Katie Alyssa Hunt and John Pierce Department of English Encouraging Reflection and Revision in First-Year English: An Online Module Katie Alyssa Hunt and John Pierce Department of English This part of the project involves somewhat of a reverse engineered approach to the question of how students engage in critical thinking and problem solving I have taught the course for several years I had developed Learning outcomes, and rubrics both for my students and my TAs And I had shaped the assignments to make direct connections from the outcomes to the rubrics to the kinds of activities I was assessing

From ENGL 100 Learning Outcomes Plan, construct, and revise analytical essays using a literary methodology that includes argumentative claims, the use of convincing supporting evidence and effective analysis of evidence The relevant learning outcome I wanted to test comes from a section on the Quality of Overall Argument Basically an outcome connected to writing and to the fundamental component of university writing—the analytical paragraph

From ENGL 100 Learning Outcomes Plan, construct, and revise analytical essays using a literary methodology that includes argumentative claims, the use of convincing supporting evidence and effective analysis of evidence - As you can see, they key components of this analytical paragraph are the formulation and use of claims, evidence and analysis

From ENGL 100 Rubric Claims (or topic sentences) connect directly to the main argument and contribute to the highly persuasive nature of the argument. Evidence is the best available to support individual claims and the main argument; it is highly persuasive and effective in support of the developing argument. Analysis explains clearly how evidence supports the claim, develops the claim fully and refers directly to the evidence used; superior analysis goes well beyond obvious and basic commentary. This is how these three components appeared in my rubric But these are a lot of words, and they don’t have the visual force to convey my message and what we are trying to achieve

Methodology of Reading: Stages in Active and Close Reading Pre-critical reading Comprehension Interpretation So I constructed a small set of PowerPoint slides that illustrated the conceptual framework of the course and of analytical writing However, this image is not only a description of how we read, but it is also a depiction of how we think in the direction of analytic or critical thought and problem solving. I showed this early and had recourse to it through the year Language of moving from impressionistic to analytical thought Impressionistic Criticism Analytic Criticism

Methodology of Reading: Stages in Active and Close Reading Pre-critical reading What is it? Comprehension What happens? Interpretation What does it mean? How does it mean? - Modified it in different forms to convey slightly different messages

Required for tutorials Headrick, Paul. A Method for Writing Essays about Literature. 3rd ed., Nelson Education, 2017. Required for tutorials I also came across a textbook that set out a clear structure for myself, my TAs and the students It included exercises on claims, evidence and analysis

Methodology of Writing 2: Structuring Ideas What you will prove Claim How you support claim Evidence How evidence supports claim Analysis Here is my modification of the concepts expressed in the book Even though I had this model, I noticed that essays and paragraphs were often weakest on the last section, on analysis So when it came to the CAR project, we tried to replicate this analytical process in a compressed fashion and assess how students had learned Throughout the course, I use commercials and extracts from social media to get a quick point across.

“Many of you feel happy for this lamp. That’s not crazy “Many of you feel happy for this lamp. That’s not crazy. Reusing things is much better.” A lot to work with here Complex point of view

Collaboration between… 1.) CAR: Cognitive Assessment Redesign Project 2.) ENGL100: Introduction to English Literature analytical thinking = critical thinking GOAL: encourage the development of analytical/critical thinking in a first-year class of about 350 students CAR: targeting and developing specific skillsets in the classroom; collaboration with John Alignment between developing analytical thinking in John’s methodology and developing critical thinking, specifically the capacity for evaluating one’s own position with consideration of evidence from the source material and of the expectations of writing in the discipline. Wanted to create something that could do three things: 1.) test for these skills in a the classroom, 2.) encourage the development of these capacities, and 3.) target both of these goals within the limitations of such a large class

Structural Approach to Writing an Argument CLAIM EVIDENCE ANALYSIS Headrick shows the structure of a good argument. Yet, students often get stuck on one argument, unsure of how to develop it beyond their initial attempt because it speaks to their subjective experience of their text or object of study: E.x. The poem is relatable to the reader because it talks about love. Wanted to convey the cognitive processes an expert goes through in developing an argument: they cycle through the three sections several times, starting with a claim and assessing the appropriateness of that claim by analyzing the possible evidence available to support it. In this way, students can channel that subjective claim into something more analytical. The module, then, targets the cognitive processes of forming a sound argument through Headrick’s structural vocabulary, with which the students were already familiar. Structural Approach to Writing an Argument Cognitive Approach to Developing an Argument

Argument Based on Impression Argument Based on Analysis CLAIM EVIDENCE ANALYSIS The module shows students how to transform an impressionistic claim, one that is based on a subject experience of a text, into an analytic claim, one based on solid evidence from a text, by revisiting and revising each facet of a good argument (claim, evidence, and analysis). Students learn that they must consistently reevaluate and revise their ideas by analyzing available evidence. Will show example shortly.

Example of module here. Students asked to work through several steps based around scaffolded capacity building. Made use of OnQ’s templates for dynamic interactivity in the online module.

They also apply each step’s lesson concurrent to working through the module to a document that they will submit for grading at the end.

Online Module Steps: Developing a Claim Step 1: Impressionistic claim. The beginning of the Ikea commercial is depressing. Step 2: Gathering examples to support the Claim. The setting – specifically the lamp’s proximity to garbage, the dirty streets, and the dark and rainy weather – makes the beginning of the commercial depressing. Step 3: Selecting Evidence from the Examples. The dark and rainy weather is depressing. Step 4: Developing the Claim through Analysis. The dark and rainy weather is depressing because it reflects the lamp’s inner feelings. Step 5: Final product. The dark and rainy weather reflects the lamp’s inner feelings. Concrete example of how a student might work through the steps, moving from impression to analysis. Each section asks them to evaluate their ideas by returning to the text for examples and assessing the appropriateness of their choice. We chose and online module because it allowed us to supplement the in-class lessons which are already quite structured and quickly assess learning in the large classroom. It also allowed us (and the students) a safe environment for testing out a new pedagogical technique. John has plans for how he might expand this in the future.

The beginning of the Ikea commercial is depressing. Argument Based on Impression Argument Based on Analysis CLAIM EVIDENCE ANALYSIS The beginning of the Ikea commercial is depressing. The dark and rainy weather reflects the lamp’s inner feelings. Questions?

Questions? Comments?