Teaching Close Reading Skills in a Large Lecture Course

Tinkle, Theresa; Atias, Daphna; McAdams, Ruth M.; Zukerman, Cordelia

doi:10.1215/15314200-2266432

Cited by 14 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reading for complexity, as I articulate this shared learning outcome, requires the navigation of diverse perspectives, the exploration of many possible interpretations, and the active construction of meaning with (not merely of ) the text. This learning outcome is consistent with what research in SoTL and writing in the disciplines (WID) has identified as the characterizing features of disciplinary reading in literary studies (Chick et al, 2009;Tinkle et al, 2013;Wilder, 2012;Wolfe & Wilder, 2016). This includes the analogous relation literary scholars draw between literature and the world through the shared traits of complexity, ambiguity, multiplicity, and difficulty (Bruns, 2011;Linkon, 2011;Rosenblatt, 1995;Salvatori & Donahue, 2005;Zunshine, 2006).…”

Section: Identifying "Reading For Complexity" As a Disciplinary Learn...supporting

confidence: 85%

WAC and Writing Centers: Finding Space to Work on Institutional Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Macauley

Childers²,

Jones³

2023

Adapting the Past to Reimagine Possible Futures: Celebrating and Critiquing WAC at 50

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Fifteenth International Writing Across the Curriculum Conference, which was postponed until August 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, provided an opportunity to celebrate 50 years of WAC. As noted in this collection's call for submissions, "The Fifteenth International Writing Across the Curriculum Conference offers a space for us to come together as a community to consider the complex and complicated histories of WAC and the potential evolutions of the field." The conference was a time to collectively reflect on the past so that we could envision WAC's future. It did bring us together, on Whova rather than in Fort Collins, Colorado, but what visions of the future did this conference imagine? How much change-as people, an organization, a discipline, a world community-have we enacted or innovated since Barbara Walvoord hosted the first WAC seminar at Central College during the 1969-1970 academic year? This is a crucial question especially as WAC seeks to sustain itself in meaningful ways that impact not only our college campuses but our communities, and higher education at large.As we (the editors) attended conference sessions-gathering in a virtual community, but never once meeting in person-and as we read through subsequent submissions to this edited collection, we began to recognize that the impact of the last few years has brought these lofty goals of the conference into question. At least, the pandemic has demonstrated how truly complex and complicated WAC work is. Al Harahap noted as much during the final plenary on envisioning the future of WAC, during which he offered this disclaimer: "What we are charged 4 4Kelly, Falconer, González, and Dahlman to talk about, the future of WAC, is a huge cross to bear" (Harahap, Navarro, & Russell, 2021). His words deserve our thoughtful attention as higher education continues to experience challenges related to student enrollment, institutional closures, budget cuts sparked by a global pandemic, and major shifts to the ways in which writing is taught across the curriculum globally. These realities create an increased exigency to amplify the field by forwarding tropes toward a better future for WAC and leading a movement that exemplifies greater access, equity, inclusion, and justice.COVID-19 initiated a massive and consequential pause and shift that reverberated around the world-not just in our individual homes and daily practices, but in our collective organizations and academic institutions. We also note that due to the pandemic's global impact, the international WAC community experienced a pause and shift in many different ways and in various educational situations. Anecdotally, WAC coordinators were called on to help think through the sudden gymnastics faculty were asked to perform: What did we know about using discussion boards to assess disciplinary content? How do we manage the writing in our classes now that we're fully virtual, or HyFlex, or hybrid? How do we accommodate or account for students without access to the internet or who don't have a space to work...

show abstract

Section: Identifying "Reading For Complexity" As a Disciplinary Learn...supporting

confidence: 85%

WAC and Writing Centers: Finding Space to Work on Institutional Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Macauley

Childers²,

Jones³

2023

Adapting the Past to Reimagine Possible Futures: Celebrating and Critiquing WAC at 50

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, TPS with multiple-choice questions is certainly not limited to questions with a single best answer, in STEM or other disciplines (Bruff 2009;Tinkle et al 2013). For example, in the Humanities one can practice "close reading" and critical thinking during class, even in large lectures, by providing students with a text passage or work of art and multiple-choice questions about how best to interpret or analyze it.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During each lecture session following a lab, we implemented an active learning technique known as TPS that has been used in many areas of education, including fields as disparate as Biology (Smith et al 2009), Computer Science (Porter et al 2011), and Comparative Literature (Bruff 2009;Tinkle et al 2013). TPS combines an individual activity ("Think") with a low-stakes peer discussion ("Pair"), followed by a whole-class debrief ("Share"), encouraging all students to engage cognitively and summarize a concept in their own words (Lyman 1987).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Type of Debrief is Best for Learning during Think-Pair-Shares?

Hershock

Barrett²,

McCarthy³

et al. 2021

TLI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Copious research demonstrates the benefits of adding active learning to traditional lectures to enhance learning and reduce failure/withdrawal rates. However, many questions remain about how best to implement active learning to maximize student outcomes. This paper investigates several “second generation” questions regarding infusing active learning, via Think-Pair-Share (TPS), into a large lecture course in Computer Science. During the “Share” phase of TPS, what is the best way to debrief the associated course concepts with the entire class? Specifically, does student learning differ when instructors debrief the rationale for every answer choice (full debrief) versus only the correct answer (partial debrief)? And does the added value for student outcomes vary between tasks requiring recall versus deeper comprehension and/or application of concepts? Regardless of discipline, these questions are relevant to instructors implementing TPS with multiple-choice questions, especially in large lectures. Similar to prior research, when lectures included TPS, students performed significantly better (~13%) on corresponding exam items. However, students’ exam performance depended on both the type of debrief and exam questions. Students performed significantly better (~5%) in the full debrief condition than the partial debrief condition. Additionally, benefits of the full debrief condition were significantly stronger (~5%) for exam questions requiring deeper comprehension and/or application of underlying Computer Science processes, compared to simple recall. We discuss these results and lessons learned, providing recommendations for how best to implement TPS in large lecture courses in STEM and other disciplines.

show abstract

“…As a secondary lens, SPN can be applied to studies that look at large institutional endeavors or to classroom-specific analyses. For instance, a thoughtful exploration of large classroom dynamics and the importance of experimenting in this type of setting is explored by Tinkle, Atias, McAdams, and Zukerman (2013). In "Teaching Close Reading Skills in a Large Lecture Course," the authors do not explicitly state that they are engaged in SPN, but they draw from the SPN practices.…”

Section: Analysis Of Spn Examplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scholarly Personal Narrative in the SoTL Tent

Carney

2017

T&LI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholarly personal narrative (SPN) extends the available methodologies by which researchers conduct the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). In this article, the authors define SPN, which interprets personal experience through scholarly frameworks, leveraging the power of reflective practice to understand the interpersonal dynamics of both the classroom and wider academic communities. SPN fosters disciplinary understandings of SoTL and bridges discourse barriers in order to illuminate the complex environments of teaching and learning. The article examines how widely-accepted definitions of scholarship apply to SPN and provides a scholarly approach for researchers to analyze personal experience as a pool of data, employ a range of analytical techniques, and identify significant results. Through an analysis of two articles, the authors discuss the usefulness of SPN both as a major and minor critical lens. The inclusion of SPN may enrich SoTL pluralism and contribute to the knowledge of the complex contexts and influences that shape instructors, learning environments, and student experiences.

show abstract

Teaching Close Reading Skills in a Large Lecture Course

Cited by 14 publications

References 15 publications

WAC and Writing Centers: Finding Space to Work on Institutional Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

WAC and Writing Centers: Finding Space to Work on Institutional Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

What Type of Debrief is Best for Learning during Think-Pair-Shares?

Scholarly Personal Narrative in the SoTL Tent

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About