 |
 |
200 instead of groups of 25--Kiss of Death situation. The only compromise I can suggest is a one hour "lecture" for 200 and then division into smaller groups. This plan will necessitate bringing in TA's to help with the workshops. And of course lecturing about writing is like lecturing about swimming. But for some reason that again escapes me the powers-that-be believe in lecturing. It is as if a course is not real unless it contains lectures. The other problem here, of course, is the importation of TA's--both a blessing and an incredible challenge. One of the keys to a successful writing program is the training of TA's. And yet it is exhausting work. At Waterloo, I have designed a first year writing course that is almost entirely dependant on TA's. I do have to do an hour a week lecture (the course isn't a "real" course unless I do), but then the 2 hour workshops are run by TA's. I also have another 2 hour a week workshop for the TA's themselves. The difficulty here is that it can be a great learning experience for the TA's--but sometimes the course itself suffers as I have to depend so heavily on the TA's for good interpersonal skills, good evaluation skills etc. Of course, I work with them on all of this--but some come into the course with no teaching experience and some with an actual bias against the teaching of writing. It is the latter group that is the most challenging. And, of course, the group changes every semester. However, despite this whine or rant, I still believe that it is through TA's and their training that the most changes will occur in the teaching of writing. And quite frankly I spend most of my time working with the TA's and through them with the students. On a more positive note--I have also designed a graduate level course in Composition Theory and Pedagogy. Every time I teach it, it is packed. Almost all the students in the program take it by choice. The next generation does have a sense of where the wind might be blowing. At 11:04 PM 3/9/99 -0500, Natasha Artemeva wrote: >Robert Irish wrote: >> >> Cathy's point that such teaching is easier is undoubtedly true, >> and I know that that IS THE consideration in the course that English >> foists on our Engineers at UT. > >But one can fight this attitude and even have small victories. We did at >Carleton and, I think, did it quite successfully (don't know, though, >how long what we have now as the Engineering Communication course is >going to exist -- School of Engineering wants us to teach classes of 200 >students rather then small workshops of 25). > > >-- >_____________________________________ >Natasha Artemeva > >School of Linguistics and >Applied Language Studies >Carleton University >1125 Colonel By Drive >Ottawa, ON >K1S 5B6 >Canada > >Tel. +1 (613) 520 - 2600 ext. 7452 >Fax +1 (613) 520 - 6641 >E-mail: [log in to unmask] > [log in to unmask] > > Catherine F. Schryer Dept. of English University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1 (519) 885-1211 (ext 3318)