A while ago, I posted a set of comments in which I looked back at the work I did during the November 2017 session at DeVry University in San Antonio, Texas. At the time, I thought they would be the last word I had to say on the subject–but that has not proven to be the case (obviously). Information I received this week has given me cause to add to those comments–and happily.

The results of my end-of-course evaluations got back to me this week. One of the two classes I taught, ENGL 135: Advanced Composition, rated me at 3.53/4.00 overall, with all students who responded reporting that I met or exceeded their expectations. The other, ENGL 216: Technical Writing, rated me at 3.90/4.00 overall, with all but one report noting that I exceeded expectations (and that one said I met them).

To be honest, the reviews are far better than I am accustomed to receiving from students. I am glad to have gotten them–and gladder to be doing something right in the classroom. I suppose my earlier assertions about needing to continue particular practices have some backing; I am glad that I am doing more in that line, even if I still do go off on strange tangents from time to time.

Returning to a practice begun in past years but that was allowed to lapse, comments below comments below offer impressions of class performance among students enrolled in ENGL 216: Technical Writing and ENGL 135: Advanced Composition at that institution during its November 2017 session. Overall impressions and implications for instruction are also discussed.

ENGL 216: Technical Writing

Students enrolled in ENGL 216: Technical Writing during the November 2017 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

• Online Discussions
  • Weeks 1-5, 20 points each
  • Weeks 6 and 7, 80 points each
• Homework Assignments
  • Weeks 1-4, 50 points each
• 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
• 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 Tuesdays from 1800-2150 in Room 107 of the San Antonio campus of DeVry University, moved into the more congenial room from its original location. Its overall data includes

• End-of-term enrollment: 6
• Average class score: 704.45/1000 (C)
  • Standard deviation: 208.26
• Students earning a grade of A (900/1000 points or more): 0
• Students earning a grade of F (below 600/1000 points): 2

Owing to shifts in assessment, attendance was not recorded as strictly as in past sessions, when it influenced grading. Perhaps as a result of that shift, absenteeism was a problem in the course. Perhaps concomitantly, non-submission of assignments was also a problem, with several students failing to submit one or more major assignments–and suffering grade penalties as a result.

Return to top.

ENGL 135: Advanced Composition

Students enrolled in ENGL 135: Advanced Composition during the November 2017 session were also 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

• Discussions
  • Weeks 1 and 7, 60 points each
  • Weeks 2-6, 30 points each
• Homework
  • Information Literacy Module- 30 points
  • APA Assessment Activity Module- 30 points
• Course Project
  • Topic Selection- 50 points
  • Source Summary- 100 points
  • Research Proposal- 50 points
  • Annotated Bibliography- 100 points
  • First Draft- 75 points
  • Process Review- 45 points
  • Second Draft- 80 points
  • Final Draft- 120 points
  • Reflective Postscript- 50 points

As before, most assignments were assessed by means of rubrics provided by the institution. Other assignments were generally assessed by rubrics of similar form, announced to students in advance of assignments being due and returned to students with comments once assessment was completed. Some few were assessed holistically, with assessment being conducted more gently in light of less formality.

The section met on Thursdays from 1800-2150 in Room 114 of the San Antonio campus of DeVry University. Its overall data includes

• End-of-term enrollment: 6
• Average class score: 521.68/1000 (F)
  • Standard deviation: 287.12
• Students earning a grade of A (900/1000 points or more): 0
• Students earning a grade of F (below 600/1000 points): 2

Owing to shifts in assessment, attendance was not recorded as strictly as in past sessions, when it influenced grading. Perhaps as a result of that shift, absenteeism was a problem in the course. Perhaps concomitantly, non-submission of assignments was also a problem, with several students failing to submit one or more major assignments–and suffering grade penalties as a result.

Return to top.

Impressions and Implications

Compiling such comments as these across terms and currently working in the non-profit sector prompt some adjustments to the current report from previous iterations. One such is the current format, which attempts to do more to offer paratextual cues than previous iterations. Another is the increased incorporation of graphics into the report, made in the hopes of easing access to the data contained.

To return to more normal discussion: as noted above, absenteeism and non-submission were the main problems during the session. Attendance was low throughout the term, with some class meetings seeing one student or none in attendance. Similarly, submission rates suffered, with more assignments seeing incomplete submission than not–as the figures below attest.

Discussions with colleagues on campus suggest that the problems were not restricted to my classes. In some ways, it is a comfort to know that it’s not just me. In other ways, it’s a concern, as I have to wonder what it will mean for the whole of which I am part.

Other concerns persist from previous teaching. For one, I remain prone to tangential discussions, and, at this point, the idea that I will be able to set them aside is laughable. If and as I continue to teach, they will have to be accounted for and accepted.

This session, when I remembered to bring “real-world” examples of various types of writing into my classroom (I would often plan to, but I would not write the plan down or remember it amid teaching), the students who did attend seemed to get much out of it. I will therefore be making a point of doing more such as I move forward. Indeed, as I have started to plot out the January 2018 session, I have already begun to incorporate specific example texts into required threaded discussions. So that much should be helpful.

I am and remain grateful for the opportunity to continue teaching. After the loss of other academic employment and the end of years of searching for it, remaining even as involved in academe as part-time employment at a for-profit school allows is a welcome thing. Getting to see students grow and mature as scholars and budding professionals has also been gratifying. I hope I will continue to have the chance to do both.

Return to top.

After skipping the last meeting due to weather, class time was given over wholly to the completion of the Reflective Postscript. Details about the assignment are included in the standard course shell. Students are advised that it, and any work form Week 7 not previously submitted, must be turned in before the end of day Saturday, 16 December 2017, to be awarded credit. The session ends at that time, and later submission cannot be accepted.

The class met as scheduled, at 1800 in Rm. 114 of the DeVry San Antonio campus. The class roster listed six students enrolled, a decline of two since the last regular meeting (and a surprise to see at so late a date in the session). Of them, two attended, verified informally. Student participation was as expected. Office hours were cancelled due to personal obligations.

Class time was given over to the Final Exam, details about which are in the course shell. Students are advised that it, and any work form Week 7 not previously submitted, must be turned in before the end of day Saturday, 16 December 2017, to be awarded credit. The session ends at that time, and later submission cannot be accepted.

The class met, as usual, at 1800 in Rm. 107 of the DeVry San Antonio campus. The class roster listed seven students enrolled, unchanged since the last class meeting. Of them, one attended, verified informally; student participation was as expected. Office hours were cancelled due to personal obligations.