Class Prep: Lots of Low-Stakes Writing

 So, after finally letting go of the need to absorb any more play scripts--it really is just procrastination at this stage--I sat down and reformatted my script analysis course (both sections). I've made the class both shorter and longer. I took out some of the play readings; there are now 11 instead of the usual 13. And I took out one of the four analysis papers. With this additional breathing room, I inserted at least a day between each play I assign. My thinking is that we'll discuss the play one day and then, on the following day, we'll use that script to unpack/explore some facet of script analysis. 

I've also both cut down and vastly expanded the amount of writing students do. A class I taught this last semester turned out to be one of my favorite courses I've ever taught. I structured the class around lots of low-stakes writing and responses. Students brought in "sparks" for the day's material. A spark could be a quote that stood out, a substantive reaction, a question--just about anything so long as it demonstrated a real engagement with the material. Occasionally, students were required to go beyond a spark and bring in a "rabbit hole report"--a bit of research about something the material for the day inspired them to look into. A few students (those contracting for an A) had to do at least one "lagniappe report"--essentially a longer, deeper rabbit hole report on some bit of extra material not formally assigned. 

What made all this work so well, I think, was the work I put in compiling each class day a list of some of the standout sparks comments/questions. I'd begin each next class by sharing these. I could see students light up when they recognized that I was reading their contribution. I think this practice gave students a sense that their reactions mattered, that the sparks weren't mere busywork. 

It was, of course, a lot of work on my part.

What I was doing, in the lingo of writing instruction, was creating a lot of low-stakes writing assignments. Students would get either "Satisfactory" or "Unsatisfactory" on these assignments. If they were Unsatisfactory, I'd let them know what the problem was and give them the chance to revise. They had to be in class to turn them in, and I accepted handwritten ones provided I could understand the handwriting. Nearly all of them were handwritten, which frankly cut down on any suspicions on my part that they were AI-generated. I also gave students a few minutes at the top of class to do these exercises. If the didn't read the material, they'd get a U and the chance to revise. (Revisions were more work, though, so as to dissuade them from just backlogging U's.)

What if, I thought to myself, I made my script analysis class more like that class? Every day would have some kind of low-stakes writing--some they could bring to class prewritten, some they'd write in class. And I could--would have to--again do the hard work of grading every day and compiling responses to share the next day. I'd also need to get students into the habit of bringing something to write with and write on every day. 

I'm still thinking through exactly how to realize this in a script analysis class. A lot of this class is going to be experimental--on my part particularly. And it's going to be a lot of work--though I may be able to grade again mostly on S/U status. 

But: I'm also thinking I may need to let go of contract/ungrading in favor of the simpler (less pedagogically responsible) numerical grading system...

And then, aside from that, I really need to get my grad class sorted! Lots of article-reading hours tomorrow.