Continuing a practice I most recently iterated at the end of the March 2018 session at DeVry University in San Antonio, and following closely the patterns established in previous practice, comments below offer impressions of class performance among students enrolled in ENGL 216: Technical Writing during the May 2018 session at that institution. After a brief outline of the course and statistics about it, impressions and implications for further teaching are discussed.

Students enrolled in ENGL 216: Technical Writing during the May 2018 session were asked to complete a number of assignments in quick succession. Many, and the weightiest, related to the overall course project; others were homework meant to practice skills used in the workplace and in later stages of the course project. Those assignments and their prescribed point-values are below, with relative weights shown in the figure below:

• Course Project
  • Topic Proposal- 20 points
  • Annotated Sources- 50 points
  • Outline and Back Matter- 50 points
  • First Draft- 70 points
  • Front Matter- 40 points
  • Final Draft- 100 points
  • Presentation- 60 points
• Online Discussions
  • Weeks 1-5, 20 points each
  • Weeks 6 and 7, 80 points each
• Homework Assignments
  • Weeks 1-4, 50 points each
• Final Exam- 150 points
• Total- 1000 points

As before, most assignments were assessed by means of rubrics provided by the institution. Some few were assessed holistically, with assessment being conducted more gently in light of less formality.

The section met on Mondays from 1800-2150 in Room 111 of the San Antonio campus of DeVry University. Its overall data includes

• End-of-term enrollment: 8
• Average class score: 679.625/1000 (D)
  • Standard deviation: 208.849
• Students earning a grade of A (900/1000 points or more): 2
• Students earning a grade of F (below 600/1000 points): 2

Numbers of students receiving each of the traditional letter grades are indicated below:

As in my previous session teaching the course, attendance was assessed as part of classroom activities; a component of the discussion grading each week was given to in-class attendance and participation. Consequently, attendance data is available; on average, four students attended each class meeting, with 33 total absences noted. The absences, and their concomitant rate of non-submission, exerted negative influence on overall student performance.

On the whole, I think the session was reasonably good. I was fortunate enough to have returning students, which is always helpful; those who have been in classes with me know what to expect, and it is gratifying to see them build on skills I know they have rehearsed. (This is true with adult learners no less than with more traditional students–at least for me.) And I was lucky to have diligent, dedicated students, as well; those who apply themselves with a will are always better to teach than those who do not, even if the latter have more innate talent and better preparation than the former.

Carry-over from the previous session of teaching the class proved helpful. Continuing to use examples from practice not necessarily part of academe was advantageous for the students, and being able to employ materials from the earlier session made the job of preparing for class easier to do. More refinement needs to be done to the selection process–I want to align the examples more, although I am not sure in which direction I want to align them–but the general idea remains a good one.

As ever, concerns remain. I wish I had some better way to motivate attendance and assignment-submission (which were the major factors diminishing student grade-performance–and their more important but less valorized development as writers). How many assignments were missed is shows below:

Too, I would have liked to have seen more of my students apply themselves to the topic I had emphasized for the course project; I think they would have gotten more use out of it and done better on their work, overall. The problem, though, is that my students are adults at a for-profit institution; they are under no illusions that they are in their programs to earn credentials in the pursuit of better job prospects. That situation makes it difficult for them to take the time to consider options and delve into materials deeply–and it vitiates against doing anything more than the minimum to pass off the course. The matter bears more consideration.

As ever, I appreciate having had the chance to teach again, and I look forward to having others in sessions yet to come.

Class time was given over to completing the University-assigned final exam. No other activities were conducted. For it, class met as scheduled, at 1800 in Room 111 of the San Antonio campus. The class roster listed eight students enrolled, unchanged from last session; one attended, assessed informally. No students attended the most recent office hour.

A series of summary comments for the session is forthcoming. It will post after grades are finalized and submitted and relevant data can be extracted.

After treating questions from last meeting and before, discussion turned to concerns of review and revision in advance of the final written assignments coming due. Discussed also was preparation of an online presentation, one of the components of the final written assignment, and motion was made towards next week’s final exam.

Students were reminded of upcoming assignments:

• Discussions (four posts per graded thread), due online before 0059 on 18 June 2018
• Course Project: Final Paper, due online as a Word document before 0059 on 18 June 2018
• Course Project: Presentation, due online before 0059 on 18 June 2018
• Final Exam: due online before 2359 on 23 June 2018 (earlier is better)

Class met as scheduled, at 1800 in Room 111 of the San Antonio campus. The class roster listed eight students enrolled, unchanged from last session; three attended, assessed informally. Student participation was good. No students attended the most recent office hour.

Returning from last week’s online holiday make-up session, discussion asked after questions from earlier. It then turned to review of front matter concerns, as well as orders of composition. Concerns of review were also addressed, and a printed document was read and reviewed to offer in-class practice.

Students were reminded of upcoming assignments:

• Discussions (four posts per graded thread), due online before 0059 on 11 June 2018
• Course Project: Front Matter, due online as a Word document before 0059 on 11 June 2018

Class met as scheduled, at 1800 in Room 111 of the San Antonio campus. The class roster listed eight students enrolled, unchanged from last session; four attended, assessed informally. Student participation was reasonably good. No students attended the most recent office hour.

After treating questions from last meeting and before, discussion turned to concerns of reports and proposals, as well as explicit and implicit structures. Examples were addressed, as well.

Students were reminded of upcoming assignments:

• Discussions (four posts per graded thread), due online before 0059 on 28 May 2018
• Week 4 Homework (p. 328, #6), due online as a Word document before 0059 on 28 May 2018
• Course Project: Outline, due online as a Word document before 0059 on 28 May 2018

Students are also reminded that class will not meet on-site next week due to Memorial Day, but will instead meet online during the regularly scheduled office hour on Tuesday, 29 May 2018.

Class met as scheduled, at 1800 in Room 111 of the San Antonio campus. The class roster listed eight students enrolled, unchanged from last session; five attended, assessed informally. Student participation was adequate. No students attended the most recent office hour.

After treating questions from last meeting and before, discussion turned to concerns of process writing, research and documentation, and ethics. Source types (primary, secondary, and tertiary/critical) and assessment of sources received particular attention, with recourse made to documents emailed to students previously.

Students were reminded of upcoming assignments:

• Discussions (four posts per graded thread), due online before 0059 on 21 May 2018
• Week 3 Homework (p. 238, #9), due online as a Word document before 0059 on 21 May 2018
• Course Project: Annotated References, due online as a Word document before 0059 on 21 May 2018

Class met as scheduled, at 1800 in Room 111 of the San Antonio campus. The class roster listed eight students enrolled, a decline of two from last session; four attended, assessed informally. Student participation was good. No students attended the most recent office hour.

After treating questions from last meeting, discussion turned to concerns of theses in technical writing before addressing document design concerns. The focus was on paratext, including declension of headings, typeface, and page layout.

Students were reminded of upcoming assignments:

• Discussions (four posts per graded thread), due online before 0059 on 14 May 2018
• Week 2 Homework (p. 178, #7), due online as a Word document before 0059 on 14 May 2018
• Course Project: Topic Selection, due online as a Word document before 0059 on 14 May 2018

Students are urged to be at work doing background reading to inform the course project.

Class met as scheduled, at 1800 in Room 111 of the San Antonio campus. The class roster listed ten students enrolled, unchanged from last session; five attended, assessed informally. Student participation was good. The previous office hour was cancelled against instructor’s family needs.

For the first class meeting, discussion focused on introductions to the discipline, the course, the instructor, and the course project. Basic rhetorical concerns received attention, as did other underlying matters needed for student success in the class.

Students were reminded of upcoming assignments:

• Discussions (four posts per graded thread), due online before 0059 on 7 May 2018
• Week 1 Homework (p. 656, #9), due online as a Word document before 0059 on 7 May 2018

Students are urged to be at work selecting topics for the course project and doing background reading to inform the course project.

Class met slightly other than scheduled, at 1800 in Room 114 of the San Antonio campus (instead of the assigned 111; class relocated against non-working air conditioning). The class roster listed ten students enrolled; four attended, assessed informally. Student participation was reasonably good. Office hours have not yet occurred.