30,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Bildung
- Sprache: Englisch
Use your course's big ideas to accelerate students' growth as writers and critical thinkers The newly revised third edition of Engaging Ideas delivers a step-by-step guide for designing writing assignments and critical thinking activities that engage students with important subject-matter questions. This new edition of the celebrated book (now written by the co-author team of Bean and Melzer) uses leading and current research and theory to help you link active learning pedagogy to your courses' subject matter. You'll learn how to: * Design formal and informal writing assignments that guide students toward thinking like experts in your discipline * Use time-saving strategies for coaching the writing process and handling the paper load including alternatives to traditional grading such as portfolio assessment and contract grading * Help students use self-assessment and peer response to improve their work * Develop better ways than the traditional research paper to teach undergraduate reading and research * Integrate social media, multimodal genres, and digital technology into the classroom to promote active learning This book demonstrates how writing can easily be integrated with other critical thinking activities such as inquiry discussions, simulation games, classroom debates, and interactive lectures. The reward of this book is watching students come to class better prepared, more vested in the questions your course investigates, more apt to study purposefully, and more likely to submit high-quality work. Perfect for higher education faculty and curriculum designers across all disciplines, Engaging Ideas will also earn a place in the libraries of graduate students in higher education.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 829
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2021
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Preface
John's Introduction of Coauthor Dan Melzer
Dan's Perspective on the Third Edition of
Engaging Ideas
Recent Developments Influencing the Third Edition
What's New in the Third Edition?
What Hasn't Changed?
Structure of the Book
Thanks and Acknowledgments
About the Authors
1 Using Writing to Promote Thinking
Steps for Integrating Writing and Critical Thinking Activities into a Course
Four Discouraging Beliefs and Some Encouraging Responses
Conclusion: Engaging Your Students with the Ideas of Your Course
PART ONE: Understanding Connections Between Thinking and Writing
2 How Writing Is Related to Critical Thinking
Overview of the Writing Across the Curriculum and Critical Thinking Movements
Writing, Thinking, and a Dialogic View of Knowledge
Avoiding a Thesis: Three Cognitively Immature Essay Structures
What Causes These Organizational Problems?
Pedagogical Strategies for Promoting Critical Thinking
Teaching Thinking through Teaching Revision
Conclusion: The Implications of Writing as a Means of Thinking in the Undergraduate Curriculum
Note
3 Helping Writers Think Rhetorically
Helping Students Think about Audience and Purpose
Helping Students Think about Genre
Genre Awareness and Student Learning
Conclusion: Thinking Rhetorically as a Transferable Skill
PART TWO: Designing Problem - Based Writing Assignments
4 Formal Writing Assignments Situated in Rhetorical Contexts
Thinking Rhetorically: Five Variations on the Same Assignment
Articulation of Learning Goals as Preparation for Designing Assignments
Planning Your Course Backward by Designing the Last Assignment First
Best Practices in Assignment Design
Designing an Effective Assignment Prompt
Example of an Effective Assignment Handout
A Common Problem: Asking Too Many Questions
Asking a Colleague to “Peer‐Review” Your Assignment Handout
Giving the Assignment in Class
Assignments Leading to Closed‐Form Thesis‐Governed Writing
Microtheme Assignments for Writing‐to‐Learn
More Open Forms: Alternatives to the Thesis‐Governed Paper
A Potpourri of Other Kinds of Alternative Formal Assignments
Multimodal Alternatives to Formal Assignments
Conclusion: Writing Assignments in the Context of the Whole Course
5 Informal, Exploratory Writing Activities
Why We Find Exploratory Writing Valuable
Common Objections to Exploratory Writing
Logistics, Media, and Methods for Assigning Exploratory Writing
Explaining Exploratory Writing to Students
Twenty Ideas for Incorporating Exploratory Writing into a Course
Evaluating Exploratory Writing
Managing the Workload
Conclusion: Engaging Ideas through Exploratory Writing
Note
PART THREE: Coaching Students as Learners, Thinkers, and Writers
6 Designing Tasks to Promote Active Thinking and Learning
Ten Strategies for Designing Critical Thinking Tasks
Conclusion: Strategies for Designing Critical Thinking Tasks
7 Helping Students Read Mindfully across the Disciplines
Research on Reading Practices across the Disciplines
Cultural Obstacles to Mindful Reading
The Rhetorical Component of Reading Mindfully
The Metacognitive Component of Reading Mindfully
Suggested Strategies for Helping Students Become More Mindful Readers
Developing Assignments That Require Students to Interact with Texts
Conclusion: Promoting Mindful Reading
8 Using Small Groups to Coach Thinking and Teach Disciplinary Argument
The Advantages of a Goal‐Oriented Use of Small Groups
Sequence of Activities for Using Small Groups During a Class Period
Suggestions for Designing Productive Small‐Group Tasks
Making Small Groups Work
The Controversy over Using Small Groups: Objections and Responses
Conclusion: Some Additional Advantages of Small Groups
9 Bringing More Critical Thinking into Lectures and Discussions
Increasing Active Learning in Lecture Classes
Increasing Active Learning in Discussion Classes
Conclusion: Engaging Ideas through Active Learning
10 Designing and Sequencing Assignments to Teach Undergraduate Research
From Research Paper to Research Project: A Metacognitive Overview of Academic Research across the Disciplines
Information Literacy Skills Needed to Do Undergraduate Research
Pedagogical Strategies for Teaching Authentic Undergraduate Research
Departmental Collaboration to Teach Undergraduate Research in the Major
Conclusion: Engaging Students in Research
PART FOUR: Responding to and Grading Student Writing
11 Helping Students Use Self‐Assessment and Peer Review to Promote Revision and Reflection
The Benefits of Student Self‐Assessment
Using Reflective Writing to Foster Metacognition
Easy‐to‐Implement Ways of Integrating Reflection Assignments into a Course
Making Self‐Assessment a Part of the Classroom Culture
The Research on Why Peer Review Can Be as Useful as Instructor Response
Conclusion: Shifting the Focus of Response from Teachers to Students
12 Using Rubrics to Develop and Apply Grading Criteria
Controversies about Evaluation Criteria
An Overview of Different Kinds of Rubrics
Controversies about Rubrics
John's Approach to Using Rubrics
Dan's Approach to Using Rubrics
Deciding on an Approach to Grading That Works for You
Conclusion: The Role of Rubrics in Coaching the Writing Process
13 Coaching the Writing Process and Handling the Paper Load
1. Design Good Assignments
2. Clarify Your Grading Criteria
3. Build in Exploratory Writing or Class Discussion to Help Students Generate Ideas
4. Have Students Submit Something Early in the Writing Process
5. Have Students Conduct Peer Reviews of Drafts
6. Refer Students to Your Institution's Writing Center
7. Make One‐on‐One Writing Conferences as Efficient as Possible
8. Hold Occasional Group Brainstorming Conferences Early On
9. Use Efficient Methods for Giving Written Feedback
10. Put Minimal Comments on Finished Products
Conclusion: A Review of Time‐Saving Strategies
14 Providing Effective and Efficient Feedback
Students' Responses to Teachers' Comments
The Purpose of Commenting: To Coach Revision
General Strategy for Commenting on Drafts: A Hierarchy of Questions
Suggestions for Writing End Comments That Encourage Revision
Alternatives to Written Response: Audio and Video Feedback
Conclusiown: A Review of General Principles
15 Responding to Grammar and Other Sentence‐Level Concerns
The Difficulty of Teaching Editing
What Does It Mean to “Know Grammar”?
The Politics of Grammar and Language Difference
What Teachers across the Curriculum Need to Know about Recent Studies of Error
Responding to Error: Policies and Strategies for Teachers across the Disciplines
A Further Note about International Students
A Note about Spell‐Checkers and Grammar‐Checkers
Conclusion: Keeping an Eye on Our Goals
16 Alternatives to Traditional Grading: Portfolio Assessment and Contract Grading
Five Problems with Traditional Grading of Student Writing
Portfolio Assessment as an Alternative to Traditional Grading
Advice for Designing and Assessing Portfolios
Strategies for Contract Grading
Conclusion: Harmonizing Assessment and Instruction
References
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Chapter 3
TABLE 3.1 Sample Questions to Spur Rhetorical Thinking
Guide
Cover Page
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
i
iii
iv
vii
viii
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
xvii
xviii
xix
xx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
229
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
More than any single text, Engaging Ideas has had a profound and lasting influence on the writing‐across‐the‐curriculum movement in the United States and around the world. This third edition, now written collaboratively by John Bean and Dan Melzer, promises to extend that influence with several new areas of coverage while retaining all the original features that have made it such a groundbreaking work.
—Dr. Chris M. Anson, Distinguished University Professor; Director, Campus Writing & Speaking Program, North Carolina State University
Engaging Ideas, Third Edition, retains the very best features of John Bean's now classic first and second editions, while adding a new coauthor, Dan Melzer, along with new pedagogies based on the most current writing research and practice. The result is an even more practical nuts‐and‐bolts compendium of ideas to help students incorporate critical thinking into their writing. As someone who has relied on Engaging Ideas for faculty development since 1996, I know that busy faculty from every discipline will find the third edition an essential component of their work going forward.
—Martha A. Townsend, Professor Emerita, University of Missouri
It's good news that Engaging Ideas is back again in a new edition. It continues to offer first‐rate, practical advice about how to teach with writing that has been updated with recent research. Of particular note are the many examples showing how to teach with writing, including how to make assignments, how to motivate students to revise, how to use reflection to enhance student learning, and how to respond helpfully to student projects.
—Kathleen Blake Yancey, Kellogg Hunt Professor Emerita, Florida State University
ENGAGING IDEAS
The Professor's Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom
Third Edition
John C. BeanDaniel Melzer
Copyright © 2021 John Wiley & Sons. All rights reserved.
Jossey‐Bass
A Wiley Imprint
111 River St, Hoboken, NJ 07030
www.josseybass.com
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per‐copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, phone +1 978 750 8400, fax +1 978 750 4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, phone + 1 201 748 6011, fax +1 201 748 6008, or online at www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: Although the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Jossey‐Bass books and products are available through most bookstores. To contact Jossey‐Bass directly, call our Customer Care Department within the U.S. at 800–956–7739, outside the U.S. at +1 317 572 3986, or fax +1 317 572 4002.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some material included with standard print versions of this book may not be included in e‐books or in print‐on‐demand. If this book refers to media such as a CD or DVD that is not included in the version you purchased, you may download this material at http://booksupport.wiley.com. For more information about Wiley products, visit www.wiley.com.
Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data is Available:
ISBN 9781119705406 (paperback) ISBN 9781119705413 (ePDF) ISBN 9781119705383 (epub)
Cover Design: Wiley
THIRD EDITION
Preface
An important new feature of the third edition of Engaging Ideas is its coauthor team of Bean and Melzer. We'll begin by explaining how this coauthorship emerged.
John's Introduction of Coauthor Dan Melzer
The impetus for the third edition was an out‐of‐the‐blue email I received on the day before my seventy‐sixth birthday. It came from two Writing Across the Curriculum leaders at Sam Houston State University (Todd Primm and Carroll Nardone):
We use your superb 2nd ed Engaging Ideas workbook in our annual WID workshop for faculty on our campus. We are interested if there will be a third edition. It is such a powerful resource. Our faculty rave about it every year (this is our 19th year of the workshop).
I was buoyed by this email and happy to have confirmation of the usefulness of the second edition; however, I hadn't planned on a third edition. I retired from the classroom in 2013 (after forty‐five years of teaching), and although I continued with some of my scholarship, I felt I no longer had the currency I needed. But I was deeply grateful to Todd and Carroll for their gracious inquiry and for the subsequent helpful commentary from their Sam Houston colleagues about what needed to be updated.
Shortly thereafter, Riley Harding, my editor at Wiley, also began inquiring about a third edition and suggested that perhaps I could take on a coauthor—a younger scholar in writing across the curriculum with whom I could collaborate for the third edition and to whom I could pass on the book's legacy for a new generation. The idea intrigued me. After an extensive search, I am happy to announce my partnership with Dan Melzer from the University of California, Davis. (You can see his credentials and read his professional biography in the “About the Authors” section.) A deciding factor in my reaching out to Dan was his well‐reviewed book Assignments across the Curriculum: A National Study of College Writing (2014), which helped establish his reputation as a rising scholar in writing across the curriculum. I was grateful when he accepted my invitation to become a coauthor. Through telephone calls, Zoom meetings, and endless emails, Dan and I have established a mutual friendship and a collegial process of collaboration that has been more successful than I could have imagined or hoped for. (Dan and I have not been able to meet personally because of the COVID‐19 lockdown.) Dan's path toward scholarship in writing across the curriculum (which is different from mine) and his teaching experiences at large state universities give a richness to the third edition that would not have been possible if I had undertaken the revision by myself.
Dan's Perspective on the Third Edition of Engaging Ideas
My experiences with Engaging Ideas began long before John invited me to be his coauthor. In my first academic position after graduate school I was hired by California State University, Sacramento to develop a Writing Across the Curriculum program. One of my first goals was to move beyond the occasional professional development workshop and get teachers across disciplines involved in deep and sustained conversations that would have a transformative effect on their pedagogy—and I hoped, in the long run, on the campus culture of writing. I was already aware of the legendary Engaging Ideas—everyone involved in WAC knew of John's book, and every time someone posted a message to the Writing Program Administration or WAC listservs asking for a recommendation for help for leading a faculty development workshop, Engaging Ideas was always the first resource mentioned.
In my WAC seminars, I quickly learned why John's book was so popular. It had a transformative effect on the faculty I was working with. I saw their pedagogies moving toward more critical thinking and extended disciplinary research projects. They began developing a broad array of writing‐to‐learn activities. They began to teach critical reading and not just assign readings. They testified that their response to student writing was becoming more effective, and they created rubrics that clarified their assessment criteria. I've heard similar stories from other campuses. More than any other faculty development book, Engaging Ideas has played a central role in an educational movement that I'm proud to be a part of—Writing Across the Curriculum. I was honored when John invited me to collaborate with him on a third edition.
One final word about the opportunity to work with John. Although I had never worked with John before Engaging Ideas, his reputation as a warm, good‐humored, and collaborative scholar and teacher proceeded him. It was a delight to work with him, and we found that we were able to write with a single voice and a singular sense of purpose. Where our approaches do differ, you'll find that we describe our different pedagogies in detail in our own voices and we hope provide readers with a more multivocal book and an even richer menu of pedagogical options than those provided in the second edition.
Recent Developments Influencing the Third Edition
Before describing what's new in the third edition, we should summarize what has changed in the world of writing pedagogy since the publication of the second edition in 2011. In preparing this third edition of Engaging Ideas, we have tried to incorporate ideas and examples from the following recent developments in scholarship, pedagogy, and teaching practices.
Field‐Specific Scholarship in Writing and Pedagogy
When we began writing the manuscript for the third edition, ResearchGate had identified nearly seven hundred citations of Engaging Ideas in the pedagogical literature across the disciplines. Many of these citations came from articles in discipline‐specific pedagogical journals such as Journal of Economic Education, Teaching and Learning in Nursing, The American Biology Teacher, Communicating Science, Journal of Management Education,Physics Review, and Physics Education Research. Many additional citations came from general pedagogical journals associated with the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) and from journals in writing studies. ResearchGate's technology made it possible for us to assemble a rich bibliography of these pedagogical resources across the disciplines—resources that might otherwise be known just in their specialized fields. The majority of these sources make significant disciplinary contributions to writing across the curriculum or other active learning pedagogies. Throughout the third edition, we draw on this body of research for ideas and examples.
The “Writing about Writing/Transfer of Knowledge” Movement in Writing Studies
Teachers in writing studies programs have long had theoretical disagreements about the content of first‐year composition—particularly about the subject matter of assigned readings and the consequent design of writing assignments. Recently a theoretical approach known as “writing about writing” or “teaching for transfer” has been increasingly influential for teachers of first‐year composition. Grounded in the work of scholars such as Kathleen Blake Yancy, Doug Downs, Elizabeth Wardle, Linda Adler‐Kassner, and many others, this movement makes writing studies itself the subject matter of first‐year composition. Courses typically guide students to think metacognitively about key threshold concepts in rhetoric/composition—concepts that illuminate how and why writing practices vary from discipline to discipline or across the spectrum from academic writing to professional writing to popular culture writing (newspapers, magazines, web genres, social media, and so forth). The goal of this approach is to promote transfer of learning from first‐year composition into a wide variety of writing situations that students will encounter in the future. In the third edition of Engaging Ideas, the influence of writing about writing can be felt in many of our chapter revisions, especially in our treatment of undergraduate research in chapter 10 and in our increased attention to genres and discourse communities throughout. The influence is also revealed in our attention to reflective writing, as explained in the next section.
Use of Metacognition and Reflection for Self‐Assessment and Improved Peer Review
Another recent development in writing studies has been scholarship across the disciplines showing the efficacy of reflective writing for increasing subject matter learning and for promoting mindful awareness of one's thinking processes while writing or reading. By encouraging metacognition, reflective writing can increase students' skills at self‐assessing their own drafts in progress and provide constructive help to classmates during peer review. The influence of this scholarship can be seen throughout the third edition, especially in our examples of reflective assignments from across the disciplines and in Dan's own experiences using reflections, self‐assessment, and peer review in his writing courses. Chapter 11, new to this edition, focuses explicitly on self‐assessment and peer review.
Emergence of a Translingualist Approach to Diversity in Language Practices, Media, and Genres
In 2011, writing studies scholars Bruce Horner, Min‐Zhan Lu, Jacqueline Jones Royster, and John Trimbur published a landmark article entitled “Language Difference in Writing: Toward a Translingual Approach.” As Horner and colleagues explain, a translingual approach “applaud[s] efforts to increase students' fluency in as many languages and varieties of language as possible” (307). Instead of trying to eradicate “error” (often seen as deviations from Standard edited English), a translingual approach invites students to identify rhetorical contexts where it might be effective to break the conventions of Standard English or otherwise to draw on linguistic resources from other dialects or languages.
It should be noted that we wrote the manuscript for the third edition during the Black Lives Matter protests against police brutality set inside the COVID‐19 lockdown and the approaching 2020 elections. At this time, many teachers, who have long valued diversity and social justice, were forced again to acknowledge white privilege and confront the biases of former practices. In this third edition, the influence of translingualism can be most noticed in our revision of the chapter on grammar and sentence editing. The translingual approach can also be felt in our examples throughout, which feature a wider range of ethnicities, media, genres, and audiences.
Growing Interest in Alternatives to Traditional Grading
In recent years, the increased emphasis on self‐assessment and peer review has opened up alternative methods for grading student writing such as portfolios or contract grading. Portfolios make it possible for students to demonstrate improvement from draft to draft, allowing for grading criteria that can include effort and growth of metacognitive practice of revision strategies. Contract grading goes further in that it can reward time on task in innovative ways, as explained in Asao Inoue's influential Labor‐Based Grading Contracts: Building Equity and Inclusion in the Compassionate Writing Classroom (2019). Motivated by a desire to be equitable to his diverse students, Dan has experimented with alternative forms of grading and currently uses both portfolios and contract grading in his own classrooms. In the third edition we devote a new chapter (chapter 16) to these alternatives to traditional grading.
Expanding Affordances of Classroom Technology and Social Media
Since the second edition was published in 2011 there has been rapid growth in instructional technology, cell phone apps, multimedia web platforms, and social media affordances. Here Dan's expertise has been crucial. At the time of his retirement from teaching, John was still collecting stapled copies of student papers and cursing the disappearance of opaque projectors. Luckily for the third edition, Dan is at home with classroom technology, social media, and the various places where pedagogy and technology intersect. Readers will appreciate Dan's contributions throughout in our updated references to technology ranging from clickers in the classroom to conducting small‐group discussions on Zoom.
What's New in the Third Edition?
Given this background on new scholarship and evolving teaching practices, we can now provide a succinct description of what is new in the third edition:
A new chapter (
chapter 11
) on using self‐assessment, reflection, and peer review to promote revision
. This new chapter reviews the scholarship on reflection and peer review and shows how instructors can shift some of the responsibility for responding to student writing from themselves onto students.
A new chapter (
chapter 16
) on alternatives to traditional grading
. This chapter reviews long‐standing critiques of traditional grading in pedagogical scholarship and shows how portfolios and contract grading can be viable alternatives for overcoming inequities and increasing students' motivation, effort, and engagement.
A revised
chapter 3
on helping students think rhetorically
. Influenced by insights from the teaching‐for‐transfer movement in first‐year composition, our revised
chapter 3
now covers genre in more detail and connects genres more fully to the concept of discourse community.
A revised
chapter 4
on formal writing assignments
. Our revision focuses more heavily on placing formal assignments within authentic rhetorical contexts that include purpose, audience, and genre. It also emphasizes the wide range of genres (from academic/professional to personal/expressive) that are appropriate for formal assignments.
A revised and relocated chapter on grammar and sentence editing (now
chapter 15
, previously
chapter 5
)
. Our revised chapter now takes a consciously translingual approach to linguistic diversity and moves the chapter toward the end of the book. The chapter still emphasizes careful sentence editing, but in the context of the writer's purpose, audience, and genre.
A revised
chapter 7
on reading
. Influenced by recent scholarship on the reading practices of disciplinary experts, our revised chapter focuses on reading mindfully across a range of reading purposes, which can vary depending on whether one's purpose is to formulate a deep response to a text (common in the humanities) or to advance mastery of content knowledge (common in the sciences and professional fields).
A revised
chapter 10
on teaching undergraduate research
. Arguing that undergraduates should be assigned authentic research projects written in appropriate disciplinary genres, this chapter now focuses on teaching metacognitive understanding of authentic research across the disciplines and provides many new examples of research assignments and teaching strategies.
Deletion of the second edition chapter on essay exams
. The writing‐across‐the‐curriculum movement has always been troubled by timed in‐class essay exams—either because exam questions often ask for memorized information and thus are low on Bloom's taxonomy or they require a high level of critical thinking, but short circuit the process of revision where the work of critical thinking occurs. Rather than devote a chapter to essay exams, we have relocated much of the second edition's advice to other chapters.
Throughout the book, many new examples and updated references
. In almost every chapter, the third edition contains new examples of assignments, critical thinking tasks, and teaching practices drawn from across the disciplines, as well as more ethnically and linguistically diverse examples.
Throughout the book, many updated applications of instructional technology and rhetorical uses of social media
. Wherever appropriate we have updated and expanded our coverage of classroom technology and the affordances of social media ranging from the emergence of new genres to the uses of memes, podcasts, and other multimodal assignments.
What Hasn't Changed?
Throughout the third edition we have tried to retain the signature strengths of previous editions, with the continuing aim of integrating two important movements in higher education—the writing‐across‐the‐curriculum movement and the critical thinking movement. A basic premise, growing out of the educational philosophy of John Dewey, is that critical thinking—and indeed all significant learning—originates in the learner's engagement with problems. Consequently, the design of interesting problems to think about is one of the teacher's chief behind‐the‐scenes tasks. Equally important is creating a course atmosphere that encourages inquiry, exploration, discussion, and debate while valuing the dignity and worth of each student. Teachers of critical thinking also need to be mentors and coaches, developing a range of strategies for modeling critical thinking, critiquing student performances, and otherwise guiding students toward the habits of inquiry and argument valued in their disciplines.
Signature Features of Engaging Ideas
In keeping with these premises, therefore, the third edition retains—and in some cases improves or extends—the following signature features:
It takes a pragmatic nuts‐and‐bolts approach to teaching critical thinking, giving teachers hundreds of suggestions for integrating writing and other critical thinking activities into a disciplinary course.
It integrates theory and research from the writing in the disciplines literature with the broader literature from the scholarship of teaching and learning on critical thinking, intellectual development, active learning, and modes of teaching.
It gives detailed practical assistance in the design of formal and informal writing assignments and suggests time‐saving ways to coach the writing process and handle the paper load.
It treats writing assignments as only one of many ways to present critical thinking problems to students; it shows how writing assignments can easily be integrated with other critical thinking activities, such as use of small groups, inquiry discussions, classroom debates, and interactive lectures.
It has a separate chapter devoted to academic reading, exploring the causes of students' reading difficulties and offering suggestions for promoting more engaged and deeper reading.
It has separate chapters devoted to small groups and to increasing critical thinking in discussion or lecture courses.
It devotes a separate chapter to teaching undergraduate research and proposes alternatives to the traditional research paper.
It assumes that there is no one right way to integrate writing and critical thinking into a course; it therefore provides numerous options to fit each teacher's particular personality and goals and to allow flexibility for meeting the needs of different kinds of learners.
It emphasizes writing and critical thinking tasks that focus on the instructor's subject matter goals for the course, thus reducing, and in some cases perhaps even eliminating, the conflict between coverage and process.
It offers a wide array of ways to use writing in courses, ranging from short write‐to‐learn microthemes to major research projects and from formal academic writing to personal narratives; it also offers numerous ways to work exploratory writing into a course, including in‐class freewrites, blogs, and thinking pieces posted on class discussion boards.
It devotes a separate chapter to the creation of rubrics for grading student writing, discussing the upside and downside of rubrics. It also devotes a chapter to the art of providing effective feedback in ways that can minimize teacher time while maximizing helpfulness and care.
The third edition now contains two additional signature features: richer focus on self‐assessment, reflection, and peer review and alternatives to traditional grading (see the material noted in the “What's New” section).
Intended Audience
Something else that has not changed is our intended audience. Engaging Ideas is intended for busy college professors from any academic discipline. Many readers may already emphasize writing, critical thinking, and active learning in their classrooms and will find in this book ways to fine‐tune their work, such as additional approaches or strategies, more effective or efficient methods for coaching students as writers and thinkers, and tips on managing the paper load. Other readers may be attracted to the ideas in this book yet be held back by nagging doubts or fears that they will be buried in paper grading, that the use of writing assignments does not fit their disciplines, or that they will have to reduce their coverage of content. This book tries to allay these fears and help all professors find an approach to using writing and critical thinking activities that help each student meet course goals while fitting their own teaching philosophies and individual personalities.
We hope that for teachers one of the benefits of Engaging Ideas is greater enjoyment of teaching. Teachers should see writing assignments and other critical thinking activities as useful tools to help students achieve the instructor's content and process goals for a course. The reward of this book is watching students come to class better prepared, more vested in and motivated by the problems or questions the course investigates, more apt to study rigorously, and more likely to submit high‐quality work. A serendipitous benefit for teachers may be that their own writing gets easier when they develop strategies for helping students. Many of the ideas in this book—about posing problems, generating and exploring ideas, focusing and organizing, giving and receiving peer reviews of drafts, and revising for readers—can be applied to one's own scholarly and professional writing as well as to the writing of students.
Structure of the Book
Chapter 1, designed for the busy professor, provides a nutshell compendium of the whole book. It also addresses four misconceptions that tend to discourage professors from integrating writing and critical thinking assignments into their courses.
Part 1 (chapters 2 and 3) examines the scholarship and theory that links writing to thinking. Chapter 2 focuses on critical thinking and writing, arguing that good writing is a process and a product of critical thought. Chapter 3 examines the rhetorical dimension of thinking and writing, showing how writers must think rhetorically about purpose, audience, genre, and discourse communities. It argues that writing and critical thinking skills are enhanced when students are asked to write in different genres for different kinds of audiences and purposes.
Part 2 (chapters 4 and 5) focuses on the design of problem‐based writing assignments for promoting critical thinking. Chapter 4 covers the design of formal writing assignments that go through multiple drafts toward becoming a finished product. By contrast, chapter 5 explains the use of low‐stakes, exploratory writing inside and outside of class to enhance learning and promote critical thinking.
Part 3 (chapters 6 through 10) offers a compendium of strategies for coaching students as learners, thinkers, and writers. Using examples from across the curriculum, chapter 6 presents a heuristic for designing critical thinking problems that promote active learning. These problems can be used as prompts for formal or informal writing assignments, as tasks for small‐group problem‐solving, or as ways to stimulate class discussion or enliven lectures. Chapter 7, on mindful reading, explores the difference between surface reading and deep reading, showing how instructors can strengthen students' reading skills by helping them think rhetorically about texts and metacognitively about their own reading processes. Chapters 8 and 9 together discuss ways to use class time for active inquiry and critical thinking. Chapter 8 focuses on the use of small groups in the classroom, and chapter 9 suggests ways to make lectures more interactive and whole‐class discussions more productive. Chapter 10, on teaching undergraduate research, argues that the conventional “research paper” is an academic pseudo‐genre that needs to be replaced by authentic research projects written in appropriate disciplinary genres. It offers advice for helping students think metacognitively about the way different disciplines ask questions, gather evidence, make arguments, and position themselves in a conversation with other scholars. It argues that skills needed for advanced research writing at the end of the major are best taught through strategically designed scaffolding assignments earlier in the curriculum.
The final section of the book, part 4 (chapters 11–16), concerns strategies for responding to and grading student writing. Chapter 11, new to this edition, presents the happy news that students can use metacognitive reflection to self‐assess their own drafts in progress and can conduct effective peer reviews that match the quality of teacher reviews. Chapter 12 offers advice on creating and using rubrics, which can clarify an instructor's grading criteria and, in many cases, decrease an instructor's time spent grading and commenting on papers. Chapter 13 offers ten time‐saving strategies for coaching the writing process while avoiding teacher burnout. Chapter 14 focuses on ways to write supportive comments on students' work to promote significant revision rather than justify a grade. Chapter 15, on responding to grammar and other sentence‐level concerns, is a substantial revision of the second edition's chapter 5. While still focusing on the importance of careful sentence‐level editing it now tries to incorporate a more progressive, translingual appreciation of language diversity. Finally, chapter 16, also new to the third edition, explains alternatives to traditional grading through portfolio assessment and contract grading.
Thanks and Acknowledgments
We conclude with thanks and acknowledgments from John, from Dan, and then from the both of us.
From John
I have been fortunate over my teaching career to have generous colleagues who encouraged and supported my interest in writing across the curriculum and often shaped my thinking. I wish particularly to thank W. Daniel Goodman in the Department of Chemistry at the College of Great Falls and Dean Drenk, John Ramage, and Jack Folsom for our FIPSE‐grant days at Montana State University. At Seattle University, I thank my SoTL colleagues (many of whom have been coauthors with me on WAC or SoTL publications): economists Dean Peterson, Gareth Green, and Teresa Ling; finance professors David Carrithers and Fiona Robertson; chemists P. J. Alaimo, Joe Langenhan, and Jenny Loertscher; historian Theresa Earenfight; English professors Charles Tung, Nalini Iyer, June Johnson Bube, Sean McDowell, and David Leigh, S.J; and SoTL scholar David Green of Seattle University's Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning. Thanks also to Larry Nichols, director of the Writing Center at Seattle University, my longtime friend, workshop cofacilitator, and fellow advocate for good writing assignments and engaged learning.
A larger network of WAC friends has also nurtured and inspired my work: Joanne Kurfiss Gainen, former director of the Center for Teaching and Learning at Santa Clara University; Linda Shohet, the Centre for Literacy in Montreal, Canada; Martha (Marty) Townsend at the University of Missouri, who spearheaded the development of her institution’s remarkable pioneering WAC program; John Webster, SoTL scholar and director of writing for the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Washington; Michael Herzog, my Teagle Grant co‐investigator and longtime SoTL colleague at Gonzaga University; Carol Rutz, director of the writing program at Carleton College; Carol Haviland, former director of the writing center at California State University at San Bernardino; Paul Anderson, now retired from his important WAC work at Miami University and Elon University; and nursing professor Rob van der Peet of the Netherlands, who translated the first edition of Engaging Ideas into Dutch. I also owe a special debt of gratitude and warm thanks to pioneering SoTL scholar Maryellen Weimer, emeritus professor of teaching and learning at Pennsylvania State University, who wrote the foreword to the first and second editions of Engaging Ideas. Her faith in my work, her encouragement, and her extraordinary generosity of time gave me the confidence to produce the first and second editions.
I offer a special thanks to the Seattle University teaching community during the years 1988–1993, when I wrote the precursor to Engaging Ideas as an in‐house book for Seattle University's new core curriculum using examples from more than forty Seattle U faculty. As a Jesuit institution, Seattle University created a new core curriculum that reflected the Jesuit commitment to inquiry and debate along with a passionate belief that rhetoric, as eloquentia perfecta, should serve the common good. These beliefs, combined with the student‐centered ethic of cura personalis (care for the whole person) and mission commitment to social justice, created a teaching environment where faculty could develop and share the pedagogical practices that eventually emerged in Engaging Ideas. That remarkable Seattle U community discovered modern ways to enact the principle of active learning aimed at the growth of persons revealed in St. Ignatius's 1583 Ratio Studiorum, the originating “plan of studies” for Jesuit education. It took a village to write Engaging Ideas.
My deepest thanks and love go to my wife, Kit, who is also a professional writing teacher, and to our children—Matthew, Andrew, Stephen, and Sarah—who have grown to adulthood since I first started writing about Writing Across the Curriculum.
From Dan
I've had the good fortune of having many mentors in the field of writing across the curriculum who helped me along the way: Jon Leydens at Colorado School of Mines, Mike Palmquist at Colorado State University, Terry Myers Zawacki at George Mason University, Chris Anson at North Carolina State University, David Russel at Iowa State University, and Chris Thaiss at University of California, Davis, among others. These mentors became colleagues, and I have also been fortunate to have had wonderful English department colleagues at California State University, Sacramento, as I grew into my role as a WAC and writing center director: Amy Heckathorn, Linda Buckley, Fiona Glade, Cathy Gabor, Cherryl Smith, and Mandy Proctor, among many others. I have also been blessed with great writing partners. Working on a book about developing sustainable WAC programs with Michelle Cox and Jeff Galin had a tremendous impact on my thinking about WAC as a movement, and now I have the great fortune of having John Bean as a writing partner. I thank John for the invitation to join him in his good and important work helping all teachers become better writing teachers.
From Both of Us
Finally, we would like to thank Riley Harding, our editor at Jossey‐Bass/Wiley, for the skillful way she encouraged John to seek a coauthor for the third edition and for her talent at managing the logistics. We would also like to thank Christine O'Connor and her team at Wiley for the smooth production process from manuscript to published book. For their insightful reviews of the second edition with advice for the third edition, we thank Todd P. Primm, Carroll F. Nardone, and faculty workshop participants at Sam Houston State University; Pamela Flash, University of Minnesota; Brian Hendrickson, Roger Williams University; Jessie L. Moore, Elon University; and J. Michael Rifenburg, University of North Georgia.
John C. BeanVashon Island, WashingtonOctober 2020
Dan MelzerSacramento, CaliforniaOctober 2020
About the Authors
John C. Bean is an emeritus professor of English at Seattle University, where he held the title of Consulting Professor of Writing and Assessment. He has an undergraduate degree in English from Stanford University (1965) and a PhD in Renaissance literature from the University of Washington (1972). He has been active in the Writing Across the Curriculum movement since 1976—first at the College of Great Falls (Montana), then at Montana State University (Bozeman), and, since 1986, at Seattle University. Besides Engaging Ideas, the first edition of which has been translated into Dutch and Chinese, he is the coauthor of four composition textbooks with varying focuses on writing, argumentation, critical thinking, and rhetorical reading. He has also published numerous articles on writing, writing across the curriculum, and discipline‐specific pedagogies to promote students' growth from novice to expert. He has done extensive consulting across the United States and Canada on writing, critical thinking, and university outcomes assessment. In 2001, he presented a keynote address at the first annual conference of the European Association of Teachers of Academic Writing (EATAW) at the University of Groningen in The Netherlands. More recently, he and his wife Kit (who is also now a retired college teacher of writing) have facilitated workshops on writing and critical thinking for BRAC University in Bangladesh, Ashesi University in Ghana, and Charles Lwanga College of Education in Zambia. In 2010, his article “Messy Problems and Lay Audiences: Teaching Critical Thinking within the Finance Curriculum” (coauthored with colleagues from finance and economics) won the 2008 McGraw‐Hill–Magna Publications Award for the year's best scholarly work on teaching and learning.
Dan Melzer is a professor in the University Writing Program of University of California, Davis, where he directs the First‐Year Composition program. He was formerly director of Writing Across the Curriculum and coordinator of the University Reading and Writing Center at California State University, Sacramento. He has an undergraduate degree in English from the University of Florida (1993) and a PhD in rhetoric and composition from Florida State University (2002). He has been active in the Writing Across the Curriculum movement for two decades as a cochair of the International Network of Writing Across the Curriculum Programs, chair of the mentoring committee of the Association for Writing Across the Curriculum, and a board member of the WAC Clearinghouse. He is the author of the monograph Assignments Across the Curriculum and coauthor of the monograph Sustainable WAC. He has also published numerous articles on writing across the curriculum and writing program administration. His articles have been reprinted in Best of the Journals in Rhetoric and Composition 2017 and 2020 and Writing Across the Curriculum: A Critical Sourcebook. He has done extensive consulting across the United States on writing across the curriculum. He presented keynote talks at the 2019 TYCA West conference, the 2017 All Write Symposium at Finger Lakes Community College, and the 2017 Writing Pathways to Disciplinary Learning conference at IUPUI. His current research interests focus on peer and teacher response to college writing and student self‐assessment.
1Using Writing to Promote Thinking : A Busy Professor's Guide to the Whole Book
In his now classic study of pedagogical strategies that make a difference, Richard Light (2001) examined the connection between writing and student engagement. “The results are stunning,” he claims:
The relationship between the amount of writing for a course and students' level of engagement—whether engagement is measured by time spent on the course, or the intellectual challenge it presents, or students' level of interest in it—is stronger than the relationship between students' engagement and any other course characteristic. (55)
More recent research, conducted jointly by the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and the Council of Writing Program Administrators (WPA), has shown that for promoting engagement and deep learning the number of writing assignments in a course may not be as important as the design of the writing assignments themselves (Anderson, Anson, Gonyea, and Paine, 2009). Good assignments, this research has shown, give students opportunities to receive early feedback on their work, encourage meaning‐making, and clearly explain the instructor's expectations and purpose. (We discuss this research in depth in chapter 4.) The aim of this book is to give professors a wide range of options for bringing the benefits of engaged learning to students. Our premise, supported by an increasing body of research, is that good writing assignments (as well as other active learning tasks) evoke a high level of critical thinking, help students wrestle productively with a course's big questions, and teach disciplinary ways of seeing, knowing, and doing. They can also be designed to promote self‐reflection, leading to more integrated, personally meaningful learning. Moreover, the benefits do not accrue only to students. Professors who successfully integrate writing and other critical thinking activities into their courses often report a satisfying increase in their teaching pleasure: students are better prepared for class, discussions are richer, and student performance improves.
But the use of writing and critical thinking activities to promote learning does not happen through serendipity. Teachers must plan for it and foster it throughout the course. This chapter suggests a sequence of steps that teachers can take to integrate writing and critical thinking into their courses. It then addresses four negative beliefs that often discourage teachers from taking these steps—the beliefs that integrating writing into a course will take time away from content, that writing assignments are not appropriate for some disciplines or courses, that assigning writing will bury a teacher in paper grading, and that assigning writing requires specialized expertise. Because these beliefs raise important concerns, we seek to supply reassuring responses at the outset.
This chapter provides, in effect, a brief overview of the whole book; subsequent chapters treat in depth each of the suggestions or issues introduced briefly here.
Steps for Integrating Writing and Critical Thinking Activities into a Course
This section surveys seven steps teachers can take to integrate writing and critical thinking activities into a course.
Step 1: Become Familiar with Some of the General Principles Linking Writing to Learning and Critical Thinking
To appreciate how writing is linked to learning and critical thinking, we can begin with a brief discussion of how we might define critical thinking.
Critical Thinking Rooted in Problems
Although definitions in the pedagogical literature vary in detail, in their broad outlines they are largely elaborations, extensions, and refinements of the progressive views of John Dewey (1916), who rooted critical thinking in the students' engagement with a problem. Problems, for Dewey, evoke students' natural curiosity and stimulate learning and critical thought. “Only by wrestling with the conditions of the problem at first hand, seeking and finding [their] own way out, does [the student] think” (188).
Part of the difficulty of teaching critical thinking, therefore, is awakening students to the existence of problems all around them. Meyers (1986), who agrees with Dewey that problems are naturally motivating, argues that teachers ought to begin every class with “something that is a problem or a cause for wonder” (44). Meyers quotes philosopher and chemist Michael Polanyi, who claims that “as far down the scale of life as worms and even perhaps amoebas, we meet a general alertness of animals, not directed towards any specific satisfaction, but merely exploring what is there: an urge to achieve intellectual control over the situations confronting [them]” (41).
Presenting students with problems, then, taps into something natural and self‐fulfilling in our beings. In his fifteen‐year study of what the best college professors do, Ken Bain (2004) shows that highly effective teachers confront students with “intriguing, beautiful, or important problems, authentic tasks that will challenge them to grapple with ideas, rethink their assumptions, and examine their mental models of reality” (18). Set at the appropriate level of difficulty, such “beautiful problems” create a “natural critical learning environment” that engages students as active and deep learners. Similarly, Brookfield (1987) claims that critical thinking is “a productive and positive” activity. “Critical thinkers are actively engaged with life” (5). This belief in the natural, healthy, and motivating pleasure of problems—and in the power of well‐designed problems to awaken and stimulate the passive and unmotivated student—is one of the underlying premises of this book.
Disciplinary versus Generic Domains for Critical Thinking
Not all problems, however, are academic problems of the kind that we typically present to students in our classrooms or that we pose for ourselves in doing scholarly research. Academic problems are typically rooted within a disciplinary conversation: to a large extent, these problems are discipline‐specific, because each discipline poses its own kinds of questions and conducts inquiries, uses data, and makes arguments in its own characteristic fashion. As Anne Beaufort (2007) has shown, to think and write like a disciplinary expert, students must draw not only on subject matter knowledge but also on knowledge about the discipline's genre conventions, its methods of argument, its typical kinds of evidence, its ways of referencing other researchers, and its typical rhetorical contexts and audiences. Chapters 3 and 4 develop strategies for helping students think rhetorically about their purpose, audience, genre, and discourse community. Chapter 10 addresses Beaufort's novice‐expert schema in more detail by drawing on rhetorical understanding to teach undergraduate research.
Although academic problems typically have discipline‐specific features, certain underlying aspects of critical thinking are generic across all domains. According to Brookfield (1987), two “central activities” define critical thinking: “identifying and challenging assumptions and exploring alternative ways of thinking and acting” (71). Joanne Kurfiss (1988) likewise believes that critical thinkers pose problems by questioning assumptions and aggressively seeking alternative views. For her, the prototypical academic problem is “ill‐structured”; that is, it is an open‐ended question that does not have a clear right answer and therefore must be responded to with a proposition justified by reasons and evidence. “In critical thinking,” says Kurfiss, “all assumptions are open to question, divergent views are aggressively sought, and the inquiry is not biased in favor of a particular outcome” (2).
The Link between Writing and Critical Thinking
Given this view of critical thinking, what is its connection with writing? Quite simply, writing is a process of doing critical thinking and a product that communicates the results of critical thinking. As we show in chapter 2, writing instruction goes sour whenever writing is conceived primarily as a “communication skill” rather than as a process and product of critical thought. If writing is merely a communication skill, then we primarily ask of it, “Is the writing clear?” But if writing is critical thinking, we ask, “Is the writing interesting? Does it show a mind actively engaged with a problem? Does it bring something new to readers? Does it make an argument?” As chapters 2 and 3 explain, experienced writers begin by posing two kinds of problems—what we might call subject matter problems and rhetorical problems. Subject matter problems drive the writer's inquiry. The writer's thesis statement (or hypothesis to be tested in empirical research) is a tentative response to a subject matter problem; it poses a contestable “answer” or “solution” that must be supported with the kinds of reasons and evidence that are valued in the discipline. But writers also think critically about rhetorical problems: who is my audience? What genre should I employ and what are its features and conventions? How much do my readers already know about and care about my research question? How do I want to change my audience's views? What alternative views must I consider? Writers produce multiple drafts because the act of writing is itself an act of problem‐solving. Behind the scenes of a finished product is a messy process of exploratory writing, conversation, and discarded drafts. Chapters 2 and 3 deal with these issues in depth.
Step 2: Design Your Course with Critical Thinking Objectives in Mind
Once teachers are convinced of the value of critical thinking, the next step is to design a course that nurtures it. What is such a course like? In her comprehensive review of the literature on critical thinking, Kurfiss (1988) examined a wide range of successful disciplinary courses devoted to the teaching of subject matter and critical thinking. In each case, she explains, “the professor establishes an agenda that includes learning to think about subject matter. Students are active, involved, consulting and arguing with each other, and responsible for their own learning” (88). From this review, she derives eight principles for designing a disciplinary course that supports critical thinking:
Critical thinking is a learnable skill; the instructor and peers are resources in developing critical thinking skills.
Problems, questions, or issues are the point of entry into the subject and a source of motivation for sustained inquiry.
Successful courses balance challenges to think critically with support tailored to students' developmental needs.
Courses are assignment centered rather than text and lecture centered. Goals, methods, and evaluation emphasize using content rather than simply acquiring it.
Students are required to formulate and justify their ideas in writing or other appropriate modes.
Students collaborate to learn and to stretch their thinking, for example, in pair problem solving and small‐group work.
Several courses, particularly those that teach problem‐solving skills, nurture students' metacognitive abilities.
The developmental needs of students are acknowledged and used as information in the design of the course. Teachers in these courses make standards explicit and then help students learn how to achieve them. (88–89)
This book aims to help teachers develop courses that follow these guidelines. Of key importance are Kurfiss's principles 2, 4, and 5: a good critical thinking course presents students with “problems, questions, [or] issues” that make a course “assignment centered rather than text [or] lecture centered” and holds students responsible for formulating and justifying their solutions orally or in writing. This book particularly emphasizes writing assignments because they are perhaps the most flexible and most intensive way to integrate critical thinking tasks into a course and because the writing process itself entails complex critical thinking. But much attention is also given to class discussions, small‐group activities, and other teaching strategies that encourage students to work collaboratively to expand, develop, and deepen their thinking. Attention is also given throughout to the design of problems at appropriate levels of difficulty, to the developmental needs of students, and to the importance of making expectations and criteria clear (principles 1, 3, and 8).
Step 3: Design Critical Thinking Tasks for Students to Address
A crucial step in teaching critical thinking is to develop good problems for students to think about. Tasks can range from enduring disciplinary problems to narrowly specific questions about the significance of a graph or the interpretation of a key passage in a course reading. The kinds of questions you develop for students will depend on their level of expertise, their current degree of engagement with the subject matter, and the nature of question asking in your own discipline.
When we conduct workshops in writing across the curriculum, we like to emphasize a disciplinary, content‐driven view of critical thinking. One of John's workshop strategies is to ask faculty to write out one or two final examination essay questions for one of their courses—questions that they think assess subject matter knowledge and a desired level of disciplinary or generic critical thinking. Participants then discuss the kinds of thinking
