UCA - CFAC - Department of Writing and Speech - Collaborative Teaching Ideas

Collegiate Audience Panel

Teaching can be lonely and isolating. In fact, perhaps because of this isolation, teaching can occasionally degenerate into an Us-versus-Them stand, with Us bunkering down behind podia and teachers’ desks and Them forming an outstretched army of unresponsive bodies. Faculty, then, may well say to themselves, “It’d be so nice to have someone to talk with about teaching.” And while our faculty does chat in corridors about a particular class experience, these chats are often exactly that: short, occasionally harried conversations. However, with its “collaborative community” goal and the Assessment Committee mentorship program recommendation, the department is working toward combating the isolated Us. To support this march toward collaboration, the Collegiate Audience Panel formed in fall 2003, bringing a small group of faculty together for productive discussions of teaching and grading.

Initially, our small group (one tenured and two non-tenured writing faculty) wanted a way in which we could work in partnership. We agreed to focus our attention on four areas: outside grading, coaching/mentoring, grading standards, and teaching perspectives.

The Collegiate Audience Panel has evolved. Our group now consists of two tenured, two non-tenured writing faculty and one non-tenured speech faculty. We talk and “mentor” each other, both in face-to-face meetings and via a listserv, about teaching and theories of writing and communication.

Since fall 2003, we have learned much--our group grading does not always proceed smoothly, but involves twists and turns, advances and retreats, as we figure out how better to do it. As we develop as a group, our theories about our purpose are far more likely to be a start-and-stop process replete with occasional regression and failure as well as success.

Collegiate Audience Panel Foci:

Outside grading. We began this practice in the belief that outside graders might more clearly position for students the notion that certain elements of effective communication are universal--we want, in short, to work against "saying what the teacher wants to hear.” We believe that there are identifiable elements that exist in all good writing and presentations. We wanted students, then, to see that they could learn some fundamentals, and that these fundamentals could be applied to any writing or presentation for any class. Further, we feel that it is not panel’s goal to address how well the writing or presentation satisfies teacher-specific instructions, nor how much a student might have improved, nor whether a student has attended class everyday, nor the degree to which a student has participated in in-class discussions--a student’s writing or presentation must stand alone. Moreover, we found that outside grading helps address two troublesome issues for us as instructors:

a) Audience. As our group evolved, we stumbled over audience. Who were we as readers and listeners? Although we never came to a solid conclusion about an audience for students, we were, at the very least, able to “coach” students away from writing or presenting to the teacher or to a “non-specific” audience.
b) Personal bias. Simply because we’re human, we bring our own box of colors to our reading or listening whether we’re reading an academic journal or listening to an academic conference speaker, reading a student paper or listening to a student presentation. Therefore, each paper or presentation is read or heard and graded by two readers and listeners from the group rather than the student’s own instructor, which ensures that a student’s writing or presentation does indeed stand alone.

Coaches/Mentors. Shared descriptions of our individual metaphors for teaching reminded us that students might benefit more from our being writing and communication coaches or mentors than from our being graders. We use the term “coach” based in part on an article by J.M.L. Glenn. First published in Business Education Forum and quoted in The Teaching Professor, Glenn’s “Stepping Out of the Spotlight: What Teachers Can Learn from Coaches” proposes that the coach’s role is to “move people from where they are to where they want to be.” Furthermore, Glenn says, “If the coach always has the answer and comes to be seen as the one who supplies the answer, then the players learn to wait for the answer rather than figuring it out themselves.”

Collective Grading Standard. From the beginning we believed that developing a collective standard for assigning grades to writing and communication creates continuity among individual pedagogies while still valuing the individual ways we teach writing and communication. We wanted to arrive at a "community" grade rather than a grade based solely on an instructor's preferences. One of our first tasks was to attempt to set a fair and accurate grading standard--a rubric we felt students would understand and identify with. We developed criteria for the five basic letter grades to create grading unity within our group.

Teaching Perspectives. We wanted to ensure a connection between teaching theories and individual ways we teach writing and communication. Therefore, the Collegiate Audience members designed their own assignments, including in-class assignments and exercises. The result has allowed us exposure to a variety of perspectives in Introduction to College Writing, Academic Writing and Research, and Basic Oral Communication.

Method:

Writing

We determine the number of papers we will assign for the semester and establish collective due dates.
We calculate the number of papers we must each grade, and we either meet to swap or we place the correct number of papers in each other’s mail boxes.
We meet within a designated time or use mail boxes to swap papers for a second round of grading.
We each grade two sets of papers, and once each paper has two sets of grades, we meet to discuss assignments, student writing, teaching, and grading. We use copies of student work as anchors for discussion. If, after reviewing her student’s paper, an instructor disagrees with the grade, she may ask for what would then become a third reading from within the group.
We are only concerned with grading. The individual instructor can provide feedback to students prior to and after group grading. In fact, it is the individual instructors role to act as coach and provide feedback and help with a student’s writing
We return students’ papers.
At the end of a semester, an instructor can adjust grades based on student participation, improvement, or other factors.

Speech

We calculate the number of speeches we must each grade, and we each visit classes to evaluate those speeches.
We meet to discuss the presentations. We individually discuss speeches with the instructor, but then meet as group to talk about the speeches as a whole.
We are only concerned with grading. The individual instructor can provide feedback to students’ outlines.
At the end of a semester, the speech instructor can adjust grades based on student participation, improvement, or other factors.

Speech Amended

Based upon the panel experience during the fall 2004 semester, the instructor revised her method of teaching speech. Her plan now includes:

Having coaching and mentoring sessions for students about their speeches.
Having a “rough draft” speech presented in front of a small group of peers who evaluate the speech.
Having the audience participate in the speeches. Audience members must ask at least two questions during the period allotted for speeches.
Having two panel members visit classes to grade speeches, which allows us to come to a shared understanding of the elements all good speeches must have.