Tag: Oklahoma State University

Class Reports: ENGL 1213, Sections 015, 023, and 040–8 February 2016

geoffreybelliott1 Comment

After addressing questions from the previous class meeting, discussion asked after progress on the T&S (of which a sample is available here). It then, as time permitted, turned to treatment of assigned readings.

The StratRdg will be returned when it is graded.

Information on the attached flier may be of interest, as well: Announcing the 2016 Peseroff Prize and Breakwater Review Fiction Contests.

Students are reminded of the following due dates:

  • T&S PV (in print as class begins on 15 February 2016)
  • T&S RV (via D2L before class begins on 19 February 2016)
  • T&S FV (via D2L before class begins on 26 February 2016)

Regarding meetings and attendance:

  • Section 015 met as scheduled, at 1030 in Classroom Building Room 217. The class roster showed 17 students enrolled, a decline of one since the previous report. Fourteen attended, verified through a brief written exercise. Student participation was adequate.
  • Section 023 met as scheduled, at 1130 in Classroom Building Room 121. The class roster showed 17 students enrolled, unchanged since the previous report. Fourteen attended, verified by a brief written exercise. Student participation was reasonably good.
  • Section 040 met as scheduled, at 0830 in Morrill Hall Room 206. The class roster showed 16 students enrolled, unchanged since the previous report. Fifteen attended, verified by a brief written exercise. Student participation was reasonably good.
  • No students attended office hours.

Sample Developing a Topic and Locating Sources Assignment: Questions about the Comprehensive Exams for UL Lafayette PhD Students in English

geoffreybelliott4 Comments

What follows are a topic proposal and annotated bibliography such as my students are asked to write for the T&S assignment during the Spring 2016 instructional term at Oklahoma State University. As is expected of student work, it treats an issue of its writer’s curriculum. It also adheres to the length requirements expressed to students (they are asked for 325 to 650 words in the proposal and several citations and brief paragraphs for the annotated bibliography, exclusive of heading, title, and page numbers; the proposal below is 388 words long when judged by those standards, and the annotations after the introductory paragraph are appropriate in content), although its formatting will necessarily differ from student submissions due to the differing medium. How the medium influences reading is something well worth considering as a classroom discussion, particularly for those students who are going into particularly writing- or design-intensive fields.

The text works in tandem with “Sample Topic Proposal: Why Not Have a Rhetoric Requirement among UL Lafayette PhD Students in English?” The text thereof is available here : https://elliottrwi.com/2016/01/14/sample-topic-proposal-why-not-have-a-rhetoric-requirement-among-ul-lafayette-phd-students-in-english/. 

To earn my doctorate in English from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, one of the many things I was asked to do was sit for a series of comprehensive exams. Like my contemporaries, I had to take four five-hour tests covering knowledge selected from among twelve separate areas of inquiry within English studies. The idea behind them, according to how the school’s Department of English describes them on its website as of 23 September 2015, is to facilitate both teaching and continued research, ensuring that students who complete the program adequately reflect the generalist orientation of the program. Successful completion of the exams is required before advancing to work on the dissertation in which the doctorate concludes, and continued presence in the program hinges on passing the exams. They are therefore of singular importance.

Because the comprehensive exams are as important as they are, they are perpetual subjects of discussion, both for those who sit for them and for those who administer and assess them. They are described by the Department in part as being meant to demonstrate students’ mastery of various areas in support of the generalist nature of the program, and the expressed requirements do tend toward that goal–but there are areas in which the comprehensive exams could align more closely to the goals of the Department and to its students.

Investigating the comprehensive exams could easily follow several paths. One would be to ask why the Area 1 requirement is framed as it is. Focusing on English languages and literatures prior to 1500, it effectively covers multiple distinct languages, as the differences between Beowulf and Chaucer attest, and the separation of the area at 1500 seems at odds with prevailing understandings of changes to the language–the medieval in England is usually held to end at 1485. Another question to ask could be why all students are not asked to sit for an exam in rhetoric. All students are asked to sit for exams in literature, and there is certainly nothing wrong with such a requirement, but more students will teach composition classes, and having a background in that sub-discipline would be helpful. A third possibility, although by no means the last, would be to ask why the comprehensive exams retain their traditional on-site, in-the-room form, when so many other schools and fields administer them differently.

Answering any such questions will benefit from recourse to the many discussions of curriculum and exams that go on. Various educational agencies and organizations will have something to say about how exams are conducted, as will disciplinary organizations. Publications of the National Council of Teachers of English and the Modern Language Association of America suggest themselves as useful initial avenues of inquiry. So do pieces from such databases as the Educational Resource Information Center. A few selections from simple keyword searches of such sources appear below.

Hassel, Holly, and Joanne Baird Giordano. “Occupy Writing Studies: Rethinking College Composition for the Needs of the Teaching Majority.” CCC 65.1 (September 2013): 117-39. Print.

The article argues against perceptions among writing scholars that devalue the work done by most writing teachers, who work in two-year and open-admission institutions. After defining a number of its terms, the authors note that studies of such teachers are not proportionate to the work they do. They continue with discussions of the two-year teaching environment, the focus of writing scholarship on four-year and elite institutions and the concomitant problems associated with community colleges, and what benefits would accrue to teachers and scholars from a reconsideration of such positions as they outline. The article concludes with a few recommendations of how to proceed, namely the support of research by and about two-year and open-admission institutions.

Of particular importance in the article is a quotation from a  Chronicle of Higher Education article by Schmidt, one noting that non-tenure-track faculty account for more than three quarters of teaching positions (119). While it does not discuss the comprehensive exam as an item, it does point towards the ubiquity of writing instruction by those with graduate degrees in English, irrespective of their specialization; it is a point the article reiterates. As such, it helps provide context and support for the need for graduate students in English to take exams and concomitant training in rhetoric, since it is from rhetoric that the practice of teaching writing emerges.

Nolan, Robert. E. “How Graduate Students of Adult and Continuing Education Are Assessed at the Doctoral Level.” Journal of Continuing Higher Education 50.3 (Fall 2002): 38-43. PDF file.

The article encourages discussion of the forms comprehensive examinations in doctoral coursework should take to increase completion rates and more accurately reflect the expectations placed on those who pursue advanced graduate study. After explicating then-current demographic data among graduate students, the piece lays out its purpose and summarizes previous studies of the topic. It then lays out its methods–noting the group surveyed and describing the survey used. Findings follow, identifying major trends about the timing, format, and intentions of comprehensive exams. The article concludes with notes that indicate no consensus among programs about how to hold comprehensive exams and what they ought to do.

The article may suffer somewhat from concerns of age, and repeated mentions of what various things “presumably” do weaken some of the rhetorical force of the piece. The brevity of the piece may also be of some concern. The article does, however, provide a useful summary of tendencies in how examinations have been conducted at the doctoral level across disciplines. In that regard, the article offers a useful starting point for discussion of any topic treating comprehensive exams at the doctoral level. As background material for framing investigation of the comprehensive exam, then, it is worth reading.

Ponder, Nicole, Sharon E. Beatty, and William Foxx. “Doctoral Comprehensive Exams in Marketing: Current Practices and Emerging Perspectives.” Journal of Marketing Education 26.3 (December 2004): 226-35. PDF file.

The authors identify and explain then-current and -emerging practices regarding doctoral comprehensive exams in United States marketing programs. After offering a general introduction to the topic, the authors review available literature on the topic, focusing largely on Bloom’s taxonomy. Methodology follows, with a survey described and the process of its dissemination, completion, and interpretation articulated. Results detailing the perceived purposes of doctoral comprehensive exams, structures of those exams, and changes to the latter are presented, and less traditional emergent structures–an “original papers” approach, an “extended take-home,” a “specialist,” and a “no exam–no paper” approach–are explicated. Results are discussed, and a conclusion suggesting that the traditional closed-book format of comprehensive exams will be less common in marketing schools finishes the article.

Although Ponder, Beatty, and Foxx discuss marketing, specifically, many of their assertions are likely applicable to other fields. Despite common perceptions of advanced education as liberal and socially deconstructive, academia tends to remain wedded to older structures, so the “traditional” examination structures discussed in the article are likely to be represented in other fields and programs entirely. If such points of correspondence are in place, then others may also be, making the conclusions reached by the article at least provisionally applicable to other areas of advanced education. Also notable in the article is the concern voiced by some faculty that changes to traditional exam structures “are depriving students of the opportunity to integrate a broad range of knowledge at a deeper level than they will ever have an opportunity to achieve again” (234), offering an unusual perspective on the comprehensive exam that may well bear examination.

Schafer, Joseph A., and Matthew J. Giblin. “Doctoral Comprehensive Exams: Standardization, Customization, and Everywhere in Between.” Journal of Criminal Justice Education 19.2 (July 2008): 275-89. PDF file.

The authors describe general tendencies regarding treatment of comprehensive exams by programs awarding doctoral degrees in criminal justice. The need for systematic study of criminal justice programs is articulated before the doctoral comprehensive exam is contextualized. Exam procedures are described and historicized. Study methods–largely focused on conducting surveys and interviews–are described and findings articulated, the latter focusing largely on the forms the exams take. Findings are subsequently discussed, identifying and commenting on the patterns that emerge from the study and treating relative merits of several exam formats. The article concludes with questions about the ongoing utility of curricular standards to both the discipline and the broader community the discipline serves.

Although Schafer and Giblin treat the discipline of criminal justice, specifically, they ground their article in information deriving from studies of other fields–notably including rhetoric–and assert that their own discipline largely follows the structures of others. The conclusions they reach about their own field therefore present themselves as able to be generalized back to those other fields, so that what they say about comprehensive exams can be applied to other areas than their own. Additionally, their relatively recent (to this writing) article allows their conclusions to be taken as more timely, and their relatively extensive bibliography offers useful insights as to further reading.

Class Reports: ENGL 1213, Sections 015, 023, and 040–5 February 2016

geoffreybelliott1 Comment

After addressing questions from earlier class meetings, discussion asked after student impressions of the StratRdg, of which the FV was due via D2L before class time began. It then turned to progress on the T&S, for which the library meeting had been conducted during the previous class meeting. (A sample T&S is still in draft and will appear on the course blog once completed.)

Students are reminded of the following due dates:

  • T&S PV (in print as class begins on 15 February 2016)
  • T&S RV (via D2L before class begins on 19 February 2016)
  • T&S FV (via D2L before class begins on 26 February 2016)

The Coordinator of the Writing Center asks that the following flier be made available to students: Documentation Orientation Part 1 and 2 [sic]. Attendance is encouraged as being likely to be of help.

Regarding meetings and attendance:

  • Section 015 met as scheduled, at 1030 in Classroom Building Room 217. The class roster showed 18 students enrolled, unchanged since the previous report. Fourteen attended, verified through a brief written exercise. Student participation was reasonably good.
  • Section 023 met as scheduled, at 1130 in Classroom Building Room 121. The class roster showed 17 students enrolled, unchanged since the previous report. Twelve attended, verified through a brief written exercise. Student participation was reasonably good.
  • Section 040 met as scheduled, at 0830 in Morrill Hall Room 206. The class roster showed 16 students enrolled, unchanged since the previous report. Fifteen attended, verified through a brief written exercise. Student participation was adequate.
  • One student attended office hours.

Report of Results from the Third-Week Survey

geoffreybelliott2 Comments

Having found that the work done to survey students in an earlier term (noted here) was helpful, I purposed early in the Spring 2016 instructional term at Oklahoma State University and Northern Oklahoma College to repeat the exercise. To that end, the students enrolled in my three sections of ENGL 1213: Composition II at Oklahoma State University–015, 023, and 040–and my one section of ENGL 1213: Composition II at Northern Oklahoma College were asked to fill out a survey administered anonymously online via Google and offering a grade reward to encourage participation. A report of the event for the Oklahoma State University students is here; a similar report for the students at Northern Oklahoma College is here. The survey was left open from its initial announcement on 27 January 2016 until 3 February 2016, permitting ample time for completion.

At the beginning of the survey, 54 students were enrolled in my sections at Oklahoma State University; enrollment dropped to 51 while the survey was open. Nine were enrolled in my section at Northern Oklahoma College. Fifty-two responses were recorded across the four sections, 82.539 to more than 86.666% of those available. Eighteen came from Section 015 at Oklahoma State University, 16 from Section 023, ten from Section 040, and eight from the section at Northern Oklahoma College; Section 040 is underrepresented among the survey results for reasons that are not clear.

It is possible that duplicate submissions were recorded, with two evident pairs in place. It is possible, however, that they reflect students of markedly similar backgrounds; I have had sets of twins in previous classes, for example, so I have seen such things happen. For that reason, the possible duplicates are included among the reported results against the possibility that they are not duplicates. It may introduce some inaccuracy into the data, but it is not likely to be enough to alter or invalidate general impressions and tendencies identified from among the data.

Like its Fall 2015 counterpart, the survey issued on 27 January 2016 asked after demographic and academic data. It neglected to ask about class impressions and anticipated performance; by the time the survey was issued to students (something delayed by longer-than-anticipated fluidity of rosters), graded work had begun to come in, skewing potential results about the latter two categories. The report below follows the general format, noting results of the demographic and academic data before advancing impressions and implications thereof.

Demographic Data

As in the Fall 2015 entry survey, for the Spring 2016 third-week survey, students were asked to report age, gender identification, and racial and ethnic identifications (following the 2010 US Census Bureau categories and definitions); socio-economic status was omitted from the Spring 2016 survey in response to informal student comments noting the confusing nature of the descriptor. Available answers for age were “Under 17,” “17,” “18,” “19,” “20,” “Over 20,” and “Prefer not to respond.” Students were again allowed to select one and only one answer. A plurality of respondents reported being 18 years of age (eight, or 34.6% of respondents). Fifteen (28.8% of respondents) reported being 19, 13 (25%) over 20, and six (11.5%) age 20. None reported being 17 years of age or under, and none opted out of responding.

Also as in the Fall 2015 entry survey, available answers for gender identification were “Female,” “Intersex,” “Male,” “Trans,” “Prefer not to identify,” and “Other.” Students were again allowed to select one and only one answer. Half (26) identified as female; half (26) identified as male. No other answers were given.

As was true of the Fall 2015 entry survey, available answers for racial identification were “American Indian or Alaska Native,” “Asian,” “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,” “Black or African-American,” “White,” “Some Other Race,” and “Prefer not to identify.” Again, students were allowed to select multiple answers. Forty-five respondents, 86.5% of the total, self-identified as White. Seven (13.5%) identified as Black of African-American, and two (3.8%) each identified as American Indian or Alaska Native and Asian. No other answers were recorded.

Also as was true in the Fall 2015 entry survey, available answers for ethnic identification–specifically, identification as Hispanic–were “Yes,” “No,” and “Prefer not to identify.” Students were again allowed to select one and only one option. Forty-nine (94.2%) respondents reported not identifying as Hispanic; three (5.8%) reported identifying as Hispanic. None opted out of responding.

Return to top.

Academic Data

Students were asked to report section of enrollment, classification, current GPA, College of major, major, and minor (if available). Section of enrollment is discussed above, but for classification, available responses were, as in the Fall 2015 entry survey, “Freshman,” “Sophomore,” “Junior,” “Senior,” and “Prefer not to respond.” Students were allowed to select one and only one answer. Thirty-five respondents, 67.3% of the total, reported being freshmen. Eight (15.4%) each reported being sophomores and juniors, and one (1.9%) reported being a senior; none opted out of responding.

As in the Fall 2015 entry survey, available responses about current GPA were “3.5+,” “3.0-3.499,” “2.5-2.999,” “2.0-2.499,” “1.5-1.999,” “1.0-1.499,” “Below 1.0,” “No GPA recorded yet,” and “Prefer not to respond.” Students were allowed to select one and only one answer once again. Twenty-one respondents, 40.4% of the total, reported a GPA of 3.0-3.499. Eleven (21.2%) reported a GPA of 2.5-2.999, ten (19.2%) 3.5+, four (7.7%) 2.0-2.499, three 1.5-1.999, and two (3.58%) noted having no recorded GPA as yet. Only one ( 1.9%) opted not to report a GPA.

Available responses about the College of major included, as in the Fall 2015 entry survey, “Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources”; “Arts and Sciences”; “Education”; “Engineering, Architecture, and Technology”; “Human Sciences”; “Spears School of Business”; “Undeclared”; “Prefer not to identify”; and “Other.” Students were again allowed to select one and only one answer; “Other” was indicated as the appropriate response for those pursuing double majors whose majors cross Colleges. Eleven, or 21.2% of respondents, reported having majors in the Spears School of Business. Eight (15.4%) reported a major in Education, seven (13.5%) in Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. Six (11.5%) reported majoring in each of Arts and Sciences; Engineering, Architecture, and Technology; and Human Sciences. Five (9.6%) reported “Other,” and three (5.8%) reported being still undeclared.

Majors were reported in open-ended questions, as was true of the Fall 2015 entry survey. After coding to consolidate effectively equivalent responses, 27 separate answers were reported. Six students reported majoring in Animal Science, of whom one declared specializing in pre-veterinary study. Five reported majoring in Marketing, of whom one indicated a double major in Physiology. Three reported majoring in each of Elementary Education, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (of whom one reported double-majoring in Hotel and Restaurant Administration), Nursing, and Psychology. Two reported majoring in each of Finance, Health Education and Promotion, Interior Design, and Mechanical Engineering. One reported majoring in each of the following:

  • Accounting and Finance
  • Archaeology
  • Biochemistry
  • Biology
  • Chemical Engineering
  • Computer Science
  • Construction Management Technology
  • Contractual Law
  • Education
  • General Business
  • Management Information Systems
  • Natural Resource Ecology and Wildlife Management
  • Nutritional Science
  • Secondary Education
  • Strategic Communications

Four reported being undeclared, and two opted not to identify their majors.

Minors were also reported in open-ended questions, as had been the case in the Fall 2015 entry survey. After coding to consolidate effectively equivalent responses, 19 separate answers emerged. Five reported minoring in Business, four in Coaching Science, and two each in Merchandising and Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurship as an independent field. One reported minoring in each of the following:

  • Accounting
  • Anthropology
  • Art
  • Business Management
  • Entomology
  • Foreign Language (which language was not specified)
  • Graphic Art and Design
  • History
  • Mathematics
  • Philosophy
  • Piloting
  • Psychology

Seventeen reported being uncertain or undecided, although one indicated leaning towards each of Business and Psychology. Nine affirmed having no minor, and one opted not to report.

Return to top.

Impressions and Implications

Demographic data reported appear largely to accord with expectations of first-year courses, with most students seeming to be in their late teens and adhering to binary gender identification. They also seem to accord with local populations in terms of racial and ethnic identification; US Census Bureau estimates of the Stillwater, Oklahoma, population (reported here) are at variance with what the surveyed students report, but it must also be noted that the smaller sample size of students will necessarily adjust the numbers, and not all students are from the Stillwater census area. The data reported are not so far removed form Census estimates that other causes for the difference must be sought.

Academic data are somewhat surprising. The sections skew towards a higher classification than could be expected of a first-year course, with more sophomores and juniors than would suggest themselves as common. GPAs also skew higher than traditional assumptions would have it; the bell curve seems to center in the B range of grades, rather than the C that “average” performance would indicate. Assignments in the sections themselves are graded on a criterion-referenced system rather than a norm-referenced system, however, so it is not to be wondered at that other courses would be similarly graded, resulting in different results than traditional assumptions might suggest.

Distribution of majors was not unexpected for the area. Northern Oklahoma College, particularly at its Stillwater campus, serves in many respects as a feeder school for Oklahoma State University, and the University is primarily an agricultural and mechanical institution. For the students in the sections taught to tend toward majoring in such fields is to be expected therefore, and, as common understandings suggest that as many as half of undergraduates major in a business field, the number of students reporting majoring in the Spears School of Business comes as no surprise, either.

It seems that the students in the four sections of ENGL 1213: Composition II I am teaching during the Spring 2016 term are largely traditional in their backgrounds. This would suggest that traditional classroom methodologies will be effective. The version of the class being taught at Northern Oklahoma College corresponds with traditional models in many respects, while that at Oklahoma State University is more experimental in nature. How performance in the class differs among the students will be interesting to see, although it must be noted that any conclusions drawn from that observation must be interpreted against the differing situations of the classes.

In any event, some thirteen more weeks of instruction remain for impressions to develop further. I look forward to seeing what they bring and to working with my students to ensure that they bring about much.

Return to top.

Class Reports: ENGL 1213, Sections 015, 023, and 040–3 February 2016

geoffreybelliott1 Comment

Class time for all three sections was spent in the Edmon Low Library for a workshop. Each met in Room 206 of that building.

Students are reminded of the following due dates:

  • StratRdg FV (via D2L before class begins on 5 February 2016)
  • T&S PV (printed hard copy at the beginning of class on 15 February 2016)
  • T&S RV (via D2L before class begins on 19 February 2016)

Please note that classes meet in their regular classrooms on Friday, 5 February 2016.

Also, the English Department Chair asks that the following flyer be presented to students:

IMG_1323_0

Regarding meetings and attendance:

  • Section 015 met as scheduled, at 1030 . The class roster showed 18 students enrolled, unchanged since the previous report. Eleven attended, verified via a sign-in sheet. Student participation was adequate.
  • Section 023 met as scheduled, at 1130 . The class roster showed 17 students enrolled, unchanged since the previous report. Fourteen attended, verified via a sign-in sheet. Student participation was adequate.
  • Section 040 met as scheduled, at 0830 . The class roster showed 16 students enrolled, a decline of one since the previous report. Thirteen attended, verified via a sign-in sheet. Student participation was reasonably good.
  • Two students attended office hours.

Class Reports: ENGL 1213, Sections 015, 023, and 040–1 February 2016

geoffreybelliott1 Comment

After addressing questions from the previous class meeting, discussion asked after student progress on the StratRdg and introduced the T&S.

Students are reminded of the following due dates:

  • StratRdg FV (via D2L before class begins on 5 February 2016)
  • T&S PV (printed hard copy at the beginning of class on 15 February 2016)
  • T&S RV (via D2L before class begins on 19 February 2016)

Students are also reminded again that classes meet in Edmon Low Library Room 206 on Wednesday, 3 February 2016. Office hours will be held in the library that day, as well; a note to that effect will be posted on the instructor’s door as a reminder.

Additionally, as another reminder, the Dean of Arts and Sciences and the Head of the English Department both ask that students be advised of the upcoming Oklahoma State University Career Fair. Events on 3 February 2016, from 1230-1630, will focus on students majoring in Liberal Arts, Business, Communication, Design, and Social Sciences fields. STEM fields are featured on 4 February 2016. Arts and Sciences students are especially encouraged to attend; Career Services is making an outreach effort, and it would be good to see that outreach met. The Dean notes in an email that “Students who want more information, or to schedule appointments with [the Arts and Sciences] Career Consultants, can be directed to www.hireosugrads.com.”

Regarding meetings and attendance:

  • Section 015 met as scheduled, at 1030 in Classroom Building Room 217. The class roster showed 18 students enrolled, unchanged since the previous report. Fifteen attended, verified through a brief written exercise. Student participation was adequate.
  • Section 023 met as scheduled, at 1130 in Classroom Building Room 121. The class roster showed 17 students enrolled, unchanged since the previous report. Fifteen attended, verified through a brief written exercise. Student participation was reasonably good.
  • Section 040 met as scheduled, at 0830 in Morrill Hall Room 206. The class roster showed 17 students enrolled, unchanged since the previous report. Twelve attended, verified through a brief written exercise. Student participation was limited.
  • No students attended office hours.

Class Reports: ENGL 1213, Sections 015, 023, and 040–29 January 2016

geoffreybelliott1 Comment

After addressing questions from the previous class meeting, discussion asked after student progress on the StratRdg, the RV of which was due via D2L before class began. Discussion then turned to the assigned readings, working to come abreast of the course calendar. The assignment sheet for the T&S was distributed, as well.

Students are reminded of the following due dates:

  • StratRdg FV (via D2L before class begins on 5 February 2016)
  • T&S PV (printed hard copy at the beginning of class on 15 February 2016)
  • T&S RV (via D2L before class begins on 19 February 2016)

Students are also reminded that classes meet in Edmon Low Library Room 206 on Wednesday, 3 February 2016. Office hours will be held in the library that day, as well; a note to that effect will be posted on the instructor’s door as a reminder.

Additionally, the Dean of Arts and Sciences and the Head of the English Department both ask that students be advised of the upcoming Oklahoma State University Career Fair. Events on 3 February 2016, from 1230-1630, will focus on students majoring in Liberal Arts, Business, Communication, Design, and Social Sciences fields. STEM fields are featured on 4 February 2016. Arts and Sciences students are especially encouraged to attend; Career Services is making an outreach effort, and it would be good to see that outreach met. The Dean notes in an email that “Students who want more information, or to schedule appointments with [the Arts and Sciences] Career Consultants, can be directed to www.hireosugrads.com.”

Regarding meetings and attendance:

  • Section 015 met as scheduled, at 1030 in Classroom Building Room 217. The class roster showed 18 students enrolled, a loss of one since the previous report. Fourteen attended, verified through a brief written exercise. Student participation was adequate.
  • Section 023 met as scheduled, at 1130 in Classroom Building Room 121. The class roster showed 17 students enrolled, a decline of one since the previous report. Fifteen attended, verified through a brief written exercise. Student participation was reasonably good.
  • Section 040 met as scheduled, at 0830 in Morrill Hall Room 206. The class roster showed 17 students enrolled, unchanged since the previous report. Twelve attended, verified through a brief written exercise. Student participation was improved from previous classes, marking a welcome change.
  • No students attended office hours.

Class Reports: ENGL 1213, Sections 015, 023, and 040–27 January 2016

geoffreybelliott2 Comments

After addressing questions from the previous class meeting and earlier, discussion asked after progress on the StratRdg before treating concerns of formatting and the readings that had been assigned for the day. A survey was announced as a small homework assignment; it can be found at the following link: http://goo.gl/forms/9NrH7j9Mpr. Grading of the survey was laid out during class.

Students are reminded of the following due dates:

  • StratRdg RV (via D2L before class begins on 29 January 2016)
  • StratRdg FV (via D2L before class begins on 5 February 2016)
  • T&S PV (printed hard copy at the beginning of class on 15 February 2016) Please note that information about the T&S is forthcoming as of this writing. Check back for updates.

Regarding meetings and attendance:

  • Section 015 met as scheduled, at 1030 in Classroom Building Room 217. The class roster showed 19 students enrolled, unchanged since the previous report. Sixteen attended, verified via a brief written exercise. Student participation was adequate.
  • Section 023 met as scheduled, at 1130 in Classroom Building Room 121. The class roster showed 18 students enrolled, unchanged since the previous report. Thirteen attended, verified with a brief written exercise. Student participation was adequate.
  • Section 040 met as scheduled, at 0830 in Morrill Hall Room 206. The class roster showed 17 students enrolled, unchanged since the previous report. Twelve attended, verified through a brief written exercise. Student participation was reasonably good.
  • No students attended office hours.

Class Reports: ENGL 1213, Sections 015, 023, and 040–25 January 2016

geoffreybelliott1 Comment

Class time was taken up by peer review of the StratRdg PV, as indicated during the previous class meeting.

Students are reminded of the following due dates:

  • StratRdg RV (via D2L before class begins on 29 January 2016)
  • StratRdg FV (via D2L before class begins on 5 February 2016)
  • T&S PV (printed hard copy at the beginning of class on 15 February 2016) Please note that information about the T&S is forthcoming as of this writing. Check back for updates.

Regarding meetings and attendance:

  • Section 015 met as scheduled, at 1030 in Classroom Building Room 217. The class roster showed 19 students enrolled, unchanged since the previous report. Fifteen attended, verified through assessment of the StratRdg PV as a minor assignment.
  • Section 023 met as scheduled, at 1130 in Classroom Building Room 121. The class roster showed 18 students enrolled, unchanged since the previous report. Thirteen attended, verified through assessment of the StratRdg PV as a minor assignment.
  • Section 040 met as scheduled, at 0830 in Morrill Hall Room 206. The class roster showed 17 students enrolled, a loss of one since the previous report. Thirteen attended, verified through assessment of the StratRdg PV as a minor assignment.
  • No students attended office hours.

Class Reports: ENGL 1213, Sections 015, 023, and 040–22 January 2016

geoffreybelliott1 Comment

After addressing questions from earlier classes, discussion addressed student concerns about and instructor-selected points from the readings assigned to be done for the day. Inquiry after progress on the StratRdg was made, and discussion of the Rose piece continued from the previous class meeting or began as time permitted.

Students are reminded of the following due dates:

  • StratRdg PV (in print as class begins on 25 January 2016)
  • StratRdg RV (via D2L before class begins on 29 January 2016)
  • StratRdg FV (via D2L before class begins on 5 February 2016)

Students may note a change in grades on the StratRdg Txt. Some in one class successfully argued for a change in the scale applied thereto. Their success benefits those who submitted the assignment in a timely fashion.

Students are also advised of the following, at the request of the Department Chair (the request was received via email on Thursday, 21 January 2016):

Take an OSU Study Abroad Course to Trinidad and Tobago!

Travel dates: June 1-13th, 2016

  • Trinidad and Tobago are two southern Caribbean islands that make one nation. The climate is tropical, and the islands boast lush forests, sandy beaches, and historic cities. We will spend most of our time exploring Trinidad, with one overnight trip to Tobago.
  • Taught by Dr. Richard Frohock (frohock@okstate.edu), this course (ENGL 4400.606, three credit hours) is on the Literature and Culture of the Greater Caribbean. It is a general education course that carries Humanities (H) and Contemporary International Cultures (I) designations. There are no prerequisites, and the class is open to all majors.
  • The course fee of $2,200 includes tuition and fees, travel insurance, 12 nights lodging, meals, multiple excursions, and local ground transportation. The course fee also includes a round trip flight from Trinidad to Tobago for our overnight trip.
  • Enrollment is open now; to be able to apply for A&S and Provost scholarship opportunities (deadlines Jan 22nd and 29th), students must first submit a non-binding course application by contacting Shane O’Mealey in the A&S Outreach office (omealey@okstate.edu, 405-744-5647).

Regarding meetings and attendance:

  • Section 015 met as scheduled, at 1030 in Classroom Building Room 217. The class roster showed 19 students enrolled, unchanged since the previous report. Seventeen attended, verified by a brief written exercise. Student participation was reasonably good.
  • Section 023 met as scheduled, at 1130 in Classroom Building Room 121. The class roster showed 18 students enrolled, a decline of one since the previous report. Fourteen attended, verified by a brief written exercise. Student participation was adequate.
  • Section 040 met as scheduled, at 0830 in Morrill Hall Room 206. The class roster showed 18 students enrolled, unchanged since the previous report. Fourteen attended, verified by a brief written exercise. Student participation was minimal; students are advised that it needs to improve markedly.
  • Four students attended office hours.