About the AuthorsSarah Lonelodge is a PhD candidate in the Rhetoric and Writing Studies program at Oklahoma State University. She also serves as an assistant director of the first-year composition program and as president of OSU’s chapter of the Rhetoric Society of America. Her research interests include composition pedagogy and religious rhetoric. Katie Rieger is a PhD candidate at Oklahoma State University in the Rhetoric and Writing Studies program and is an Assistant Professor of English at Benedictine College. Her research interests include student-centered pedagogy; educational technology for distance learning; writing center studies; and the intersection of intercultural communication and technical writing pedagogy. ContentsIntroduction and Literature Review Research Design and Methodology |
Findings/DiscussionWe identified two overarching categories of tweets: instructor-focused and student-focused. The tweet’s identification of the source of concern, issue, event, or other topic created the distinction between these categories. Instructor-focused tweets discussed specific ways an instructor presented a concept or taught in general, indicated that the professor is the audience for student writing, discussed feedback or comments, or mentioned some aspect of the topic of the assigned writing. Student-focused tweets discussed the student’s perspectives on writing including giving minimal effort, taking responsibility for incomplete work, and the student’s confidence as a writer. While the tweets in this latter category are worthwhile as data for future research, our goal of improving pedagogy calls our attention to instructor-focused tweets.
Table 4: Overview of Tweets Coded In the following sections, we discuss four major themes identified in instructor-focused tweets: Teaching Methods, Professor as Audience, Feedback, and Topics. Within each of these subcategories, we further categorize the tweets into the stage of the writing process (before, during, after, not) and the perceived attitude (positive or negative). Teaching MethodsThe most common subcategory of tweets, Teaching Methods, encompassed a range of issues, including how professors explain assignments, lengths of writing, timing and time between assignments, and more. Generally, tweets provided some insight into what students value and find frustrating in how their professors teach. BeforeIn the subset of tweets that we coded as occurring before writing began, an indication of positive and negative experiences with receiving assignments and being taught or told how to write them is apparent (see Table 4).
Table 5: Example Tweets from BEFORE Teaching Method Tweets coded as positive discussed ways the professor taught concepts, referred to the professor’s use of fun, humorous, and/or interesting explanations, clear language, and other positive experiences that increased learning, thus a clearly positive or appreciative tone was apparent in regard to the way the instructor taught. Students discussed valuing or finding humor in these methods. Although intention is difficult to pinpoint, students at least seemed to enjoy this part of the writing process as a result of the instructor’s teaching practices, explanations, and policies. In tweets coded as negative, the students expressed frustration at the instructor’s inability to explain the prompt or assignment well enough for the student to understand the purpose and/or requirements of it. Particularly annoying for students was the professor’s reference to writing assignments of six to ten pages as minimal work and/or scheduling assignments that overlapped or immediately followed one another or that were to be completed during a school break. As such, students felt overwhelmed and sensed a lack of empathy from the professor. Importantly, these policies and practices created a negative outlook prior to writing. DuringTweets posted during writing often indicated the impact of a professor’s methods on the student’s perception of their current writing project. Interestingly, some tweets seemed to have been posted during class while others implied that writing was being done outside of class (see Table 5).
Table 6: Example Tweets from DURING Teaching Methods Tweets coded as positive discussed the professor’s actions and policies including requirements, due dates, in-class activities, classroom management styles, and other pedagogical aspects. Professors who had decreased word counts or extended deadlines prior to the completion of the essay and who conveyed firm yet less traditionally rigorous methods of teaching were seen in a positive light. Listening to music while writing, excusing distracting students, and colloquial language were appreciated by students and created a more positive attitude. In tweets coded as negative, students discussed or provided examples of frustrations with the professor including policies, how material was taught, a lack of communication, the content of the course, and other issues. These tweets were similar to the negative experiences with teaching methods that occurred prior to writing; however, DURING tweets focused more often on the exercises and activities that instructors asked students to complete and/or requirements of the assignment with which students were struggling. One common theme was that students often did not understand why instructors asked them to complete their work in a particular way. AfterTweets indicating that a writing project was complete often focused on teaching methods related to sequencing and scaffolding or moving due dates but also indicated that students desired validation for their work.
Table 7: Example Tweets from AFTER Teaching Methods One tweet discussed the professor’s teaching methods after the writing assignment was completed. Though generalizing is not possible and the minimal data makes the intention difficult to determine, it is interesting that only one tweet mentioned positive experiences with teaching methods after completing the essay. The method of meeting in a neutral place and watching the grading process may be part of the reason the student holds a relatively positive view of the practice. In tweets coded as negative, students discussed a lack of grading or reading the paper or mentioned that the instructor had moved the due date after the paper had been completed. While some tweets that frustrated students were related to sequencing or specific pedagogy, the most common issue was due dates. Students indicated anger and frustration about a professor not collecting an essay on the due date. One factor was that, often, the student had been up all night or had used a significant amount of time on the essay, thus indicating that the student had not planned well; however, the anger was directed toward the professor’s policies rather than the student’s writing practices or time management. NotTweets that connected the professor’s methods to not writing indicated several important pedagogical aspects to consider and provide some indication for student frustrations and thinking processes when deciding on how and when to write.
Table 8: Example Tweets from NOT Teaching Methods These tweets discussed ways in which the class policies or teaching practices affected writing. Extensive work, perceived grading tendencies, and other methods professors used in class negatively impacted the student’s attitude and caused a lack of desire to complete the writing assignment. These issues are important considerations for instructors across campus who may have minimal training in writing pedagogy. Professor as AudienceTweets that indicated student perceptions of the instructor were also prominent. Though a number of these tweets have implications for teaching methods, the Professor-as-Audience subcategory consists of tweets that show students’ awareness of their professors and how this impacts their writing and process, including the professor’s identity, political views, likes/dislikes, and more as potential barriers and/or supports for their writing. BeforeIn the Professor-as-Audience subcategory, tweets often indicated the impact of a professor’s identity, including cultural, political, and other factors, and/or the instructor’s perceived attitude.
Table 9: Example Tweets from BEFORE Professor as Audience In negative tweets, students referred specifically to the professor as an individual who will perhaps unfairly grade or not appreciate the student’s views or their writing. Students cited race, political views, and personal dislike as causes for negativity. In each of these tweets, the student indicated that their views, ideas, and writing will not be accepted or liked by their professor. Though there is not much information about the reasoning behind this belief, these students seemed to believe it is true, which is significant as these students do not see their professors as supporters of open mindedness, logical thinking, or clear writing. DuringTweets posted during writing indicated the impact of the professor on the student’s perception of their current writing project and their ability to write or complete it. While some tweets discussed the topic of the essay, the focus was the student’s conception of the professor. Many tweets coded as positive in this subset discussed the student’s desire to impress the instructor with style, tone, citations, topics, and other, mostly surface-level, aspects of writing. These students considered the professor’s biases before and during the writing process, and showed a desire to make the professor proud, do what the professor likes, or discuss a topic that was believed to be supported (e.g. increasing teacher pay), or at least not disliked by the professor due to individual characteristics (e.g. poverty’s connection to race). Showing a positive attitude toward this idea were those students who had reconciled this notion and felt that they had dealt with it and would be able to impress the instructor.
Table 10: Example Tweets from DURING Professor as Audience Tweets coded as negative discussed the student’s real and/or imagined interactions with the professor. The distinct difference in this theme from before to during was in the interruption in writing that perceptions caused. The students stopped actively writing to think about their professor’s potential reactions concerning their essay to tweet about it. Students were not considering a wider audience beyond the professor or had little reason to complete the writing assignment other than receiving a grade. This notion had a clearly negative effect as students were hesitant to write for fear of negative repercussions from the professor, based on personal characteristics. NotTweets in this subcategory indicated that the student was avoiding writing due to a specific perception of the professor and showed a negative connection between the professor and the student. These tweets discussed the student’s view of the professor or how the student imagines the professor views the student. In these situations, the student’s perception of the professor had caused the student to avoid writing. These tweets offer important considerations about how professors portray themselves to students in the classroom and what type of communication (e.g. conveying transphobia) is appropriate in the classroom.
Table 11: Example Tweets from NOT Professor as Audience FeedbackTweets focusing on feedback indicated a number of practices that students found helpful and/or problematic. While it may be expected that positive feedback was met with positive attitudes from students while negative feedback was met with negative attitudes, these tweets also indicate particular practices and reasons for student attitudes. AfterDue to the nature of feedback as a practice, tweets in this subcategory occurred only after writing was completed. Students writing these tweets indicated pride at positive feedback and frustration or anger from minimal, negative, and other forms of feedback or grades. Tweets coded as positive covered a wide range of feedback and comments from the professor after the writing assignment had been completed, including strong topics, praise received even after minimal effort, good grades, submissions to contests or publications beyond class, and positive comments. Tweets mentioned positive responses from the professor as the central point in determining how the student felt. These tweets might have especially important implications for students’ beliefs about good writing and good writing practices. Additionally, these tweets discussed positive feedback from professors with or without the grade. Tweets coded as negative discussed several types of feedback including grades, expected and actual comments or grades, issues with handwritten comments, and problems the professor mentioned having with the topic or requirements after the writing was completed. In each of these tweets, the central issue discussed was the professor’s real or potential comments on student writing and/or grading methods. Therefore, these tweets may hold important insights about feedback on student writing.
Table 12: Example Tweets from AFTER Feedback TopicsThe final subcategory of tweets addressed topics and indicated a focus on the subject matter for essays. While, as instructors may expect, students preferred to choose their own topics, other important pedagogical implications may also be gleaned from these tweets. BeforeThough the data from our study is certainly not generalizable, an interesting facet of the topics subcategory is that students tweeting prior to beginning their essays were generally positive in regards to their essay topics. A number of tweets discussed topics in a humorous way, perhaps as a way of deflecting or coping with expected stress. The general tone, however, was positive and/or sarcastic (e.g. Bieber Fever), or the tweets discussed actual topics such as politics, social change, weed, video games, the necessity for college, and others. In some of the tweets, the student had obviously chosen a topic while in others the topic was provided, but in either case, the student was generally positive or even enthusiastic about the subject.
Table 13: Example Tweets from BEFORE Topics DuringStudents tweeting about topics during writing discussed the subject and expressed concern about the topic or frustrations with it in process, thus indicating a negative attitude. While no connection can be made between before and during in this category, we found no tweets that were coded as positive in this subset.
Table 14: Example Tweets from DURING Topics Whether an assigned topic or one jokingly discussed by the student, the frustration in these tweets came from a distinct issue with the content of the essay rather than the instructor or the fact that the instructor may have assigned it, as that issue would likely fall under teaching methods. Instead, students indicated struggling with what, how, and why to write about these topics. They seemingly felt no connection to the topic or did not completely understand it. In the next section, we discuss possible pedagogical implications for WAC and other writing-focused programs. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Download PDF
