Teaching

Teaching makes up 60% of my appointment and evaluation for promotion. It’s also a substantial part of my life and identity. I consistently strive to improve my curricula, how I present content, and what my students take away from the classes.

My pedagogy, which is grounded in rhetorical theory, cultural studies, and positive psychology, consists of student-centered classroom practices and carefully sequenced and scaffolded assignments that encourage students to reach their goals through critical reading, thoughtful inquiry, and rigorous process-based writing. I guide students in reading and producing a variety of texts within academic, professional, and civic contexts. My goal is to help people represent themselves and their ideas well, become critical citizens and consumers of texts, and use writing to solve problems.

Below, I have described how my teaching and support of quality writing instruction in the program have met eight criteria across three categories specified by the Writing Program’s promotion guidelines.

Section A

Quality of course design

I have included the final syllabus and assignments from my spring 2018 WRIT 1133 to demonstrate the latest iteration of that course, followed by the syllabus and assignments from 2014, which will allow you to see how the course evolved as I integrated principles from positive psychology to create a supportive writing environment that encourages students to take responsibility for their work and accomplish as much as possible in the time we have.

I have also included the final syllabus and assignments for my winter 2018 WRIT 1122. To add more detail about the design of WRIT 1122, I have uploaded an annotated PowerPoint. The slides represent one full class period, but I have added comments throughout that show how content or activities fit within the context of the course and are representative of my approaches.

Observation Letters from Assistant Director for First-Year Writing Richard Colby describe the design of specific class sessions, and I discuss course design in my Teaching Reflections.

Quality of response to student writing

The Feedback Overview provides a description of my feedback practices and how my students respond to my feedback.

A Feedback on Student Writing folder is available on DU’s OneDrive by invitation only. It includes:

• Three 1622 Op-Eds with comments

• Three 1133 Textual Synthesis Blog Articles with comments

• Two video responses to 1122 Resumes and Cover Letters

Quality of student evaluations of teaching

My first year at DU, the course evaluations made me cry because they were the lowest in my career. Recently, my evaluations have made me ‘happy-cry’ because they confirm that students value the changes I’ve made and we’re accomplishing our goals.

The Evaluations Overview compares quantitative responses between 2008-2010 and 2016-2018 and representative qualitative responses.

Full Course Evaluations for 2017-2018 (previous years available on request)

Evaluation Summaries 2007-2016

Student Letters

I asked a few students who had taken two classes with me to write letters of support. I shared the evaluation criteria and asked them to address anything that stood out to them. I combined the letters they sent me into one PDF. Their comments speak to several criteria.

Section B

Quality of interactions in the classroom and in other structured teaching settings

This criteria is one of the most important, but also hardest to capture. The documents below illustrate how I make use of class time and establish a positive learning environment. Working directly with undergraduate students is one of the most rewarding aspects of my career.

Observation Letters from Assistant Director for First-Year Writing Richard Colby

Student Letters

Evaluation Comments

Quality of teaching statements, analyses, and reflections

I have been teaching writing for 20 years now, and I’ve never taught the same class twice. I mean that not only in some existential sense (though I never cease to be amazed at how the exact same lesson plan can result in such different results depending on the section and all sorts of things we can’t control), but in the sense that I am always reflecting and tinkering. I definitely consider myself a reflective practitioner. I start with a plan, but make changes based on student progress. I collect mid-term feedback and make adjustments if needed. I keep that feedback in mind and add the course evaluation responses as I tinker between quarters, considering suggestions for change and reinforcing the things that seem to be working well. I talk with colleagues and incorporate their good ideas. I find new resources and update examples to reflect current events. I think that trying something new—even if the content is just a little different—allows me to learn alongside my students. I look forward to ‘seeing what happens’ on some assignments while knowing what to expect on others. I also get to share my enthusiasm and processes for researching new things as we go.  

Beyond my ongoing assessment, reflection, research, and application, I have completed substantial reflections on my teaching for annual review each year. I invite you to read through as many as you’d like, though they are quite thorough. I have always been honest in addressing the challenges and missteps as well as the triumphs or ongoing success of certain strategies. These reflections also illustrate how I have applied research from the field and professional development opportunities in the ongoing evolution of my course designs.

Teaching Reflection Annual Review Statements from 2014–2018

Evidence of professional development from external workshops or institutes related to teaching

During the review period, I have:

• completed the OTL Course Design Institute to develop a WRIT 2500 course for winter 2019 (discussed below)

• attended seven conferences related to teaching (see CV)

• contributed to professional development for other faculty through pedagogy-related conference presentations, workshops, and sharing materials online

Section C

Development of teaching methods and materials used by others

Campbell, Jennifer, Richard Colby, and Rebekah Schultz-Colby. Situating Research: Writers, Sources, Strategies, and Genres. Hayden-McNeal, Plymouth, MI, 2017.

Richard Colby, Rebekah Shultz-Colby, and I began co-authoring this textbook in 2009 because we couldn’t find any textbooks that fully supported our WRIT 1133 curriculum. We piloted the textbook in 2008, and in 2009 we began working with Leasa Burton at Bedford St. Martin’s. We completed a draft, got reviews, and worked on revisions, piloting the full text 2010-2011 in our own WRIT 1133/1633/1733 classes. Unfortunately, we had tailored the text so specifically for the DU approach that Bedford decided there wouldn’t be enough of a market to publish. (Given the recent wider recognition that students should indeed do primary research, it may be time to consider some updates and another go.)  We continued to use the digital pilot version for class and shared chapters with colleagues. Over the next couple of years, I condensed most chapters in response to student feedback, but the structure and content were working pretty well for us.

When an unattributed chapter showed up online outside of our course websites, and given that more colleagues were expressing interest in the full text, we decided to custom publish with Hayden-McNeal before the 2016-2017 academic year. A number of full-time and adjunct faculty now use the textbook. A copy is available in the Writing Program Office and I would be happy to provide one for your review.

After completing a June 2014 workshop on hybrid pedagogy led by Heather Martin and Sarah Hart-Micke, I created a video for my WRIT 1133 hybrid about Human Subjects and IRB, which I’ve shared with others and hope to revise and produce at much higher quality. I have often uploaded materials to Teaching Resources on the Writing Program Portfolio site and frequently share lesson plans, assignments, and slides with colleagues.

Course development with programmatic implications

Minor Research and Development Committee, 2011-present

Helped research and design the Minor in Writing Practices from the beginning—from meeting with representatives from our partner programs and researching comparison programs to finalizing requirements, reviewing new course proposals, and setting up processes for the future.

Minor Course Development, WRIT 2500: Public Good, Personal Gain, and the Ethics of Persuasion

Roman rhetorician Quintillian’s ideal orator was “a good man speaking well,” but we know that evil people can speak well and good people can struggle to communicate. We also know that a lot has changed since 95 AD. In this course, we will trace the thorny relationship between rhetoric and ethics, from the Sophists of ancient Athens to recent concerns about political persuasion on Facebook. We’ll discuss several touchstones in rhetorical theory and consider if and how their philosophies and frameworks apply to contemporary argument and persuasion in fields like education, law, journalism, and politics. You’ll hone your ability to read a wide variety of texts closely, critically, and rhetorically while also considering your own responsibilities as a writer and citizen. Students will compose regular analysis and response entries and other informal assignments; a multimodal ‘conversation collage’ that represents an ongoing argument in the civic sphere; and a dialogue, manifesto, or open letter to present their personal philosophy of ethics and persuasion.

The class has already filled for Winter 2019, and the timely topic would probably allow us to teach it frequently. This course also fits well with the General Education Revision goals for ethical communication and connecting personal and public goods.