WRT 407 is an advanced technical communication course for senior electrical and computer engineers at Syracuse University. By the time the students get to my 407 class, they've had WRT 105 (the freshman comp course), WRT 205 (academic research course), and WRT 307 (professional communications course of varying quality and focus).
About three years ago I stopped assuming that my 407 students had a framework of basic compositional and rhetorical practices on which to perform their pre-professional writing activities. That's why I wasn't at all surprised when I started reviewing submissions of a recent assignment. The assignment asks the students to write a corporate position statement for monitoring email and Internet use. The submissions ranged from arbitrary diatribe to five paragraph essay. Most of the submissions fell somewhere in between -- sloppily constructed argument.
I took the entire session today to do an argument refresher. We looked at the basic elements of an argument, discussed how each element works together, and reviewed a few of the contexts in which they (as practicing engineers) would be asked to either write or respond to a well-structured argument. We also talked briefly about logic and logical fallacies. Then we did a fun little exercise in which they break up into two groups and develop arguments for the supremacy of a particular candy bar over another. Aside from the animated discussions within each group, the students get to munch on chocolate.
Why am I sharing this? I think it's because I thoroughly enjoyed today’s class. I got to see these young, talented, extremely smart pre-professionals stretch their thinking beyond their capstone projects. I think I got excited to see a writing exercise turn into a generative team-building activity. And maybe I'm sharing because I was reminded how rewarding teaching writing can be... sometimes.
No comments:
Post a Comment