-----Original Message-----

From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Lara Ravitch

Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 9:57 PM

To: Sasha Spektor <[log in to unmask]>

Cc: Goldberg, Stuart H <[log in to unmask]>; [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: [seelangs-l] Teaching writing in our "Brave New World"



Dear all, 



This is a great question, and I like Sasha’s suggestion quite a lot. Another approach I use (admittedly only at the 2nd and 3rd year levels so far, but I think it would work with more advanced writing contexts, as well) is to require them to submit two drafts and an explanation of their revisions. They write an initial draft independently (which I define as only looking up individual words, but you could also define as not using a dictionary at all), improve it using (ok, here I allow Chat GPT, but I think you can substitute Reverso, etc), and then make a cover sheet explaining the changes they made based on their use of the tool. They are required to annotate the changes so I can identify them quickly. I grade the final draft and the cover sheet/annotations, not the first draft. In this way, the first draft gives them practice with writing fluency, using the language they know (the native-like process you refer to), and then the second draft focuses them on accuracy and editing skills, and, in my case, very explicitly on effective use of these tools. I do some work with them in class to teach them how to do this, and we typically do some work with the second drafts in class, so they can consult me and/or peers on why the tool suggested a particular change if they get stuck. 



I’m very interested in hearing about others’ approaches, as well!



Best wishes,



Lara 









	On Jan 8, 2024, at 1:29 PM, Sasha Spektor <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > wrote:



	Dear Stuart,  



	Here's my two cents:



	I think this genuine problem might be solved if you restructure your grading policy.  In an advanced content-based language course students will most probably have different language capabilities and different essay-writing skills.  At least, this is the case in my literature courses taught in Russian.  This means that each student requires an individual approach and that common grading measures won't be applicable.  I usually tell my students that writing assignments will not be graded -- or will automatically receive an "A" upon completion.  And that writing without digital help will give them an opportunity to know where they are writing-wise.  There are students who will still continue to use the sites you mentioned, but there will be those who without the pressure of being graded will try to produce writing on their own.  



	I would be interested to know what others are doing as well!



	Thanks for raising this important issue.

	All best,

	Sasha.   



	On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 4:11 PM "Goldberg, Stuart H" <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > wrote:

	



		Dear all,



		I would like to open a discussion about how best to frame requirements and limitations on use of outside resources for extended writing assignments in advanced content courses taught in Russian where both language (writing proficiency) and content are at issue.



		Note that this is not intended as a discussion of ChatGPT. I forbid (perhaps quixotically) the use of ChatGPT, and my sense is (perhaps naively, but perhaps not) that ChatGPT is NOT the source of issues I wish to discuss below. I would appreciate if in responding, people could focus on the particular issue I wish to highlight (for now).



		The issue I want to delve into is the impact of the proliferation/availability of parallel translation examples of usage on many sites. There are sites devoted to this (context.reverso.net <http://context.reverso.net/> ), but even dictionary sites are now providing this material (openrussian.org <http://openrussian.org/> ; lingvolive). The upshot of this is that multiple students who have handed in impossibly native-like writing to me insist that they have done this by methodically puzzling things together phrase by phrase using these kind of sites. And I am inclined to believe that in at least some significant subset of the cases this is the truth. 



		In a real-world situation, I don't think this is a problem. If a student, in future work, is writing to a work colleague and wants to make sure a phrase is correct, then the availability of this rich material, which provides insights into case usage and especially устойчивые словосочетания would be very helpful. However, at a low advanced level, I worry that it masks problems and stunts the gradual development of NATIVE-LIKE WRITING PROCESS for the sake of quick access to NATIVE-LIKE PRODUCT. What I end up getting is recognizably student-like production from most and uncanny production from others (with occasional grating errors and lots of idiom and phrasings the students can't possibly have had in their active repertoire).



		The writing assignments I have in mind are extended analyses that cannot be replicated in an in-class environment. In the last couple of semesters, I tried to define what was acceptable in terms of allowing a limited number of searches in a given writing assignment using context.reverso (while forbidding translations engines, ChatGPT and native-speaker editors), but I now feel like the whole enterprise is becoming a slippery slope, given the way that dictionary sites are building in automatic access to rich usage information. (And surely it isn't good to advise students not to look at usage examples.)



		Also, I am aware that if I can easily pinpoint and demonstrate excessive use of crutches in the writing of baseline advanced students, it is much more difficult to know whether a student with extended experience abroad or an advanced heritage speaker has availed themselves of similar resources.



		What are others doing? How can we continue to teach the skills of deliberative high-quality writing in this new environment?



		Best to all,

		Stuart





		 

		Announcements posted to the list are not an indication of endorsement by SEELANGS admin and affiliates. For the full SEELANGS guidelines, go to https://seelangs.github.io/.





	Announcements posted to the list are not an indication of endorsement by SEELANGS admin and affiliates. For the full SEELANGS guidelines, go to https://seelangs.github.io/.







########################################################################



To unsubscribe from the RUSSIAN-TEACHING list, click the following link:

https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=RUSSIAN-TEACHING&A=1



This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/RUSSIAN-TEACHING, a mailing list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/