This article is from the “Advance for Laboratory Professionals ” magazine.  I chose it because I needed it for continuing education credits and I teach Immunoserology which is a subject covering immunity and the tests used  to identify antigen-antibody interactions.  I though it was a nice snap shot of  all the major factors involved in the immune process and how they interact.  However, I asked some of my students to look at it and make comments.  Most of them told me it was over their heads so I chose not to use it in class. 

My opinion of the article now is that it is a wonderful article for people or professionals who already have some working knowledge of immunity but to those still learning it can be difficult to grasp.  I think it would be suited as a refresher for a laboratorian or a review for a student taking an exam after they have a general knowledge of the immune response.  I have to remember this when assigning readings for future classes: the students need articles that speak to their level of understanding.  This article was clearly written to laboratory professionals.

I found chapter 1 of this book interesting in that the authors decribe (traditional) college instructors and professors as people who deliver content and how we think of our courses as a “body of subject matter”.  Those of us unfamiliar with teaching writing intensive courses tend to assign writing assignments as separate from the class content (research papers, position papers).  Although we ask our students to write about the content that we’ve taught it doesn’t always get incorporated into the class activity.  Unfortunately this allows our students to think of the assignment as being separate from the rest of the course.  I had to put myself back on the other side of the podium and remember the writing scenarios I was involved in and concluded that the courses where writing and interacting with small groups was more meaningful than the ones where I was required to do a research paper.  I did however have classes where we actually presented and discussed our research and that was meaningful as well because you had to have gained enough knowledge on the subject to answer questions posed by the class.  I do agree that even small writing assignments can be meaningful, such as small groups discussions where students write a common response.

I recently assigned a lab experiment where I though I clearly explained and demonstrated the set up procedure.  All but one group did it  incorrectly the first time.  I couldn’t understand what went wrong but I soon realized the students were not ready to think like scientists.  They had trouble following the procedure chart.  I wrote the instructions in word format and everyone performed the exercise correctly. I wonder if I would have discovered this diconnect if I had asked them to write what they thought they were expected to do.   At least I would have identified what they didn’t understand before they started the lab.  The following week I wrote the instructions after explaining the chart and they did it correctly.  This clarifies the concept in the chapter about giving students time and opportunities to make connections between content, practice and understanding.  Once they realized I wasn’t as concerned with their numbers as much as I was about them understanding the purpose of the preocedure they were relieved and proceded as expected.  I guess this is where the safe environment comes in.  They knew that  they wouldn’t be penalized if something went wrong as long as they could explain why.

G and H present the argument that “writing and other communication skills are important in every field of study…(p. 17)” so as an educator I need to prepare my students to think and write critically about their subject so that they can convey it to others.  It also challenges me to start with the inquiry: to ask the why questions at the beginning of the discussion instead of somewhere in the middle.

I believe these concepts are extremely useful especially here at York College where many of our students are bright and eager to learn but speak Enlish as a second language.  If we get them to feel confortable speaking and writing about a subject in the class we can shape them for whatever careers they pursue.

When I first started reading Chap 14 I panicked: there was a poem and one that I just didn’t get. I never liked studying poetry because I never really understood what the author was trying to say. As I continued to read I was able to follow the purpose of the discussion on remediation in higher academia.
Rose talks about his two styles of writing, poetry and academic essays and how he kept the two separate. He realized that he could combine the two styles and the theme of blending and the incorporation (of writing) was the basis of the chapter.
One point he makes is that college faculty often teach as experts in their disciplines and we expect our students to become the next generation of “so called” experts. In other words we give instruction “toward the preservation of a discipline but not the intellectual development of young people” (p.297). With that end in mind we as educators make the assumption that our students come to us prepared to learn on such a level but this is not always the case. Rose makes the argument that students need opportunities to write and talk about what their learning and that they need to be given the tools to engage in that writing. If students don’t succeed at this task we criticize them and send them to remedial instruction. We have to ask what was required of the students prior to higher learning. Were they asked or taught to think critically about a subject? Were they asked or taught to write critically about a subject? Rose states that dismissing the need for remediation from institutions of higher learning is perpetuating the problem of not preparing our students for critical assessment. In order to produce well educated critical thinkers we must offer them opportunities to develop the stategies needed to do so. How can they truly become well learned in their disciplines if they can’t write responsively and analytically about their craft? I like the quote from John Dewey… “Only in education, never in the life of the farmer, sailor, merchant, physician or laboratory experimenter does knowledge mean primarily a store of information aloof from doing”(p.293). Our society has trained us to learn information, retain it for a time, repeat it and forget it, but in order for something to be meaningful it must be though about in a meaningful and practical way. Writing as part of any discipline causes the reader/writer to learn, think, analyze and explain whatever it is that needs to be conveyed. As Rose comments, most college bound student are competently literate, they read and write but they need instruction on how to read and write critically.
I was impresses with several points in the chapter but another that stood out for me was how institutions of higher learning stress scholarship and research for faculty trying to obtain tenure. We go into education and teaching with our students being the focal point of our work but our academic standing rests mainly in the research we do and the works we publish. While all of these are important I believe development of teaching skills should be weighted more than the other two… this is our main purpose for doing what we do: to prepare the next generation to be life long learners, teachers and well learned in their discipline. Remediation, tutuoring and extra instruction can often get watered down with the pressures and demands of scholarship. It can also cause us to be far separated from those who have not yet attained a level of knowledge that we now have.
There is one other point I feel the need to comment on. We have become a numbers driven society. The Tutorial Center where Rose worked was asked to validate their work by producing numbers. The politics of remediation required that they give a numerical answer for the quality of their program. I know from experience that this is not always an easy task. Everything of value can’t be measured with figures. I worked in a lab where we were always short staffed and overworked. The administrators reported to us that the numbers didn’t justify hiring another employee. We had to think “critically” about how we could show the amount of work we were doing even though it didn’t show in their statistics. We took extra time (without pay) throughout the day to write everything thing we did each day. We had lists of tests and tasks that were not counted in our computer system as part of our routine work. We produced our results and were given the okay to hire another employee. All that adds up is not all that there is.
In conclusion I believe that we should teach our students to be accountable for what they learn not just for today but for life and an effective way to do it is through the writing experience. In this, we learn where students need guidance and can address the needs and eficits of those we serve.