“Student Perceptions of Writing Instruction: Twitter as a Tool for Pedagogical Growth”

by Sarah Lonelodge and Katie Rieger | Xchanges 15.1, Spring 2020

Pedagogical Implications

Several implications are apparent from our study of students’ public tweets. First, it is clear that students are using Twitter to air frustrations, publish proud moments, express anger about practices they deem unfair, and communicate with a larger community of student writers and others throughout the writing process. Thus, we argue that Twitter offers a unique perspective on students, instructors, and formal writing assignments. However, we do not advocate for infringing upon privacy or anonymity in any way. While we suggest that general, broad analyses of organic, public tweets as a method for research provides an opportunity to identify the issues and acknowledge the successes of students and instructors, we also insist that researchers follow ethical guidelines and that individual instructors or institutions do not seek out public, organic tweets of their own students for research purposes.

Second, in analyzing tweets, we identified a clear connection between the instructor and students’ writing beyond the proximity of our selected keywords. These findings suggest several pedagogical implications for writing assignments and instruction that are applicable to any course that employs writing as a learning method. With this goal in mind, we pinpoint several concrete pedagogical practices that may improve students’ learning, writing, and classroom experiences.

Pedagogical Applications

Our study suggests that successful writing assignments necessitate purposeful instruction, and we have identified four overarching implications.

1. Teach writing as a process with balanced scaffolding and topics that students care about

Teaching writing as a process rather than a product is commonly considered a best practice in composition pedagogy and is an important consideration for WAC/WID pedagogy as well. While reviewing the history of the “process movement” in composition studies is not our goal here, the conception of writing as a linear (i.e. plan, draft, revise) process likely remains apparent in many classrooms, including those in English departments. However, as Irene L. Clark (2003) writes, “The problem with this linear view of writing…is that it does not reflect what writers actually do” (p. 8). Instead, drawing upon a basic conception of post-process theory, many compositionists argue (see Russell, 1999, for example) that “there are many writing processes…[and]…that some writing activities can be performed mechanistically, whereas others cannot” (p. 21). Similarly, the “Statement of WAC Principles and Practices” (2014) indicates that process is an essential aspect of teaching high-stakes/graded writing: “The writing process is long and complex, with the writer revising in response to developing ideas, reader feedback, and a deeper understanding of the rhetorical situation” (p. 5). Based on our analysis of student tweets, however, the nuances of teaching writing as a process may require further discussion and training.

Particularly, at the front-end of the writing process, students preferred specific instruction on the how of writing essays. While these tweets occasionally indicated possible problematic teaching strategies, students appreciated writing-focused discussions/activities that were directly applicable to the assignment. Frustrations were also apparent when instruction was ineffective, minimal, and/or poorly sequenced. Incorporating careful scaffolding is an important pedagogical consideration, as students find well-sequenced and well-scaffolded writing-intensive courses more effective (Leggette & Homeyer, 2015).

On the other hand, too much structure in teaching writing as a process created frustration: “My English professor is trying to force me to write my body paragraphs before writing my intro. Last I checked it’s my essay.” We suggest, therefore, that instructors balance structured activities at the front-end of the process with the students’ agency as writers. Additionally, many tweets indicated that a category of topics with relatively open selection was preferable. Topic categories allow instructors to maintain control of student writing, scaffold more effectively due to the similarity of genres, and may increase the care that students have for the assignment.

2. Establish clear assignment parameters and rationales, including a rhetorical context

Similarly, writing assignments should balance structure and agency. An effective method for balancing may be similar to those discussed by Bean (2011), who indicates that a writing assignment should be an interactive, meaning-constructing task with clear explanations of expectations (p. 97). In line with Bean, several tweets showed appreciation for clear yet open explanations. Tweets also indicated a desire or need for rationales regarding writing assignment parameters.

As an additional step, we argue that writing assignments with clear parameters for rhetorical contexts or options for potential rhetorical contexts may help alleviate issues with professors as the only audience. As Bean (2011) states, “When designating formal writing assignments, instructors should consider how variations in the rhetorical context–purpose, audience, genre–can create significant differences in students’ writing and thinking processes as well as in their final products” (p. 93). In addition to rhetorical context, we highlight here the importance of a teaching persona. The idea of “performing neutrality” (Kopelson, 2003) is considered an important strategy for writing pedagogy that could help to quell this fear in students’ thinking about writing assignments.

3. Acknowledge students’ time and effort

Of at least equal importance to creating effective writing assignments is grading them. A number of tweets indicated students’ perspectives on grading and/or feedback from instructors. Positive feedback was typically met with positive reactions from students and general indications of pride and confidence. As Larry Beason (1993) notes, “positive feedback does not always result in better final drafts, but it plays a vital role in helping student writers recognize their strengths and gain confidence” (p. 411).

We argue that instructors assigning any type of writing develop clear and informed feedback and grading practices that are shared with students at the beginning of the writing process. As Elizabeth Chiseri-Strater (1993) writes, “Students resent not understanding the grading process being used. If they end up with a C when they felt that all along they had been doing above-average work…they become angry. And rightly so” (p. 179).

4. Consider students’ perspectives and experiences

Finally, we argue that students’ needs and learning capacities as novice writers should be carefully considered as instructors develop and teach writing assignments. One of the more prominent issues raised in students’ tweets was moving due dates and/or not collecting essays on the day assigned. While, anecdotally, instructors may believe that the majority of students will be pleased when given more time, tweets indicated that this was not always accurate. When students prioritized essay writing over other demands, they reacted negatively to deadline changes, often because they had lost sleep or time for other courses.

We also suggest that instructors discuss writing in a way that contributes to learning and supports students’ abilities as novice writers. Many tweets indicated that instructors may not address students as people who are learning to write/writing to learn. Instructors who wish to support their students might consider that many high school students have not written essays longer than five paragraphs; thus, moving into a college writing environment in which eight or more pages is considered short and easy directly conflicts with their experiences.