From Mills to USF: A Teaching Observation

Jennifer Massoni
Professor Abinader
ENG 271: Theories of Creativity and the Teaching of Creative Writing
February 26, 2010

Teaching Observation

LOGISTICS:
Class Title:
"Nonfiction Workshop IV" (at USF)

Cass Instructor:
Lowell Cohn

Date Observed:
February 16, 2010

Class Size:
Six students

Class Make-up:
- First and second year MFA graduate students, all of whom are focusing in nonfiction
- Four females and two males
- Mostly Caucasian, one Asian American female
- Age range from recent college grad to late 30s.

Class Arrangement:
At tables, positioned in a circle. Professor sat at the head of one end.

Social Atmosphere:
Friendly, familiar, plenty of pre-class banter—all indicative of it being a few weeks into the semester. The students were mature, polite, engaged, and seemed to be happy to be in the class. They were also very welcoming of my presence there. The professor made a point to introduce me to each student in the class. With my permission, he saved time at the end for the class to ask ME questions about Mills and its MFA program. As he put it, the added perspective “is really helpful for us.” While I had made the initial connection because a friend of mine is currently in the class, he seemed genuinely interested in my point-of-view, creative process, etc.

SUBSTANCE:
What were the activities of the class?
From what I gathered from the professor prior to class, this meeting would be the first where students workshopped peer submissions. After introductory remarks, nearly the entire 2 hour/45 minute block was dedicated to the review of two students’ work. One submitted a journalistic piece on the spawning of herring in Richardson Bay; the other two comedic narratives pulled from daily life (To have a better idea of what would be going on in class, I had asked to read the two submissions prior to the class.). And as I mentioned in class, he and the class spent the last 20 minutes of class questioning me about Mills, how many students were in our program, why I chose it, how my workshops were run, what I was writing on, you name it. With some guilt, it seems this impromptu Q&A pushed the class’s planned discussion of dialogue in nonfiction to the next class, as well as an exercise writing overheard dialogue and then rewriting it as a 150-word piece of nonfiction prose, including description, etc.

Were goals stated for the class?
While Professor Cohn did not state goals per se, his syllabus (I have a copy if anyone is curious) details a clear and refreshingly direct agenda, from learning outcomes (ie. An idea of what constitutes “a completed work of nonfiction” to submission and course requirements (ie. A strict adherence to deadlines). The general course description also articulates tenants of nonfiction and its requirement that one studies “the world as it is.” His agenda then expands about how to apply techniques of both fiction and nonfiction to prose (such as dialogue, openings/closings, and description), encourages students to take risks, and emphasizes how to generate new work.


How were the activities conducted (non evaluative)?
In the class I observed, Professor Cohn began workshop with a typed list of his own observations about the writing at hand. In other words, he directed the discussion with specific questions of the text, rather than waiting for the students to offer their own comments, as I’ve typically seen done in fiction workshops. Speaking to a friend, however, this didn’t seem a specific method to workshopping nonfiction at USF, but rather an approach specific to the professor. For example, for the piece on herring, he asked: “What are the writer’s goals? What does she want to do for the reader?” After eliciting student feedback, he then distilled three main goals: 1) establish authority as a narrator in control of her information, 2) entertain with her narrative choices, and 3) produce a good piece of writing. He then invited the class to show him where the writer accomplished said goals. This gave the workshop an agenda to follow, and kept the class off tangents.

Was text used (published or peer)?
Published text was not used, only the workshopped peer work. The syllabus does state that there are no required texts for the class, though the professor will hand out short selections during class to read and discuss. That night’s homework assignment involved a dialogue reading, for instance.


Lecturing? Discussion? Exercises? In-class writing?
While the entirety of this class focused on workshop, my friend told me during the break that previous classes had involved in-class writing exercises, as well as the submission and review of a proposal from each student about his/her planned project for the term (ie, profile of an interesting person, investigation of an issue, memoir about a specific life incident or epoch, a piece of travel writing, a series of essays or opinion pieces, etc.). A writing assignment was also due the first night of class.

The syllabus charts four “activities” specific to workshop: 1) generating original writing ideas to be pursued in class, 2) considering writing problems as they arise, 3) doing serious reading and critique of each student’s submissions, and 4) the revision of a final piece due the last class. I particularly love that revision is required of this workshop. I’ve noticed that many times it isn’t, making it all too easy to procrastinate incorporating feedback during the same semester. While sometimes projects need to incubate, I wouldn’t mind revision assignments while things are fresh.

From the syllabus, I also gather that each class pertains to a different craft element of nonfiction (ie. The function of last paragraphs) or a directed writing exercise (ie. Taking a short bus trip and describing the action of going and coming back and what if anything changed in you or for you.)

How many students participated?
Everyone participated throughout the class. I didn’t pick up on an ounce of unprofessionalism or the sense that anyone hadn’t arrived fully prepared to discuss the work. Most feedback seemed divided into “Comments” and “Questions,” which I can assume is USF lingo, and which I like. However, it being such a small class, it was obvious who was giving a little more or a little less. I did notice that the one student was criticism heavy in her feedback overall, which is always a bit of a bummer in workshop. Later, she also said, “I thought about Mills, but I decided not to go. I forget why,” which was just such a vague statement and only further annoying, so I chalked her feedback up to a somewhat sour demeanor overall. (How easily we judge and fall back on those predictable workshop characters when we take things personally, eh?)

Described interactions among peers with professor?
In addition to the social atmosphere described above, these students seem to get on with the professor, who it was clear had taught a few of them in previous classes. One student even brought him tea and it seemed like a ritual (ps. soy cappuccino noted!)

OUTCOME:
What was the atmosphere of the class?
As an observer, I felt that the class moved along at a steady clip. While folks were friendly with one another, they seemed to bring an impartial intelligence to peer review. I’m not privy to the nuances of these students to know well enough if someone was subtly peeved or otherwise miffed. But it didn’t appear so. The overall atmosphere was classic workshop: being present to respond to and question a piece of writing submitted by one’s peers.

Were the students involved?
To restate, yes. However, here I’ll add some behind-the-scenes feedback. My friend took me aside during break to tell me that she was surprised at how structured this workshop was, and she was a little frustrated that the professor seemed to be steering discussion with his own agenda. I was proud of her when, after the break, she respectfully voiced her inquiry as to whether this would always be the format of workshop. The professor admitted he was here to teach and had a lot to share, but was very willing in tone and manner to adapt towards her concern. He asked the class to help him remember to inquire about any other line of questioning the students wanted to address before moving on to another point of discussion, and did so.

Overall, this episode reminded me that we will all likely develop very unique teaching styles just as we possess unique writing styles and creative processes. This professor also admitted that he didn’t know how other instructors in the program conducted their workshops, which seemed to indicate a lack of connectivity amongst the program faculty, but that could easily be an assumption on my part. I just know from being at Mills, that the faculty seems to have a clear sense of respective workshop styles—which I’m pleased to sense.

Did the substance of the class have impact?
As a fiction student, it was fascinating to observe the critique of nonfiction. The pieces themselves were impressive and very different from one another—from in-depth reporting of the natural world to dark comedic glances at the ridiculous in the mundane. Due to the workshop approach, however, much of the “substance” of the class stemmed from the professor.

He did an inspiring job of weaving the trademarks and the motivations of the genre into the workshop itself. In this way, he really jived off the work of the students and drew parallels to published work and craft elements. For instance, when discussing the depth of information in the herring piece, he noted that the author was a “dogged researcher and interviewer and a good writer, which you need be for nonfiction.” He also added: “we’re not academic readers/writers,” speaking collectively for nonfiction writers. In other words, the voice the author brought to the piece made the topic of herring fascinating and inviting, not dry and academic. He continued to call attention to the access point of nonfiction, saying: “The world is there to be used every minute of every day.”

He also offered general tenants that writers of all genres might appreciate: “We’re choosers every time we write. Every word is a choice.” He in fact began many, many sentences with “We, as writers…” This kind of language gave a nice sense of inclusion and equality among all in the room. He then showed good writing choices in the text. His style also leant itself to the ability to really drill down into the text, asking students to look at a particular paragraph and examine closely how it works. He also gave feedback on student commentary, which I think sometimes gets brushed over in workshop with so many students vying for the mic. For instance, he told one student who made a revision suggestion, “That was editing. Very good. Thank you.”

How did the professor engage the students? How did the students engage with each other?
As I’ve touched upon, the professor was continually asking questions of the students, especially engaging them to point out in the text from where they were drawing their critique. The students were comfortable disagreeing with one another as well. For the most part, everyone raised their hands to be called upon.

My general impression of the effectiveness of the class?
In terms of discussing each student’s work for, numerous craft elements, and engaging the participation of each student, I found the class to be effective. As an observer, I must admit I was surprised that formal criticism didn’t kick in for some 30 minutes. In other words, the workshop felt praise heavy, though the praise was consistently calling elements of the genre to the surface of the discussion. As we’ve discussed, there is a balance between being encouraged and being stretched. While praise is ego boosting and reassuring, I think we’re in workshop mostly to know how to improve works in progress. The class did eventually lead to a line of questioning and suggestions for revision. For the most part, the writers accepted the feedback graciously. Since one piece was unfinished and the other would likely be part of a larger series, the professor was very attuned to potential endings, alternate beginnings, etc., which I think is important. After all, it’s not all about the words at hand, but what those words mean for what’s coming next.

Did you talk to the professor and what did you learn?
Quite a bit. Before class, we emailed and I got a sense of his background: PhD English Lit Stanford 1972; Sports columnist Santa Rosa Press Democrat the last 15 years, before that sports columnist SF Chronicle 15 years; has published in Sports Illustrated, NY Times, Switchback; published Rough Magic: Bill Walsh's Return to Stanford Football (HarperCollins) 1994; and has taught at USF 20 years. I appreciated this career trajectory, as I come from a magazine journalism background myself and am looking at the teaching of writing as a related/alternate/parallel career path.

As for what I really learned, as corny as this sounds, one of my main takeaways is that often after a student offered particularly astute or perceptive feedback, Professor Cohn would simply say with intention: “I love it.” It was so validating! To hear those words and feel they weren’t being spoken out of a repetitive teacher tic, but truly from one insightful mind to another. Another turn of phrase I appreciated and plan to steal is: “You’re a writer, you’ll handle it one way or the other.” It communicated a sense of trust in the writers to, after all was said and done and suggested in workshop, make the big decisions on their own.