First Major Paper

When the assignment sheet for the first major paper was handed out I talked to my writers about choosing a focus that was interesting and relevant to them. Many of them actually wanted to choose the final focus, which asked them to point out holes in Gladwell's argument and amend them. I warned them, just as Pegeen did in class that while this topic was the most alluring, it required more critical thinking and pointed writing than some of the other prompts. Several of my writers ended up choosing this focus and those initial sessions with them were rather difficult. While they were engaged and had vigor talking about this topic, I continually had to remind them that this was not simply an excuse to criticize Gladwell or simply say what they did not like about what they read. In sessions we would write a bit and then discuss it. This sometimes kept us from forging a complete draft within a session because as we would stop to discuss the new portion inevitably we would have to weed out the Gladwell-bashing in order to get to the discussion of Gladwell's ideas.

The next week when the writers had completed their first draft of the paper I saw that many of the writers who chose the final prompt had crafted their paper as a point, counterpoint debate. The papers had forward motion and were very neat and tidy, however they were not taking Gladwell seriously. When explaining my reservations in sessions many of the writers stood their ground, feeling very confident and satisfied with their work. During class workshops I was relieved that after some writers' papers were read Pegeen gave similar feedback to them as I did in sessions.

After Tuesday's class I met with some writers who immediately wanted to change their topic but were overwhelmed by the prospect of starting over again. I went back to Pegeen's warning that these papers would not be completely organized or tightly edited and suggested free-writing in efforts to get their true ideas and interests regarding Gladwell out on the page instead of trying to force their thoughts into one of the prompts. Once they were finished we looked over the main ideas they expressed and then back to the list of focuses and tried to match the spirit of their free write to the focus. This seemed to be less daunting for them and much more freeing than writing the first essay for some. Later in the week when we met it also seemed to provide a better foundation for them to craft their final essays upon. While many writers did not end up keeping much of their first draft I feel that it is important at times to first make an enthusiastic, creative statement and then step back and objectively sort through the work to judge value and quality.

I think the value of the class workshops became very clear with this essay as well. After Thursday's class I stayed after class with one of my writers and discussed how his essay was similar to the one read in class. We compared his essay to the two read in class and I think that activity fully illustrated how the debate format does not easily translate to a full and approachable essay. I routinely framed this essay as "an exchange of ideas" in efforts to counteract the sharp debate style. When we met the next week I was stunned to read the drastic changes from the last draft. The writer said that hearing my feedback alongside Pegeen's made him strongly consider revising his paper. I think that this example illustrates how wonderfully this program can work.

I also think that the drafting of this paper has taught the class the importance of multiple drafts and has broken the notion of first drafts being perfect, precious entities that should not be altered. I think that this assignment has strengthened the relationship between my writers and I and made them more objective editors overall.

-Brian