What an intriguing idea: to reduce the stressful context of class in order to increase creative productivity in students. This punk-rock-esque methodology utilized by some universities seems like it would incubate an anarchical, half-attended, uncommitted class. However, Professor Jackson of UC Davis has found the opposite to be true; instead, he is inspired by the commitment and energy his students bring to their FYS (Thaiss et. al.). Thaiss and their Co-Authors in their article, “Freeing Students to Do Their Best”: Examining Writing in First-Year Seminars, express a variety of the qualities necessary for FYS’s to receive such a positive response from students, as well as why writing is an integral part of the process. While I do have a rather cynical opinion of the perception that supplying educational liberty to individuals (who are paying astronomical amounts of money to receive said education), is in anyway counterintuitive— I can understand that it goes against many of the commonly prescribed writing practices. In my role as a writing fellow, I am constantly deciding how to provide more structure and more explanation to writing prompts. As a writing tutor, the most common complaints I get from students are “My professor didn’t really explain this very well”, and “I have no clue what to do”. It would seem, based on my personal experience, that limiting the amount of structure and expectation in a class would result in limited pressure to complete the assignments. However, as the article illuminated in numerous ways, the voluntary participation in FYS implicates a class composure of dedicated students, and an incentivized professor prepared to engage with their students. Additionally, the article explained how this context is ideal for employing numerous HIP and utilizing writing as a learning tool.
Considering the extensive research done at UC Davis surveying professors and students, it seems that voluntary FYS are an ideal way to set a precedent for articulate, informed, and inquisitive students. However, I think the environment of the article is a necessary consideration. After doing a quick google search, I found that UC Davis has a student body that is nearly three times the size of UNE. Considering 25% of the incoming class opted to take the FYS at UC Davis, if the same occurred at UNE 3,000 members of the student body would participate in FYS. This would still be a substantial number of students with increased exposure to HIP, however one of the major incentives UC Davis students referred to when surveyed about the FYS, was the small class size. As UNE tends to have relatively medium-small sized classes (with the largest lectures capping at 120 students); and in the humanities, class sizes tend to maintain a composure of 11-30 students. So the ultimate question about whether or not this would be effective in our own university remains, as the incentive of smaller class size would not remain as significant a factor. It should be noted, however, that the predominant majors at both UNE and UC Davis are relatively similar (According to each of the school’s respective websites), and both schools champion extensive science-based programs. Notably, these students are most likely to find themselves in larger lectures (at UNE). As this is also the population that it seems would be most difficult to intrigue with writing-heavy FYS, perhaps there could still be a meaningful application of UC Davis’ FYS program.
I think there is some universal truth to Thaiss and co-author’s assumption that through FYS students are freed to engage in class however they see most meaningful. However, I think this is implicated by a variety of factors in the environment surveyed. The question remains, then, about whether or not the unique community of UNE students would respond positively to increased freedom in an FYS.
