I used to think a sentence diagram would save the world. Reed-Kellogg sentence diagraming was even the topic of my master’s thesis. I was convinced that if all English speakers just had more explicit knowledge of the language’s structure, I would stop seeing “could of” in place of “could have,” verbs with missing or incorrect endings, and other word form errors in student writing. However, after working with undergraduate and graduate students in the Oakland University Writing Center, teaching first-year writing and introductory linguistics at several institutions, and learning from my faculty mentors and peers, my perception of student academic writing has shifted, and as a result, so have my teaching practices.

When I first started teaching asynchronous sections of Composition 2, I expected that my students, regardless of their educational background or first/home language had some idea of what “academic voice” meant. My wake-up call came when I had a section made up mostly of multilingual students. The assignment instructions and syllabus clearly stated that students should produce “clear, error-free academic English,” so I deducted points when most of my students produced prose that sounded like a self-help article or motivational speech with an overabundance of the second-person pronoun “you.” What I had failed to realize was that, even though my students were skilled or fluent in English, they had never been told what language was needed for academic writing in the language. 

After hearing from my students that they didn’t understand why they couldn’t use “you” when their academic textbooks and instructors did, I realized that I was penalizing non-academic voice without making my expectations clear to students. I decided to reexamine the sequencing of my course, making space for authentic, diverse approaches to writing voice and developing explicitly stated expectations for assignments requiring traditional academic voice. Before the first substantial essay, I incorporated explicit instruction on linguistic diversity and higher ed instructors’ varying (often unstated like mine had been) language expectations (Fleck, 2018). I then threw out my previous Essay 1 and replaced it with a personal voice writing assignment (literacy narrative) paired with model texts in authentic multicultural voices. Finally, I updated the instructions for my writing assignments that still required academic voice. I explicitly included language expectations and model texts, as well as including specific language expectations on my peer-review checklist.

How to Redesign Writing Assignments for Authenticity and Transparency

1. Obtain feedback from students on the transparency of assignment instructions and expectations.
   • Ask What was the easiest/hardest part of the assignment?
   • Ask What do you wish you knew before this class?
2. Identify bottlenecks, especially those disproportionately affecting certain populations.
   • Digital information literacy skills that some students might have missed:
     • Finding & evaluating scholarly sources
     • Skimming vs. reading carefully
     • Notetaking & attribution
     • Using AI responsibly & ethically
   • Research writing skills that some students might have missed:
     • Pre-writing steps: choosing topic, narrowing focus, exploring the literature, etc.
     • Drafting steps: organizing ideas, integrating and synthesizing information from sources, making logical connections, etc.
     • Editing/revision steps: self-editing, utilizing resources, giving and responding to feedback, etc.
3. Choose an assignment early in the semester that can be revised into a “bridge” or transitional assignment:
   • For my Comp 2 class, this meant creating space for students to use and reflect on their authentic home language while examining the similarities and differences with academic voice.
   • For writing intensive courses outside WRT, this could take the form of an “I-search” report or essay: a pre-research paper written in informal voice narrating the student’s process through the early stages of research.
   • A lower-stakes option takes the form of discussion forum posts with clearly defined rubrics for initial posts and required responses.
     • If posts can be in informal language, make that clear.
     • If academic voice is required for posts, scaffold the assignment by examining informal vs. formal posts in class.
4. Work backward to determine instructional activities and materials that will support the redesigned assignment. For my redesigned assignment:
   • Background (linguistic diversity)
   • Context (varied faculty expectations for college writing)
   • Example texts (narratives from authentic multicultural voices)
5. Collect feedback again.

Student Response

The student response to my redesigned assignment sequence was positive. Students connected deeply with the topic of language and power and found it beneficial to explore potential variances in academic writing standards and expectations. When it came time to grade the students’ more traditional academic writing for Essay 2, there were still surface-level errors here and there but far fewer 2nd-person pronouns for me to decide whether to correct or mark down.

References and Resources

Further Reading

• CETL resources:
  • Transparent Teaching in Three Simple Steps
  • Guiding Students Through College’s Unwritten Rules
  • About the Hidden Curriculum
• Faculty guides:
  • TILT Higher Ed: Transparency in Learning & Teaching
  • Transparent writing prompts: This resource offers strategies for implementing the five core principles of writing assignment design.
  • But grammar & neatness do count!: Insights into balancing mechanical expectations with content goals.
  • WAC and second-language writing: Guidance for supporting multilingual students in academic contexts.
  • Graduate writing across the disciplines: Specialized approaches for mentoring advanced academic writers.
• Student guide: Oxford’s brief guides to writing in the disciplines: Direct, discipline-specific handbooks for student writers.

References

CCC. (1974). Students’ right to their own language. College Composition and Communication, 25.

Fleck, S. (2018). Englishes, racism, & me: A love story. The Peer Review 2.1, 

White, J. W., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2010). Minority college students and tacit “codes of power”: Developing academic discourses and identities. Review of Higher Education, 34(2), 283–318. 

About the Author

Daniel Brengel is an Educational Development Specialist at CETL and an instructor for Linguistics, First-Year Writing, and English as a Second Language at Oakland University and other local institutions. Daniel previously served as Director of the Academic Success Center at Macomb Community College. His research areas of interest include second language writing, translingual theory, linguistic justice, inclusive pedagogy, and faculty perceptions of student writing. When he’s not teaching or working to support student success, Daniel likes to play video games and curate his multigenerational record collection.

Others may share and adapt under Creative Commons License CC BY-NC.

Receive Weekly Tips View All Teaching Tips Submit a Teaching Tip