Student Conferences

In my examination of Rose's syllabus, I saw that she had blocked out a week for conferences. I think she eventually changed that, but I left it intact. I'm glad I did, but I have to say that they were exhausting. By the last three students, I felt like the things I was saying were meaningless and I wondered if I knew anything at all about teaching.

Reasons I would do conferences again:

Primarily it was an oppportunity to connect with students on an individual basis. Reassure them. Challenge them. Refocus them.

Whatever the difficulty was, whether summary versus analysis, organization, missing elements, or use of active versus passive verbs, I could focus on what that meant and allow them to ask questions.

One-on-one correction is generally more effective than anonymous notes on a piece of paper, whether typed or handwritten.

In 511, we read Ong's (or was it Havelock's) discussion of how writing creates distance. I wanted to break down the distance and connect with students.

I really care about having them get it. (Kirsten says that rather than having my first class be disadvantaged because I am still developing the HOWS of teaching, they are actually advantaged because my need to figure out what works and doesn't work means that I spend more time planning, reading their papers, commenting on their work.)

On the other hand, it got old repeating some things over and over again. I want to think about ways to discuss the common misunderstandings in class.

I probably won't require conferences again this semester. Too exhausting. Too much time. I am still available if they WANT conferences, I don't want to do them for everyone.

On Monday, I get final drafts. It will be interesting to learn whether or not the conferences made any difference. I sure hope so.