Class Report: ENGL 135.60174, Advanced Composition–18 August 2016

After addressing questions from and concerns about the previous class meeting, discussion turned to general concerns of the overall course project. Those students who had drafts to review were afforded workshopping time, and the workshops were discussed.

Students are reminded that end of course evaluations remain open. Completing them will help.

Students are reminded of the following assignments’ due dates:

  • Course Project Final Draft (to the appropriate dropbox before 0059 on Monday, 22 August 2016)
  • Week 7 Discussions (completed before 0059 on Monday, 22 August 2016)

The class met as scheduled, at 1800 in Rm. 111 of the DeVry San Antonio campus. The class roster listed ten students enrolled, a decline of one since the last class meeting. Of them, six attended, verified informally. Student participation was reasonably good. No students attended office hours.

Class Report: ENGL 135.60174, Advanced Composition–11 August 2016

After addressing questions from and concerns about the previous class meeting, discussion exhorted better submission rates for remaining assignments. Concerns of graphics and layout were addressed, as was progress on student papers. It also laid out some ideas for peer review of papers (students had been asked to bring working copies of papers with them). A workshopping session ensued, after which came a breakdown discussion.

Students are particularly encouraged to fill out the instructor surveys. Comments about instruction are welcome, as is suggested here, here, and here, among others. They open 12 August 2016 and close 27 August 2016. Associate National Dean of Academic Quality Tracey E. Colyer notes in an email that students may access the surveys via the following (blog formatting imposes some changes to numbering):

  1. Go to your Student Portal (http://my.devry.edu or http://my.keller.edu) depending on your enrollment.  If you have trouble logging in, click on the Need Help? link.
  2. Enter your DSI# and your student portal password.
  3. Expand the menu on the left-hand side of the window, select Resources.  Then, select End-of-Term Survey.
  4. A pop-up window will appear listing available surveys; there will be a survey for each course in which you are enrolled.  If the window does not appear, please disable your pop-up blocker.
  5. Click any of the Evaluate links to begin.
    1. For the End of Course Evaluations, the name of your instructor and course title will appear at the top of the pop-up window.
      1. It is very important that you complete an evaluation for all courses listed. Please respond to all items before you click the final Submit button.
      2. Your name is not shared with your professor(s); Evaluation results are reported in aggregate several weeks after End of Course Evaluation closes.
    2. The survey system only tracks whether you have completed all evaluations. You will receive an email reminder within 4 days.

Students are reminded of the following assignments’ due dates:

  • Course Project Second Draft (to the dropbox before 0059 on 15 August 2016)
  • Week 6 Discussions (completed before 0059 on 15 August 2016)

Samples of Course Project First, Second, and Final Drafts remain available in the course shell. Other samples of argumentative writing, albeit written for a different style manual, can still be found at the following:

The class met as scheduled, at 1800 in Rm. 111 of the DeVry San Antonio campus; peer review was conducted across the hall, in Rm. 110. The class roster listed 11 students enrolled, a decline of one since the last class meeting. Of them, four attended, verified by a brief written exercise. Student participation was quite good. No students attended office hours.

Class Report: ENGL 135.60174, Advanced Composition–4 August 2016

After addressing questions from and concerns about the previous class meeting, discussion treated student questions about the readings and upcoming assignments, as well as offering instructor comments about them. The exhortation to complete and submit work was reiterated; many students have not turned in assignments, making offering any useful scoring or assessment difficult. Concerns of citation were addressed. Some concerns of usage, particularly commas with addenda, were addressed, as well.

Students are reminded of the following assignments’ due dates:

  • Course Project First Draft, 8 August 2016 at 0059
  • Week 5 Discussions, 8 August 2016 at 0059
  • In-class version of Course Project Second Draft, 11 August 2016 at 1800

The in-class version of the Course Project Second Draft needs to be printed out and brought to class in hard copy at the assigned time. Class time next week will be spent in peer review.

Samples of Course Project First, Second, and Final Drafts are available in the course shell. Other samples of argumentative writing, albeit written for a different style manual, can be found at the following:

The class met as scheduled, at 1800 in Rm. 111 of the DeVry San Antonio campus. The class roster listed 12 students enrolled, a decline of one since the last class meeting. Of them, seven attended, verified by a brief written exercise. Student participation was reasonably good. No students attended office hours.

Class Report: ENGL 135.60174, Advanced Composition–28 July 2016

After addressing questions from and concerns about the previous class meeting, discussion treated student questions about readings and upcoming assignments. Instructor remarks about them were offered, as well, including an exhortation to get the work done that is assigned. Some comma usage, concerns of grammatical number, and concerns of gendered usage were addressed, too.

Students are reminded of the following assignments’ due dates:

  • Annotated Bibliography, 1 August 2016 at 0059
  • Week 4 Discussions, 1 August 2016 at 0059

Note that assessment of the assignments may be slowed this week, as the instructor is moving.

Note that a template and sample of the Annotated Bibliography are available in the course shell. An example of an annotated bibliography similar to that requested of students can be found here. An older, similar example can be found here. An example of a more expansive annotated bibliography, one meant to stand as an independent project, can be found here.

The class met as scheduled, at 1800 in Rm. 111 of the DeVry San Antonio campus. The class roster listed 13 students enrolled, unchanged since the last class meeting. Of them, seven attended, verified by a brief written exercise. Student participation was better than in previous weeks. No students attended office hours.

Class Report: ENGL 135.60174, Advanced Composition–21 July 2016

After addressing questions from and concerns of the previous class meeting, discussion treated student questions and comments about the week’s readings and assignments. Instructor remarks about them followed, as did review of stylistic and mechanical concerns noted as presenting problems to students, including commas with introductory prepositional phrases and signal phrases for quotations.

Due to ongoing technical concerns, an unofficial copy of the course syllabus, taken from the official, has been posted to the course shell and is here: ENGL 135 Syllabus (Unofficial Copy for Workaround).

Students are reminded of the following assignments’ due dates:

  • Research Proposal (due to the appropriate dropbox at or before 0059 CDT on 25 July 2016)
  • APA Assessment Module (due to the appropriate dropbox at or before 0059 CDT on 25 July 2016)
  • Graded Discussions for Week 3 (to be completed at or before before 0059 CDT on 25 July 2016)

Please note that a template, sample, and rubric for the Research Proposal are available in the course shell. A similar assignment, albeit one for a different institution, is discussed here, with a sample here; review of the materials might provide a usefully divergent perspective on the kind of writing to be done.

A rubric for the APA Assessment Module may be found in the Doc Sharing folder in the course shell, as well as here: ENGL 135 APA Assessment Rubric. Please note, too, that the specific nature of the Assessment Module will preclude an example of it from being developed.

The class, which was observed by other faculty, met as scheduled, at 1800 in Rm. 111 of the DeVry San Antonio campus. The class roster listed 13 students enrolled, a decline of two since the last class meeting. Of them, eight attended, verified by a brief written exercise. Student participation was reasonably good. No students attended office hours.

About Additional Updates to My Teaching Life

I have received word about upcoming events relating to my teaching career. At DeVry University, I have been offered a section of ENGL 227: Professional Writing for the September 2016 session. At Schreiner University, I have been offered a section of ENGL 1301: Rhetoric & Composition and a section of ENGL 3333/THRE 3333: Shakespeare: Comedies & Sonnets (the class is cross-listed) for the Fall 2016 term. I have accepted the offers, which are in addition to the courses I had already been assigned.

Information on the courses is in development, but I thought it might be good to keep people abreast of what is going on with me as I move forward with the Instruction part of Elliott RWI.

Class Report: ENGL 135.60174, Advanced Composition–14 July 2016

After addressing questions from the previous class meeting and announcing ongoing activities, discussion reviewed materials from the end-of-class activity and treated student questions about the readings and written assignments for the week. Instructor remarks about them followed, as did notes about researching and related activities. Emphasized was the idea of research as the generation of new knowledge, rather than the recapitulation of old; research must begin with what is known, but it must move forward past it for any advancement to occur.

Students are reminded of the following assignments’ due dates:

  • Information Literacy Module (due to the appropriate dropbox at or before 0059 CDT on 18 July 2016)
  • Source Summary (due to the appropriate dropbox at or before 0059 CDT on 18 July 2016)
  • Graded Discussions for Week 2 (to be completed at or before before 0059 CDT on 18 July 2016)

A rubric for the Information Literacy Module appears here: ENGL 135 Information Literacy Rubric. The Information Literacy Module is described in the course syllabus, the article it references is that treated in the Source Summary assignment. Note that, due to the restrictive nature of the assignment, no sample will be provided.

Note that a sample of the Source Summary assignment is already provided in the course materials.

The class met as scheduled, at 1800 in Rm. 111 of the DeVry San Antonio campus. The class roster listed 15 students enrolled, a decline of one since the last class meeting. Of them, seven received credit for having attended, verified by both a sign-in sheet and a brief written exercise; an eight was present for part of the class but left before signing in or sending an email. Student participation was adequate and somewhat improved over the previous week. No students attended office hours.

Class Report: ENGL 135.60174, Advanced Composition–7 July 2016

Class discussion reiterated the instructor’s introduction and welcomed students to the course. Requested statements of University policies regarding late work and missed discussions were read aloud. Pre-existing questions about the readings not answered in online discussions were entertained, as were similar questions about assignments. Some additional remarks about both were offered. Basic concerns of argumentative writing and rhetoric received attention, as well, ensuring that students were given the opportunity to work from a common base of knowledge for the course. Some comments were made about email formatting, too, as were notes about technological difficulties.

Students are reminded of the following assignments’ due dates:

  • Topic Selection (due to the appropriate dropbox at or before 0059 CDT on 11 July 2016)
  • Graded Discussions for Week 1 (to be completed at or before before 0059 CDT on 11 July 2016)
  • Introduction Discussion (to be completed at or before 0059 CDT on 11 July 2016)

More advice about due dates is available here: >>click this link<<.

Please be sure to review discussion policies for the course, available here: ENGL 135 Discussion Assignment Sheet.

Additionally, Dr. Sarvis is offering an APA workshop at the San Antonio campus from 1000 to 1200 on 9 July 2016. Registration information is posted to the course discussions.

The class met as scheduled, at 1800 in Rm. 111 of the DeVry San Antonio campus. The class roster listed 16 students enrolled. Of them, eight attended, verified by both a sign-in sheet and a brief writing assignment. Student participation was adequate, although it is hoped that more students will speak up at greater length in coming weeks. No students attended office hours.

Reflective Comments about Spring 2016

Following a pattern continued at the end of the Fall 2015 instructional term, comments below offer information about class performance in the sections of ENGL 1213: Composition II I taught at Oklahoma State University and Northern Oklahoma College during the Spring 2016 instructional term. (Demographic data are addressed in the report of results from the term’s exit survey, here.) Overall impressions and implications for future teaching are discussed, as well, and collected best versions of course documents are presented.

Class Performance

Assessment differed among the sections. Those taught at Oklahoma State University necessarily reflected Program dictates in force there; those taught at Northern Oklahoma College followed a pattern based more upon previous experiences teaching first-year composition and the courses to which it is commonly antecedent. Explanations of each appear below.

Oklahoma State University

For those sections of ENGL 1213 I taught at Oklahoma State University (015, 023, and 040), class performance was assessed by evaluating a series of major (Strategic Reading, Developing a Topic and Locating Sources, Infographic Portfolio, Student’s Own Question, and Final Exam) and minor assignments, as well as such factors as professionalism and attendance, over the course of the instructional term and assigning grades in accordance with that evaluation. Other than attendance, handling of which was determined at the programmatic level, each was scored using a scale of A+ through zero, either directly or as a means of assigning categorical scores to be averaged for a final score. Factors contributing to grading were weighted unevenly, as indicated below:

  • Strategic Reading, 20% of total course grade
  • Developing a Topic and Locating Sources, 10% of total course grade
  • Infographic Portfolio, 20% of total course grade
  • Student’s Own Question, 30% of total course grade
  • Final Exam, 5% of total course grade
  • Minor Assignments, cumulatively 10% of total course grade
  • Student Professionalism, 5% of total course grade

While discussion of individual assignments and individual student performance exceeds what is appropriate for such a report as this, general tendencies within and among the individual sections can be reported.

Section 015

Section 015 was scheduled to meet at 1030 on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays in Classroom Building Room 217. Its overall data includes

  • End-of-term enrollment: 16
  • Average class score: 78.812 (C)
    • Standard deviation: 7.808
  • Students earning a grade of A (90%+): 2
  • Students earning a grade of F (below 60%): 0
  • Total student absences: 66
  • Average student absences: 4.125
    • Standard deviation: 2.058

Section 015 was the least affected by attrition, losing only three of the peak 19 students enrolled across the term. Of the students who did remain in the class, many were quite active in class discussion, although the activities did tend to move away from the narrow focus of the course–as class reports throughout the term attest. Still, only two students lost points due to absence penalties, although in both cases, the loss affected the overall course grade (i.e., the letter grade reported to the institution).

Return to Oklahoma State University.
Return to section.
Return to top.

Section 023

Section 023 was scheduled to meet at 1130 on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays in Classroom Building Room 121. Its overall data includes

  • End-of-term enrollment: 14
  • Average class score: 76.672 (C)
    • Standard deviation: 8.737
  • Students earning a grade of A (90%+): 1
  • Students earning a grade of F (below 60%): 0
  • Total student absences: 69
  • Average student absences: 4.929
    • Standard deviation: 2.738

The section lost four of the peak 18 students enrolled across the term. It also suffered substantially from absences, with the largest (but not most common) occurrence of absence penalties to grades. Three students suffered double-digit grade penalties due to non-attendance.

Return to Oklahoma State University.
Return to section.
Return to top.

Section 040

Section 040 was scheduled to meet at 0830 on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays in Morrill Hall Room 206. Its overall data includes

  • End-of-term enrollment: 12
  • Average class score: 68.091 (D)
    • Standard deviation: 16.825
  • Students earning a grade of A (90%+): 1
  • Students earning a grade of F (below 60%): 3 (two incurred absence penalties)
  • Total student absences: 61
  • Average student absences: 5.083
    • Standard deviation: 2.985

Section 040 was the Oklahoma State University section most affected by attrition, losing six of the peak 18 enrolled students across the term. It also suffered the most problems with late submission or non-submission of assignments, which negatively impacts scores. The section further suffered the largest number of absence penalties, with four students incurring them (although not to the extent of those in Section 023).

Return to Oklahoma State University.
Return to section.
Return to top.

Aggregate Data

Taken together, the Oklahoma State University sections yield the following information:

  • End-of-term enrollment: 42
  • Average score: 75.036 (C)
    • Standard deviation: 12.233
  • Students earning a grade of A (90%+): 4
  • Students earning a grade of F (below 60%): 3
  • Total student absences: 196
  • Average student absences: 4.667
    • Standard deviation: 2.616
  • Office hours meetings: 37

Two students each accounted for six office-hour meetings. Another four each accounted for three. Those students who were frequent guests in my office hours found reward in their Student Professionalism scores, as well as often on their graded assignments.

Return to Oklahoma State University.
Return to section.
Return to top.

Northern Oklahoma College

For the section of ENGL 1213 I taught at Northern Oklahoma College, class performance was assessed by evaluating a series of major (Topic Proposal, Exploratory Essay, Annotated Bibliography, Researched Paper, and Final Exam) and minor assignments, as well as such factors as professionalism and attendance, over the course of the instructional term and assigning grades in accordance with that evaluation. Other than attendance, handling of which was determined at the collegiate level, each was scored using a scale of A+ through zero, either directly or as a means of assigning categorical scores to be averaged for a final score. Factors contributing to grading were weighted unevenly, as indicated below:

  • Topic Proposal, 5% of total course grade
  • Exploratory Essay, 10% of total course grade
  • Annotated Bibliography, 15% of total course grade
  • Researched Paper, 20% of total course grade
  • Final Portfolio, 25% of total course grade
  • Final Exam, 5% of total course grade
  • Student Professionalism, 10% of total course grade
  • Minor Assignments, cumulatively 10% of total course grade

While discussion of individual assignments and individual student performance exceeds what is appropriate for such a report as this, general tendencies within the section can be reported.

The section was scheduled to meet Mondays and Wednesdays at 1300 in North Classroom Building Room 311. Its overall data includes

  • End-of-term enrollment: 6
  • Average class score: 73.665 (C)
    • Standard deviation: 10.666
  • Students earning a grade of A (90%+): 1
  • Students earning a grade of F (below 60%): 0
  • Office hours meetings: 9
  • Total student absences: 15
  • Average student absences: 2.5
    • Standard deviation: 0.764

The section suffered an initial wave of attrition due to shifts in instructor; I was brought in specifically to cover for an instructor who could not discharge the necessary responsibilities, and many students, having expected someone else at the front of the classroom, dropped the course. One other dropped due to taking a job that prevented attendance. One other dropped late in the course due to dissatisfaction with assessed performance. Yet another dropped for a reason that was not made clear. Of the students who remained, however, all submitted all major assignments and most minor ones, which was a pleasant surprise. Two students accounted for all of the recorded office-hour meetings, with one student sitting for two-thirds of them. Performance largely accorded with standard expectations.

Return to section.
Return to top.

Impressions and Implications

It had been some time since I taught Composition II; the last time I did so was at a previous institution, where I taught but one section of the course, and that during my last term working there. (Information is available here.) Between my lack of practice with the course and the changes to its standards pushed through at Oklahoma State University, I had quite a learning curve for the course. I fell back onto practices developed while a graduate student, knowing that they worked reasonably well then; I want to think that they served at least adequately during the term (in part because of comments received in student surveys).

Throughout the term, I worked to consolidate the work I would need to do to teach two similar but distinct courses. Part of the way I did so was to align both courses to the same theme: curricular issues. Doing so allowed me to draft samples for the students along a single theme, as well: the comprehensive exams from my doctoral program. More importantly, I feel and I have been told that students came away from the experience with better understandings of their fields of study (such that some shifted majors as a result), so the idea of my courses helping students gain such knowledge and the accompanying agency was borne out. In that regard, the semester was a success.

Many of the other impressions I have about the course are discussed in “Report of Results from the Spring 2016 Exit Surveys”; I need not repeat them here (although I would point out to those who complain that my grading is overly harsh that more students earned As in my classes than earned Fs this term, and more of the Fs resulted from the imposition of Program policies than my personal policies). Not all are, however, and among those not voiced previously is one about the timing of classes. In “Reflective Comments about Fall 2015,” here, I note that the 1030 and 1230 classes I taught were somewhat subdued, attributing their restraint to timing. This term, my 1030 class was perhaps the most active of all, which contradicts my earlier supposition. Similarly, the 0830 class I taught in the fall was active, while its spring counterpart was not. I have to conclude that it is some factor other than timing that accounts for the varying levels of participation in classroom activities. What it is is not clear to me, however.

The semester was particularly helpful for future teaching. The final exam in all sections specifically asked for recommended additions to the course sequence, and while it may well not be the case that I teach Composition II in my next position, many of the suggestions made seem like they would be applicable to other teaching venues, as well. How they will be incorporated will depend on the future courses, obviously, but I am in the position of having been able to retain copies of student work. Many students signaled their willingness to have their work used for future development (I retain copies of the forms though which they did so, as well), so I will have resources ready to hand as I make adjustments moving forward.

Return to top.

Reference Documents

Collected best versions of course documents given to students throughout the term can be found below:

I make them available in the hopes that others will find them of use–as I do with the rest of my instructional materials.

Return to top.

Class Reports: ENGL 1213, Sections 015, 023, and 040–Final Exams

All sections met in Morrill Hall Room 106 to sit for the FinEx. Completion of the exam occupied the whole of each meeting time.

Regarding meetings and attendance:

  • Section 015 met as scheduled, at 1000 on 2 May 2016. The class roster showed 16 students enrolled, unchanged since the previous report. Fourteen attended, verified informally as the FinEx was in progress.
  • Section 023 met as scheduled, at 1000 on 4 May 2016. The class roster showed 14 students enrolled, unchanged since the previous report. All attended, verified informally as the FinEx was in progress.
  • Section 040 met as scheduled, at 0800 on 4 May 2016. The class roster showed 12 students enrolled, unchanged since the previous report. All attended, verified informally as the FinEx was in progress.

Reflective comments will be posted as they become available.