Illustration by Alicia Toldi.
What does it really mean to “critically analyze?” Students and professors constantly struggle to discover what exactly makes a good writing assignment. This Tuesday, Smith House housefellow Anna Membrino ’11 and Writing Center director Steve Shoemaker came to the rescue by co-sponsoring a Dessert and Dialogue to allow professors and students to discuss what works and what doesn’t when it comes to writing assignments.
Students have varying opinions about what makes an effective assignment. “I really appreciate when a professor includes different questions within the prompt to get me thinking about what issues to address,” said Anna Williams ’13. “Without specific questions I think I would feel overwhelmed.” Sam Bienfeld ’13 felt differently. “I hate it when my professor gives me too many issues to address in the prompt,” he said. “I want to be able to take an idea and develop it myself without being fed the answer.”
No matter the preference, everyone seems to agree that personal investment in the topic is important.
“If a professor gives me no way of molding the paper into something I am truly interested in writing about, there is no way that I can create a good paper,” said Bienenfeld.
What can professors do to make assignments more appealing to their students? How can students make sure that they are handing in the most clear and thoughtful assignment possible? These were the burning questions that were addressed over red velvet cake and coffee on Tuesday evening. As everyone found their seats in Ernst Common Room, each person was asked to write down what they find most encouraging and most frustrating about either a professor’s prompt or a student’s assignment. The responses were then shared within each table group.
“What I find discouraging,” said Professor Stanton Ching of the Chemistry Department, “is when a student is on his or her second or third draft and is still only changing the specific areas that I have edited, without taking my advice and applying it to the entire paper. I shouldn’t have to correct every single sentence for you before you understand what aspects need to be changed.”
Ching and history professor Marc Forster vigorously jotted down student suggestions about new interdisciplinary approaches to assignments, and explained that professors actually do enjoy reading controversial opinions. It suggested that Professors aren’t trying to find ways to make student papers fit a stifling mold: they only want to make us think deeper and write stronger.
Students also shared their tips on writing papers. “What I try to do is sit down and write about 400 words of an introduction, and then go back the next day and write a second, completely new introduction,” said Jazmine Hughes ’12. “Then I can compare them and decide which I like better.”
Forster, Ching, and many other faculty members agreed that we as students must remember to consider their audience.
“I often feel that my students don’t remember that they are writing for another human,” said philosophy professor Simon Feldman.
Forster suggested that faculty can be ambiguous about assignments: “In writing prompts, detail is not the same as clarity,” he said.
Students made clear that professors should expect convoluted arguments if their prompts are equally confusing. But professors maintained that students have the freedom to find ways to tailor prompts to individual interests, and that most professors will not punish a student for taking risks in their writing.
The dialogue served as a successful beginning to increasing understanding between professors and students, on the quest to make writing assignments more enjoyable to both write and read. “I mean, what’s really the point of writing a paper if you aren’t learning something from the process?” said Molly Pistrang ’13.
Membrino was pleased with the results. “This is definitely a great starting point. I’m really happy that we got such a great turnout,” said Membrino. “Unfortunately, the type of professors who come to events like this are the ones who are already aware of the problem. It’s a bit frustrating that we couldn’t communicate the problem to all faculty on campus; this is definitely a dialogue we are looking to continue.”
