Our second WriteBites session of the 2019-2020 academic year focused on scaffolding writing. Below, in addition to a brief summary of the event, are links to the resources related to each presentation. Our three featured presenters took up scaffolding in a different way.
Robert Boyd from Biological Sciences shared his process for redesigning an assignment to scaffold opportunities for students to practice writing for different audiences and contexts. Originally, the project required students to complete two academic websites. However, after reviewing student feedback, Boyd restructured the assignment to include checkpoints, reflective writing, and a remix component. Students began the class with a “proflection,” or a reflective writing assignment that helped them set professional goals for the class. Then, students began researching their topic, checking in with Boyd on their progress via a checkpoint assignment. After completing the academic website with formal citations, Boyd asked students to transform their academic research into a public-facing entry in the Encyclopedia of Alabama. In this remix, students had to critically consider how they would explain their research to a general audience and re-organize their information for a new genre. Six students were published in the Encyclopedia of Alabama. Boyd ended his presentation by reviewing student feedback on the redesigned assignment. Boyd was surprised at how positive student feedback was despite the fact that the redesign meant students had to do more writing in his course.
Michelle Worosz, then, explained how scaffolding learning outcomes across a course can help students grapple with “wicked problems,” or problems that are especially difficult to understand and nearly impossible to solve. In her 3000-level rural sociology course, Worosz asks students to critically consider food security. In earlier iterations of the course, she admits, students oversimplified the issue of food security, leading them to make generalizations that were not necessarily supported by data. In response to this, Worosz redesigned the course with students focusing on a region in the Alabama Blackbelt and then using public data records and personally collected data to conduct inquiry-based research about their region. To support the rigorous work, Worosz has a “quasi-flipped classroom” structure. Each week, the two course meetings are divided: one is devoted to lecture while the other focuses on the assignments. If you want to read more about the assignments and goals of the course, check out this blog entry.
Lindsay Tan closed out our presentations, bringing our understanding of scaffolding to the programmatic level. Tan discussed how her program (Interior Design) restructured their curricula to scaffold their external accreditation standards and writing plan goals. Each student learning outcome (SLO) was mapped on the program’s curricula with faculty identifying when students would be introduced to an SLO, have an SLO reinforced, and then be expected to show mastery of the SLO. Tan said the intentional repetition gave students the grace to learn outcomes over time. At the faculty level, shifting the program’s curriculum to an intentionally scaffolded design fostered a holistic perspective and encouraged faculty communication and collaboration. Tan closed with advice for those hoping to replicate her process: align curricular revisions to faculty values, get buy-in at first and then again, take moments to assess and adjust, and talk often.
Following the presentations, our discussion touched on a variety of topics. First, participants wondered how to begin the scaffolding process. All three presenters explained how their presentations were the result of several years of tweaking. Tan pointed to the Office of University Writing’s Academies the Biggio Center’s Course (Re)design as places where faculty can be prompted to revise their assignments and curricula in meaningful ways. Another participant asked how faculty got feedback on their assignments to gain a sense of what is or isn’t working. Many faculty in the room pointed to the importance of collecting student feedback mid-semester through mini-feedback assignments and making adjustments as needed. Boyd’s use of reflective writing collected informal feedback from students while also deepening their metacognition.
The Office of University Writing wants to thank the presenters and participants for their stimulating conversations this semester. We will be back with two more WriteBites topics in the Spring. You can register for those events by following this link.
January 23rd, 2020 “Revising Writing Assignments for High Impact”
This panel will feature faculty who have revised their writing assignments to integrate high impact practices. Faculty in attendance will learn about writing assignment redesign as well as upcoming professional development opportunities offered by the Office of University Writing
Grey Parks is a Lecturer in the Department of Animal Sciences specializing in equine science.
Emefa Monu is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Poultry Science specializing in food science and technology.
February 27th, 2020 “Faculty as Writers”
Finding time to write between teaching and service responsibilities can be challenging. This panel will feature three faculty who have engaged in writing groups, writing retreats, and writing workshops. They will share their writing-related challenges and strategies.
Traci S. O’Brien is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures specializing in German literature and culture.
Jeff Kim is an Assistant Professor in the McWhorter School of Building Science.
Natalie Ruiz-Junco is an Assistant Professor of Sociology in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work. She has participated in several faculty writing groups and retreats.