One of my favorite lessons: Definitions in writing

 I've done this lesson for a number of years with Writing 115 (Introduction to Composition) and 121 (Composition 1). The lesson emphasizes the importance of defining terms for a reader in a college essay. But it also illustrates how definitions can be tricky--and how they can be used for good or for ill.

Here is the basic outline for the definitions in writing lesson. It's divided up over two class sessions, and each segment takes about 30-45 minutes. I've also done it in one class session.

I've indicated the texts I use, which could easily be substituted. I've also indicated texts I use in Writing 115 and Writing 121.  

Definitions in writing

1. In your notebook, write down one of these words and what you think it means:  need or neglect. (We discuss these terms, and I point out that definitions are really helped by concrete examples. I use the examples, “I need water/food/clothing/shelter/a red Miata” and “I forgot to feed my dog this morning/neglect.”)

2. Class: Watch this video about how and why to create definitions. 

3. With your workshop team, define one of the following terms. Use a concrete example to illustrate your definition. You can do this with words, pictures, colors, fonts, layout, or something else. (Students sometimes do this on paper and sometimes with tech, like a Google Doc.)
   

• Justice

• Ignorance

• Education

• Hatred

• Progress

• Discrimination
  

4. Look at another team’s (page or paper) and discuss their definition and example. What do you think of it? Leave the team one comment from your team. (This could be done on paper or with tech. This can also be done as a gallery walk with a “docent” from each team.)

5. Look at John Gast’s painting, “American Progress.”  What do you notice (details)?  What is the message of this painting? (We discuss the details and what the students think is the message. I sometimes write these on a whiteboard.)

6. Read “High on Progress” by Derrick Jensen for Writing 121 or “You say Latino” and “You say Latinx” by Terry Blas for Writing 115. (I usually start reading during class, sometimes on a document camera to annotate, and ask them to finish reading at home. You could substitute any text which is based on an extended definition.) 

7. Read Oregon Writes “Definition” (Part 4). (This reading reiterates and reinforces what was covered about definitions. I don’t usually give a quiz, but I do reference it on Day 2. You could substitute any reading on definitions.)

Directions for Day 2

8. Watch this clip from Babylon 5 episode, “Voices of Authority.” What point does it make about definitions? (While this episode is from 1995, it could easily have been written in more recent years.)

9. What does the Oregon Writes reading say about definitions? (If students don’t know, which they may not because they haven’t read it, we look it up together. You could give some sort of a reading quiz or a short writing prompt–a one-minute paper, for example.)

10. Writing 121: With your workshop team, answer the following questions. (These could be done using paper or using tech. You could add other questions if you like. The teams could debrief as well.) 

1. What is the rhetorical situation of “High on Progress”?

• Creator/writer

• Message

• Audience

• Purpose

• Context

2. What do you think of the message of “High on Progress”? Why?

11. Writing 115: With your workshop team, answer the following questions.

1. Why does Blas define the terms Latino, Hispanic, Latinx, and Latine?

2. What is Blas’s point or message? Do you buy it? Why?

3. What’s the big deal about definitions anyway? Why do they matter?

Using hexagonal thinking discussion with my Writing 121 class

 

I tried something new to me this term: a hexagonal thinking discussion as described by Betsy Potash of Spark Creativity. The idea behind it is to give students a number of hexagon cards on which are written titles, themes, characters, ideas, quotations (the possibilities are myriad). The hexagonal thinking happens when students make connections among the cards. They create a honeycomb-web of connected cards that they have discussed, arranged, rearranged, and re-rearranged. They can also add arrows and labels to show the connections or to show a particular direction,

I had wanted to try a hexagonal thinking discussion for quite some time but hadn’t been able to find the right opportunity. I decided to make it happen this term and happen it did!  

In my Writing 121 class, I hold periodic class discussions about the texts we’ve read and the commonalities they share. Then I have the students write discussion questions, which they discuss with their small-group workshop teams, and we decide as a class which questions to discuss. I figured that a hexagonal thinking discussion would be perfect for this. 

Because I wanted this discussion to encompass all the texts and themes we had discussed up to that point in the term. I created a list of those titles and themes. I then gave each team an instruction sheet and a set of hexagon cards. I demonstrated the discussion with a quick set of my own creation based on Lord of the Rings characters and ideas. (I use “Frodo” as an example all the time, so the students are accustomed to it.) Then I asked the teams to write the titles and themes on their set of hexagon cards to prepare for the discussion. (Betsy Potash describes several ways that words for the hexagons can be generated and the sets of cards made. This is just the method I chose.) 

The discussion itself took place during the next class session. I quickly did the demo again, particularly since there were several students who had been absent from the previous class session. Then I gave each team their sets of hexagons and explained how the discussion would run. They were to lay out their cards and work together to find the connections. They could move the cards as many times as they needed as long as they were discussing where the cards should be connected. After that, I let them talk…and enjoyed the experience as the engagement and energy buzzed. The discussion was rich, robust, and respectful, and it was clear that each team was immersed in the interactions with their teammates. 

The next step was to have each team visit the other teams’ hexagonal arrangements. One person stayed with their team’s shape while their teammates visited the others. This person explained the thinking to the visitors, much like a museum docent does. These discussions were equally rich and engaged. Each team also wrote down something that they noticed from the other shapes. Here are some samples: 

"I noticed that their honeycomb was very long and spread out but the connections were very strong. " 

"This team first based it on discrimination and then moved on from there." 

After everyone was done, the class debriefed. I asked them what they noticed. They were most struck by how different each team’s shape was and the different ways of thinking each shape demonstrated. They very much enjoyed doing this activity. They liked how it got them out of their seats and talking to each other. I hope we’ll be able to do it again. If I don’t do it with this class, I definitely plan to add it to my teacher toolbox for future classes.