SNL Writing Boot Camps - Winter Quarter

SNL Writing Boot Camps are a great opportunity for SNL students to get one-on-one assistance from an SNL faculty member to complete writing assignments. Boot Camps have been scheduled for all campuses.

For more information contact: SNLwriting@depaul.edu

Session Dates:                                                Location: 

Saturday, February 18, 9:00am-1:00pm         O’Hare Campus, 8770 W. Bryn Mawr Ave., Lab 204 

Saturday, February 25, 9:00am-1:00pm         Naperville Campus 150 W. Warrenville Rd., Lab 104 

Saturday March 4, 9:00 am-1:00pm               Loop Campus, Daley Bldg., 14 E. Jackson, Lab 1325 

Thursday, March 9, 5:30pm-9:00pm               Loop Campus, Daley Bldg., 14 E. Jackson, Lab 1326 

Learning How to Email

The email sits in my box, and I read it multiple times: "What did I miss in class?" There is no subject. There is no signature. The address itself reads cutsienickname124@aol.com. And I am at a loss for what to say because I do not know who sent the message.

It is an email I seem only to receive when I am teaching multiple courses and keeping track of a few dozen students. My knee-jerk response is to send a snarky email. Yet I calm myself and remember that writing email is a genre. If a student has never been taught the rules, then they will not know how to structure a message clearly.

Thankfully, Colorado State University and Loyola University have created tools to help students learn how to email with clarity.

Email (Writing@CSU)

https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/guide.cfm?guideid=44

Email Etiquette (Loyola University)

http://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/writing/loyolaowldocuments/Email%20Etiquette.pdf

Rooting Out Plagiarism

by Nicholas Hayes

As we walked home in the rain, my partner who is an art teacher told me about a student who had submitted an image which had been downloaded from the internet as an original work. It was an uncomfortable situation because the student had enough foresight to crop out the original artist’s signature. When asked confronted with the original image, the student responded with explanation that they were told they could submit photographs. If taken at face value, that vexing reply hits at the cross purposes instructors and students face when discussing unoriginal material. I want to clutch my metaphorical pearls and scream, “Stop, plagiarist, stop.” A fitting response for a crime etymologically linked to kidnapping (“Plagiary”). But such outrage is disingenuous since plagiarism is often linked to student misunderstanding or poor assignment design.

Before we start ringing the tocsin of righteousness, we have to have a clear understanding of what plagiarism is. For example, we might think of Turnitin as a plagiarism detection tool. But this is a concept the company seems to avoid in favor of the concept of unoriginality. In part this is due to a current understanding that plagiarism must be deliberate. Sloppiness or lack of ability to use citations should not be judged with the same severity as intentional dishonesty (“Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism”). Ultimately, a machine can compare similarities in language, but it cannot determine out intent. Even instructors as sensitive, informed readers can struggle to do this. Unoriginality emerges from either a position of ignorance or from an inability to manage time. We at SNL whose students are so often returning after years of not being in the academic sphere are typically sensitive to those concerns on a psychological level. We must also be sensitive to these on a work product level. Students may have problems remembering how to cite or how being able to balance so many new tasks.

To help re-conceptualize the issue of unoriginality, Turnitin identifies ten main patterns. Two of the most prevalent and pernicious are called Clone and CTRL -C. The Clone pattern is what we might think of as traditional plagiarism in which a student submits another person’s work as their own (“Plagiarism Spectrum”). This is a pattern that could be considered Academic Dishonesty. Students may intentionally plagiarize for many reasons: fear of failure, fear of risks, inability to manage time, assumption of the lack of importance of academic expectations (“Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism”). Finding this type of pattern is distressing. But if found in an early draft, it provides an opportunity for a deeper conversation. CTRL-C is the key command (shortcut) on most computers for copying a section of text. This pattern of unoriginality is when a large amount of unaltered text from a single source has been inserted into a student’s paper (“Plagiarism Spectrum”). Although this can be frustrating, it often indicates a lack of understanding of how to synthesize, summarize and cite.

Finding these errors, sometimes prompts even the most even-keeled of us to suspect malfeasance somewhere. Blaming the students is the easiest strategy. We can frame them as untrustworthy or lazy in their academic practice. Once we begin to understand that student unoriginality often the results from a lack of understanding or knowledge, we can turn our ire to the student’s last writing instructor. Yet learning is an iterative process, and academic rigor is something that must be reinforced across the curriculum for students to succeed.

When students submit unoriginal writing, it is not a situation without fault. Sometimes the other actors are partially culpable, and sometimes we have to look at our own classroom policies. Classes that stress performance factors like grades over mastery of the subject and have rigid deadlines can create environments in which unoriginal writing may seem like a pragmatic solution (Stephens and Chu). Even that old, familiar assignment that we have kept in the class for decades might contribute to the problem. Assignments that do not require unique approaches and specialized course knowledge may create a situation where students may feel justified in responding with unoriginal content (“Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism”).

Understanding why students might submit unoriginal writing does not prevent it from happening. But it does suggest a variety of solutions to address it. The first is to provide students with a variety of tools to prevent from straying into error. Consider requiring students to submit assignments to the D2L drop box, and turning on Turnitin so they can see the Originality report (for more information check out this link). You may also consider including a list of writing resources on your assignment guidelines. SNL Writing suggests using this template. You may want to refresh yourself on DePaul’s Academic IntegrityPolicy, learn more about the current thinking about unoriginal writing (for more information check out this link), and re-design your assignments to require original thinking. Enrolling in SNL Writing’s Teaching with Writing can help you rethink your assignments since it presents many creative solutions that require unique responses from students. Most importantly, you and your students have many support structures in place to help prevent unoriginal writing.

Works Cited

 

“Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism: The WPA Statement on Best Practices.” Council of Writing Program Administrators, Jan. 2003, http://wpacouncil.org/positions/WPAplagiarism.pdf

“Plagiary, adj. and n.” Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press, http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/144942?. Accessed 30 Jan 2017.

“The Plagiarism Spectrum.” Turnitin. Turnitin, http://turnitin.com/assets/en_us/media/plagiarism_spectrum.php.  Accessed 6 Dec. 2016.

Stephens, Jason and Jason Chu. “Why Students Plagiarize.” Turnitin, 10 June 2014, http://go.turnitin.com/l/45292/2014-06-10/2xm1. Accessed 6 Dec. 2016.

Writing Showcase: Call for Student Work

The gray winter weather can seem endless.  Yet the green shoots of spring will eventually arrive, and then the city’s gardens and parks will dazzle us with their brilliant blossoms and blooms.  When that happens, I hope we can all take a few moments to stand in awe of nature.

Our students have a similar ability to awe us. Their dedication and talent can result in some amazing works. SNL Writing hopes that you will encourage your students to submit their outstanding work (academic essays, creative writing, poems, stories, APs, ILPs, Capstone projects, and Digication ePortfolios) to the 2016-2017 Writing Showcase.

For every submission, a new flower will be added to the tree in the lobby of the SNL Offices (suite 1400, 14. E. Jackson.) All submitters will be invited to show how their writing has blossomed at the Writing Showcase Live event on April 20, 2017. Writing Showcase winners will be recognized at the annual SNL Spring Awards Luncheon.

Encourage your students to submit their best work! Application forms can be found at http://snl.depaul.edu/student-resources/writing/pages/default.aspx  under the Writing Events menu.

The deadline for submissions is April 1, 2017

Winter Quarter Hours at the Writing Center

The University Center for Writing-based Learning (UCWbL) is now taking appointments at both Loop and LPC Writing Center locations during Winter Quarter 2017. Hours for both campuses are below.

Loop Campus Writing Center

(312) 362-6726

25 E. Jackson

Lewis Center 1600

Chicago, IL 60604

Monday: 9am-7pm

Tuesday: 9am-7pm

Wednesday: 9am-7pm

Thursday: 9am-7pm

Friday: 12pm-5pm

Saturday: 12pm-5pm

Sunday: Closed

Lincoln Park Campus Writing Center

(773) 325-4272

2320 N. Kenmore

SAC 212

Chicago, IL 60614

Monday: 9am-7pm

Tuesday: 9am-7pm

Wednesday: 9am-7pm

Thursday: 9am-7pm

Friday: Closed

Saturday: Closed

Sunday: 12pm-7pm (starts 1/15)

Click here for step-by-step instructions on how to register and make an appointment. Be sure to select the correct campus from the drop-down box at the top of the WCOnline scheduler when making an appointment online. Call either Writing Center with questions or concerns.

Register Now for Teaching with Writing in Any Course!

Calling all faculty: the deadline is quickly approaching to register for Teaching with Writing in Any Course: An SNL Professional Development Course. This four-week online course will run from January 17 to February 6 and is designed to help teachers in any discipline make "the most of writing as a tool for teaching and learning in undergraduate and graduate courses."

One previous participant said, "Reading and grading has become a remarkably less stressful process for me because of the techniques I learned in [Teaching with Writing]."

It is recommended that new faculty take Teaching with Writing within their first 18 months at DePaul. A $150 stipend will be provided to all participants who complete the course. 

Click on the image below to view the course description, and register for Teaching with Writing today! Space is limited, so if making your grading life less stressful appeals to you, email SNLwriting@depaul.edu by January 3 with the following information:

• First and Last Name
• DePaul ID number
• Email address
• DePaul affiliation (i.e. full-time faculty, visiting faculty, grad student, non-DPU)

You may also request a copy of the course syllabus by emailing SNLwriting@depaul.edu.

As another participant said, "If you are debating about taking the course, seriously consider changing your schedule so you can. It will make teaching easier and more rewarding."

The Benefits of Attending a Peer Review Workshop at the UCWbL

by Steffanie Triller Fry

‘Twas World Series Game Seven

When all through DePaul

Not a creature was stirring

They were watching the Cubbies “PLAY BALL!”

That is, except for the unfortunate members of my Fall 2016 Writing for Competence class. It just so happened that the night I had scheduled my class to attend a Peer Review Workshop at the University Center for Writing-basedLearning coincided with the inimitable Game Seven of the 2016 World Series. Nevertheless, we pressed on, and nine of my students and I cocooned ourselves in the 16^th floor of the Lewis Building with our workshop coordinator and writing center tutor, Katie.

Katie began by sharing with us a few brief slides about what peer feedback is and why it is helpful. She also handed out a half-sheet of paper to each student that offered guidelines for peer review. Interestingly, the suggestions for student deportment in a peer review session strongly mirrored what one would expect from an adult employee providing feedback to another employee in an annual review. This resonated with my students, all full-time employees at one of the city’s financial institutions.

They took the half-sheets and dispersed around the room in groups of three. One student in each group began reading aloud while the other two students listened or jotted down comments on a copy of their classmate’s paper. Katie and I hovered as my students held their peers (and us) captive with their words. At one point, Katie and I found ourselves hovering over the same group as a female student read her appeal to an Illinois Congressman to introduce legislation that would provide feminine products gratis to homeless women. When the student writer noticed us hovering, Katie smiled. “I’m so interested in your topic,” she said. The student beamed.

Around the rooms of the Writing Center, other students were similarly captivating their audiences with words. Conversation ensued as the students served as one another’s audience. Katie kept a time clock and reminded groups when it was time to switch readers.

Research has found that peer review sessions benefit students as both givers and receivers of feedback on their written work. When students use a drafting process and receive feedback from peers and an instructor, they are more likely to revise their work for meaning, rather than mere surface-level errors (Paulus). Moreover, giving peer feedback on written writing assignments can actually be more helpful to a student’s own writing than receiving feedback from a peer (Lundstrom and Baker). For these reasons, writing instructors often build peer review sessions into their courses. But, as scholars who share work with their peers know well, peer review sessions can benefit writers in all disciplines (Beason). And, luckily, the UCWbL is glad to host a peer review workshop in the course of any instructor who requests one on their website.

Later, when we reconvened together as a group, the student who had moved us most with her words about blood and cold and homelessness raised her hand. She shared with the group that before this peer review session she did not understand what her essay needed, but now she knew. Another student and said that even though he had done peer review in class before, this session had been incredibly helpful.

The students dashed out of the Writing Center to catch the final game of an incomparable series that would linger past midnight. But, before the curse of the Billy Goat would be broken by the Lovable Losers, these writers broke their own kind of curse on the 16^th floor of the Lewis Building on a rainy Chicago night. They no longer feared sharing their written work.  

Happy peer review to all, and to all, a good night!

The DePaul Writing Center schedules workshops on Peer Review, Citation, Digication, and other customized topics. To schedule a workshop, visit the UCWbL website.

Works Cited

Beason, Larry. “Feedback and Revision in Writing across the Curriculum Classes.” Research in the Teaching of English, vol. 27, no. 4, 1993, pp. 395–422. www.jstor.org/stable/40171241

Lundstrom, Kristi, and Wendy Baker. "To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing." Journal of second language writing 18.1 (2009): 30-43.

Paulus, Trena M. "The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing." Journal of second language writing 8.3 (1999): 265-289.