Second Day of NWWK

Today we’ll be getting back into the swing of things, with our second day of jigsaw teaching (jigsaw learning?) NWWK: Naming What We Know.

As a reminder, here’s what I said last time.  Our process for this book was:

  1. First get into groups with the people who also read your chapter
  2. Take 15 minutes and craft a document of some kind (list, paragraphs, drawing, concept-map, ??) that summarizes what you two think are the most important or relevant parts of the chapter.
  3. Share the doc with the class!  Or send to me and I will.  Seriously!
  4. Then we’ll re-form in four groups of five, with one each of the original pairs, so that each chapter is represented in the new group.

Let’s start there!

That is, quickly reform into groups based on the chapters you read.  Review the document or text you built with an eye to how you’d talk to others about it:

  • What sections or claims seemed particularly compelling?
  • What evidence or proof did authors bring forward?
  • What moments in this chapter did you stop and wonder, or ask questions?  What were your questions?
  • What would you want people to know about this chapter overall?  What are the takeaway messages for you?

Make sure to refer to these questions in your new groups.

Here are the documents each group built:

If you run out of things to say, lead conversation!  Ask questions.  For example:

For starters, I’d want us to wonder what examples you have of seeing these ideas play out in your own writing; ways of working with students to highlight these ideas or practices for them; and what’s keeping people from embracing the claims in this book.

As a followup, I’d wonder what you think about these two methods (“bad ideas” vs. “good ideas”) for persuading people to think differently about writing.  While accepting that the best way to change our beliefs about writing would be to write regularly, share our writing with other people, and reflect on our processes and products, we can also imagine that learning the research on writing could play a role.  In that role, is it better to read about what’s wrong and why (in the form of Bad Ideas) or to read what we the research says and how (in Naming What We Know)?

Finally (or first?), I’d like everyone to list the topic, question, or idea you’re researching for your Deep Dive assignment.  Follow this link and tell me in one or two sentences!


Hey! I'm a professor of Rhetoric and Writing in the English dept. at Chico State. Also disc golf player, indie music listener, and vanilla Marxist.

Leave a Reply