are lots of resources in the lounge, and in my office (E458) if you’re interested. In the meantime, I recommend perusing these sites for great learning activities and prompts:

Prompts: https://www.pw.org/writing-prompts-exercises

Discussion Pedagogies: https://www.cultofpedagogy.com/speaking-listening-techniques/

Have fun and good luck!
Sheryda

At yesterday’s Advanced Teaching Workshop, TAs generated this list of specific techniques for giving feedback … choose one and try it today to enhance your teaching practice!

– Give a whole block of compliments!

– Ask questions rather than making blanket statements; strike a balance between praise and points of criticism.

– ALWAYS begin with a positive, and be encouraging in tone!

– Reinforce the areas where the writing made you feel and connect, and share the student’s passion for their story!

– Pose questions to make the student consider their craft options and narrative structure.

– Highlight what the student did very well.

– Figure out which # / # corresponds to which percentage grade before you start marking.

– Focus on a few specific issues.

– Try to give both broad strokes and specific examples of areas for improvement.

– Calibrate by figuring out the rough range of grades before going into depth with feedback. Also, when possible, get together with other TAs from the same course to mark as a group.

– Limit to three constructive comments.

– Keep a comment bank, and also include specific references to the student’s work.

– Sort and mark similar assignments together (all short fiction, all poetry, etc.).

Hi everyone!

Today at the first Advanced Teaching Workshop of the year, the attendees participated in an exercise called “Chalk-Talk”, which is from the book Making Thinking Visible by Karin Morrison, Mark Church, and Ron Ritchhart — a text that I strongly recommend. Participants circled the room and recorded their responses to key questions on chart paper. Here is a write-up of the responses to one question … I hope that this provokes thought about your assessment & evaluation practice! Check back soon for additional “chalk-talk” write-ups!

How do you give feedback on developing writing?

– Focus on the RUBRIC.

– If the student is an English Language Learner, look at the story. Language is fixable, a good story is rare.

– I try to ask questions to help understand the student’s intention.

– Focus on concise, immediate measures the student can take to address issues in their writing.

– I try to find elements that have potential and ask questions / make suggestions around those.

– I approach students’ work with the attitude that they might be very new to writing, and that “terrible work” is something they’re at least trying.

– Frame criticism as a “jumping-off point” for how they can improve.

– Always encourage. Give ideas that spark their creativity and therefore improve their writing.

– Identify authorial intent and generate questions that will invite the reader to come up with improved solutions to the problems.

– Remember the human who wrote that will read this — you have an audience.

– Focus on craft, compliment effort, and never use the pronoun “you” when giving negative critique — refer to the piece, not the person!

– Try to point out technical rather than content issues, and direct students to resources available to them on campus.

– Recognize every strength, even if it’s weaker than you might want.

In my CRWR 200 class, TAs who are interested in lecturing share close reads or presentations, perhaps 20 minutes or so. Before they present, I go through their slides and offer a few suggestions. After the lecture, we meet to discuss my observations and their experience. Here are a few topics I’ve discussed with TAs, pre- and post-lecture:

Clarity:

It seems obvious to say, but students feel comfortable if they know where the lecture is going. So it can help to lay out what territory you’re planning to explore right at the top of the lecture. It’s like going on a car ride — much easier to relax if you know where you’re headed.

Audibility:

Those large lecture classes are usually held in big halls where it can be tough for students to hear the lecturer. Though you might hate microphones or the sound of your voice in them, it’s worthwhile using one, whether it’s the kind you pin to your lapel or the handheld kind. Even if you can project and have a loud voice, a microphone can add some much-appreciated vocal support. Be sure to test it first and find the right volume that isn’t too low and isn’t feeding back. You can also use the microphone when students ask questions — the handheld is particularly good for this — so that everyone else can hear the question and stay on track. .

Pacing:

Remember to go slowly. This can help you remain calm, and also aid student comprehension. I have sometimes observed student lecturers rushing through material just to get the darn thing over with. I get it, but this results in students getting lost and failing to pick up the thread of the talk. This then leads to a chain of other challenges. Ask a question and no one answers? Perhaps it’s because they got lost somewhere along that speedy journey — so much for the “group participation” bit you’d planned for. Speaking slowly and using repetition to review / re-iterate ideas is ideal.

Visuals (PowerPoint, Prezi, etc.):

Having images and/or text as support for your lecture is useful. Keep text on the slides simple and brief since students — especially in a CRWR 200 course — will want to take notes. If there’s a lot of text on a slide, students will be clacking away on their keypads instead of listening to what you have to say. Too much text and they won’t be able to get everything down before you go to the next slide. Note: if you’re ever wondering whether you’ve given students enough time to get their notes down, you can always ask before going on to the next slide.

Focus:

One of the biggest challenges with lecturing is finding and maintaining a focus. There’s a tendency to want to cover a ton of material in a short time and jump around a lot. When a lecture is more focused, the lecturer is able to spend more time exploring an idea, looking at examples, and maybe even allowing for a short discussion or writing exercise.

Exercises:

Some writing exercises work better than others. I’m not sure I know what the secret is to choosing the best writing exercise, but it may help to test out the one you want to use on a few friends in advance of including it in your lecture.

Some questions you could ask yourself about the exercise:

Will students understand what’s expected of them in this exercise?

Is it doable in the amount of time I have allotted?

Would they require any specific items to complete the exercise — paper, writing implements, access to the internet?

Sometimes a small adjustment or tweak can make the exercise that much more suitable to the class you’re going to be visiting.

Follow Up:

Since the course instructor will be present at your talk, it can’t hurt to follow up with them to find out what their impressions were. It’s tough to know how things are going when you’re in the moment, doing your thing, so outside eyes and ears can offer perspective. You could even have someone film the lecture so that you can observe yourself afterwards.

With these tips in mind, you’ll be able to prepare an engaging lecture that inspires you students to write and keep writing!

Using gender-neutral language when teaching is an easy way to make your classrooms more inclusive for everyone!

Instructors often use gendered language (such as “Miss Alliston” or “Ladies and gentlemen”) to address students in the classroom, either out of respect, habit, or because it is what they were taught to do. However, gendered language can have the unintended effect of alienating students, no matter the instructor’s intentions. While there is a common misperception that gender-neutral language is difficult to learn or overly complicated to use, it can be very simple to implement! Here are three very easy ways to incorporate gender-neutral language into your teaching:

1. Use neutral language to address groups.

It’s common for instructors to use terms such as “ladies and gentlemen” when addressing a group of students. While the intention may be to demonstrate respect or include everyone, students can have negative associations with this approach for many reasons. It can feel overly parental or condescending; it can heighten divisive gender dynamics (how many of us have been in a class where our gender was in the minority?); and it erases the existence of any non-binary or gender-fluid students in your classroom. Instead, consider using non-gendered terms such as “everyone” or “folks”. You can also address your students as “poets” or “writers”.

2. Learn student’s names.

Your students remember and use your name, so do them the same courtesy! Ask for a student’s name when they speak up in class and make an effort to use it as often as possible. Taking the time to recognize and acknowledge a student this way makes a big impact, particularly at a large university. Of course, this strategy will be easier to use in a 30-person seminar room than a 250-seat lecture hall. But even in large classrooms, you can make an effort to learn at least some students’ names. It will go a long way to help them feel seen and valued for who they are, rather than how they present.

3. Use non-gendered identifiers.

Sometimes, it just isn’t realistic or practical to learn every student’s name in a large lecture hall. When calling on students who raise their hands in class, avoid using gender as an identifying trait. Instead, use neutral identifiers such as clothing colour or position in the classroom. Or, better yet, move around the lecture hall to interact. For example, instead of saying “Yes, the young lady in the third row”, try “Yes, in the blue sweatshirt,” or “Second from the left over here.” Other techniques can include bringing a microphone around the lecture hall to let each student speak, or creating a classroom expectation that each student says their name when they answer a question.

If you practice using neutral collective terms, learning students’ names, and using non-gendered identifiers, you will be well on your way to building a more inclusive classroom environment. If you forget or stumble over your words, don’t sweat it! Make a mental note and try again next time. The goal isn’t to have perfect language or perfect spaces, but instead to develop an awareness of how our word choices and language as instructors shape our students’ experiences in the classroom.

To learn more, check out the following resources:

• qmunity.ca (Vancouver-specific further resources and training)
• equity.ubc.ca (contains a list of UBC-specific resources)
• https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/gender-inclusive-language/(A great resource for evaluating gender language in writing)
• “A Quick and Easy Guide to They/Them Pronouns” by Archie Bongiovanni andTristan Jimerson(short educational comic about gender-neutral language)

When I got my first-ever TA placement, I was startled at how many students were registered in the class — more than 200 — and stunned at the idea of trying to foster a creative environment in a lecture theatre. (Until I actually started TAing, I also thought I was responsible for the whole class, which started off a whole other panic. Crisis averted!)

I have since TAd two more large lecture classes in which the majority of my hours have been allocated towards grading. And I’ve come up with a few strategies to make the classroom feel a bit smaller. Putting effort into building connections with students despite large class sizes not only offers students a more satisfying learning experience, but makes TAing a more motivating and satisfying experience. Win-win!

Much of my motivation for connecting with students comes from reflecting on my own experience as an undergrad. I was a really nervous first-year student. I can imagine feeling grievously overwhelmed by the size of the Intro Creative Writing classes at UBC. Like, submitting all this vulnerable work to someone who I don’t know at all? And then getting a grade on it? Vomit. The only reason I pursued writing in the first place was because someone I trusted decided to tell me I was good at it. And to think there could be students in my class who could have a beautiful relationship with writing beyond this class squandered just because they felt lost in the crowd? Vomit again.

Because I have so many assignments to grade, I keep a list of “stock” comments to address common points I make when grading. Controversial! I’m pro-comment banks, BUT with the caveat that the banked comments have to draw upon explicit references to the students’ texts. The goal is that it doesn’t seem like I’ve taken some of this language from a pre-written document, ya feel? I also try to state the student’s name at least once during my comments. And I keep an ongoing list of links to texts that exemplify a craft element particularly well: a poem that uses unexpected imagery, for example, or a short story that throws us into the conflict from the first page.

After addressing the student and some positive aspects of their work in the first paragraph, part of my comment might look like this:

“This piece gives us a nice birds-eye view of the action! I’d love to go even deeper. What if you rewrote a moment you mention on p. 2, like family members making fun of your back or yourself yelling at the nurses, with dialogue, rich sensory details, and insight into what was going through your mind? Here’s a piece of memoir with some great scenes and dialogue: https://www.guernicamag.com/girl/”

I also encourage students to visit me in office hours, especially if they are getting a grade below class average or if I feel the student is missing a key understanding about the assignment requirements. When I’m reading a submission from a student in which they’ve put in a significant amount of effort, I make a small note at the end of my comments that they are always welcome to reach out to me to talk about where they can take their writing at UBC and beyond. The outcomes of doing this have been really rewarding. It is exciting to feel like I am part of students’ writing journeys!

I’ve also given lectures to the class—just another way to give a face to the name more or less determining their success in the class. After each lecture I’ve given, a few students I’ve graded have come up to me to introduce themselves. Cute!

In the spirit of creating a kind and encouraging learning environment, being mindful of my role in building a more welcoming space has made TAing an even more fulfilling experience.

I’ve been thinking a lot of Rebecca Traister’s excellent (and very long) profile in The Cut of US presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren and her lengthy career as a teacher, first at an elementary school and then later at Harvard Law School, before being elected as a senator. Among other things, the wide-ranging article talks about Warren’s passion for teaching at a young age (when she lined up her dolls to assign them homework), teaching as a traditionally female occupation, the number of her students who have ended up as progressive politicians, and how her work experience has affected her interactions with voters and donors.

While this piece wrestles with the idea of how Warren’s identity as a teacher could either make or break her candidacy—and Traister makes it feel very possible it could go either way—what interests me, and what makes this pertinent to this blog, is Warren’s teaching methods and how we might use them.

The piece opens with Warren as a student, stumped by an obscure legal term used in the reading assigned for that class. Traister explains that Warren used that same term assumpsit began her law classes by finding students from the class list and asking them for a definition of the term, which “means that the action is in contract rather than in tort.”

This kind of approach of cold-calling students in a lecture hall, described here as the Socratic method, was used by Warren to demand preparation and accountability from students. Traister writes:

With it, she establishes direct communication and affirms that she’s not going to be doing all the talking or all the thinking; she’s going to be hearing from everyone in the room. By starting with a question that so many get wrong but wind up learning the answer to, she’s also telegraphing that not knowing is part of the process of learning.

With the aide of a TA, Warren called on every student, scrupulously going down the attendance list. When I read this section, my mind quickly jumped to course evaluation comments that an instructor might receive about this approach as intimidating or disadvantaging shy students. Here’s Traister quoting a former student to explain Warren’s views on that matter:

By phone, Ondersma remembered how, in a small conference room packed with students, Warren had laid out a case “for how, if you really care about equality in the classroom, if you care about racial justice, gender justice, and you just rely on voluntary discussion in classrooms, you’re only going to hear from the two white guys that love to talk.”

One thing that makes her approach work—Warren has won many teaching awards and is often cited by her students as their best prof ever—is how the now-Senator uses class discussion to deepen discussion. This requires not only good listening but thinking on your feet. Here’s Traister:

It sounds impossible, Shugerman said, to call on more than two dozen people during a class. “Calling on more than 50 people sounds absurd, and like the questions and answers must have been superficial,” he said. “But she was so responsive and such a good listener that she could build on the last person’s answer with someone else afterward so it would build up to more complicated and sophisticated points that would go deeper.

Another thing that I noticed about Warren’s approach that is different from my own is her strictness about rules. I’ve found myself becoming squishier in the past few years about submission dates and absences, which has occasionally been commented upon in students’ evaluation of my course. Here’s Traister on why Warren is such a stickler:

One of Warren’s former students who declined to be named had a theory about the seeming paradox of a woman known as a bold political progressive adhering to an old-fashioned, rule-bound approach to teaching. It reminded him, he said, of Thurgood Marshall, who was known for being punctilious about civil procedure even as he broke revolutionary ground on civil rights. This student talked about how Marshall understood that rules could be used to enforce equality, and that as soon as you introduced flexibility and discretion, those with more power would take advantage of the wiggle room.

Equality and accessibility were important to Warren as a teacher. Warren, who was the only Harvard Law prof to come from a public law school, sat on the admissions committee and tried to find students who were emerging from less privileged places. She was also keen to balance the playing field in her classroom. Here’s Traister again:

Troy Schuler, a tutor now working on an education start-up, took Warren’s contracts class the last semester she taught it, in 2011. He remembered another way she obsessed about equal access: In the run-up to exams, when people came to her office with questions, “she made everyone write up those questions and send them to her, then she wrote up her answers and sent them back out to the entire class. Because if one person has a question, it probably means that a lot of people had the same question, and it was very important to her that people were not going to have any structural advantage because they were the kind of person who knew to come to talk to a professor in office hours.”

Would the Socratic method work in an undergraduate Creative Writing class (versus a room full of aspiring lawyers)? I’m not entirely convinced, or perhaps too scared to find out. But I entirely share Warren’s feeling of being a university teacher: in classrooms full of students with great privilege and intelligence, she would find a way to say, “Come on, get better at what you’ve got and widen it out, because the only mistake you can make is not to get out there and do something with passion.”

You can read the entire piece here:

https://www.thecut.com/2019/08/elizabeth-warren-teacher-presidential-candidate.html

FURTHER READING:

“Cold calling” is a technique recommended by Doug Lemov in the classroom management book Teach Like a Champion. For more on cold calling, check out this link: https://teachlikeachampion.com/blog/cold-call-inclusive/

When I started marking my very first assignments last year, I was full of excellent information from training: how to praise what students do well, how to offer craft-based critiques, how to ask questions and frame suggestions as a way to further their work rather than slam it. When I got to the actual marking, though, I hit a new problem: balance.

Exactly how much critique was I supposed to give? I wanted to identify areas of improvement without crushing students’ souls. What was too much or too little?

After some trial and error, I found what worked for me: three suggestions.

I’ve been trained as an editor, and though that’s a very different role than that as a Creative Writing TA, both require finding that tricky balance between praise (“You did the thing and part of it works! Congrats!”) and critique (“Here’s how to make it even stronger…”).

I learned that for initial letters to writers, you should start with praise, describe five clearly defined areas to improve, and end with praise again. It’s the usual “compliment sandwich,” but having a specific number of suggestions or critiques to offer gives a certain focus to feedback.

For my TA work, I’ve adapted this structure to three critical remarks, which works better with the shorter and higher volume assignments we mark.

Limiting suggestions and critiques to three helps me:

1) Clearly communicate the most important feedback.

If I’m only making three suggestions, these need to be the three most important areas of improvement that would make the biggest impact on the piece. They’re often “bigger picture” kinds of suggestions, like making the conflict clearer or taking another look at the pacing. I usually use bullet points to separate the three suggestions so they’re easy to read and understand. Sometimes I’ll add a fourth suggestion, especially if there’s something smaller I need to address with the rubric, but in general, I try to keep to three larger areas of improvement.

2) Make my feedback “actionable.”

As writers, we know that a huge wall of feedback can be overwhelming and off-putting, even when it’s well-intentioned. Having just three areas to focus on can be more helpful if a writer is looking to revise or simply to improve for the next assignment. They can use that feedback to direct their efforts to the main growth areas of the piece rather than to smaller details with a more limited impact.

3) Make good use of my time while marking.

Three clear suggestions are a lot quicker to produce for each assignment than a list of everything the writer might be able to improve. When you’re marking 55 assignments, that time adds up. I also find that the process just feels faster when you’re ticking off your requirement of three suggestions—you know exactly how much you need and how far along you are.

When I’m actually marking, my process looks something like this:

• Read through the piece a couple times, making notes on areas of strength and weakness.
• Compile the strengths into a short paragraph of what worked in the assignment. I usually create or use a comment bank to reuse many of these compliments across assignments.
• Add three bullet points on the three most important areas of improvement.
• Finish off with a few more encouraging comments.

Of course, I’m also happy to talk to students further about their work in office hours if they want to know more about how to improve. However, I’ve found that limiting to three critical remarks in my written feedback keeps me from getting bogged down in critique and allows me more room to think about what each student has done well—bonus for my mental health and for the student’s confidence!