糖心破解版

Of the twenty-five faculty enrolled in the summer WID workshops, Michael Lacombe, Associate Professor of History and Department Chair, was the only male participant. When we talked this fall about his experiences in the workshops, I had to ask if he had any insights about the causes, or the significance, of the gender imbalance. (To be fair there were two other male applicants among the original 44 who applied to the workshops, but they had positions near the bottom of the first-come-first-serve waitlist and so did not make it into a workshop this time.) LaCombe threw up his hands in bafflement, 鈥淚t may have to do with a misperception that writing is a 鈥榮oft鈥� subject鈥攁nd, if it鈥檚 not our discipline specifically, we think we have much more important things to contend with鈥攍ike, we鈥檙e historians!鈥欌赌�

When I asked what compelled him to apply to the workshops, he said that his primary motivation, initially, was a desire to be more effective when commenting on his students writing:

I had come to feel like my responses might sometimes be a little too mood-dependent鈥擨 wanted to be able to give every student the same quality of response to their writing 鈥攅ven on a day when I was dealing with a leak in my roof. I was also feeling like I needed some new approaches…feeling like, 鈥榯here鈥檚 only so much you can say鈥︹��.

As it turned out, I went 鈥榓ll in鈥� on the WID thing. I did change the way I respond to student writing鈥攂ut that happened mostly as a result of how I transformed my writing assignments so that now, among other things, commenting on student writing is a clearer, more focused and more interesting task鈥攂ecause I get to respond to students at the level of ideas.

I redesigned my writing assignments, using suggestions from the workshop, to emphasize critical thinking and to include crucial information in the assignment 聽like the writer鈥檚 role, the intended audience and a very specific task of persuasion. 聽By asking students to answer questions in different voices, for different audiences I discovered ways that I could get my one-hundred level students to engage in higher order learning activities like evaluating historian鈥檚 arguments and addressing interpretations鈥攖hings we do with majors but not typically with beginning students and non-majors鈥攗ntil now.

In my 103 class, American Civilization to 1877, I give weekly writing assignments in which students respond to questions related to the week鈥檚 readings. Those questions used to be things like: 鈥楨xplain the significance of the Whiskey Rebellion鈥� or 鈥榃hat were the antifederalists opposed to, and how did James Madison respond?鈥� These are not terrible 聽questions but 聽when students try to answer them, they鈥檙e stretching, they don鈥檛 know who they are, what voice to adopt, in that scenario. It leads to what Historians like to call 鈥淢ovie Trailer Syndrome鈥濃�攚here students鈥� writing takes on this sweeping, portentous, tone鈥攍ike a voiceover on a movie trailer saying…鈥淚n a time of darkness鈥︹�� They鈥檙e not comfortable with academic writing. In their heads it sounds like that disembodied booming voice鈥攖heir struggle with the writing buries any ideas they might have鈥攁nd sometimes it鈥檚 painful to read.

I decided to take seriously the workshops鈥� suggestion to make assignments that give students a role and and audience and a clearly defined task. I removed 聽the unnatural constraint imposed by their need to to sound 鈥渁cademic鈥� in these shorter weekly assignments. And, by 鈥榩lanting鈥� arguments in my questions and providing more familiar real world scenarios in which they can approach those arguments, I can see non-majors in an intro level class engaging higher level historical thinking.

In LaCombe鈥檚 current version of the course, students now choose from a variety of weekly reading questions like these:

• Aunt Marge, while she was away at college in California, joined a vegan nudist commune. Uncle Bud thinks the idea is either hilarious or repulsive, depending on his mood. Explain to Uncle Bud why lots of people joined utopian communities before the Civil War and what they did there.

• Your little brother has locked himself in the bathroom because he has to write a report on the War of 1812 and his friend gets to write on a really cool war. Talk him out of there by describing the War of 1812 as a really cool, pivotal moment in American history.

• Remember Uncle Bud? 聽The rabidly patriotic one? 聽He and your Aunt Marge (remember her? 聽Went to California for college and never really came back?) are at it again. 聽Uncle Bud claims that the American Revolution was fought for liberty, period. 聽Aunt Marge says it was started by a bunch of rich white dudes who didn鈥檛 want to pay their taxes. 聽Please settle this argument.

LacCombe also explained that this approach has also opened up new opportunities to have students do some peer review of one another鈥檚 work鈥攁n activity that he had previously found to be ineffective with most students in 100 聽level courses:

Now that they are adopting these personas in their writing, to make their historical arguments, they can also adopt another persona from the scenario when they give each other feedback on their writing. They can be the opinionated Uncle Bud or a know-it-all little sister as they point out or challenge any potential weaknesses in an argument or places where evidence is lacking or not well-aligned. Again it facilitates the kind of thinking I want them to do鈥攁s writers to anticipate these kinds of questions and comments and to have an awareness of alternative perspectives鈥攁nd as readers, to read critically. But, the use of the personas allows them to relax into it and to diffuse their anxiety about being critical 鈥攚ith humor. It鈥檚 not them鈥攊t鈥檚 the little sister talking.

This whole process has even made grading more enjoyable for me. I used to say that grading is the only part of my job that feels like work鈥攔eading material to design and prepare for classes is pleasurable, being in the classroom is usually fun鈥攊t was only when I was grading that I really felt like I was earning my money. The changes I鈥檝e made in my writing assignments have allowed students to produce writing that is full of personality and humor and ideas. When I read their work now, I feel like I get to know them and, even better, it has allowed me to do some 鈥榟ardcore history stuff鈥� with them that I had never been able to do before in a class at this level.

Professor LaCombe鈥檚 research focusses on the English Atlantic world before 1650, and in particular the role of food in interactions between English travelers and native groups. He teaches courses in early America, the American Revolution, Native American history, food and history, antebellum cultural history, and a research methods seminar on Jamestown’s first fifteen years. He is the Chair of the History Department and an Associate Professor of History.