Teaching Portfolio
Texas Christian University
2018
Critical Reflection
1. Self-Assessment Statement
This past year, I finished the grade book I received during my first semester of teaching in my master's program at Baylor University. Some of my colleagues gently tease me for still using a paper grade book, but that green book, tattered and stained, holds grades for 430 students in 29 classes over the course of four years at four different institutions. I don't report these numbers to demonstrate my teaching prowess; not all of those students are success stories, and I would guess a good number of them barely remember me. Yet each student has contributed to who I am as a teacher of writing, sometimes building me up and sometimes tearing me down; I've needed both at varied times in my still-nascent teaching career.
My weaknesses as a teacher often seem all too evident to me. I worry too much about what students think of me. I sometimes take their apathy personally, and if I'm not careful, their failures or struggles become my own. I can take hours and hours to grade (especially if I include the time procrastinating). I also struggle to "speak the truth in love," as my Holy Book prompts me to do in both my personal and professional lives. I can, if I'm not careful, become a push-over; sometimes I am too encouraging and not challenging enough. My delight at what my students can do is not always coupled with the push necessary to get them to the next level. I don't say "no" enough.
The more I teach, the more aware I am of these weaknesses, and so I constantly attempt to counter them. I select more challenging projects than I am always confident my students can handle; as a result, many of them have risen to the occasion, surprising both themselves and me. I select difficult readings, asking students to think and talk about difference and positionality, and I enjoying watching them begin to push each other. I do my best to facilitate an environment of compassionate challenge. I have also been working, through therapy and reflection, to approach grading and troubling/troubled students in more healthy ways. Particularly concerning the latter, I do not close myself off, but rather create boundaries to protect my time and emotional energy, while also supporting students in whatever ways I can. I'm also realizing that my teaching prep is like a goldfish; it grows to fill the space I give it. As I went through the comprehensive exams process last fall, I realized that limiting my time on teaching doesn't make me a worse teacher; in fact, it often keeps me from overthinking my lesson plans. These improvements are ones I'm still working on; however, I can already see the benefits.
My strengths are in my passion and love for teaching, the fact that I would prefer to teach than to do most other things (well, other than each chocolate and watch Netflix as a full-time profession). My ability to reflect carefully has always been a personal boon, as I take the time to process both successes and failures in and out of the classroom. I have a deep care for my students, which can be a challenge, but ultimately keeps me going. I also care deeply about the field, the work and the art of teaching, as well as supporting and collaborating with other teachers. I am always trying to improve my teaching, and I truly believe that no teacher should be an island onto herself, and that we are all better when we share: materials, stories, and ourselves.
This portfolio is extensive, but it is a fairly comprehensive picture of myself as a teacher in 2017. Within it, you will see how I am constantly working to make sure my classes meet program learning outcomes. My syllabi in particular demonstrate how I teach students to ask questions, research well, and argue ethically. They write in varied genres, reflect often on their learning, and collaborate with others through peer review and group projects. They use sources, encounter new ideas, and are pushed to define and redefine what they think and value in different contexts and for different audiences. My classes are carefully constructed to these ends. My goals for myself are to continue the work I have articulated above -- to continue to work on my weaknesses and enhance my strengths, to find pedagogical strategies that both challenge my students and reflect my values and goals, and to continue to work toward both teaching and engaging in a more peaceable public discourse that does not elide the tension inherent in differences but rather accepts and even embraces it.
In fall 2018, I cracked open a brand-new green grade book for ENGL 20803.007, to begin again. I'm looking forward to see where this book, these classes, these students will take me as a professional, a teacher, and a lover of the written word.
My weaknesses as a teacher often seem all too evident to me. I worry too much about what students think of me. I sometimes take their apathy personally, and if I'm not careful, their failures or struggles become my own. I can take hours and hours to grade (especially if I include the time procrastinating). I also struggle to "speak the truth in love," as my Holy Book prompts me to do in both my personal and professional lives. I can, if I'm not careful, become a push-over; sometimes I am too encouraging and not challenging enough. My delight at what my students can do is not always coupled with the push necessary to get them to the next level. I don't say "no" enough.
The more I teach, the more aware I am of these weaknesses, and so I constantly attempt to counter them. I select more challenging projects than I am always confident my students can handle; as a result, many of them have risen to the occasion, surprising both themselves and me. I select difficult readings, asking students to think and talk about difference and positionality, and I enjoying watching them begin to push each other. I do my best to facilitate an environment of compassionate challenge. I have also been working, through therapy and reflection, to approach grading and troubling/troubled students in more healthy ways. Particularly concerning the latter, I do not close myself off, but rather create boundaries to protect my time and emotional energy, while also supporting students in whatever ways I can. I'm also realizing that my teaching prep is like a goldfish; it grows to fill the space I give it. As I went through the comprehensive exams process last fall, I realized that limiting my time on teaching doesn't make me a worse teacher; in fact, it often keeps me from overthinking my lesson plans. These improvements are ones I'm still working on; however, I can already see the benefits.
My strengths are in my passion and love for teaching, the fact that I would prefer to teach than to do most other things (well, other than each chocolate and watch Netflix as a full-time profession). My ability to reflect carefully has always been a personal boon, as I take the time to process both successes and failures in and out of the classroom. I have a deep care for my students, which can be a challenge, but ultimately keeps me going. I also care deeply about the field, the work and the art of teaching, as well as supporting and collaborating with other teachers. I am always trying to improve my teaching, and I truly believe that no teacher should be an island onto herself, and that we are all better when we share: materials, stories, and ourselves.
This portfolio is extensive, but it is a fairly comprehensive picture of myself as a teacher in 2017. Within it, you will see how I am constantly working to make sure my classes meet program learning outcomes. My syllabi in particular demonstrate how I teach students to ask questions, research well, and argue ethically. They write in varied genres, reflect often on their learning, and collaborate with others through peer review and group projects. They use sources, encounter new ideas, and are pushed to define and redefine what they think and value in different contexts and for different audiences. My classes are carefully constructed to these ends. My goals for myself are to continue the work I have articulated above -- to continue to work on my weaknesses and enhance my strengths, to find pedagogical strategies that both challenge my students and reflect my values and goals, and to continue to work toward both teaching and engaging in a more peaceable public discourse that does not elide the tension inherent in differences but rather accepts and even embraces it.
In fall 2018, I cracked open a brand-new green grade book for ENGL 20803.007, to begin again. I'm looking forward to see where this book, these classes, these students will take me as a professional, a teacher, and a lover of the written word.
2. Teaching Philosophy Statement
Available in a PDF version here.
I love to teach writing. Whether the course is freshman composition, technical writing, creative nonfiction, or writing for the workplace, I consider the main work of the course to be understanding varied perspectives and people. I hope to impart to my students that we can only see through our own eyes and hear with our own ears, but when we see the experiences of others and hear their stories, when we consider our audiences as real people with real experiences, our worlds open. This world opening is not always a pleasant experience. The world is messy, differences are real, and issues are rarely clear-cut. My students often come from backgrounds where questioning is not encouraged, and they live in a public discourse that allows little room for error. My goal is to provide a space where they can ask questions and look for the answers.
On a recent unit evaluation, a student expressed frustration that when students ask me questions during class, instead of answering, I often open it up to the class. This student wanted to know the “right” answer, my answer, but I work hard to only give my answer when absolutely necessary. I’d rather hear the answers of my students, and I want them to hear each others’ answers. I want them to realize that though they attend the same university, they are not all the same, and those perspectives shape how they approach writing, research, and argument. I want them to see that difference is a benefit, not a detriment. The majority of my teaching experience has been at PWIs, and so I seek to encourage dialogue about difference while also supporting and encouraging the marginalized students I have. This support looks different for every student, and it is important to me that students know I am an ally, and my classroom is a center of challenging ideas discussed respectfully and openly.
In my classes, students will likely encounter both ideas and projects that frustrate them. While I emphasize the value of good prose, I also ask students to do unconventional work. In my argument class, students create visually maps of the relationships between sources on a particular issue. In my inquiry class, students create collaborative faux-Wikipedia pages that require attention to design, image, and genre conventions, as well as citation and factual accuracy, as these pages are actually published online on the students’ digital portfolios. In my creative nonfiction class, students convert their personal essays into audio essays, paying attention to pacing, pauses, and vocal tone as much as the words they are saying. And in my technical writing course, students conduct usability tests on their peers’ instruction projects, as students make paper airplanes, flight plans, and pour-over coffee. These projects invite students to think about composition in different ways, particularly the needs of the audience and constraints of the genre. Students have to try, fail, and try again, which is why I always provide students with the opportunity to revise. The process of composition, writing, and thinking can always be improved, and I want students to keep trying, knowing they will become better composers, thinkers, and writers along the way.
As Krista Ratcliffe says, a teacher’s ethos and pedagogy is “not just based on his/her style but also on individual students’ needs as well as on the historical moment, the institution, the assigned course, and even the events in the teacher’s life at that particular moment.” For this reason, I am attentive to the emotional aspect of writing. The frustration and anxiety my students sometimes feel when encountering a new project is part of the writing process, and not one I disregard. Each demographic of my students bring a different emotional component to the classroom, whether they are homesick freshman or stressed-out seniors. This emotional component is particularly evident in the online classrooms I cultivate through my work teaching in an adult degree completion program, where my class is often one of the first students take on their second try at a college degree. I work to ease the concerns of my students – both young adults and regular adults – in a few ways. One is by addressing and validating the emotions outright, both in class and in my comments on their work, while also indicating that these emotions cannot keep them from speaking up and speaking out. I also work to be present with my students, whether that is over email for my online students or on campus for my face-to-face students. I want them to know they can come to me, and they will be treated with respect and kindness. Lastly, I work to create classroom communities in which all voices are heard. I encourage this by encouraging various forms of large and small group discussion and activities, recognizing that different personalities will engage differently.
Another way that I engage the emotive side of writing is to invite students to write about their passions. I rarely dictate what students should write about for their major projects. I would rather hear what students want to write about. Hence I have gotten papers about the writing practices of a computer programmer, the intelligence of octopuses, and the culture of a small town model train club. In my argument class, I also do not require a particular form for their final argument; instead, that form should be dependent on the argument and the audience. Their arguments must be well-reasoned, well-supported, and well-cited, but they come to me in many forms: PowerPoint presentations, infographics, and op-eds. The students then have the opportunity to actually circulate their argument to their intended audience. I try however possible to ask students to engage with audiences outside of our classrooms. We always discuss the risks and the responsibility of public engagement, and my main hope is that this melding of passion with productive discourse will go with students beyond my classroom.
While I hope that my work is ultimately impacting the trajectory of public discourse for the better, I seek to ground myself in my goal of “teach[ing] little things best,” as Quintilian proposed, for “no [woman] rises to such a height in greater things that lesser fade entirely from [her] view.” I find that staring too long into the abyss at the great overwhelming systems of life, power, and privilege can easily unmoor students (and myself) from the practical and everyday, so grounding larger conversations in little things, small forms of action and practical application, can help students use concepts from my classroom to both navigate and impact their rhetorical and pedagogical worlds.
On a recent unit evaluation, a student expressed frustration that when students ask me questions during class, instead of answering, I often open it up to the class. This student wanted to know the “right” answer, my answer, but I work hard to only give my answer when absolutely necessary. I’d rather hear the answers of my students, and I want them to hear each others’ answers. I want them to realize that though they attend the same university, they are not all the same, and those perspectives shape how they approach writing, research, and argument. I want them to see that difference is a benefit, not a detriment. The majority of my teaching experience has been at PWIs, and so I seek to encourage dialogue about difference while also supporting and encouraging the marginalized students I have. This support looks different for every student, and it is important to me that students know I am an ally, and my classroom is a center of challenging ideas discussed respectfully and openly.
In my classes, students will likely encounter both ideas and projects that frustrate them. While I emphasize the value of good prose, I also ask students to do unconventional work. In my argument class, students create visually maps of the relationships between sources on a particular issue. In my inquiry class, students create collaborative faux-Wikipedia pages that require attention to design, image, and genre conventions, as well as citation and factual accuracy, as these pages are actually published online on the students’ digital portfolios. In my creative nonfiction class, students convert their personal essays into audio essays, paying attention to pacing, pauses, and vocal tone as much as the words they are saying. And in my technical writing course, students conduct usability tests on their peers’ instruction projects, as students make paper airplanes, flight plans, and pour-over coffee. These projects invite students to think about composition in different ways, particularly the needs of the audience and constraints of the genre. Students have to try, fail, and try again, which is why I always provide students with the opportunity to revise. The process of composition, writing, and thinking can always be improved, and I want students to keep trying, knowing they will become better composers, thinkers, and writers along the way.
As Krista Ratcliffe says, a teacher’s ethos and pedagogy is “not just based on his/her style but also on individual students’ needs as well as on the historical moment, the institution, the assigned course, and even the events in the teacher’s life at that particular moment.” For this reason, I am attentive to the emotional aspect of writing. The frustration and anxiety my students sometimes feel when encountering a new project is part of the writing process, and not one I disregard. Each demographic of my students bring a different emotional component to the classroom, whether they are homesick freshman or stressed-out seniors. This emotional component is particularly evident in the online classrooms I cultivate through my work teaching in an adult degree completion program, where my class is often one of the first students take on their second try at a college degree. I work to ease the concerns of my students – both young adults and regular adults – in a few ways. One is by addressing and validating the emotions outright, both in class and in my comments on their work, while also indicating that these emotions cannot keep them from speaking up and speaking out. I also work to be present with my students, whether that is over email for my online students or on campus for my face-to-face students. I want them to know they can come to me, and they will be treated with respect and kindness. Lastly, I work to create classroom communities in which all voices are heard. I encourage this by encouraging various forms of large and small group discussion and activities, recognizing that different personalities will engage differently.
Another way that I engage the emotive side of writing is to invite students to write about their passions. I rarely dictate what students should write about for their major projects. I would rather hear what students want to write about. Hence I have gotten papers about the writing practices of a computer programmer, the intelligence of octopuses, and the culture of a small town model train club. In my argument class, I also do not require a particular form for their final argument; instead, that form should be dependent on the argument and the audience. Their arguments must be well-reasoned, well-supported, and well-cited, but they come to me in many forms: PowerPoint presentations, infographics, and op-eds. The students then have the opportunity to actually circulate their argument to their intended audience. I try however possible to ask students to engage with audiences outside of our classrooms. We always discuss the risks and the responsibility of public engagement, and my main hope is that this melding of passion with productive discourse will go with students beyond my classroom.
While I hope that my work is ultimately impacting the trajectory of public discourse for the better, I seek to ground myself in my goal of “teach[ing] little things best,” as Quintilian proposed, for “no [woman] rises to such a height in greater things that lesser fade entirely from [her] view.” I find that staring too long into the abyss at the great overwhelming systems of life, power, and privilege can easily unmoor students (and myself) from the practical and everyday, so grounding larger conversations in little things, small forms of action and practical application, can help students use concepts from my classroom to both navigate and impact their rhetorical and pedagogical worlds.
See a different teaching philosophy (in both type and genre, composed in 2017) in "Optional Additional Materials" at the bottom of the page.
Evidence of Teaching for Calendar Year 2018
1. Syllabi
ENGL 10803T Writing for Online Communities
The syllabus below is a themed 10803 course, titled "TL;DR: Writing for Online Communities," taught in spring 2018. The course centered on digital composition, with particular attention paid to genre, audience, ethos and persona, and privacy. In this way, the course directly reflected the first 10803 outcome of the TCU composition program, as students "expand[ed] their repertoire beyond predictable forms" by writing blog posts, Wikipedia articles, and infographics, all which were published to the personal digital portfolios designed by the students. They also learned what kinds of sources and citation styles are appropriate for texts in these formats, learning to use links and footnotes. Students found, read and analyzed examples of the genres we explored in class, writing RABs (Rhetorical Analysis Blogs) on their digital portfolios and responding to their classmates. This work connected to the second outcome for 10803. In some ways, the third outcome for 10803 was the most challenging, as writing online can change instantly with no evidence of those changes. We discussed this aspect of online writing in class, as well as the ways news is packaged and repackaged over time and platforms. Because of this, students learned to label their Drafts, indicating to readers who may stumble upon their work that it was in progress. They also learned to give feedback to their classmates and take feedback, recording their personal process in authors' memos posted on D2L, a space where they could discuss their writing process with me in a less-public forum. Overall, while this course focused on genres unfamiliar to the traditional 10803 course and required students consider and engage with the possibility of a real audience, the course worked toward all of the program's standard 10803 outcomes, teaching students valuable writing skills for any rhetorical situation, digital or otherwise.
ENGL 20803 Writing as Argument
I taught the below syllabus, ENGL 20803 "Writing as Argument," for the first time in the fall of 2018. The course began with discussing values-driven arguments, an adaption of the OU composition program model developed by Roxanne Mountford and her colleagues. Students assessed their personal values and then chose a research topic related to those values that they worked with for the rest of the semester. The second unit taught students to analyze arguments and their positions relative to each other, which reflects the first composition program learning outcome for 20803. The unit challenged students to create a visual representation of these sources, creating an "issue map." Students also began writing Statements of Goals and Choices (see Shipka 2011), another way they practiced the language and analysis of argument through analyzing their own rhetorical choices. Students made their own arguments in unit 3, with an eye toward a specific audience. This audience determined the arguments' form and argument, so some students made infographics while others created op-eds, formal letters, or PowerPoint presentations. They also had to wrestle with how to use and cite their eight sources effectively, depending on their audience and form. All students used some form of digital composition for this project, and as such, this project worked toward outcomes 2, 3, and 4 of the composition program for 20803. The students received extra credit if they circulated their argument to their actual audience. Other projects included an annotated bibliography and a final presentation in which they presented to their classmates their unit 3 arguments and the rhetorical choices they made. To the very last day, we continued to talk about their core values from unit 1 through the Value-Issue Check-ins, and students reported that they grew to better understand their values and the validity of the values of others as the semester proceeded.
2. Assignments
ENGL 10803T Writing for Online Communities
This assignment is from the second unit of ENGL 10803T: Writing for Online Communities, following a short initial unit during which students set up and designed their digital portfolios. In this second unit, students completed a rhetorical analysis of their own online personas, as demonstrated through 2-3 personal posts on a single social media platform. Students used rhetorical tools to assess how and to what end they used the social media site, interrogating how they present themselves on this platform and why they do so. The primary goal of the assignment as to make students aware of and articulate the rhetorical choices they make daily, through images, captions, and emojis, as well as the audiences they are trying to reach. A secondary goal was to have students practice using the tools of rhetorical analysis on a platform with which they are well-acquainted but do not consider "writing." Students enjoyed this assignment, as it both validated the rhetorical work they do in their free time and caused them to think about an often-mindless component of their lives. Students made insightful comments about their varied audiences -- especially the differences between their high school friends and their college friends -- and the ways they present themselves to those audiences. One student even compared the same post (in which she announced she was transferring to a different university at the end of the semester) posted on two different accounts, one her public Instagram page and the other her private Instagram page. Many students made valuable insights into the rhetorical moves they regularly make while also practicing rhetorical terminology necessary for future assignments.
The second assignment is a TCU-pedia article, which was a collaborative assignment. After in-class discussion about the purposes, policies, and form of Wikipedia, groups of 3-4 students selected a TCU landmark that did not have a Wikipedia page. They then crafted their own TCU-pedia page that followed the conventions of a Wikipedia page, with one notable exception: Wikipedia does not allow original research, while I encouraged it. The goal of this assignment was to help students strengthen their research skills, write collaboratively, and network their information, as they were required to link to at least one other group's TCU-pedia page. The students went beyond my expectations, surprising me with their creativity and tenacity. Students went to the TCU archives and read old student newspapers. They called up sculptors and learned about different sculpting techniques. They found and interviewed the man who played the organ in Robert Carr Chapel for 55 years. I learned enormous amounts about our campus through these students' work, and I was immensely proud of the research they did and the initiative they took. Ultimately, this project was one of the most challenging of the semester, and one of my favorites -- though it would be difficult to do on a regular basis as there are only so many TCU sites that have a wealth of history behind them (and no Wikipedia page).
ENGL 20803 Writing as Argument
This final assignment is from ENGL 20803. In the second unit, following a personal essay in which students explored their personal values, they selected a research topic that would carry them through the rest of the semester. After their proposals were approved, they began the research process. As a way of helping students conceptualize the issues and conversations into which they were entering, they created an "issue map" using five sources. This map was to visually represent the relationships among their sources, and I invited students to be creative in how they conceptualized this map. They could do either a digital representation or a material representation. I worried about not providing them enough guidance, but also I resisted telling them too much, in fears they would simply "do what the teacher wanted." Once again, I was impressed by my students' imagination and creativity. While maps differed in how clearly and completely they depicted the relationships between the sources, students were able to put the sources in conversation in ways compelling and unexpected. Along with the map, students wrote their first Statement of Goals and Choices, adapted from Jody Shipka's assignment. In this document, they articulated what they had found about their issue and how they worked to represent that information in a visual form. Two challenges did arise that I am hoping to remedy in the next iteration of this assignment. One is that five sources was quite a few. I hesitate to say too many, but I am attempting the assignment with four, to see if that allows deeper connections. Secondly, I assigned the map over fall break, which stressed students as many traveled during that time. Time is necessary for this assignment, and so this time, I am asking the draft be done before spring break in hopes that allows students to enjoy their time away without being concerned about this project.
3. Sample Graded Sequence + Comments
ENGL 10803T Writing for Online Communities
As I mentioned above, a particular challenge of this course was in the area of stable drafts and revision. Online text is inherently mutable, and I struggled to find ways to lock in drafts while also preserving the online writing format. I did this by asking students to upload PDFs of their pages, though the PDF version of their webpages almost always contained errors in formatting. For this reason, the PDFs in the grading sequence do not accurately show how the text looked or functioned online. For this collaborative assignment, my feedback on the draft was provided to the team through D2L, though I included it as a Word document here. I've also included authors' notes (both individual and collaborative).This group also did a revision at the end of the semester, and I've included a link to their final TCU-pedia page. Note: The name of one of the team members is on the drafts, due to the project being posted on her portfolio. This was an element of the class (public online writing), yet I do not mean to indicate the grades/work is that of the student whose name is on the published page.
This grading sequence shows some particularities of my grading for this online writing class. Due to the fact I did not have a hard copy or a Word copy on which to make specific notes, my comments were much more holistic rather than sentence-level. Additionally, I also paid attention to things like layout, format, and visuals, as they are inherent to the form and crucial to the audience's engagement with the piece and ideas; this focus on the holistic impact of a piece, including its visual aspect, is a common aspect of many of my assignments now. Asking students to account for style, not just of their sentences and writing but also of the very format and layout of their argument, demonstrates the extra-textual components of composition. Additionally, this sequence is for a collaborative assignment. On collaborative assignments, I provide a base grade for the group, then assess students' individual reflections, which they turn in separately from the rest of their group. I then modify their grade slightly, depending on what their reflection and their participation in peer review demonstrated. The deviation is usually only between 2-3 percentage points either above or below the group grade; in this way, the bulk of their grade depends on their work as a group, but their individual contribution to the work of the class is also measured. The group sees the group feedback and their own individual feedback, but does not see each others' final grades.
I noticed that my feedback on the draft tends to be positive, brief, and focused on places of confusion or formatting errors. I try to limit my feedback so not to overwhelm students, but also let them know places to focus for revision. In the final draft, I am more picky about citation and the actual communication of the information, though I think in this case, I should have highlighted the issues with citation more clearly in the rough draft feedback. In the feedback on the final draft, I try to give them information that will help them both in the next project and for revision. I try to balance encouraging feedback, particularly since this was a challenging project, and critique in many different areas. As for the revision, I met with the team and went through their revision memos with them (which I seem to have misplaced for this particular team). After that meeting, they made the revisions and resubmitted at the end of the semester. I provide much less specific feedback on the revision, given that they are nearing the end of the work in this class and will not be revising again.
This grading sequence shows some particularities of my grading for this online writing class. Due to the fact I did not have a hard copy or a Word copy on which to make specific notes, my comments were much more holistic rather than sentence-level. Additionally, I also paid attention to things like layout, format, and visuals, as they are inherent to the form and crucial to the audience's engagement with the piece and ideas; this focus on the holistic impact of a piece, including its visual aspect, is a common aspect of many of my assignments now. Asking students to account for style, not just of their sentences and writing but also of the very format and layout of their argument, demonstrates the extra-textual components of composition. Additionally, this sequence is for a collaborative assignment. On collaborative assignments, I provide a base grade for the group, then assess students' individual reflections, which they turn in separately from the rest of their group. I then modify their grade slightly, depending on what their reflection and their participation in peer review demonstrated. The deviation is usually only between 2-3 percentage points either above or below the group grade; in this way, the bulk of their grade depends on their work as a group, but their individual contribution to the work of the class is also measured. The group sees the group feedback and their own individual feedback, but does not see each others' final grades.
I noticed that my feedback on the draft tends to be positive, brief, and focused on places of confusion or formatting errors. I try to limit my feedback so not to overwhelm students, but also let them know places to focus for revision. In the final draft, I am more picky about citation and the actual communication of the information, though I think in this case, I should have highlighted the issues with citation more clearly in the rough draft feedback. In the feedback on the final draft, I try to give them information that will help them both in the next project and for revision. I try to balance encouraging feedback, particularly since this was a challenging project, and critique in many different areas. As for the revision, I met with the team and went through their revision memos with them (which I seem to have misplaced for this particular team). After that meeting, they made the revisions and resubmitted at the end of the semester. I provide much less specific feedback on the revision, given that they are nearing the end of the work in this class and will not be revising again.
Assignment (see section #2 above)
Workshop: Draft, Author's Note, Feedback
Portfolio: Draft, Collective Author's Note, Individual Author's Note, Rubric/Final Grade
Revision: Link to revised draft, Revised Collective Author's Note, Rubric/Revision Grade
Workshop: Draft, Author's Note, Feedback
Portfolio: Draft, Collective Author's Note, Individual Author's Note, Rubric/Final Grade
Revision: Link to revised draft, Revised Collective Author's Note, Rubric/Revision Grade
ENGL 20803 Writing as Argument
Given that the previous grading sequence is so extensive, I will refrain from including an additional grading sequence for ENGL 20803. In this class, I continued to give feedback on drafts through D2L, but for the final portfolio draft, which was turned in as a hard copy in a folder, I went back to a mix between infrequent comments on the paper copy and a Excel rubric that I would print and include in their folders. I liked keeping a copy of the rubric, in case I needed to remind myself why I gave a particular grade. I retained my focus on the holistic project, however, from my experiences grading ENGL 10803 earlier that year, and the grammar/editing comments I made on papers were very minimal and factored only minorly into their final grades. I did have the added frustration of grading three different items in Unit 3: the argument, the SOGC, and the annotated bibliography. My rubrics got much longer, as I divided them according to each project, wanting to grade each on their own terms. This allowed me to provide students with specificity regarding how their grades were determined, while also being able to conceive of the project as a whole by seeing all of the different categories on one rubric. The multi-part projects tend to lengthen my grading, but also provide students with the opportunity to hone many different skills and see how they all influence and affect each other in the creation of one project.
Additional grading sequence for ENGL 20803 available upon request
4. Grade Distribution Per Course
ENGL 10803.035 (Spring 2018) |
ENGL 20803.007 (Fall 2018) |
In looking at the grades I gave in 2018, I would agree they are high, higher than I could like -- though consistently high. An overall reason for this is that grades tend to be inflated the first time I teach a course. I tend to grade a bit easier, since I am constantly refining how I present and assess material. The first time through a course, I give students more of the benefit of the doubt when it comes to how they understand and produce assignments, and I use the patterns I see in their work to guide my revisions of the course. Additionally, I provide significant opportunities for revision, and in both of the above classes, a number of students took that opportunity. I believe strongly in the importance of revision. Writing can always improve, and allowing students the chance to revisit and review their writing lends itself to better writing. However, I do struggle to grade revisions, at times; I constantly work against the tendency to inflate the grades of revisions. I need to work on raising my standards for revision, focusing on significant organizational changes rather than smaller mechanical changes. I will say that in both classes, students improved their grades significantly through revision, which brought some of them into the A-/B+ category when they would not have been in it previously. Additionally, I awarded extra credit in my 20803 class if students circulated their argument to its intended audience. Not many students did, but the ones who did received another bump in their grades.
Ultimately, the more comfortable I become with the assignments I've created and the pace and structure of my courses, the more strict I can be in my initial grading of student assignments, trusting that I have build in these opportunities for revision and extra credit to provide students with the potential for improving their writing and thus improving their grade. Lastly, I do have to say that I was particularly impressed with the creativity of students in my classes, and my personal joy and relief that some of these more abstract assignments had their intended effect may have resulted in higher grades. Again, I believe this is something that will change as I settle into the assignments and become more confident that they work as intended. One of my goals for 2019 is to improve my distribution of grades, or rather to feel confident that students have truly earned the grades I have given them, whether that is an A or a C. I shall do this by continuing to refine my rubrics and expectations, both of myself and my students.
Ultimately, the more comfortable I become with the assignments I've created and the pace and structure of my courses, the more strict I can be in my initial grading of student assignments, trusting that I have build in these opportunities for revision and extra credit to provide students with the potential for improving their writing and thus improving their grade. Lastly, I do have to say that I was particularly impressed with the creativity of students in my classes, and my personal joy and relief that some of these more abstract assignments had their intended effect may have resulted in higher grades. Again, I believe this is something that will change as I settle into the assignments and become more confident that they work as intended. One of my goals for 2019 is to improve my distribution of grades, or rather to feel confident that students have truly earned the grades I have given them, whether that is an A or a C. I shall do this by continuing to refine my rubrics and expectations, both of myself and my students.
5. SPOTS
I mentioned in my previous teaching portfolio that SPOTS always provide me with significant anxiety. I provide my students with many opportunities for reflection throughout the semester, and I like to believe that they respond honestly, though I know they often may not, as they know their names are appended to their words. That connection is absent in SPOTS, which I believe can be a very good thing, as it allows students to speak their truth, but also opens the door for some cruel and negative feedback that may have its roots in a variety of environmental and social factors, many outside of the instructor's control. Even knowing that cannot soften any blows that may be lurking in SPOTS, and they are blows, regardless of how instructors contextualize them. I try to emphasize to my students each semester that I read and value these SPOTS, and so they should respond honestly. It's hard not to, then, take each comment as a personal indictment of the work I did for the class, which some students believe to be inadequate.
Looking back at my previous teaching portfolio, I laugh that I was so worried about the difference between a Strongly Agree and an Agree rating, when my SPOTS this year had Neutrals and Disagrees mixed in. I struggle to know what made the difference, particularly since I felt not at all connected to the course content in fall 2017, and in spring 2018, I felt intimately connected to the work of my themed course. I felt passionate about the work my students and I did in that class. I was proud of how they challenged themselves and how I pushed them. At the end of the semester, I assumed the evaluations would be largely positive as the in-class reflections were filled with praise for the class. Instead, two students expressed very clear dislike for my teaching style and the course itself. The comments that stung the worst were that it (the class? my teaching?) would be more suited to Kindergarteners, and another student's comment that there must be someone more qualified to teach this course in the entire DFW area. Now, I can laugh at these comments, and only feel a slight twinge, but they hurt, largely because I wasn't sure who wrote them. Usually when I have disgruntled students, I know who they are; they have made themselves known throughout the semester. But I can only make guesses about these two students, which troubles me. These comments stuck with me so much that I wrote about them in my comprehensive exams portfolio as my professional writing piece, as I tried to make sense of them and communicate the challenge of being a graduate student, a teacher, and a professional.
Looking back at these evaluations, though, I now see the positive comments: the love of the discussions, the online portfolio work we did, the guidance I provided. Some students indicated they thought the course was very relevant to everyday life, which was a major goal of mine. Similarly, in the 20803 SPOTS, students indicated that they found my feedback helpful and the organization of the course enjoyable. All of these things are indications that I am moving in the right direction.
Regarding the 20803 SPOTS, the comments are more mixed. For every positive, it seemed like there was a negative. One loved the creative work, another didn't. One enjoyed peer review, another hated it. I also had more comments about not knowing how far to revise, and the feeling that work in class was busy work. Those comments indicate to me that I need to be more explicit about my expectations and how what we do in class will prepare them for projects. I tried using participation rubrics this semester, and one student was very against them -- though that student was also against peer review, which I'm unwilling to change due to my pedagogy. Still, I can work to explain their value more clearly. I have found that participation rubrics have positively changed how the class interacts, so I doubt I will be getting rid of them. Overall, even the short rant against how many English classes they are forced to take did not bother me much, and although my question averages are lower than other courses, I also received valuable comments about improving my explanations and articulating my reasoning in class; students do not need to agree with me on my reasoning, but they need to know it. Whenever I teach a course for the first time, I feel my explanations are not sufficient, but I hope that as I refine these projects in 2019, I am able to clarify my expectations and hopes for the work we do in class. Ultimately, I don't know if I will ever approach SPOTS without some anxiety, but I am working to frame them in ways healthy and productive, so that I can glean from them the valuable insights students often provide, and discard the occasional cruel comment that does nothing helpful for me or my pedagogy.
Looking back at my previous teaching portfolio, I laugh that I was so worried about the difference between a Strongly Agree and an Agree rating, when my SPOTS this year had Neutrals and Disagrees mixed in. I struggle to know what made the difference, particularly since I felt not at all connected to the course content in fall 2017, and in spring 2018, I felt intimately connected to the work of my themed course. I felt passionate about the work my students and I did in that class. I was proud of how they challenged themselves and how I pushed them. At the end of the semester, I assumed the evaluations would be largely positive as the in-class reflections were filled with praise for the class. Instead, two students expressed very clear dislike for my teaching style and the course itself. The comments that stung the worst were that it (the class? my teaching?) would be more suited to Kindergarteners, and another student's comment that there must be someone more qualified to teach this course in the entire DFW area. Now, I can laugh at these comments, and only feel a slight twinge, but they hurt, largely because I wasn't sure who wrote them. Usually when I have disgruntled students, I know who they are; they have made themselves known throughout the semester. But I can only make guesses about these two students, which troubles me. These comments stuck with me so much that I wrote about them in my comprehensive exams portfolio as my professional writing piece, as I tried to make sense of them and communicate the challenge of being a graduate student, a teacher, and a professional.
Looking back at these evaluations, though, I now see the positive comments: the love of the discussions, the online portfolio work we did, the guidance I provided. Some students indicated they thought the course was very relevant to everyday life, which was a major goal of mine. Similarly, in the 20803 SPOTS, students indicated that they found my feedback helpful and the organization of the course enjoyable. All of these things are indications that I am moving in the right direction.
Regarding the 20803 SPOTS, the comments are more mixed. For every positive, it seemed like there was a negative. One loved the creative work, another didn't. One enjoyed peer review, another hated it. I also had more comments about not knowing how far to revise, and the feeling that work in class was busy work. Those comments indicate to me that I need to be more explicit about my expectations and how what we do in class will prepare them for projects. I tried using participation rubrics this semester, and one student was very against them -- though that student was also against peer review, which I'm unwilling to change due to my pedagogy. Still, I can work to explain their value more clearly. I have found that participation rubrics have positively changed how the class interacts, so I doubt I will be getting rid of them. Overall, even the short rant against how many English classes they are forced to take did not bother me much, and although my question averages are lower than other courses, I also received valuable comments about improving my explanations and articulating my reasoning in class; students do not need to agree with me on my reasoning, but they need to know it. Whenever I teach a course for the first time, I feel my explanations are not sufficient, but I hope that as I refine these projects in 2019, I am able to clarify my expectations and hopes for the work we do in class. Ultimately, I don't know if I will ever approach SPOTS without some anxiety, but I am working to frame them in ways healthy and productive, so that I can glean from them the valuable insights students often provide, and discard the occasional cruel comment that does nothing helpful for me or my pedagogy.
Professional Development
1. Current Vita
Both versions of my Curriculum Vitae have been updated as of January 27, 2019.
2. Letters of Observation
These observations were completed in Spring 2018, as I wished to have two perspectives on my themed 10803 course. Their observation letters are linked below. Additionally, Lexi Walston observed me in fall 2018 as a requirement for TCC; she did not provide a letter but her observations may be available upon request.
3. Professional Development Hours
My professional development for 2018 consisted of multiple committees related to the composition program, including revision committees for both 10803 and 20803. In these committees, I learned enormous amounts about curriculum, assessment, and administration of a writing program. Additionally, I attended all required 20803 meetings, both in fall and spring 2018, as we prepared and taught our 20803 syllabi for the first time. I assisted in the pre-semester workshop for new GIs, and I also attended Margaret Lowry's session on leading students into deep intellectual waters and a CDEX roundtable discussion on design thinking. Finally, I attended all of the Radford candidate job talks and graduate student conversations, through which I observed what advanced scholars are doing in their classrooms and how they discuss their teaching to a (sometimes skeptical) audience. These varied professional development experiences all challenged me to consider what I teach, how I teach, how I engage with students, and how I talk about teaching to varied audiences.
TCU Composition Committee (elected position) - spring 2018 (4 hours)
ENGL 10803 revision committee - spring 2018 (4 hours)
ENGL 20803 preparation meetings - spring & fall 2018 (12 hours)
Pre-Semester Workshop presentations (Authority in the Classroom, Time Management/Lesson Planning) - Aug. 2018 (2h)
ENGL 20803 revision committee - fall 2018 (4 hours)
Wise Woman Pedagogy Seminar: Margaret Lowry - September 2018 (1 hour)
CDEX: Design Thinking and Pedagogy - November 2018 (1 hour)
Radford candidate job talks (Carmen Kynard, Elaine Richardson, Malea Powell) - December 2018 (6 hours)
Total: approx. 34 hours
ENGL 10803 revision committee - spring 2018 (4 hours)
ENGL 20803 preparation meetings - spring & fall 2018 (12 hours)
Pre-Semester Workshop presentations (Authority in the Classroom, Time Management/Lesson Planning) - Aug. 2018 (2h)
ENGL 20803 revision committee - fall 2018 (4 hours)
Wise Woman Pedagogy Seminar: Margaret Lowry - September 2018 (1 hour)
CDEX: Design Thinking and Pedagogy - November 2018 (1 hour)
Radford candidate job talks (Carmen Kynard, Elaine Richardson, Malea Powell) - December 2018 (6 hours)
Total: approx. 34 hours
4. Optional Additional Materials
I have included a variety of materials from previous teaching portfolios and other scholarly work I have done that connects to my pedagogy. While not required, these items demonstrate additional commitment to teaching and reflection, and may enhance and/or complicate the image of myself as a teacher of writing that I have presented above.
For my comprehensive exam teaching portfolio on teaching narratives, I composed my own teaching narrative, reflecting on the end-of-semester evaluations I received from ENGL 10803.035 in spring 2018.
I have linked to my final project for TCC, submitted as part of my final TCC course portfolio, in which I researched and developed my themed 10803 course, taught in Spring 2018.
In TCC fall 2017, I completed a "This I Believe" audio essay that was a miniature teaching philosophy, concepts which I would explore further in the introduction to my comprehensive exam pedagogy portfolio. These essays are a very different take on the teaching philosophy than the one included in this portfolio. A link to the 2017 audio essay is below.
"This I Believe" about Teaching/Writing
