use of illegible handwriting as an effective teaching tool, The

Teachers and students share diametrically opposed philosophical viewpoints regarding research and the writing of term papers. Teachers see the writing projects as one of several components involved in a cyclical learning process. From the teachers' perspective such projects are interrelated with textbook readings, classroom discussions, and other writings. In theory, questions are posed, research data ere gathered, and eventually students arrive at answers. If all goes according to plan, as students discover answers they become more curious. This in turn hopefully lays the foundation for the generation of thought provoking ideas that lead to new questions and ultimately additional research.

As the students travel along this road of discovery it is the teacher's role to provide guidance and informed feedback from which students can act. This is done though oral communication and by way of written comments. These written comments are particularly important and serve as an integral part of the learning process. For teachers then, research is an ongoing learning experience.

Students on the other hand see these written assignments quite differently. To most, they are simply intellectual obstacles that must be overcome. They are seen as isolated tasks that must be completed with all due expediency. Students see little, if any, interrelationship between assignments and course work. As a rule very rarely are research findings ever discussed with fellow classmates. For most, these assignments are simply just another part of the grade requirements.

How then can these two seemingly mutually exclusive perspectives be reconciled? While there is not pat answer to this question, recently, I accidentally discovered a unique method that might help close the gap between these two perceptions. It is a strategy that has proven to be an effective teaching tool in my classes.

My courses are designed to help students explore various theories and themes through extensive writing practices. Therefore my students turn in a large number of papers. It is not at all unusual for example for me to read and comment on as many as 500 papers during a fifteen week semester. All are read and each and every one receives a set of comments and questions for the student to consider. By any standards this amounts to a great deal of work, As a result it is imperative that I keep up with the readings and return papers as quickly as possible.

One evening I was systematically working on reducing a particularly large pile of papers. As the night waned on and I became more and more fatigued I failed to notice that my written comments were becoming less and less legible. The next day when I returned the papers to the students I noticed an interesting phenomenon. Those students who received papers with legible comments, by and large, simply checked to see if the paper had been accepted. If it had, then they just barely glanced at what I had written in the margins and took little notice of the questions I bad posed. There were no conversations or interactions of any kind.

On the other hand, those students who received papers where my handwriting was difficult to read and understand reacted quite differently. At first they attempted to decipher the scratchings. If unsuccessful, they next reread sections of their papers in attempts to draw possible correlations between what they had written and my written comments. If they were still unsuccessful they next elicited the help of nearby classmates. Together they reread various sections of the papers. It was particularly interesting and amazing to me to watch as two or more of them read together or turned papers sideways in attempts to decode what had been written. Very often they were successful. I noticed that these spontaneous exchanges lead to impromptu discussions, not only on the poor quality of my hands writing, but on what had been written as well. If all else failed, the students came to me and I translated. The final result of all this interaction was the fact that it lead to a more in depth analysis of what had been written and a greater consideration of the questions I had posed.

As I watched I was intrigued by what I saw. I began to wonder if this event had been an isolated occurrence or if it was in fact a possible strategy I could utilize to raise student skills. I decided to find out for sure by experimenting with all of my classes.

Over the next several written assignments I purposely made my comments extremely difficult to read. My findings proved to be fascinating. I noticed that while a small number of students still refused to go beyond a cursory review of the materials, the majority of the students spent greater amounts of time reading, analyzing, and commenting on my probes. There was also an increased number of lively discussions among the students. These became quite intense at times. Debates arose over ideas that were expounded. In most cases these discussions lead to a better understanding of the basic theories I was attempting to teach. Students even began to see a closer interrelationship between assigned readings and classroom discussions.

As the weeks continued on, it became apparent to me that I had stumbled upon a very simple method that not only increased student motivation and participation, but provided an excellent means of developing the high level cognitive critical thinking skills that educators like myself had been attempting to foster in students for years. Students' abilities to observe, identify, analyze, synthesize, and problem solve markedly improved. I also saw the spark of intellectual curiosity in many students for the first time. Metacognitive skills such as the ability to conceptualize began to emerge as well. In addition I discovered that as the semester continued subsequent research papers showed improvement in organizational and writing skills. Students' works showed more in depth understanding of theories, major themes, and the entire research process in general. I was euphoric with the results.

This methodology even opened up new avenues of thought for me as well. The success that my students were achieving gave me the incentive to rethink my teaching strategies and to become more creative in designing my daily lessons. Overall I became a better teacher in the process.

I urge all teachers to try this innovative stragegy in their classrooms. A work of caution though needs to be offered. Teachers who plan to utilize this methodology must take one important precaution into consideration. They must make sure that they are always able to read what they have written. Major glitches can occur if they are unable to do so. This may seem like an obvious point and one that needs little discussion, however, if teachers fail to take it into consideration the learning process will be frustrated.

In closing, let me state that I realize that this unique and uncomplicated strategy provides no sweeping panacea for the many ills that plague the educational system but it does provide an opportunity for teachers to try something new, something different. And as all veteran educators know, sometimes new ideas and small changes can have powerful results. The new ideas can only come from teachers with open minds and a willingness to explore different possibilities.

Copyright Project Innovation Spring 1996
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved