WRTG596: Teaching Composition on the College Level
Fall 2017 | Section 000 (13810 | August Workshop | Workshop Materials | Eastern Michigan University

Enrollment: 8
Forms Completed: 8 (100%)

1. Evaluate the following aspects of the workshop (A: Always, B: Frequently, C: Sometimes, D: Rarely, E: Never)

  N/% N/% N/% N/% N/% N
The activities and assignments in the workshop met my needs as I prepare to teach in the upcoming semester. 4/50 4/50 0/0 0/0 0/0 8
The instructor communicated instructions and expectations in a manner appropriate for a graduate-level workshop. 6/75 2/25 0/0 0/0 0/0 8
Guest presenters were well-prepared and addressed issues relevant to my preparation for the upcoming semester. 6/75 2/25 0/0 0/0 0/0 8
The instructor was available for consultation or assistance and allowed sufficient time during the workshop to answer my questions. 8/100 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 8
The assigned readings accorded with my preparations for teaching in the First-year Writing Program. 5/63 2/25 0/0 1/13 0/0 8
I felt appropriately challenged and supported throughout the workshop. 6/75 1/13 0/0 1/13 0/0 8
Throughout the workshop, I was treated like a respected colleague who was being welcomed into a vibrant community of practice. 6/75 1/13 1/13 0/0 0/0 8

2. Would you describe your instructor as __________________?

  Yes No RESP
  N/% N/% N
a. Knowledgeable about teaching? 8/100 0/0 8
b. Able to communicate ideas clearly? 8/100 0/0 8
c. Knowledgeable about composition studies? 8/100 0/0 8
d. Prepared for the workshop? 8/100 0/0 8
e. Skilled at leading and moderating discussion? 7/87 1/13 8
f. Open to the views of workshop participants? 8/100 0/0 8
g. Enthusiastic about workshop assignments and activities? 8/100 0/0 8
h. Intellectually engaging? 8/100 0/0 8
i. Fair? 8/100 0/0 8
j. Professional? 8/100 0/0 8

3. Please provide written comments to explain one or two of your answers to the previous question.

  1. Dr. Mueller is very knowledgeable about teaching first-year writing classes. He is always fair and professional. He transferred his passion for teaching to everyone in the workshop too.
  2. D. Prepared for workshop, I loved how the workshop was mapped out and there were no surprises.
  3. The instructor was prepared and knowledgeable about every aspect of the workshop. Constantly bringing us into a respected relationship as incoming instructors.
  4. e. could go off on tangents but they were related to the topics at hand and informative
  5. Derek knows his stuff; he was professional and relatable.
  6. a. Knowledgeable about teaching - Derek's expertise and experience was obvious throughout the workshop. He had plenty of examples of situations to share and how to deal with them.

4. Please rate the quality of the following workshop activities and readings on a scale from 1-5. (A: Excellent, B: Very Good, C: Good, D: Fair, E: Poor)

  N/% N/% N/% N/% N/% N
a. Mapping activity 5/63 2/25 1/13 0/0 0/0 8
b. Responding and grading 2/25 5/63 0/0 1/13 0/0 8
c. Peer response 4/50 1/13 2/25 1/13 0/0 8
d. Small group time with UR and WIA 3/38 3/38 1/13 0/0 1/13 8

N.b. The workshop evaluation form included additional questions about specific readings and guests. While these responses were extremely helpful for planning future iterations of the workshop, I have decided not to circulate them publicly online. -DM

5. Please provide written comments to explain one or two of your answers to the previous question.

  1. Mapping activity was very interesting as I learned more about my literacy journey and will definitively use it in my classes this semester. Peer response activity was a great activity especially as we rotate it and a couple of people had a chance to write comments on it in class--the more feedback the better outcome.
  2. J. I really enjoyed hearing from the returning GA's
  3. I do not recall the "Hologram/Present-Absence Activity." All the guests were great.
  4. g. could have spent more time on this
  5. e., g., h.) I felt that the in-class interaction and discussion of many of the readings could have been extended or more in-depth, especially in giving examples as to how to teach them in our own classes.
  6. Though all the presenters were informative, it was a lot of sit and get. I appreciated that Chalice came with an activity. Maybe less panel. Or more interactivity.
  7. o. Guests: Stephanie Reynolds (Multimodality and Technology) - Stephanie was an excellent resource when it came to using Google Docs for the WRTG 120 format.

6. What changes would you recommend to the workshop?

  1. none!
  2. Nothing. I feel pretty prepared.
  3. Timing: sticking to topic and schedule a bit more. However, a lot of side-knowledge is gleaned from straying from the question/material at hand.
  4. I would have enjoyed and benefited from more opportunities to work in small groups. A lot of generative work happened in those break outs; it's a perfect opportunity to course design from a collaborative place. Also, why not make everyone teach a sample lesson to the group? (I know we did a quick run through, but an actual all group sample teach would further prepare.)
  5. Maybe a little more time for us to work together on our lesson plans. The moments where we could bounce ideas off of each other and share information were invaluable.
  6. Doing teaching demos instead of just talking about teaching; it felt there was too much talking and not enough doing.

7. What do you consider to be the strongest feature(s) of the workshop?

  1. Instructor.
  2. The support from Derek and the department.
  3. Camaraderie. Being together, learning, complaining, and bonding with each other will have ramifications long beyond this workshop.
  4. the amount of resources available
  5. The class activity demos (literacy map, literacy sponsor virtualization) were especially helpful and illuminating. The workshops held with entire FYWP cohort was also very interesting and supportive.
  6. All the activities (mapping, peer review, etc) were great.
  7. Derek's ability to weave in examples of assignments, situations, anecdotes, etc. to his lectures. It stayed interesting and engaging.

8. Please rate the overall quality of the August WRTG596 Workshop. (A: Excellent, B: Very Good, C: Good, D: Fair, E: Poor)

  N/% N/% N/% N/% N/% N
Workshop Overall 4/50 3/38 0/0 1/13 0/0 8

9. Please rate the overall quality of the instructor leading the August WRTG596 Workshop. (A: Excellent, B: Very Good, C: Good, D: Fair, E: Poor)

  N/% N/% N/% N/% N/% N
Instructor Overall 6/75 1/13 1/13 0/0 0/0 8

10. Use the this space to provide any additional comments you want to share about the instructor or the workshop.

  1. Considering sharing syllabus for peer evaluation and maybe lesson plans for the first two weeks too. We could share them on the Google doc and ask everyone to write comments on it.
  2. free food < free coffee (just sayin')