Report: First Year Writing Program
Lindsey Collins
ESE 6939
University of Florida
Table of Contents
Report: First Year Writing Program.........................................................................4
First Year Writing Program Overview .............................................................................................................4
Needs Assessment ....................................................................................................................................................4
Phase I: Planning.......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Phase II: Collecting the Data .................................................................................................................................. 5
Phase III: Analyzing the Data ................................................................................................................................. 5
UWP Outcomes: Implicit Needs ............................................................................................................................. 5
WPA Outcomes: Implicit Needs ............................................................................................................................. 6
Controversy about The Need for Freshman Writing ................................................................................... 6
Student Expressions of Need ................................................................................................................................... 7
SME Statement of Need ............................................................................................................................................. 7
Summary of Needs Assessment Outcome/Phase IV: Compiling a Final Report .............................. 8
After completing ENC 1101: ................................................................................................................................... 8
After completing ENC 1102: ................................................................................................................................... 8
Course Goal Statements .........................................................................................................................................8
ENC1101 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 8
ENC1102 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Goal Statement for ENC1101: Week 6: Arguments of Definition .........................................................9
Theoretical Framework .........................................................................................................................................9
Overview of Instructional Design Models ................................................................................................... 12
The Seamless Support model ................................................................................................................................13
The ARCS model ..........................................................................................................................................................14
Connections between ARCS and Seamless Support: Conclusions for a FYW sequence ..............16
Context Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................... 22
Sample Lesson for First Year Writing: The Definition Argument ................................. 25
Goal Statement for ENC1101: Week 6: Arguments of Definition ...................................................... 25
Task Analysis: Understanding and Writing Arguments of Definition.............................................. 25
Instructional Objectives ...................................................................................................................................... 28
Instructional Sequence and Strategies ......................................................................................................... 28
Assessment ............................................................................................................................................................... 31
Definition Argument Proposal ......................................................................................................................... 32
Assignment: Definition Argument Essay ..................................................................................................... 35
Summative Evaluation for Previous Version of the Course ................................................................. 36
1. Questions about motivation and interest ..................................................................................................36
2. Questions about various course characteristics .....................................................................................36
3. and 4. grades received and expected ...........................................................................................................36
4. Factors that contributed most to student success .................................................................................36
6. Questions about satisfaction with textbooks, online content, and assignment feedback....37
6. Overall course supportiveness in meeting goals.....................................................................................37
7. Improvements desired/needed .......................................................................................................................37
8. Overall course ranking .......................................................................................................................................38
Conclusions of Summative Survey.................................................................................................................. 38
Discussion of Evaluation Method .................................................................................................................... 39
Formative review by an instructional designer and resulting changes ...........................................40
Formative review by a subject matter expert ...............................................................................................40
Procedures and Instruments for review by students .................................................................................41
Summary of student formative evaluations ..................................................................................................41
Revisions resulting from formative evaluation ............................................................................................47
Report: First Year Writing Program
First Year Writing Program Overview
My project will be to revamp my Introduction to College Writing (ENC1101) and
Argument and Persuasion (ENC1102) course for UF's Department of Continuing
Education. ENC1101 is focused on writing shorter arguments, while ENC1102 is focused
on writing the research paper. I need to revise both, so I will be revising these courses for
my ID project.
The course sequence will be informed by James A. Berlin's theory of New Rhetoric and
Mike Carter's explanation of kairos-stasis. That is to say that lessons will teach writing as
an act that is grounded in using established patterns and improvising based on the context
of the argument.
After a learner analysis showed that students are varied in prerequisite skills and
motivation, I decided that CUNY's Seamless Support model and John Keller's ARCS
model would both be helpful in achieving the goals of the courses.
A sample lesson from ENC1101, Assignment 6: Arguments of Definition is provided as
an interpretation and example of the instructional design process findings. Missing from
this lesson is the grammatical objectives and the grammar competency quiz that would be
the first activity in the lesson in the course management system, but given the
requirements of time, this design report and model focuses only on the rhetoric
component of the lesson. This omission is unfortunate, given the importance my theoretic
framework and instructional design models ascribe to teaching stylistic aspects of writing
(such as grammar) in the context of writing. Future lessons will include this component
and will be developed in the next few weeks.
The following report represents the instructional design process and data used for
creating this sequence of courses and Arguments of Definition in particular.
Needs Assessment
Phase I: Planning
To determine the need for these courses, I will review the university's stated
learning objectives, the objectives for freshman writing courses in general,
researched articles that discuss the role of freshman writing, and the needs
expressed by students who enroll in the course. These strategies will provide ways
to identify the following needs:


Normative needs of freshman writers when compared to more experienced
college writers at UF and in other college writing programs
Felt needs for updates and improvements to the course that will bring the
course in line with best practices as determined by me and other
professionals in the field of rhetoric and composition

Expressed needs of students who bring their own needs which may be the
same as the normative needs expressed by university objectives or which
may include additional expressed needs
The target audience is freshman writers who enroll in either ENC1101 or ENC1102
through the University of Florida Department of Continuing Education. The primary
method of data collection is a review of university and national objectives for
freshman writing courses, a re-examination of introductory e-mails students send to
me in the beginning of the course, and my comments on students' writing
throughout the course.
Phase II: Collecting the Data
Normative needs were collected by reviewing the University Writing Program's
(UWP) Objectives for these courses and supplemented by the objectives identified
by the Council of Writing Program Administrators, a national organization that
released its "WPA Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition." To collect
target audience needs, I compiled their responses on questionnaires. Over the past
two years, I have asked each of my incoming students to provide me with some
background information on them that helps me understand their context and their
motivations for taking the course. I have collected 15 student responses from
ENC1101 and 12 from ENC1102. I also conducted research about the role of
freshman writing in the modern university.
Phase III: Analyzing the Data
No one really contests that writing instruction is needed in the university, but
providing a solution for how it should be best taught is entering a minefield. Schisms
have developed between and within departments about the role of freshman
writing and what is needed of it. English instructors have been accused of being
gatekeepers, socialists, and elitists based on how they would describe the need of
the freshman writing course and teach toward this perceived need. Everyone agrees
that the courses are critical to student success, though, so most of the official
language about the courses in the university sidesteps discussion about the need
and focuses on objectives or outcomes.
This needs analysis identifies the needs as stated implicitly in the uncontroversial
UWP objectives and then briefly overviews a more partisan observer's
understanding of the purpose of freshman writing courses.
UWP Outcomes: Implicit Needs
Because the Department of Continuing Education at UF prides itself on offering
online courses that parallel the on-campus courses in requirements and content, I
will be designing the course to fulfill needs stated by the University Writing
Program, which offers the courses on campus. It writes, "ENC 1101 focuses on
writing arguments appropriate to the academic arena, building research skills, and
developing critical thinking through reading, writing, and discussion. Within the
framework of argumentative research writing, ENC 1102 introduces students to
techniques of rhetoric in a broad range of disciplines, including the humanities,
social sciences, business, and physical and biological sciences" ("Courses"). Though
this quotation is framed more as a goal or aim of the program, the implicit need
behind it would be something like, "Students of ENC1101 need to be able to write
arguments appropriate to the academic area, using research and critical thinking
skills that they develop through reading, writing, and discussion. Students of
ENC1102 need to be able to read and write in disciplines across the curriculum."
WPA Outcomes: Implicit Needs
In a similar vein, The Council of Writing Program Administrators publishes an
outcome statement for first-year composition that "describes the common
knowledge, skills, and attitudes sought by first-year composition programs in
American postsecondary education…These statements describe only what we
expect to find at the end of first-year composition, at most schools a required
general education course or sequence of courses" ("Outcomes Statement").
Controversy about The Need for Freshman Writing
Researchers in the field of composition studies disagree about the purpose or need
that freshman writing fulfills. James Berlin (1982), to facilitate creating a framework
from which to discuss and organize the different approaches to understanding the
need for freshman writing, identifies four camps: the Neo-Aristotelians/Classicists,
the Positivists/Current-Traditionalists, the Neo-Platonists/Expressionists, and the
New Rhetoricians, with whom he identifies (p. 776). He differentiates these camps
in this manner, generalizing about the role the writer in the freshman writing class
needs to learn to assume, the attitudes he or she must learn:
In Current-Traditional Rhetoric, the writer must efface himself; stated
differently, the writer must focus on experience in a way that makes possible
the discovery of certain kinds of information—the empirical and rational—
and the neglect of others—psychological and social concerns. In Neo-Platonic
Rhetoric the writer is at the center of the rhetorical act, but is finally isolated,
cut off from community, and left to the lonely business of discovering truth
alone. Neo-Aristotelian Rhetoric exalts the writer, but circumscribes her
effort by its emphasis on the rational—the enthymeme and example. The
New Rhetoric sees the writer as a creator of meaning, a shaper of reality,
rather than a passive receptor of the immutably given. (Berlin, 1982, p. 775 –
776)
According to Berlin (and consonant with the opinions of most instructors and
administrators that I've spoken to individually in both the English department and
the University Writing Program), writing teachers need to take into account that
courses in freshman writing aren't simply "training in a useful technical skill that is
meant as a simple complement to the more important studies of other areas.
[Instead] we are teaching a way of experiencing the world, a way of ordering and
making sense of it" (p. 776).
Student Expressions of Need
In response to my introductory questionnaire, students often express that their
need for taking this course is a graduation requirement (moreso for ENC1101 than
ENC1102), though most also express a desire to improve their writing. Many are
able to list specific deficiencies that they or other instructors have identified.
Common declared deficiencies include punctuation, using transitions, including
opinions in academic arguments, and confusion about structuring an argument.
Common declared strengths are vocabulary, and either logic or creativity. It's
interesting that, when compared with the WPA Outcomes Statement, students'
expressed needs mostly address surface issues—issues that are somewhat
measurable and often addressed in Berlin's dreaded Current-Traditional model of
instruction. Students' perceptions of their needs, most likely inherited from their
previous instructors' comments and grading, address a very small subset of the
needs implied by the outcomes of the WPA and the UWP and my felt needs of what
the courses should accomplish.
Learner Interviews
My learner questionnaires showed that students rank receiving Gordon Rule credit
or credit for a required course high on their list of goals for taking the course.
However, they also show a willingness to work on improving their writing and note
deficiencies and strengths. Student questionnaires also suggest that they do not live
in Gainesville and have complex schedules, so maintaining the course's flexibility to
their schedule should remain a goal for both courses.
Questionnaires indicate that students also expect coaching in grammar and
mechanical issues (this is true particularly for writers for whom English is not their
native language), though these are also the issues that are easiest for them to
identify as weaknesses. While many express some anxiety about writing, they don't
present this anxiety as a deficiency or weakness that they expect they can learn to
improve upon, so the high incidence of expressions of grammatical and mechanical
issues as a primary or secondary aim in taking the course is likely because students
don't recognize that engagement is an aim of high importance.
Excerpts of anonymized student responses are provided in the appendix of this
document.
SME Statement of Need
After reviewing my comments on student papers before and after completing the
course, I agree with all the previously stated needs, which is state explicitly below:
ENC1101 is needed for the following reasons:




Students need to think and read critically.
Students need to understand the modes and genres of writing.
Students need to write in grammatically and formally appropriate ways.
Students need to understand how to write to affect an audience and be
persuasive.

Students need to be engaged with their writing so that the process becomes
enjoyable and sustaining.
ENC1102 is needed for the following reasons:





Students need to think and read critically.
Students need to understand the genre of argumentative research writing.
Students need to write in grammatically and formally appropriate ways.
Students need to understand how to write to affect an audience and be
persuasive.
Students need to be engaged with their writing so that the process becomes
enjoyable and sustaining.
Summary of Needs Assessment Outcome/Phase IV: Compiling a Final Report
This study was undertaken to assess the needs for a revision of the freshman
writing sequence of courses, ENC1101 and ENC1102, offered through the University
of Florida Department of Education.
After considering the university's objectives for these courses, I recommend
proceeding with course revisions for these two courses to fulfill the following needs:
After completing ENC 1101:
Students need to be able to write academic arguments and develop research and
critical thinking skills through reading, writing, and discussion. The course should
teach students the grammatical skills they will need to be successful in college
writing, but it should also expand their understanding of writing as a practice that
requires thought and habits of mind beyond basic grammatical correctness. The
course should teach students to connect with others and to persuade through
writing.
After completing ENC 1102:
Students need to be able to read and write argumentative research articles using
common techniques for research writing in their discipline. They should feel
comfortable reading argumentative research articles disciplines across the
university. The course should help students review grammar and mechanics if they
need to, but it should also expand their understanding of writing as a practice that
requires thought and habits of mind beyond basic grammatical correctness. The
course should teach students to connect with others through writing.
Course Goal Statements
ENC1101
ENC1101 will teach freshman writers how to write academic arguments that satisfy
university expectations for thought, organization, and mechanics while helping the
writer learn to enjoy instantiating his or her ideas.
ENC1102
ENC1101 will teach freshman writers how to write argumentative research articles
that satisfy disciplinary expectations while helping the writer learn to enjoy
instantiating his or her researched ideas.
Goal Statement for ENC1101: Week 6: Arguments of Definition
Arguments of Definition will teach freshman writers how to think critically about
people, places, and things in the world and the definitions or categories we
unthinkingly ascribe to them. The resulting assessment will demonstrate that the
student has identified a word that, upon inspection, needs a better or more useful
definition or category. The student will provide evidence to support the new
definition or category, and he or she will write an argument that, through sound
argument and formal and mechanical competence, persuades an audience to think
more critically about the word.
Theoretical Framework
Arguments about the best theoretical framework for the composition course are
longstanding and heated. The First Year Writing Sequence and the sample lesson,
Arguments of Definition are designed to represent a synthesis in this debate.
Before stating that position, it's important to talk terminology. Instructional
designers are familiar with debates between behavioral theories (which produce
learning objects that support and reward students who demonstrate mastery at a
narrowly defined task), social learning theories (which produce learning objects
that are task-based but that introduce a social element into learning that is expected
to motivate students to perform tasks and help them learn better), and cognitive
theories (which produce learning objects that support active learning and the
student's own role in creating a schema that links his or her previous knowledge
with new knowledge) (Morrison, Ross, Kalman, & Kemp, 2001, p. 394 – 394). These
concerns are addressed in the field of composition and rhetoric pedagogy as well,
using different terminology and spanning different classifications of composition
pedagogical theories.
To justify introducing new terms to discuss learning theories for composition, it
makes sense to explain why the most popular ones in instructional design are illfitted for the task of describing the theoretical framework for a composition class, at
least as described Morrison, Ross, Kalman and Kemp's survey textbook. (I'm
confident that more expansive descriptions exist for these theories, but I would like
to avoid the baggage of these terms.) The short answer is that behavioral-, social-,
and cognitively-based theories, as often described, undercut one important goal in
the writing classroom: to teach students how to discover a new idea (rather than
one that can be outlined in a topic analysis in an instructional design report) and
develop it in the context of their audience (who is not there to help them learn an
already-formed idea but, instead, push students to situate the new knowledge in a
real-world context.
Even Bloom's taxonomy seems quite backwards. The placement of synthesis—the
foundational skill, the engine, for critical thinking and writing—"below" evaluation
in a hierarchy would shock most writing instructors. Even the important role of
evaluation is undercut with the gloss "make judgments on basis of given criteria" (p.
(Morrison, Ross, Kalman, & Kemp, 2001, p. 115). In the evaluation argument in
freshman writing, the student must first argue for relevant criteria and then
evaluate. Criteria are never given. The terminology used throughout the taxonomy
are useful only when they comprise ways to understand a given body of knowledge:
one of the most difficult arguments in the introductory writing class is the definition
argument, yet "define" and "classify" are placed at the bottom of the taxonomy.
This critique is not meant to undercut the value of Bloom's taxonomy or learning
theories as presented in survey books. The worst mistake would be to presume that
invention of ideas can be taught without first teaching—and teaching well—specific
skills. In fact, these skills can be taught through the best practices presented by
survey books.
The quibble is important because composition instructors would argue that the
most pedagogies examined in survey books are those that are means to our end
rather than the end themselves. However, most of what composition instructors do
is teach these means and promote attitudes that will help student writers become
critical thinkers and writers.
The most relevant instructional theories to this course seem to be James A. Berlin's
New Rhetoric and Michael Carver's kairos-stasis because both theories recognize the
importance of teaching heuristics or technai to help students master the skills for
invention while turning to their audience and peers to ensure that this invention is
relevant to the context of the writer (Berlin, p. 267; Carver, p. 109).
Berlin's theory of New Rhetoric is important because it addresses both invention
and language:
[T]he New Rhetoric sees truth as probabilistic, and it provides students with
techniques—heuristics—for discovering it, or what might more accurately be
called creating it. This does not mean, however, that arrangement and style
are regarded as unimportant, as in Neo-Platonic [expressionist] Rhetoric. In
fact, the attention paid to these matters in the New Rhetoric rivals that paid
in the Current-Traditional Rhetoric, but not because they are the only
teachable part of the process. Structure and language are a part of the
formation of meaning, are at the center of the discovery of truth, not simply
the dress of thought. (Berlin, p. 267)
Berlin's influence is significant in the course. While many theorists of composition
reject the notion that it is the college instructor's job to teach grammar and the
structure of language, this course will presume that mastery of grammar is essential
in communicating invented meanings. Grammar quizzes will be assigned at the
beginning of each lesson, and these quizzes will be competency-based. Students will
not be required to read in the handbook before completing the quiz. Rather,
students will be encouraged to take the quiz to determine whether they need
additional immediate help in that area. Feedback for questions that students answer
incorrectly will be a reference to handbook reading and another quiz that the
student can take on just that concept to demonstrate mastery. In addition, my
comments on student papers will reinforce the proper use of sentence structure and
style, emphasizing the importance of style and mechanics in making and conveying
meaning. Points taken off on the basis of infringements can be regained through
demonstration of competency in exercises specific to the issue. Overall, I am using
Berlin's theory to remind myself that heuristics—skills, objectives, task outlines,
grammar instruction—are essential factors in helping students invent new ideas.
Carver's theory of kairos-stasis is also influential because it supports teaching the
modes of argument in ENC1101 (and through the same principals, the skills
required to write the research paper in ENC1102) and demonstrating patterns in
successful writing. The idea of a graphical organizer (used in the example lesson for
this course) may seem childish to some instructors, and some argue that the idea of
showing examples of student writing inhibits creativity and reinforces writing as a
product rather than a process. However, Carver's theory of kairos-stasis rejects that
composition theorists should have to choose between the two.
His theory forms a synthesis of two ancient theories of discourse, stasis, thinking in
the modes (which had fallen out of favor in the composition community in the
Expressionist movement of the 1980s) and kairos, communicating in context. In fact,
he suggests that stasis may have had its roots in kairos, and that composition
theorists should recognize in the modes and other processes associated with stasis
theory the ethics of community that they felt it lacked.
Michael Carter sums up stasis as a classical tradition that resolves an argument by
identifying "the area of disagreement, point to be argued, the issue on which a case
hinged. Its most recognizable feature was a set of questions, asked in a particular
order, that established the nature of the issue as fact, definition, or sometimes
procedure" (1988, p. 98). Carter explains that, though many of his contemporaries
believe stasis to be static and unyielding to the community—a personal pursuit, in
Classical practice, the theory was actually a practice used to resolve community
disputes rather than ponder the intricacies of some universal truth (an assumed
tendency of Aristotle's that almost universally brings derision from the modern,
relativistic community of rhetoric scholars, myself and Berlin inclusive).
Carter then contrasts stasis with kairos, a concept that he re-introduced to the
community upon writing this article but that is now well known and has many
supporters. The concept encapsulated a current, if airy, notion of writing
instruction, "While [kairos] maintained its ethical dimension and overall sense of
rightness—a critical point in time and space—kairos took on the more profound
connotations of generation: the conflict and resolution of form and matter that
initiated the creation of the universe and all that is therein" (Carter, 102). He
explains that Gorgias and other sophists such as Protagorus, upon whose rhetoric
Aristotle was weaned, built their rhetoric on the concept of kairos, described
variously as an ethical process of argument that is a "harmony of conflicting
elements," a "principle of rhetorical generation," and "the idea of conflict and
resolution combined with the idea of the opportune or propitious moment" (p. 103
– 104). The purpose of kairos in argument, according to Protagoras, was to reach
orthon, knowledge that reaches "probabilistic" truth, truth that isn't universally
true, but that that has "the greater probability of truth within a community of
listeners" (p. 103).
According to Carter, Aristotle disparaged Gorgias and for "lacking a systematic art of
rhetoric" (Sprague quoted in Carter, 108), which Aristotle then created and
implemented for the cause of resolving conflicts in society (such as in court). But,
Carver argues, Aristotle's system does not forget that argument is always an ethical
notion that should take the community into context.
Carter and Berlin's theories suggest that writing instruction must teach students to
write something new and context-specific, but that first writing instruction must
teach students to write, a goal that requires a systematic approach to teaching
(involving characteristics of both behavioral and cognitive approaches) as much as
it requires modeling behaviors and attitudes more common to social learning
theories. Writing instructors and course designers should not avoid emphasizing
patterns of writing and stylistic expectations in writing courses.
The following models represent systems for employing the theories presented
above.
Overview of Instructional Design Models
The students who enroll in ENC1101 are often writers who have found themselves
outside the traditional sequence of study and would be considered basic writers and who
would perhaps be placed in remedial classes, if those classes were permitted in the
university. ENC1101 is a course that is required by general education requirements, and
success for these basic writing students often requires them to work harder than students I
have taught in the traditional classroom. My job as a teacher of ENC1101 often requires
that I guide these students to resources that will support and structure the extra work they
are doing rather than just vaguely suggesting that they need to review grammatical
concepts. For example, referring an English language learner to the ESL section of the
writing handbook will overwhelm him or her. Students who need to address deficiencies
in order to pass the course need feedback from me and help from tutors before and after
they have performed extra work, and my course needs to be able to provide a track for
these types of students. CUNY's SWW Seamless Support model has shown promise in
providing support for these types of students.
On the other hand, my ENC1102 course is often filled with students who did not need to
take the course their freshman year but who have now chosen to take the course as an
elective. These students tend to be more experienced students or even adult learners
returning to school. They bring more prerequisite skills and knowledge to the course,
though most students find the prospect of writing a research paper daunting, and many
have had experiences with writing in the past that led to a diminished attitude about their
writing capabilities. Though research might seem dry or scary to these students initially,
it doesn't have to be. I have found that in ENC1102, once students understand how they
can use their skills to write about topics in their field or topics that are related to their
other interests, everything falls into place most of the time. But the initial engagement in
the course is essential. Keller's ARCS model is designed to support attitude and
motivation by emphasizing the relevance of the material to the student, so I think this
model will be useful.
The Seamless Support model
Despite the lack of context provided in the name, the Seamless Support model provides a
fitting model for a composition course that needs to offer its students more when the
university system will not allow credited remedial courses. As an adaptation of the studio
model developed at the University of South Carolina, itself an adaptation of the stretch
approach developed at Arizona State University, the Seamless Support model shares with
its progenitors the goal of providing more time for the freshman writing experience to
those who need it. The ASU stretch approach stretches the course over two semesters,
while the studio approach requires students to spend time outside of class each week with
a tutor.
Rigolino and Freel (2007) explain the Seamless Support model's contribution: "From the
outset, the concept of providing Seamless Support grew out of a desire not only to
provide students with extra time, but also to weave together specific resources into a
cohesive course design. We wanted to incorporate both individual tutoring as well as
workshop sessions into our program in such a way that these elements, while distinct
from time spent in the classroom, were part of a holistic pedagogical approach" (p. 53).
The model involves the standard three hours of class time per week, an hour of shared
workshop time with the instructor, and an hour of one-on-one work with a tutor. The
program showed an impressive rate of success: though the Seamless Support students
were required to meet the same objectives as students in standard sections, after five
years, students were passing at the same rate as students in the standard sections. This
may seem too good to be true, though a heading in the paper does put CUNY's success
into perspective: "Given access to enough resources, basic writers can progress to degree
at the same rate as other students" (p. 67). Specifically, the resource identifies these
resources as essential:



Lecture, during which the instructor teaches the basics of writing and
argumentation and explains the requirements of class assignments
Workshop, during which the tutor, instructor, and students talk about
writing in a more informal setting. The workshop becomes a "third space"
in which the dynamics between the students and teacher become less
hierarchical and more focused on interpersonal connections and student
activity
Tutoring sessions in the writing center, during which the student makes
connections with another writer one-on-one and gets intensive clinical
help
Because my ENC1101 students do often need more support, this model seems relevant
and necessary to my course redesign, but key to this redesign's success will be for me to
figure out how I can help students to success with limited resources.
I am an adjunct instructor, paid a low, flat rate per student who completes the course.
Hearing that students were able to pass with 66% more time spent on teaching them
(three hours versus five hours) is neither surprising nor encouraging (from a strictly
personal perspective that takes into account only on my time spent versus my flat rate
pay). But there are some benefits to my course's asynchronous configuration: once the
course is designed and posted online, the electronic delivery frees me from the three
hours of lecture time per week. The rest of my time spent with my students is time I
spend grading and commenting on papers and drafts (which I spend more time doing than
in the traditional classroom) and tutoring one-on-one. So I do think the Seamless Support
model is feasible for my course, as long as I mechanize as much as I can (presenting
lectures, grading grammatical exercises and directing students to "first line of defense"
information about grammatical concepts and drills) and save my time to help the student
talk about writing informally, discuss progress on recommended grammar exercises, and
discuss the students' experiences with getting help in the writing center.
Johnson, Garza, and Ballmer (2009) offer guidance on making the most of writing center
sessions. Though their model gives students individual success plans and asks for a 30minute per week commitment subject to a call from a university-appointed intervention
specialist if students don't attend, the onus would be on me and the learning resource to
help students create their own success plans. Johnson et al.'s research showed measurable
success for those students who stuck with their success plans, which offers
encouragement that the extra time spent or time shifted from grading to following up will
pay off in greater success (p. 90). They emphasize, as well, the role of the writing center
in helping students who are not remedial students, which suggests that even students who
are on track for success can be helped by tutoring sessions.
The ARCS model
Keller's (2008) ARCS model emphasizes the importance of attention, relevance,
confidence, and satisfaction in student success. He believes that these factors lead
students to volitional or self-regulatory practices so that they can persist in their learning
(p. 178). His theory corroborates my observations of my ENC1102 students who
sometimes exhibit aimlessness in the first part of the course until they home in on a
research topic that is interesting to them, at which time students become more selfsustaining and willing to ask for help when they need it. Summative evaluation
corroborates this evidence: students reporting their motivation and interest in ENC
1102 showed an increase from 3.57 to 4.0 to 4.29 from the beginning to the middle
to the final part of the course. I attribute the trend of increased motivation in
ENC1102 to the focus in the last part of 1102 on one research topic of the student's
choosing.
Interestingly, the survey reported decreasing motivation in ENC1101 students:
Motivation decreased from an average of 3.71 at the beginning of the course to 3.57
then to 3.14 at the end of course. Though students are allowed to pick their writing
topics in 1101, it might make sense to provide a more unified structure that asks the
student to write about the same topic using different argumentative angles.
Since the course ask students to write in the modes of argument (rebuttal,
definition, proposal), asking students to write about the same topic throughout the
course if possible would honor the ancient, but still relevant, purpose of teaching
rhetoric as introduced by Aristotle and Hermagoras—to help people think of
different ways to think about and discuss a given topic.
After reading about ARCS, the question becomes, How can I redesign the course so that
it is clearly relevant sooner? A weakness of the course as it is now is that the first few
assignments ask the student to write about assigned essays that address topics that may
not interest them. The essays are found within a textbook that is ageing, so the relevance
is questionable if only because of vintage. The redesigned course will need to allow for
more student choice (though choice will need to be structured to ensure that the choice of
topic will contribute to success and the resulting increase in confidence of the student).
Keller discusses the relative success of various resources in increasing motivation: CAIs,
reusable motivational objects, animated objects, and blended learning. In creating an
online course that addresses motivation, I do worry that a resource that might act as a
motivational tactic for one student will seem irrelevant to another. Keller confirms that
tactics must be implemented selectively and that "motivationally adaptive CAI showed
higher effectiveness, motivation, and attention" than either the unenhanced version or the
version that presented all 24 tactics to the student (p. 180).
Ten steps comprise Keller's process, which parallels other instructional design processes.
His process gathers information about the learning environment, the audience, learning
conditions, materials, and objectives; however, Keller's process asks the instructional
designer to perform each of these steps with attention to how motivation is enhanced or
ignored at each step. After selecting tactics for motivation, the designer then develops
and evaluates the course. Foregrounding motivation by encouraging the recognition of
the relevance of course content seems like an easy enough prospect for my ENC1102
course. Though the course won't adapt automatically, I can do that as a teacher by
keeping a stable of motivational tactics at the ready.
Huett, Kalinowski, Moller, and Huett's "Improving the motivation and retention of online
students through the use of ARCS-based e-mails" (2008) extends Keller's ARCS theory
to address the problem of distance learner retention, an issue that I surfaced in my
audience and context analysis. The authors suggest that researchers have seen as much as
an 80% improvement in retention when students receive ARCS-based motivational
messages (Visser cited in Huett, Kalinowski, Moller, and Huett, 2008, p. 164), and they
cite Song (2000) when they suggest that the content of motivational messages should
encourage initiation, persistence, and continuing with the course (p. 164).
They tested this assumption by sending e-mails that addressed students in mass, but in
conversational language. For example, the words, "You are almost done with this section
of the class, so run for the finish. I have great faith in your continued success. You can do
it!" were designed to offer encouragement (Huett, Kalinowski, Moller, and Huett, 2008,
168). They found that treatment students completed and passed the course at rates much
higher than control students, though they conclude with a caution against generalizing
their results, the study does suggest that I might experiment with adding more
conversational and encouraging language into my monthly mail-merged status updates.
When suggesting learner-driven instruction, particularly in a flexible learning
environment, it's important to note that, according to Huett, Moller, Young, Bray, and
Huett (2008), confidence was not seen to be increased when students were told that they
could submit assignments in whatever order they choose and whenever they choose.
Though the authors suggest that confounding factors may have been at issue in the lack
of change in confidence measured by their study, 64% of students in their study waited
until the final 72 hours to complete most of the assignments, which the authors speculate
would increase anxiety and reduce confidence in most any student (p. 123).
Connections between ARCS and Seamless Support: Conclusions for a FYW sequence
Because of the similarity between course content and learner variability, both ENC1101
and ENC1102 can benefit to varying degrees from ARCS and Seamless Support model
characteristics. The variety of students and asynchronicity of the courses guarantees that
saving motivational resources for use in either course or being more consistent about
tracking the progress of students who do extra work outside of the assigned work in
either course will only benefit students and lead to increased student success.
Learner Characteristics
Learner Characteristic
ENC1101
ENC1102
General Characteristics


Most are traditional UF
students who put off
taking ENC1102 in their
freshman year, but now
they need to take it.
Many are students that I
may have seen in a
traditional classroom.

Some are adult learners
who are considering
going back to school.
They've already taken
ENC1101 but their
academic writing skills
are rusty. These students
often express that they
have experience writing
in the context of work.

Taking ENC1102 because
it's encouraged.

Usually higher aptitude
than ENC1101 students.

Higher completion rate.

More self-disciplined and
turn in assignment more
regularly.
Few are incarcerated and 
complete the course
Older/more experienced
Most are students that
have chosen the nontraditional path (taking
ENC1101 first or second
semester of freshman
year, in the classroom).
They dropped ENC1101
in the regular term or
didn't register for it in
time and are trying to get
caught up.

Some are English
language learners who
are afraid of the standard
classroom. These
students are least
successful in general

Some are students who
are transitioning from
community college to UF
and want to have classes
on record at UF


Few are students who I
would have seen in a
traditional classroom but
who chose to take an
online course instead.
through
paper/correspondence
study. The instructional
context of this online
course will probably not
accommodate them;
they'll take the older
paper-based course
instead.
Specific Entry
Characteristics

Taking ENC1101 because
it's required.

Lower completion rate.

Less self-disciplined:
often turn in multiple
assignments at a time,
sometimes six in the last
two weeks, resulting in
lower grades on all and
stress on me to grade
before their deadlines.

Younger/less
experienced than
ENC1102
than ENC1102.
Prerequisite Skill and
Knowledge
Prerequisite Skill and
Knowledge

Students need to be able
to write complete
sentences.


Their writing may show
some common errors
(subject-verb agreement,
comma errors,
apostrophe errors,
organizational issues,
tone issues, parallel
structure issues.)
Students need to be able
to write complete
sentences and have
relatively few
grammatical issues.

Their writing may show
some common errors
(subject-verb agreement,
comma errors,
apostrophe errors,
organizational issues,
tone issues, parallel
structure issues.)

They must have enough
recall of grammatical
terms and concepts to
understand how to
interpret information in
a grammar handbook to
fix any minor issues in
their writing. In order to

They must have enough
recall of grammatical
terms and concepts to
understand how to
interpret information in
a grammar handbook to
fix any minor issues in
their writing. In order to
understand when to use
the possessive
apostrophe and when
not to, a student must
understand the concept
of grammatical
possession and the
concept of plurality.

ESL SME said English
language learners would
need to have a 500 on
the TOEFL to succeed,
but this is not enforced
by the registration
system or the office, so
it's a recommended
characteristic.
Attitudinal and
Motivational

Most think the course
will just teach them
about grammar—they
don’t understand the
role of argument and
research in the course.

Many have not had
success with writing in
the past.

Those who have had
success generally are
competent at grammar
but expect the course to
be an "easy A"

Because the course is
required, students tend
to initially focus on doing
what needs to be done to
pass rather than
improving their writing.
Common Errors Made by
Novices

Technical, probably
unknowing, plagiarism
issues with about 30% of
students. Blatant
plagiarism, probably
knowing, with about10%
understand when to use
the possessive
apostrophe and when not
to, a student must
understand the concept
of grammatical
possession and the
concept of plurality.
Attitudinal and
Motivational

Most think the course
will just teach them
about grammar—they
don’t understand the role
of argument and
research in the course.

Most think of research as
boring and are unable,
initially, to connect the
assignment rubrics with
their own interests.

Most don't understand
that the course can help
them succeed in other
courses, their own
understanding of the
world around them, and
in later work life.

Some express anxiety
about writing or complex
relationships, "I like
writing, but I don't like
writing for class/in
academic contexts
because I've had bad
experiences."

Some fear grammar/the
red pen syndrome.
Common Errors Made by
Novices

Using inflated language:
using passive voice and
long words when clearer
and simpler sentences
would be more
of students.

Not proofreading
compelling.

Similarity with ENC1102



Expressing opinions
without providing
evidence.
Talking vaguely about
hot topics ("Why
abortion is bad," "Why
global warming is bad.")
rather than choosing an
audience and focusing
the argument on getting
the audience to do
something about a topic
("Sex ed programs
should create awareness
about the dangers of
abortion," "Corporations
should think about
energy efficiency when
creating their products
and educate customers
about how to operate
products most
efficiently.")
Lack of attention to
audience: writing
inflammatory opinions
without considering
audience alienation.

Not revising/Confusing
revising (argumentlevel) with proofreading
(sentence-level)

Transferability of
critique/review: Not
addressing general
comments I make in
paper comments when
revising (When I
highlight a paragraph
and say, "Every
paragraph needs a topic
sentence. For example
this paragraph's topic
Dry tone/afraid to use "I"
or personal experience
when appropriate
Similarity with ENC1101

Expressing opinions
without providing
evidence.

Talking vaguely about
hot topics ("Why
abortion is bad," "Why
global warming is bad.")
rather than choosing an
audience and focusing
the argument on getting
the audience to do
something about a topic
("Sex ed programs
should create awareness
about the dangers of
abortion," "Corporations
should think about
energy efficiency when
creating their products
and educate customers
about how to operate
products most
efficiently.")

Not revising/Confusing
revising (argumentlevel) with proofreading
(sentence-level)

Transferability of
critique/review: Not
addressing general
comments I make in
paper comments when
revising (When I
highlight a paragraph
and say, "Every
paragraph needs a topic
sentence. For example
this paragraph's topic
sentence might be
something like, '…', the
student will fix that
paragraph but not
sentence might be
something like, '…', the
student will fix that
paragraph but not
others.)

Top 20 grammar errors:
parallel structure, SVA,
apostrophe use, comma
use, etc.

Creating incomplete
citations or not citing
properly or at all

Using too many
quotations rather than
summarizing or
paraphrasing

Summarizing
information rather than
making an
argument/analyzing/
critiquing.

Not linking paragraphs
to the main claim, if
there is a main claim at
all.

Researching with Google

Using sentences that are
too short or choppy
instead of using a variety
of sentence structures.
More advanced novices,
similarity with ENC1102,
less common in ENC1101
students

Learning Styles
Using inflated language:
using passive voice and
long words when clearer
and simpler sentences
would be more
compelling.
others.)

Top 20 grammar errors:
parallel structure, SVA,
apostrophe use, comma
use, etc.

Creating incomplete
citations or not citing
properly

Using too many
quotations rather than
summarizing or
paraphrasing

Summarizing
information rather than
making an
argument/analyzing/
critiquing.

Not linking paragraphs to
the main claim, if there is
a main claim at all.

Researching with Google

Using sentences that are
too short or choppy
instead of using a variety
of sentence structures.
Less advanced novices,
similarity with ENC1101,
less common for ENC1102
students

Lack of attention to
audience: writing
inflammatory opinions
without considering
audience alienation.
Course will provide a blend
of reading, thinking, doing,
listening, watching activities.
Course will provide a blend
of reading, thinking, doing,
listening, watching activities.
Some activities will have a
Some activities will have a
watching/reading or
listening/reading option.
watching/reading or
listening/reading option.
Academic Characteristics:
Low-mid performing
Average performing
Personal and Social
Characteristics
Varying attitude; most are
motivated to take the course
because they need for gen
ed.
Better attitudes in general;
misguided about where to
place their energies
Cultural Diversity
English language learners
are more prone to plagiarism
issues; more prone trouble
making an argument
Learners with Disabilities
Few disabilities reported in
the initial questionnaire; a
few students have ADHD.
Few disabilities reported in
the initial questionnaire; a
few students have ADHD.
Adult Learners
Some adult learners; course
builds in flexibility of topic.
Some adult learners;
beginning assignments need
more flexibility.
Open Access/Creative
Commons
If I make the course open access, learners from around the
internet may use the site. These will be considered a
secondary audience. While I want the course to be useful for
the internet community, needs of these learners won't be
taken into account during design.
Context Analysis
Factor
ENC1101 and ENC1102
Internet factors
Bandwidth
Assume moderate bandwidth. No long videos. One
student was using an internet café to complete
assignments, but in general, students seem to have
access at home/dorm room.
Accessibility
I have yet to have a student with visual or auditory
impairment, but I would like to plan ahead anyway.
Visual Appeal
I care about the design and I think students will
appreciate a well-designed site, though they may
not expect it since most academic online learning
courses are boilerplate.
I will have more control over design while the
course is hosted on my site; less if it has to fit neatly
into Sakai at UF.
Scheduled time for
learning
Variable—paced by the learner. Asynchronous,
which is a drag because it offers little opportunity
for group work.
Access/Authentication Access issues will cause some fragmentation:
Some content will be open access (the grammar
handbook uses an open access site, though the
student still needs to log in for exercises to show up
in my exercise gradebook for them), but Elluminate,
Turnitin, assignment dropboxes, Sakai gradebook,
and access to expert video commentary on the
publisher's site will require authentication. This
may lead to some confusion about when the student
should go where.
Motivation
No face-to-face time increases the self-discipline
necessary.
Cost factor
Tuition and Fees
This cost is inflexible/set by the university
Books
This cost is flexible/determined by me. I will
maximize the use of online sources where possible,
though I think adding some premium video
resources may be necessary to make the courses
interesting. ENC1102 students are mostly
traditional students, so I think adding premium
sources will still result in costs that are lower than
their average textbook cost for courses. ENC1101
students are sometimes not traditional students, but
premium resources may increase engagement and
completion rates.
Technology
Students will need a mic/camera for Elluminate, but
we can sub in phone calls if technology
requirements are prohibitive.
Internal Factors
UF DCE Policies
Course is 16 weeks with possible 16 week
extension. Slight flexibility for a few more days after
that if I need to grade or a student needs a few extra
days.
External Resources
UF online library
I need to update my tutorial on how to access
library and perform keyword search, need to update
links to chat with a librarian, offer Elluminate
sessions for research help.
UF Reading and
Writing Center
Free help by appointment. Need to update links with
information about contacting them.
Transfer Context
I can use papers students have to write for another
course or another purpose as a transfer context
factor that will help students understand the course
is designed to help them.
Textbooks and
Learning Resources
The textbooks and learning resources will provide
much of the background information, some
exercises, and a bank of examples of argumentative
writing.
Keller's ARCS Model
Keller's (2008) ARCS model emphasizes the
importance of attention, relevance, confidence, and
satisfaction in student success. He believes that
these factors lead students to volitional or selfregulatory practices so that they can persist in their
learning (p. 178). His theory corroborates my
observations of my ENC1102 students who
sometimes exhibit aimlessness in the first part of
the course until they home in on a research topic
that is interesting to them, at which time students
become more self-sustaining and willing to ask for
help when they need it. ARCS will provide a model
for making the course seem clearly relevant to
ENC1102 student sooner.
CUNY's SWW
Seamless Support
Model
CUNY's SWW Seamless Support Model has shown a
great amount of success and will be the model I will
use for my ENC1101 course.
Specifically, the model identifies these resources as
essential:
•
Lecture, during which the instructor teaches
the basics of writing and argumentation and
explains the requirements of class assignments
•
Workshop, during which the tutor,
instructor, and students talk about writing in a more
informal setting. The workshop becomes a "third
space" in which the dynamics between the students
and teacher become less hierarchical and more
focused on interpersonal connections and student
activity
•
Tutoring sessions in the writing center,
during which the student makes connections with
another writer one-on-one and gets intensive
clinical help
Sample Lesson for First Year Writing: The Definition Argument
Goal Statement for ENC1101: Week 6: Arguments of Definition
Arguments of Definition will teach freshman writers how to think critically about
people, places, and things in the world and the definitions or categories we
unthinkingly ascribe to them. The resulting assessment will demonstrate that the
student has identified a word that, upon inspection, needs a better or more useful
definition or category. The student will provide evidence to support the new
definition or category, and he or she will write an argument that, through sound
argument and formal and mechanical competence, persuades an audience to think
more critically about the word.
Task Analysis: Understanding and Writing Arguments of Definition
1. Understand why a definition argument is made
a. Accepted definitions are often inadequate and based on uncritical
acceptance of formal dictionary definitions or operational definitions.
b. Society can outgrow a definition
i. Definitions can be harmful to people (in the case of stereotypes
or racial slurs that hurt people)
ii. Definitions can have outlived their use (as in "primetime" in
the age of Internet broadcasting on demand)
iii. Definitions can mislead (as when "intellectual property" is
given the same rights as real property; when corporations are
given the status of "individuals" without being beholden to the
assumption that individuals have ethical obligations.)
2. Understand how a definition argument is made: formal definition,
operational definition, definition by example.
a. Formal Definitions
i. The best definition of x is …
1. Example: Dictionary definition (a definition "argument"
that is no longer arguable to most people)
2. Example: Parks hold a much more important role in the
American mind than just as a place to have fun. Parks
allow recreation, which builds community, they help us
appreciate our country and landscape, and they help us
mourn injustices of the past.
b. Operational Definitions
i. X must satisfy Y requirements in order to be considered useful,
safe, effective, etc.;
1. Example: Laundry is not complete unless it is folded and
put away
2. Example: The insurance industry does not consider
water damage to houses caused by hurricane storm
surges as insurable under hurricane insurance policies;
instead the homeowners need flood coverage.
ii. X is in category Y or X is defined by a), b), and c).
1. Example: cheerleading is a sport
2. Example: the legal corporate individual is a psychopath
3. Example: graffiti isn't always art; sometimes it's just
plain vandalism.
c. Definition by Example
i. X is defined by examples A, B, C that we all accept as being part
of that category. So is D also in that category?
1. Good when the category itself doesn't have a standard
definition but is a "know it when you see it" type
category.
3. Choose a topic
a. Topic is a question about a definition of a term or its category
b. The question must be arguable
c. Avoid poor topics: topics that are too extensive or aren't arguable
i. questions that can be answered by looking at a dictionary or
other reference make poor topics. No one is going to argue that
an elephant is a pachyderm.
ii. papers about the definition of love or friendship tend to be
weak because people are used to thinking of their
characteristics a matter of personal rather than public
preference.
iii. "Abortion is murder" is a definition argument, but you can't
address the definition of life and the definition of murder in the
page length you have available to you. Stay away from these
clichéd topics. Stick with arguments that people are likely to
disagree about or have never thought of but still can be
persuaded by.
iv. Avoid defining something only as "good" or "bad." That is an
evaluation argument and not necessarily a definition
argument. Whether the category is good or bad can be what's
at stake, but it shouldn’t be the only argument.
1. Example: "Sweatshop labor is bad" is a poor topic, but
"Sweatshop labor is slavery" is a good topic choice.
Whether you define sweatshop labor as slavery or not
will certainly matter. People already feel that is bad, so
if you can convince people that sweatshop labor is
slavery, you've won your definition argument and
people will hopefully disapprove of sweatshop labor as
they disapprove of slavery.
4. Identify the ways in which the accepted definition or category ascribed to a
term is lacking or doesn't hold up to critical inquiry.
a. Identify what's at stake. Why should people care about the definition
at all?
b. What are the consequences of people's misunderstanding?
5. Identify modifications to the definition that will help the readers define or
categorize the term in a way that is more useful.
a. List the accepted characteristics or definition of the terms and
categories you are exploring
i. Explore accepted dictionary definitions
ii. Explore people's assumptions about the definitions—ask your
friends and family members their definition. Are the
definitions the same as yours or each others'?
iii. Look in books about the topic to see how people are using the
word or category
b. Identify what's missing from the definitions
i. What does the accepted definition exclude?
ii. Use logic and evidence to explain why what is excluded should
be included.
1. Example: Cheerleading isn't often thought of as a sport,
but similar activities such as rhythm gymnastics have
Olympic events, so cheerleading should be considered a
sport.
2. Provide evidence: If you are making a comparison,
explain how your comparison is sound.
6. Write the first draft of the essay
a. Draw upon planning and drafting skills from previous lessons
7. Revise according to revision procedures
a. Revise using revision strategies introduced in the beginning of the
course.
b. Pay special attention to the grammatical concepts introduced in the
previous lesson.
c. Ensure that the argument meets the rhetorical situation by
considering what the audience will need to read to be persuaded.
Instructional Objectives
After completing this lesson, students should:
1. Choose a topic that is suitable for a definition argument
a. Explain why definition arguments are made
b. Identify whether a definition argument fits the pattern of formal
definition, operational definition, definition by example
c. Identify the ways in which the accepted definition or category
ascribed to a term is lacking or doesn't hold up to critical inquiry.
2. Propose a definition argument structure that provides reasons and evidence
to support the argument for the new definition or category
3. Argue for the proposed definition in a draft essay that is able to, through
sound argument, persuade an audience to think more critically about the
word or category being defined
4. Revise the draft essay into a polished final draft that demonstrates
mechanical competence using previously acquired revision procedures.
Instructional Sequence and Strategies
The instructional sequence emphasizes part-whole learning by using an iterative
pattern that presents material and allows for practice and feedback. Faded prompts
support learning metacognitive processes that will help students apply their
understanding of minor objectives to understanding the major objectives (Nuckles,
Hubner, Dumer, & Renkl, 2010).
Instructional Event
Activity
Objective 1. Choose a topic that is suitable for a definition argument
1. Gain attention and
stimulate recall of prior
learning
Audio introduction that welcomes the learner to the
lesson and prepares the learner for the content and
the structure of the lesson.
Discuss the definition argument as a mode of
argument, just like the rebuttal and rhetorical
analysis that we have already covered. Explain that
just like those other types of arguments, arguments
must be arguable and something must be at stake.
2. Inform learners of
objectives
List objectives.
3. Present the content, part 1
Previewing Definition Arguments
I may decide to list tasks instead.
A video introduces the importance of definition
arguments for terms such as "welfare" and
"Hispanic." Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh each
presents his own definition of welfare and then
explains the effect his definition has on the way
society responds to the word.
4. Provide learning guidance,
part 1
How Do I Make a Definition Argument?
5. Elicit performance, part 1
After watching the video, the student is asked
several questions about the topic choice of the
argument presented in The Corporation and the
effectiveness of the argument structure.
6. Provide feedback, part 1
The student is then prompted to click a link to see a
prepared answer that explains why the topic was
suitable and how the argument was structured.
7. Provide learning guidance,
part 2
The student is introduced to the three patterns of
definition arguments: formal definitions,
operational definitions, and definition by example.
Each pattern has some examples of suitable topics,
and a graphic organizer is provided. Students are
told that the organizer will help them plan their
argument and track arguments that they will be
presented to on the next page.
8. Provide learning guidance,
part 3
Topic Ideas
This video segment summarizes The Corporation, a
film that uses a definition argument to show the
role of corporations in America. Throughout the
video, students see questions guiding them through
the filmmakers' process of making this particular
definition argument. They are prompted to pause
the video when necessary so that they can answer
the questions asked of them before proceeding. The
familiar Toulmin formatted argument outline is
presented below the video and the student is
prompted in the introduction to download the
outline and follow the argument based on that
graphical organizer.
This section introduces students to some topic
ideas that explore how identity is defined and the
effects of definition on identities. An example of
defining a word that doesn't exist at the time of
definition (i.e., cyberspace) is introduced. Students
are prompted to answer questions about the
purpose and structure of the arguments, though no
sample response is given.
I may decide to provide sample responses if the
responses fade too quickly and students are not able
to answer the questions when they discuss their
evaluation of the course with me.
9. Present an example
Exercise: Preparing a Proposal Based on an
Example Student Argument
The student is provided a sample student model
definition argument.
9. Elicit performance
The student is asked to fill out the graphic
organizer based on the student's argument.
10. Provide feedback
The student is provided a link to download a
completed graphic organizer that shows the
structure of the model argument.
Offer feedback on the proposed topic. Address
whether the topic is arguable or not and whether
the student is likely to be able to structure an
argument based on the topic.
Objective 2. Propose a definition argument structure that provides reasons and
evidence to support the argument for the new definition or category
11. Elicit performance
The student is asked to complete a proposal that
consists of a graphic organizer and some questions
that guide the learner to thinking about the
feasibility of the definition argument topic.
12. Provide feedback
I will respond to the student's proposal to make
sure that the topic is feasible and is of the correct
argument type.
Objective 3. Argue for the proposed definition in a draft essay that is able to,
through sound argument, persuade an audience to think more critically about
the word or category being defined
Objective 4. Revise the draft essay into a polished final draft that demonstrates
mechanical competence using previously acquired revision procedures.
13. Elicit performance
I will provide an assignment prompt that reiterates
the requirements of the written assignment and
reminds students of the revision process that they
learned in a previous lesson.
14. Assess performance
Ask that the student turn in a definition argument
for grading.
15. Enhance retention and
transfer to the job
Provide feedback that gives an example of how the
student's definition argument might be used to
build part of the evaluation argument that is due
next.
Assessment
Students will be assessed for mastery of the major objective (#4) by turning in a
definition argument proposal and then a definition argument essay that satisfies the
rubrics below.
The proposal will be graded pass/fail, and students whose proposals do not
demonstrate understanding of concepts key to their success in the major task will
be asked to revise until they demonstrate mastery.
The post-assessment will be graded holistically, with the framework provided below
as the basis. Holistic grading, though less precise, has been shown to work better at
expressing the degree to which a piece of writing succeeds or fails in achieving its
purpose, given the extent of "latent" criteria involved in assessing writing (with
some lists of such criteria expanding to over 50 items) (Sadler, 2009). The
framework and rationale will be explained to the student in a grading section of the
course and linked in each assignment section.
Since holistic grading has weaknesses when it comes to offering feedback (Sadler,
2009, p. 163), I will continue to offer evaluative feedback that points students
toward improvement and de-emphasizes the assigned grade as a fait accompli by
encouraging students who perform in the C+ to D- range to revise.
Because the definition argument is such a specialized concept, one that very few
students would have any experience with, I don't feel that it would be practical or
wise to assign a pre-assessment to measure pre-knowledge about the content of
instruction. Because a demonstration of mastery of the objectives can only be shown
when students write a definition argument, a valid pre-assessment would also ask
them to write a definition argument. However, without instruction, this task would
prove too onerous to students and would likely deteriorate self-confidence
(Morrison, Ross, Kalman, & Kemp, 2001, 294), a factor that I surfaced as important
in the learner assessment.
Diagnostics that test competency with grammar and route students to particular
resources (and sometimes bar them from taking a particular course) have been
found to be effective (Brocato, Furr, Henderson, & Horton, 2005), and the course
itself will begin with a diagnostic essay. The diagnostic will be assessed analytically
because analytic scales have been shown to provide the most effective base for
prescriptive action (Knoch, 2009). However, this grade will not be reported to the
student to prevent negative feelings.
Definition Argument Proposal
Specifications
•
•
•
•
Value: 25 points for proposal, 100 for final draft (Course total: 1000)
Length: 3-4 pages, and a Works Cited page, for final draft
Formatting: MLA format: View the formatting tutorial in Lesson 0 for details.
Submission: Upload Assignment 6 using the Sakai assignment uploader
Definition arguments require you to make an argument about something that needs
to be defined better (formal definition) or something that is usually thought of as a
member of one category but that would better fit into another category (operational
definition). You may decide to make a definition by example, but it's more likely that
you'll use examples to help you support either a formal or operational argument.
Instructions
Fill in the blanks in one of the two main claim patterns below. Then answer the
following questions about your topic.
1. Main claim (pattern for operational argument): Although [topic] is
usually considered to be a [category] , it's better categorized as a
[different category] .
OR
Main claim (pattern for formal argument): Though [topic] is usually
defined as [standard, uncritical definition] , a more accurate definition is
[your new definition based on inquiry into the "true nature" of the topic] .
2. Remember that questions that can be answered by looking at a dictionary or
other reference make poor topics. No one is going to argue that an elephant is
a pachyderm. Is your definition arguable? Who is likely to argue with
you?
3. Remember that you need to be able to address your topic in 3 – 4 pages.
"Abortion is murder" is a definition argument, but the argument relies on a
warrant of "a fetus is a person," which is another argument in itself. You can't
address the definition of human life and the definition of murder in the page
length you have available to you. Stay away from these clichéd topics or
topics that are so much dependent on personal preference that it doesn't
make sense to argue. No one wants to accept your definition for love or
friendship. Stick with arguments about topics that are novel and that people
can be persuaded by. Can you address your topic in 3 – 4 pages? Are your
warrants easily accepted by people or will you need to argue those as
well? Can you anticipate any complications?
4. Remember that a definition argument must argue a definition. Avoid defining
something only as "good" or "bad." Such an argument is an evaluation
argument instead of a definition argument. Defining something in one
category or another should have some importance. Defining a corporation as
a psychopath means that people are likely to think of corporation's behaviors
as bad, but this evaluation happens after the definition argument and is
what's at stake; it's not a definition argument itself. What's at stake in your
argument? Are people likely to change their opinion about a topic
because of your new definition argument?
Alternate Outline
Main Claim:
At Stake:
1. Reason 1:
a. Warrant 1 (Reason 1 only matters if…):
b. Evidence 1:
c. Authority 1:
2. Reason 2
a. Warrant 2 (Reason 2 only matters if…):
b. Evidence 2:
c. Authority 2:
3. Reason 3:
a. Warrant 3 (Reason 3 only matters if…):
b. Evidence 3:
c. Authority 3:
Outline: You can use the Toulmin graphic organizer below, or you can use the
outline on the next page if the formatting of the graphic organizer gets unwieldy or
you prefer linear outlines.
Main Claim:
At stake:
Reason (criteria) 1:
Reason (criteria) 2:
Reason (criteria) 3:
Warrant: Only matters if…
Warrant: Only matters if…
Warrant: Only matters if…
If not, stop here and find a new
reason.
If not, stop here and find a
new reason.
If not, stop here and find a new
reason.
:
Evidence:
Authority:
Evidence:
Evidence:
Authority:
Authority:
Assignment: Definition Argument Essay
Value: 100 points (course total 1000)
Length: 3 – 4 pages and a works cited page
Formatting: Essay in MLA format: view the formatting tutorial in Lesson 0 for
details
Submission: Upload this assignment using the Sakai assignment uploader
Approval: You can only submit your assignment once I've returned your proposal
and approved your topic and main claim.
Rubrics: Please review the standard course rubrics page.
Instructions. Definition arguments require you to make an argument about
something that needs to be defined better. You can make a definition argument in
one of three ways:

Operational Definition Argument

Formal Definition Argument

Definition Argument by Example
Preparation Tips. Review your proposal and the instructions provided on that
worksheet. Your approved proposal will act as the blueprint for your argument.
Remember that your main claim will reflect the reasons, criteria, or examples you
use to support your definition. Convincing definition arguments will use examples
and evidence, and the type of evidence you will use depends on the type of
argument. Remember that all evidence should be cited.
Summative Evaluation for Previous Version of the Course
Because this lesson is a revision of a previous course lesson, I did a summative
evaluation of the old version of the course to serve as a starting point for the
formative evaluation for this version and assignment. While the survey asked
questions about the course in general, it points to general changes needed to the
course. Below is a discussion of each question:
1. Questions about motivation and interest
Scale: 1 (not at all motivated/interested) to 5 (very motivated/interested)
Motivation decreased from an average of 3.71 at the beginning of the course to 3.57
then to 3.14 at the end of course. In contrast, students reporting their motivation
and interest in ENC 1102 showed an increase from 3.57 to 4.0 to 4.29. I attribute the
trend of increased motivation in ENC1102 to the focus in the last part of 1102 on
one research topic of the student's choosing. Though students are allowed to pick
their assignment topics in 1101, it might make sense to provide a more unified
structure that asks the student to write about the same topic using different
argumentative angles.
2. Questions about various course characteristics
Scale: 1 (not at all) to 7 (more than a lot)
All students who completed the course thought the course was worth taking (4
correlated to "as much as I thought it would be") with the average being 5.43.
Students reported the course was slightly more difficult than they were expecting, at
3.86 on a scale of 1 – 7. Students felt the course was administered fairly (5.71), was
well organized (6.14), and was interesting (5.29).
3. and 4. grades received and expected
Scale: A to E
Students responding to the course received mostly A or A- grades, with one student
not responding. This grade distribution is not surprising because students are
encouraged to rewrite assignments that they do poorly on. They expected to receive
slightly lower grades.
4. Factors that contributed most to student success
Forced ranking 1 (most important) through 7 (least important)
Factors that contributed most to student success were "Teacher contact other than
feedback on assignments (e-mail, chat, phone calls)," "Feedback on assignments,"
and "Online Content."
"Possibility of revising assignments" and "clarity of assignments" hovered around
the middle rankings, as did "the skills and aptitudes you brought into the course"
and "your own interest or motivation."
Least important were "textbooks" and "external tutoring. "
6. Questions about satisfaction with textbooks, online content, and assignment
feedback
Scale: 1 (not at all) to 7 (more than a lot)
Students thought the textbooks were less interesting than they thought they might
be, though the books were clear enough and helpful enough (4.43 and 4.14 out of 7).
The online content fared better receiving 5 for interest, 5.14 for helpfulness, and
5.57 for clarity.
Feedback on assignments was rated as the most helpful resource at 6.29 of 7.
6. Overall course supportiveness in meeting goals
Scale: 1 (not at all) to 7 (more than a lot)


"How supportive was the course in helping you meet the goals for taking the
course you identified when you enrolled (which may include the goal of
receiving credit for a required course)?" received a 5.57.
"Aside from credit that you received for taking a required course, how
helpful has the course been in your education, career, or other aspects of
your life?" received a 5.29.
These ratings suggest that the course both met students' goals for taking the course
and that they perceive it to be worthwhile after finishing.
7. Improvements desired/needed
Forced ranking 1 (most important) through 8 (least important)
Based on the question, "Which of the following features would you like to see more
of?" I have drawn the following conclusions:




1
All students ranked example arguments as one of the top four desired
features1.
Students would like to see more lecture videos, with 66% of students ranking
video as 1, 2, or 3 most important.
Desire for lecture podcasts was distributed evenly, though tended toward the
lower end of the scale.
Scheduled office hours was evenly distributed but tended toward the lower
end of the spectrum as did links to helpful external web resources.
I assume Respondent Two ranked everything backwards in Question 7 based on his or her
ranking of "other" as most important and example arguments as least important. These
responses seem quite out of line with other responses. After this second response, I added
(most important) next to the number 1 and (least important) next to the number 8.
Previously, this information was only in the question stem.

Rankings showed that students generally did not rank improved feedback on
assignments as an important desire.
8. Overall course ranking
Scale: 1 (terrible) to 5 (excellent)
Overall, of the students to whom the question was applicable, 80% ranked the
course "excellent" compared to face-to-face courses they had taken at UF while 20%
said the course was average. 60% said the course was excellent compared to faceto-face courses they had taken at other schools compared to 40 who said it was just
okay. The course was ranked "better than average" or higher by all students who
had taken other online courses at UF, with 60% saying that the course was excellent.
Online courses at other schools fared well, as evidenced by a more split response
with half of the respondents saying the course was average or better than average
compared to online courses taken at other schools and half saying that the course
was excellent.
Conclusions of Summative Survey
Based on this summative evaluation of this previous version of the course, I
concluded that the course was working as it should, though a few changes might
result in happier students.
1. Example student assignments will be incorporated into all lessons. I have
received permission to use student assignments, and Arguments of
Definition currently includes one student example, though I may add
more pending feedback from students.
2. The clarity of online content should be increased even though it was
evaluated highly, especially because opinion about the clarity and
helpfulness of textbooks was split. Arguments of Definition includes more
information on argument and fulfills much of the role of the rhetoric
handbook. I'm not sure whether students will prefer this arrangement,
but I expect that the textbook ratings will not see improvement in the
future if I add more content online.
3. Video and audio features will be added where possible. Arguments of
Definition has an audio introduction and welcome and four videos linked
with exercises. I'm not sure whether students are expecting mobile
learning objects that they can play through an iPod or other mobile
device. A follow-up survey or literature review might shed light on
expectations in this area.
4. Students were split on how helpful new interactive practice grammar
exercises might be. It is clear that these should be an option for students
who may want or need to take advantage of them. Arguments of
Definition, in its final form, will include a grammar quiz linked to
feedback that offers readings on grammar and exercises that the student
can complete to make up points missed on the quiz.
5. Even though students evaluated assignment feedback highly, two of seven
ranked "improved feedback on assignments" as something they would
like to see. For example, Respondent 3 ranked "How helpful was the
feedback on assignments" at 6 out 7, but also ranked "improved
feedback" as the third most important thing he or she would like to see.
Respondent 6 ranked "How helpful was the feedback on assignments" as
7 out of 7, and also ranked "improved feedback" as number 2. Some
students clearly want more feedback even though they found the current
level of feedback helpful. The course should allow for varying feedback
mechanisms, perhaps allowing students to choose whether to receive
their feedback in Elluminate using screensharing capabilities or via
Skype.
6. Clarity of assignments should be improved. Student perception of clarity of
assignments was split, and increasing clarity might decrease the number
of rewrites and therefore the time I spend responding to assignments,
leaving more time for increased feedback for students who prefer it. The
revised version of the course will have more lessons, and the more
complicated argument types will have a required argument proposal
assignment to make sure that students understand the requirements of
the assignment before they begin writing. Arguments of Definition will
have a new required proposal.
Discussion of Evaluation Method
Because students will use the content in an asynchronous setting, all evaluations of
the content for Arguments of Definition were conducted asynchronously. The
materials were brought to a presentable state based on the summative assessment
of the previous assignment, evaluation of definition argument assignments received
from students who used the old version of the course, and planned instructional
strategies based on the learner analysis and task analysis.
Evaluators for the lesson consisted of four groups:

The course was first evaluated by the instructional designer at UF's
Department of Continuing Education. The purpose of this review was to
point out any features of the course that would inhibit learning.

The course was then evaluated by a subject matter expert, an assistant
professor at Clemson University whom I went to graduate school with. His
field is new media, and he has experience working on the Web, so his advice
was useful in both content and presentation areas. The purpose of this
review is to ensure that the content is accurate and the delivery is suitable
for freshman writers.

The course was then evaluated by a current ENC1101 student. She evaluated
the course as a student would. She is the primary audience for this course. In
return for her time, she received extra credit toward her definition argument
assignment.

Few students from my ENC1101 course responded to a request to review,
but four ENC1102 students responded. In return for their time, they received
extra credit.
Formative review by an instructional designer and resulting changes
The first one-on-one review with the instructional designer at UF's Department of
Continuing Education suggested that changes were needed to make the lesson more
coherent and to provide more guiding narration. At that point, the assessment for
the lesson was only mentioned in the objectives and then at the end, so the reviewer
suggested that I introduce not only definition arguments but also the assignments
and tasks that students would need to complete.
I revised to provide a welcome and introductory audio feature that orients the
student to the topic and to the required tasks. The reviewer thought my objectives
looked too much like tasks and suggested that I revise the objectives or call them
tasks. I made a revision of the objectives and made a note to ask my student
evaluators which set they respond to better.
The reviewer also pointed out some dense language and a typographical error. It's
always helpful to have another eye on the material. The reviewer had trouble with
docx formatted documents, so I changed all documents and links to .doc formatted
files.
The reviewer noted as well that the third page presented information about types of
definition arguments but didn't explicitly tie that information to the task of choosing
a definition argument.
I made these changes before proceeding to the next stage of review, which
happened all on the same day, though independently.
After the formative evaluation, I revised the course, and the rest of the reviewers
used the same materials.
Formative review by a subject matter expert
The review by the subject matter expert suggested that the lesson is interesting with
examples that are modern, and he said the lesson was one that he would use in his
own courses.
He liked the audio commentary and thought that adding more audio commentary
throughout the course might be advantageous. He did note that the text offers an
"adequate alternative," but given this comment and the suggestion by the
instructional designer reviewer, I think that adding more audio would offer more of
a narrative feel to the course and better simulate the familiar teacher-student
interaction. He mentioned that the module's organization into several pages was
effective, but that one page in particular was long.
The reviewer also suggested that I ask more pointed questions changing, for
instance, questions such is "was the argument convincing?" to "How did the
argument convince you?" or "How might the authors improve upon the argument."
The reviewer also suggested that adding content to the Definition by Example
section and discussing the concepts of compare and contrast and visual
presentation in argument would improve the coverage of the lesson.
He provided suggestions for clarifying language and improving an example to make
a better "best example" for the formal definition argument section.
Finally, he suggested that students should be warned about circular definitions.
Procedures and Instruments for review by students
Student evaluators were asked to review the content on their own, just as a student
would.
In particular, they were asked to note:

Their level of understanding or confusion at various points in the course

Their level of interest at various points in the course

How long it took them to complete the lesson

I did not ask them to complete the writing assignment that this lesson leads
up to, but I asked them to complete the lesson through Step 10 in the
Instructional Sequence and Strategies section

I asked them to complete Step 13 over the phone individually with me to
prevent students from spending too much time on the assignment and not
completing the evaluation as a result.
I spoke to each student after he or she reviewed the lesson, and my questions
focused on determining whether he or she could explain the role of the definition
argument and how these arguments are structured. The most important goal of the
evaluation interviews was to determine whether students were able to choose a
suitable definition argument topic, and once they had, if they had learned strategies
for structuring the argument. If students were not able to come up with an
argument topic, I tried to determine whether they at least understand what would
make a good topic.
I evaluated the success of the lesson by looking at the sample outline and proposal
that the student filled out based on the sample definition argument. If students did
not complete the proposal because of time limitations, I quizzed them orally on the
phone to determine whether they understood what was involved and whether they
understood the proposal.
Summary of student formative evaluations
Respondent 1

Student in ENC1102

Completed in 1.5 hours/skipped some content

Would like a transcript for the audio introduction on page 1.

Thought the video on Page 2 was boring; had to pause because the video took
time to load

Page 3. Liked examples and in-depth definitions of different types of
definition argument

Page 4. Was helpful as supplemental information. Student didn't read wordfor-word but would have gone back had she needed to complete the
assignment.

Upon query, student was able to explain how to make a definition argument
"I think a definition argument is when you start with an unbiased approach
and then defend it from two different sides. Don't base it on feelings, but use
specific examples that show your take on the situation."

Student was able to formulate a definitional claim regarding whether ADHD
is a disorder worthy of treatment. She said she would go about making the
argument by doing research and bringing in a personal example of her
brother who has ADHD and benefits from accommodation.

Student sent a follow up email that also demonstrated her ability to
formulate a different argument:
Ok so I think I have a definition argument,
How about what it means to be an American?
- I obviously do not have as much information for this assignment as I would if I
was actually completing it, but I think I have a few ideas as to how I would defend
it.
Some people say that Americans have a civil religion and there is a certain amount
of American history Americans are expected to know about their country. But now
a days, how many Americans truly know what makes them an American?
Also think about what it takes for a foreigner to become an American citizen? The
amount of information they have to know, study and retain on a test. It takes years
for them to actually become a American if they even are able to become one.
If I were completing the assignment, I think this would be a definition I would be
able to work with.
Respondent 1 Summary
This email shows that the student understands the importance of introducing
context of what people think it means to be an American: knowledge of something
about America and appreciation of the separation of church and state. She then
presents the argument—that foreigners do not take this definition for granted
because it is not accessible to them. They have to study for years for years to
become American.
Respondent 2

Completed in 1.5 hours/read every word

Student in ENC1102

The video on page 2 was long but helpful. She skipped it initially because she
was bored but was then confused, so she went back to look at the video. Then
she really liked it and then understood everything else because of it.

Thought the videos that auto-played were annoying

Was able to explain what a definition argument is: "Definition argument
comes out of your perspective. You take definitions from the dictionary, but
you make an argument."

Said would not like podcasts, just more audio.

Was able to explain how to make a definition argument: "Start with a
reason…or three, well, two to three. And the provide really strong pieces of
evidence."

Was able to explain how the Corporation learning object made its argument.
Mentioned that the Wal-mart/child labor example in the movie stood out.

When asked what she would write a definition argument about, she said that
she is interested in psychology and would talk about the difference between
textbook psychology and perspective psychology. She mentioned that her
father is a doctor and that he has suggested that statistics used in the
psychology classroom have been proven wrong. Student draws the
conclusion that textbook definitions aren't bulletproof. Student suggests that
she would talk about a person or group of people that would fit the textbook
definition of something but not actually "be" that thing.
Respondent 2 Summary
Student can explain the purpose of definition arguments and is able to derive a topic
that is relevant to her interests and founded on experience.
Respondent 3

Student in ENC1102

Wanted a transcript for the audio introduction.

Mentioned that I used contractions in the text content.

Liked the audio introduction content Merriam-Webster versus Urban
Dictionary.

Understood the argument of the Corporation video and was able to explain
the main claim and the structure of the argument. "They took a list of criteria
and check for all or most of the criteria in the pseudoperson." Then he
rebutted the argument, explaining which logical fallacies the video authors
committed.

He liked the text narration in the video that asked questions.

He liked the questions after the video and the ability to click to see the
answer.

Would like page 4 to be split up into multiple pages. When prompted
whether he thought there was too much reading he said that there wasn't
actually too much reading but he got the feeling that there would be too
much reading after looking at the page. He said the effect was more
psychological than anything else and that he needed a "rest" halfway down
the page.

He likes the repetition of outline and questions with different examples.

He liked the definition argument proposal structure and detailed instruction
for the assignment prompt.

When asked what he would make a definition argument about, he referred to
the William Gibson example and said that he often had the experience of
wanting to make a new word for a feeling or concept that he felt the world
was lacking. He explained that he realized this new word must have an
audience who cares about it. He says he would make his argument by first
introducing the word and saying how it would be defined. Then he would say
why he thinks it should be a word and why it would be worth people's time
to consider it. He explains that his argument would relate how the word
would settle ambiguities in the language or settle disputes about the way the
term is understood. He would then explain the various scenarios in which the
new word would apply.

Liked diagrams for outlines.

Mentioned that there was a good mix of video and text. He referred to videos
as like a checkpoint that rekindles interest to make you want to read on.
Respondent 3 Summary
This student has been high performing in the course and demonstrates that the
assignment can be interesting to students who are higher performing and more
cognitively prepared. The student clearly got the structure of the definition
argument and was able to speak fluently about ways to make definition arguments
and why they were important, but his discussion showed that he brought a lot of
understanding of argumentation and logic to the lesson to begin with.
Respondent 4

50 minutes

Student in ENC1102

Would like an audio transcript for the audio introduction.

Liked that questions have answers.

Liked the outline.

Would like to see answers underneath all of the "To consider" questions.

Likes the Nerd, Geek, Dork example and believes it will keep readers
interested.

Would like page 4 to be split into multiple pages—says it's "intimidating."

Thought the videos that autoplayed were distracting

"I think the module is very clear and the bulleted points really help. I would
just bold any key words you think pertain the most to the lesson because
personally I know I like to skim documents firm and I also read whatever is
in bold. I also think mixing different types of multimedia makes the lesson
more interesting. "
Student was not able to explain what a definition argument is even though
she had written one before in her 1101 course that she took on campus.
She was not able to come up with a viable definition argument.


Respondent 4 Summary
This student's comments were sparse, and when I prompted her for more
information about particular aspects of the lesson, she was not able to respond in
detail. I think she was serious about skimming and did not read the lesson for
comprehension. This evaluation is very helpful for student attitudes toward and
impressions about online content, but I don't think the student's effort is
representative of a student who is reading to succeed at an assignment.
Respondent 5

Student currently in 1101

1.5 hours

Has not completed any assignments in 1101 and is finishing her high school
diploma with this course.

Hopes to go to college eventually.

Because this is the first assignment in this course the student is
encountering, I briefed her on what students normally would encounter in
the course before this lesson. Arguments of Definition is Assignment 6, so I
needed to explain argumentation and modes of argument to her.

Liked the audio introduction. She said it provides an overview and
personalizes the course.

Was thoroughly confused by the Corporation video and most of the other
videos. She didn't understand what the discussions about welfare in the first
video had to do with definitions. She was confused by the vocabulary used in
the Corporation video.

Said the definition by example section needed an example

She liked the student example and liked that she could see the comments I
made on the student example.

She was able to remember specific details about the lesson and example
arguments but was not able to explain the argument or method of any of the
arguments.

She was not able to identify a definition argument that she might make.
Respondent 5 Summary
The student's ability to speak in detail about parts of the course I asked her about
indicated that she did try to understand the content, however her explanations
showed deficiencies in lesson objectives and supporting tasks and objectives. At the
beginning of our conversation, I asked her to explain what a definition argument is
and she kept repeating "the definition of argument" and explaining general
argument skills and concepts. The student's written evaluation demonstrates that
she is very inexperienced in academic writing, more so than most students who
enter the course.
Discussion of student evaluations
Student responses showed that students were interested in the course materials
and that they understood the lesson objectives and tasks. Students were able to
demonstrate proficiency in Objectives 1 and 2, though the evaluations were limited
by time. Unfortunately, I didn't have any students who were far along enough in
ENC1101 and willing to participate, so I could not ask students to write a paper for
the evaluation, which would be a better assessment of the lesson.
I was surprised at how universally students wanted to see text transcripts synced
with audio. I have read so much about cognitive overload caused by separate audio
and video streams, and though students aren't asking for different audio and video
content, I still thought I would steer clear of complicating the presentation of audio
with text. Students want synced transcripts, though.
I was also surprised at how often I heard students mention that they liked the audio
and that they would like more audio narrative in between text.
I was also pleased that the Corporation video learning resource worked well and
was engaging for those who understood it. Those students who understood that
learning resource showed proficiency in the objectives, and those who were
confused by it remained confused and thought the video was too long. At 15
minutes, the video is at the very upper limits of the attention spans of learners.
However, the graphical organizer does offer some additional structure, and cutting
any more of the video might lose the connections between claim, backing, reason,
and evidence.
The lesson took students 1.5 hours on average. This is the number I predicted to
them when I asked them to participate, and I asked them not to go over that time
because I did not want them to leave the study because they didn't want to do the
"homework." No student was able to fill out the proposal assignment in the time
allotted, but I think I got a good sense of their readiness through oral evaluations. I
recognize that oral evaluations are different from the text-based proposals that
students will turn in for the course, but I think that allowing students more time to
complete the lesson will place needed pressure upon them to think of an
appropriate topic. Regardless of the time limitations, most students could explain
why definition argument are made and were able to explain how they might make a
definition argument, even if they did not propose an original claim.
Revisions resulting from formative evaluation

Added audio introductions to all pages.

Explained the importance of the Corporation learning object for the topic of
definition arguments and moved a thumbnail download link to the graphical
organizer for the argument to help the student follow along with the
argument. The added introduction and improved visibility of the outline link
is designed to allow students to better frame their understanding of the video
argument so that they stick with the video despite its length.

Added an example to the definition by example section.

Clarified the formal argument section per subject matter expert's suggestion.

Split Page 4 into two pages.

Compressed the corporation video so that it loads faster.

The videos from the publisher are embedded in iframes. I cannot change
them from the auto-play settings, but I added a note on the first page
directing students to scroll down and pause the video until they are ready to
watch it.

Added answers to some of the questions after other learning objects so
students can self-check their responses.
References
Berlin, J. (1982). Contemporary composition: The major pedagogical theories.
College English. 44(8). 765 – 777. Retrieved from
http://www.ncte.org/journals/ce
Brocato, M., Furr, P., Henderson, M., & Horton, S. (Sept 2005). Assessing student
written communication skills: A gateway writing proficiency test for aspiring
journalism majors. College Student Journal 33(3). 510 - 517. Retrieved from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/results/external_link_
maincontentframe.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.43
Carter, M. (1988). Stasis and Kairos: Principles of social construction in classical
rhetoric. Rhetoric Review. 7(1). 97 – 112. Retrieved from
http://www.rhetoricreview.com
Council of Writing Program Administrators. (2008). WPA outcomes statement for
first-year composition. Council of Writing Program Administrators. Retrieved
from http://wpacouncil.org/positions/outcomes.html
Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e3-learning. Distance
Education, 29(2), 175 – 185, DOI: 10.1080/01587910802154970
Knoch, U. (2009). Diagnostic assessment of writing: A comparison of two rating scales.
Language Testing. 26(2), 275 - 304, DOI: 10.1177/0265532208101008
Morrison, G., Ross, S., Kalman, H. & Kemp, J. (2001). Designing effective instruction
(6th edition.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Nuckles, M., Hubner, S., Dumer, S., & Renkl, A., 2010, Expertise reversal effects in
writing-to-learn. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning
Sciences 38(3). 237 – 258.
Rigolino, R. & Freel, P. (2007). Re-modeling basic writing. Journal of Basic Writing,
26(2), 51 – 74. Retrieved from http://orgs.tamucommerce.edu/cbw/cbw/JBW.html
Sadler, D. R. (2009). Indeterminacy in the use of preset criteria for assessment and
grading. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 34(2), 159 - 179. DOI:
10.1080/02602930801956059
University Writing Program. (n.d.). Course descriptions. University Writing Program.
Retrieved from http://www.writing.ufl.edu/courses.html