profile

Intentional Teaching with Derek Bruff

In-class activities for teaching writing

Published about 2 months ago • 9 min read

Some Research on Generative AI and Student Learning

Next week I’m speaking on a panel organized by Colleen Flaherty for an Inside Higher Ed webinar titled “AI and Student Learning: What We Know (and What We Don’t).” It’s scheduled for Wednesday, April 10th, at 1pm Central, and it’s free! I’m excited to share my perspectives on this topic and to learn from my co-panelists, who have been engaged in very interesting AI projects.

As I prepare for that panel, I’ve been looking through Lance Eaton’s recent Substack posts about research on AI and teaching and learning. His posts directed me to three recent studies that involved efforts to use generative AI to teach students specific skills: peer feedback, creativity, and storytelling. On my Agile Learning blog this week, I summarized each of those three studies and offered some observations in a post creatively titled "Three Recent Studies on Student Learning with Generative AI."

My big takeaway from these three studies? Generative AI isn't going to radically transform teaching and learning, but thoughtful, targeted use of generative AI has the potential to enhance learning in specific ways. Replace "generative AI" in the previous sentence with just about any new technology, and you'll get the same results!

Promoting Self-Efficacy through Inclusive Course Design

Over on the CETL blog this week, I recapped the last in our series of STEM teaching lunches at the University of Mississippi this academic year. This last lunch featured two faculty panelists, Ayla Gafni (mathematics) and Ísis Arantes (biology), sharing some of the ways they have redesigned their courses as a result of their participation in CETL's Inclusive Teaching Learning Community.

Ayla added a new category to her grading scheme called “success strategies” in which students could earn points for going about learning activities that they probably should be doing anyway, but might not know to do. Ísis changed the grading scheme in her course to incorporate contract- and labor-based approaches, and she implemented two-stage exams in which students complete an exam individually and then again in small groups.

Both of these faculty described changes that are likely to promote self-efficacy among their students. That is, these changes are likely to help students believe that they can succeed at learning in these courses, a belief that can lead to greater student engagement and success. Read more on my CETL blog post, "Promoting Self-Efficacy through Inclusive Course Design."

In-Class Activities for Teaching Writing

Having written two blog posts in the last week, I don't have much steam left for something new here in the newsletter. So I'm going to share one of my favorite blog posts from my Agile Learning archive. Back in October 2018, I blogged about some of the in-class activities for teaching writing that I observed during a teaching visit event at Vanderbilt University, and I think there's some real gold in my colleagues' approaches.

I’ve been teaching my first-year writing seminar on cryptography off and on since 2010, and yet I still feel like a rookie when it comes to teaching writing. I’ve learned a lot, certainly, but there always seems more to learn. That’s why I was excited about the theme of the second day of the Vanderbilt Center for Teaching’s recent Open Classroom event: teaching writing. For the event, we recruited experienced instructors around campus to open their classrooms, inviting other faculty, staff, and grad students to sit in on their classes and observe. The teaching visits aren’t meant to be evaluative; instead, the visits are meant build community among teachers at Vanderbilt, and to generate rich discussions about teaching and learning around concrete shared experiences.

I appreciate the event because I get to see my colleagues in action, and I always come away inspired. This year’s event featured a different theme each day: teaching large classes, teaching writing, and teaching inclusively. I did a good enough job clearing my schedule that I was able to attend three classes that focused on teaching writing, and each provided me with new strategies I can take to my own writing seminar.

One visit was to the classroom of Bryan Lowe, assistant professor of religious studies, who is teaching a course called “Buddhist Literature from Buddha to the Beats.” That’s a great course title, and Bryan has been involved in a few CFT programs over the years, so I was excited to see him in the classroom. His students were gearing up for a paper comparing two texts: Life of the Buddha, a second century text by Aśvaghoṣa, and Siddhartha, a 20th century novel by Herman Hesse. Lowe brought a fair amount of structure to what could have been a free-flowing discussion of the two texts. He started class with a think-pair-share activity that asked students to map similarities and differences in the two texts. Thanks to the “think” and “pair” phase of the activity, the “share” phase went well, with at least ten of Lowe’s 15 students contributing something valuable to the conversation in the first five minutes.

It was later in class that Lowe provided some explicit writing instruction. He asked each of his students to draft a potential thesis statement for their upcoming paper based on the class discussion that just occurred. The paper asks students to make sense of the two texts, so there was a lot of alignment between the in-class discussion and the upcoming writing assignment. After giving students a few minutes to draft thesis statements, Lowe asked for a volunteer to share their draft statement on the white board. No one volunteered, so Lowe had a little fun spinning his pen to select a student at random. It was clear that Lowe had a good rapport with his students, something I’m sure he’s been intentionally cultivating all semester. That helped keep this cold-calling situation from being stressful.

After the randomly selected student wrote her statement on the board, Lowe led a class discussion analyzing the statement, focusing on what made it effective and how it could be improved. Lowe drew on a conversation he had led the week before with his students about the elements of a good thesis statement, using the sample on the board to reinforce those ideas with questions like “Could someone argue with this thesis statement?” and “Are these verbs specific enough?” I appreciated the analytical approach Lowe took with this activity, as well as the fact that it was an all-skate activity, since each student was invited to draft a statement before participating in the discussion about the statement on the board. Although only one student got feedback from the entire class, each student could compare their draft statements with the class analysis.

Earlier that day, Paul Kramer, associate professor of history, also shared student writing samples in his course “Writing for Social Change.” The course explores the practice of narrative, nonfiction writing for social change, the kind of writing that journalists might use in a New Yorker piece or a book exploring some social issue. Kramer wanted his students to start practicing this kind of writing early in the semester, so he asked them to find someone on campus or in the city they didn’t know, interview them, and then write an 800-word profile of that person. The goal was to practice the kinds of writing moves that invite a reader into the life of an interesting person.

During class, Kramer shared a sentence or two from each student’s profile, highlighting something that really worked in their writing. He would post the name of a student on the projector screen, then invite that student to provide a little background on the interview they conducted and profile they wrote. Then Kramer would share an excerpt from the profile and discuss elements of narrative, nonfiction writing that the student used well. Over the course of the activity, Kramer discussed irony, storytelling, interview techniques, word choice, sentence structure, alliteration, and more, all through exemplary student work. Illustrating each of these elements with concrete examples worked really well, both for clarifying the elements and providing ways that students could implement them in their own writing.

After three or four student examples, all featuring strong writing, I wondered if Kramer was going to show examples that needed work. Nope. Every single student got a showcase for their writing, and that was by design. At the end-of-day discussion, Kramer noted that it wasn’t easy finding great excerpts from every student, since some of their profiles weren’t strong. But he knew this was a new genre of writing for most of the students, and they needed encouragement to jump in and practice it. So he made sure each student got a chance to shine during class. I love this strategy! We spend a lot of time in my writing class analyzing student work, trying to make it better. But there are writing moves that students struggle to make, so taking the time to share examples that work is important to help students see what they’re capable of.

Brooke Ackerly, professor of political science, hosted a visit to her “Feminist Theory and Research” course. She started class by reviewing the procedure for her students’ upcoming midterm. It wasn’t a midterm in the traditional sense; instead, it was an opportunity for her students to consider their final paper topic through the lenses of the dozen or so scholars they had studied during the course. This was one of several design choices Ackerly made to structure the whole course around her students’ development as writers. Even the ways she framed her in-class discussion questions were useful to her students as writers. At one point, as students were discussing the readings for the day, Ackerly asked, “How can we help these authors make their case better?” That’s the kind of thing her students will need to do in their final research papers, so it made sense to practice it during class. And I appreciated the positive framing of the question, in a course that involves a lot of critique.

Ackerly brought a lot of generosity to the class conversations, even as the conversations got hard. Topics for discussion that day included the role of men in feminist activism, the nature of pedophilia, and the current Supreme Court nomination hearings. After a somewhat tense exchange among a few students, Ackerly reminded the class that in these critical conversations, “all the vocabulary we have is the vocabulary we have.” That is, as we critique entrenched power, we’re often limited in using vocabulary that comes from those broken systems. Finding and creating better words is hard, and so we have to give each other a little grace. I thought it was a powerful moment in the classroom.

At the end of class, Ackerly wrapped up with a conversation about student-submitted discussion questions that she didn’t use during class. Her students complete “reading sheets” before class, and these often ask students to create and submit potential in-class discussion questions. As she talked about the strengths and weaknesses of some of the unused questions, she reminded students that a good discussion question is often the start of a good research question. Yet again, Ackerly was taking the chance to prepare students for their final research paper, thought a small class activity.

My takeaway from the day is that teaching writing requires this kind of course design. That is, learning to write is hard, complex work, and students need lots of opportunities to practice pieces of that work. All three professors designed a variety of small in-class and out-of-class activities into their courses to give their students that practice, and to provide feedback on that practice. I finished the day with a lot of ideas for my own writing seminar, and a renewed energy around designing the seminar to intentionally build my students’ writing skills. I’m thankful for Bryan and Paul and Brooke for opening their classrooms, and for my colleagues at the CFT for organizing such a fantastic set of teaching visits.

One more tip: During the end-of-day discussion, Brooke Ackerly described her approach to office hours in a writing course. I paid attention, since I had just finished my own office hours, and I didn’t think I did a particularly good job helping students with their paper revisions. Ackerly said that during office hours she invites her students to listen in as she works one-on-one with other students. Each student’s writing is different, of course, but she finds that all of her students can benefit from hearing how she works with their peers, since many of them are facing similar challenges in their writing. As she described this approach, I realized that it’s how I handle office hours when students need help on problem sets. I tried this approach the very next day with my writing students, and it made for a more relaxed and collaborative environment, with students learning from each other as well as from me. Thanks, Brooke!

Thanks for reading!

If you found this newsletter useful, please forward it to a colleague who might like it! That's one of the best ways you can support the work I'm doing here at Intentional Teaching.

You can also support Intentional Teaching through Patreon for just $3 US per month, which will give you access to several audio interviews I conducted for the Intentional Tech slow read earlier this year, as well as a Patreon-exclusive guide to facilitating classes on Zoom.

Intentional Teaching with Derek Bruff

Welcome to the Intentional Teaching newsletter! I'm Derek Bruff, educator and author. The name of this newsletter is a reminder that we should be intentional in how we teach, but also in how we develop as teachers over time. I hope this newsletter will be a valuable part of your professional development as an educator.

Read more from Intentional Teaching with Derek Bruff

Curriculum Mapping with Jennifer M. Harrison and Vickie Rey Williams Most of the time here on Intentional Teaching, I focus on choices that individual instructors can make to enhance their courses and their teaching within those courses. However, years of consulting with faculty and other instructors has taught me that there are some teaching problems that can't be solved at the individual course level. Often we run into barriers to improvement that require us to move outside the course and...

1 day ago • 4 min read

Creativity, Divergent Thinking, and AI José Antonio Bowen and C. Edward Watson have a new book out called Teaching with AI: A Practical Guide to a New Era of Human Learning. I am very impressed with Bowen and Watson and their publisher, Johns Hopkins University Press, for putting together such a comprehensive book on generative AI in higher education so quickly. I worry it will be out of date in a year, but right now, in the summer of 2024, it's an impressive orientation to teaching and...

8 days ago • 4 min read

Leading In-Class Group Work OneHE is a UK organization that produces professional learning resources for higher education faculty interested in developing their teaching skills. They've worked with a large number of experts (including past Intentional Teaching podcast guests James Lang, Michelle Miller, Kelly Hogan, Viji Sathy, and Thomas Tobin) to create short courses on a wide variety of topics. Most courses consist of about 20 minutes of videos and several reflection questions to help...

15 days ago • 3 min read
Share this post