As teachers, we are always on the lookout for effective ways to foster not only a sense of community, but a feeling among our students that they are a community of writers. It’s easy for us to say this, but sometimes more difficult for students to see. Here is one way that UW Prof Peter Levine is trying to bring this about in his classes.
The Golden Ticket
To me, the term “golden ticket” was always affiliated with Willy Wonka. However, watching American Idol for the first time in years, I discovered that for the current generation, it means something entirely different. The golden ticket means an Idol contestant is going to Hollywood. A contestant will dash out of the audition room with the ticket clasped to their chest, family will shout and yell, grandmothers will be phoned—even Ryan Seacrest will shed a tear of joy.
I thought: Why not give out golden tickets in class? Imagine—if students were even a tiny, tiny fraction as excited about receiving one in my UW section, then they’d feel pretty good. I went online to find images of golden tickets and printed it out.
After reading introductory assignments, I handed out the first one (I decided I would do one per section, one per day)—based on the strength and swagger of a great piece of writing (or a particularly smart comment or reaction). The students were a bit bewildered but went along with it. We clapped for the first recipient. The student read her piece of writing. We clapped again. I said: “You’re going to Hollywood.” I felt like Randy Jackson. I didn’t say “I feel you, dog,” or “It was a little pitchy, but good man.”
There are a couple of hopes here. The first is that each day the student given the golden ticket will feel empowered, accomplished. Second, other students might want the golden ticket—recognition for work well-done, and the acknowledgement of their peers. Third, that the hand-off of the ticket will create a connection, so that classmates begin to use each other’s names in conversation, and drop the “I like what he said…” or “I think she can work on….” The foundations of a community, in other words. They are humble steps, sure, but you gotta start somewhere.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Creating Community in the Classroom
Friday, March 13, 2009
How to Get Started on Research as an Emergent Researcher
Most high schools and many college writing courses teach "Research" as a set of skills to be mastered, which can be applied to any "research problem." In the First Year Writing Program, we believe that research is a methodical, but organic and essentially thought-driven process. Simply put "research" are the situational but rigorous strategies that intellectuals use to observe the world (be it in the form of text, human behavior, social structures, or natural phenomenon) and to develop defensible and productive knowledge-claims about it. The faculty believe that first-year students are not only ready to conduct real research on authentic problems, we believe that their findings, analyses, and interpretations are worth reading. The toughest problem for emergent researchers working to develop methodical but organic strategies for observing the world in particular research situations is knowing how to manage multiple new concepts, processes, and techniques at the same time as they are becoming experts in the subject and field of their project.
In this post, Professors Phyllis Ryder & Eric Drown, and librarians Dolsy Smith & Deborah Gaspar offer advice on how to get started on research as an emergent researcher. Please, whether you're an emergent or experienced researcher, leave a comment or question derived from your own research experiences.
According to Prof. Drown, "emergent researchers have to embrace a substantive mind shift as they make the move from doing research assignments to rehearse research skills to conducting authentic research on open questions of active interest. In a 'research skills' approach, students are taught to answer questions definitively by seeking, evaluating, and presenting information. The work of the researcher is to collate, judge, and perhaps to recommend. In contrast, researchers working on authentic research problems have to construct objects of study, figure out the appropriate and meaningful questions to ask, locate scholarly communities of interest, determine or invent supple and reliable methods of observation and analysis, and test their knowledge-claims for accuracy, sufficiency, and productivity in particular discourse communities. In this model, the researcher observes, explores, creates, interprets, forges connections, persuades, serves and participates in communities of interest."
This all sounds very complicated, but librarian Dolsy Smith's"very unlibrarian-like" approach to his research-work captures the spirit of an organically developing matrix of essentially curiosity-driven tasks that makes up a useful research process:
"Research never really begins (just as it never really ends). You 'start' your research by sorting through what you already know or think or wonder about a subject, from the assumptions and impressions you bring to it, from whatever in your experience has drawn you to this subject in the first place. But this is hardly a limitation. In fact, if you neglect this part of the process, you'll have a hard time identifying your own stake in the subject matter, by which I mean that once you start juggling what others have already said about it, you won't know what you yourself have to say.
I start my research in a very exploratory mood: I spend a lot of time poking around, indulging in free association, following various angles and leads, looking for the hook that will catch my interest. Often I hop from footnote to footnote until I hit on a text that allows me to think about the subject from an unexpected perspective or with a vocabulary that I'm not used to. This kind of text need not relate directly to the subject I'm researching; indeed, it can work better if it doesn't. That's because the point of research and argument is to introduce fresh points of view on [even] familiar subjects, and the most important arguments are those that draw connections between things that no one had considered relevant to each other before. "Relevance" is not given; for any particular subject, there is not a finite set of relevant sources waiting to be discovered. The task of the researcher is to construct the relevance of what she finds. Something I read makes me think of something else--I test out a connection--if it doesn't click, I have to be prepared to go back and look (and think) again. But the key components of research are reading and writing and thinking."
Follow Mr. Smith's advice and you'll end up developing the "sense of interest in and curiosity towards your subject" that librarian Deborah Gaspar says is a key trait of successful researchers. According to Ms Gaspar, you can create that sense of curiosity by using research skills that you already have. In early stages of the project, she advises, researchers should "do a kind of mental inventory--ask yourself what you already know about your subject. Make a list of words and look for links between different ideas. This will set you up to think about what you want to know or are curious about a subject. There's nothing wrong with Googling your topic to help you in this idea-generating phase. Just use the results list (and search suggestions) to see how the search and summary algorithms connect words, ideas, examples, events, and people to one another and to see what your brain-based algorithms (intuition, insight) make of the material you've fished up."
Prof. Ryder's suggestions aim at helping emerging researchers understand what they're looking for and how to work with what they find. She says:
"Don't research just to find 'fact'; research to find arguments. While you might find some 'facts' useful for setting up the background of your essay, the real heart of your work will be to figure out the many ways people argue about the issue. It's rare to find two people who define the problem exactly the same way; fewer still define it the same way and recommend similar courses of action. More likely, you'll find that people disagree about what's going on, about whether what's going on is productive or harmful, about whether a solution fits the problem and so on. Look for the arguments and figure out how you can group them. Who is talking to whom about what part of the problem? Which part of this discussion will be most useful for you?
As you find some articles that really seem to speak to the question you've found, pause to read them. Write a "coming to terms" (a la Joe Harris in Rewriting) identifying the overall purpose of the piece, how it develops, and what its uses and limits are. This kind of close reading and writing as you go will help you keep track of the conversation you're following. You can start seeing patterns; you'll start noticing when a lot of people agree on the same point and when there is disagreement.
On a real practical level: Sign up for a session on how to use Refworks (the free citation manager GW libraries make available) and then use it to capture all the articles and books you think you might use. keeps track of what you found and where you found it, and will later format your bibliography for you. Using it from the start will save you time down the road."
Whether your research is in the humanities, social sciences, or sciences; whether you're seeking narrow answers to specific questions, opening broad new lines of inquiry, looking at familiar things in a new way, or clearing away previous wrong answers, research is a creative act of knowledge-making situated in the needs, habits, and interests of communities of interest. Just as what counts as "good writing" varies in different disciplinary, professional, cultural, or civic settings, so too does what counts as "good research." As you get more familiar with the research practices of the communities of interest you seek to join, you'll feel more comfortable with the ways members of those communities construct their objects of study, organize matrices of data, create frameworks of meaning, and make knowledge-claims. But, as Ms Gaspar advises, "if you think of yourselves as engaged in a conversation with other writers interested in similar concerns, and observe the ways they do things, you'll quickly learn how to contribute to, extend, and even change the scholarly conversation."
Please, whether you're an emergent or experienced researcher, leave a comment or question derived from your own research experiences!
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
How to Revise (NOT JUST EDIT!) Your Writing and Get Better Results
1. It’s crucial to make a mental adjustment and see revision as a normal part of the writing process of even the best writers. Prof. Zink tells her students to “let go of the deeply held notion that if you were a better, smarter, more adept, savvier, more intellectual writer you wouldn't have to revise so much. Just Let. It. Go. The most brilliant writers in the world are the ones who don't doubt for a moment that any piece worth anything is going to take rewriting. In fact, the better, smarter, more adept, savvier, more intellectual a writer you are, the more likely you are to build in time both for drafting and the craft of revision.” 2. You need to make a distinction between editing and revision. Both Prof. Riedner and Prof. Troutman draw from the work of Joseph Harris (Rewriting: How to Do Things with Texts) to making clear the difference between editing and revision. According to Prof. Riedner, “When you edit, you work at the surface level of a paper. You fix errors, tinker with sentences, and fine tune a document. Editingcan improve the design and ‘flow’ of a document. Revision, on the other hand, revisits writing in order to rethink its aims, how it works with material it interprets, how it develops ideas, etc.... Revision“rethink[s] the ideas and examples that drive your thinking in an essay.” Prof. Troutman points out that “In revising, you are changing your mind, shifting your claim, anticipating new counter-claims, bringing in new evidence, re-ordering your major points; you are engaging your text, perhaps even struggling with it, wrestling it into a new shape. In editing, you are fixing your text, both in terms of correcting errors (syntax, citation format, etc.) and in terms of giving it final form (font choice, wordsmithing for style, etc.); you are now treating it like an object, a beautiful thing you can now show. 3. You need a functioning process for making revision systematic. This will probably vary according to your needs, but here are some suggestions. All of our experts suggest starting by analyzing your draft. Prof. Zink advises beginning revision by “Figuring out where you are most stuck. Once you've identified this idea, section, passage, or even sentence, find someone who will listen to you--peer from the class, roommate, paramour, random-person-muttering-to-self-in-local-park, or professor--sit that person down in front of you, and talk about what the trouble is. Let that partner know all he or she has to do is listen. Explain what's not working and why you're confused and why all of this is giving you a terrific headache. Let the person nod obligingly as you stammer through your confusion. Chances are, in just a few minutes of talking about the issue out loud, you'll come to some degree of clarity and even a solution.” Prof. Ryder offers a three-step process: A. “Go through your draft and ‘chunk’ it--identify the main sections of the paper. Look at each big chunk and treat it like a mini-essay: Does it have a cohesive purpose? Will readers know what it's doing in the essay? How might you clarify the purpose and argument as you move into that section? After analyzing your chunks (sounds gross I know!), B. “Go through the draft and write answers to the following questions in the margins for each paragraph: What is my main point? What is the purpose of this paragraph (is it making an argument, providing an illustration for something already said, introducing a new section of the paper, describing my method?). C. Then look at the overall structure. Are things in the right order? Could sections be combined? Is there a logical progression? Finally, be critical about "flow." Anything can flow into anything else, but that doesn't mean it should. Can you describe the logic of why each part goes where it goes? Like Prof. Zink, Prof. Troutman urges you to get someone to help you analyze your draft, but has your interlocutor play a more active role. “Peer responses are key, since you can't always see what other readers will. But you must train your readers; otherwise they will probably focus only on grammar and spelling, and that's editing, not revision.” Ask your peer to read the draft with any of the following purposes—borrowed from Peter Elbow’s & Pat Belanoff’s Sharing & Responding—in mind (only one at time, though). After they've read your draft, ask them to: A. Write a descriptive outline of the paper, two sentences for each paragraph in the paper: One sentence summarizing precisely what the paragraph says. One sentence describing what the paragraph does and why--what its role is at that moment in the paper (e.g., establishing other scholarly views, laying out the paper's agenda, presenting evidence, discussing a counter-claim, connecting two major sub-claims, speculating about possible implications of the claim, etc.). This lets you find out how your reader perceives not only all the things you are saying, but also why you are saying those things in the order you do. Does your reader see alternate ways to organize it? Do you, based on how he or she outlined it? B. Restate your central claim, but only in the form of questions: E.g., Okay, so are you trying to argue that ... ? or is it more about the question of ... ? This gives you the chance to reflect on your claims--and the question of whether your reader saw them as you intended--rather than simply to defend them. Your peer might even see a more interesting claim you could be making. C. Believe everything about the draft: its central claim, its evidence, its use of scholars' work, its organization, its style, its word choices, its title, etc. Respond with ideas to further what is already going on with these things. D. Doubt everything about the draft: its central claim, its evidence, its use of scholars' work, its organization, its style, its word choices, its title, etc. Respond with ideas for addressing the objections that arise out of this doubt. Change your mindset about revision and try out some of these techniques. You’re writing will be richer, smarter, more disciplined, and more interesting. You’ll have learned more and so will have your readers! Let us know what you think!
Every section of UW20 requires students to substantively revise between 25 and 30 pages of writing each semester. We place so much emphasis on revision because of our own experiences with using writing to begin to grasp dimly perceived ideas and to wrestle them into shape. Revision, the process of assessing, developing, and exploring ideas produced in generative drafts, is a crucial step in producing pieces of writing worth reading.
In this article First-Year Writing Professors Christy Zink, Rachel Riedner, Philip Troutman, and Phyllis Ryder teach you what you need to know to revise (NOT JUST EDIT!) like a pro!
Monday, February 2, 2009
How to Generate Original Ideas--Even as an Emergent Scholar
In business, successful creative teams often hold a “brainstorming session” where they bring people together and get them to start tossing out ideas—good, bad, and crazy. One person’s crazy idea sparks someone else’s good one, and so forth. If done right, everyone leaves their skepticism at the door and no one worries about saying anything stupid; ten people come into a meeting with ten ideas apiece, but instead of 10×10=100 ideas, brainstorming multiplies the effect; it’s more like 10×10×10=1000. Statistically speaking, you’re more likely to find a really good idea from a pool of 1,000 than 100. “Wait a minute!” you say. “There aren’t nine other people in the room with me trying to find a good idea. I’m all by myself!” Don’t be so sure. You might like raunchy jokes, beautiful sunsets, bad puns, soap operas, chocolate, Mozart’s concertos, Ultimate Frisbee, and hacking computers. You might like being sweet to children and being naughty when flirting during a date. But, when you sit down to write, typically you try to shut out all those other sides of your personality and just listen to the one that turns information into elegant sentences—the Editor, we’ll call it. Sadly, the Editor lacks imagination. It knows to leave the hyphen out of anal retentive and to add it to anal-retentive proofreading. But don’t ask your inner Editor to dream up a good Halloween costume—or a good paper topic, for that matter. When you’re brainstorming, forget about that Editor! Write for yourself. Record as many specifics as possible. Don’t worry about spelling or grammar. Explore as many avenues as your imagination opens up before you. Let all the different voices speak. Later, you can think about them more fully and turn them over to the Editor for cleanup. In this context, brainstorming doesn’t mean sitting in front of a computer screen, racking your brain for something to write about. It means writing for yourself, when there’s no one else looking, as a way of generating ideas. [snip...] Try a variation of the old game of “twenty questions” with your subject. The following technique, known as a heuristic (adapted from Twenty Questions for the Writer, by Jacqueline Berke), is a good way of learning something about your subject —“X”; it can be applied to everything from a paragraph to the entire essay. Ask the questions, and jot down answers quickly. When you get through, you’ll have a list of ideas and thoughts to work into your finished writing. 1. What does X mean? (Definition)
The First Year Writing faculty strongly believe that UW20 students are emergent scholars. By this we mean that we see our student-colleagues as writers capable of producing ideas and insights that are worth reading because they are both original and situated in existing scholarship. Not surprisingly, one of emergent scholars' (of all ages!) greatest anxieties is the problem of how to come up with and develop original ideas that other scholars will find interesting and productive. In this post, Professors Mark Mullen and Robert Rubin offer shocking and useful advice to emergent scholars on how to generate original ideas. Try these strategies, then come back and leave a comment on how they worked for you!
Prof. Mullen writes:One goal of a lot of argument-driven writing, particularly that associated with academic work, is to offer new ideas, or at least new ways of looking at older concepts. Unfortunately, most of what we have rattling around in our heads represents the exact opposite: it's the prevailing wisdom, beliefs about the status quo, a finely tuned sense of what is acceptable. . .exactly the sort of thing that makes for tedious and pointless reading.
In a book he's currently working on, Prof. Rubin offers this advice:
This is a technique to help clear your head of the accumulated cultural dross about any given subject and focus on something that you might find worth saying and someone else might find worth reading. First, pick three ideas that you might like to write about for the particular essay that you are working on. Write a short paragraph for each that attempts to make an argument concerning that idea. Now take that piece of paper, roll it up into a tightly wadded ball, and throw it in the nearest trash can. The first three ideas you've come up with are more than likely the most obvious things that would have occurred to anyone writing about this topic and you have just voiced them and disposed of them in a way that won't tempt you to try and cajole them into some kind of thesis.
Now list three completely new ideas. By this point you'll feel that you are getting a little stuck. You'll start putting down random stuff, ideas out of left field, ideas that don't seem as if they would ever have a snowball's chance in hell of making for a credible paper. . .and there's a good chance that at last you will have stumbled upon something interesting and worth writing about.
2. What are the various features of X? (Description)
3. What are the component parts of X? (Simple Analysis)
4. How is X made or done? (Process Analysis)
5. How should X be made or done? (Directional Analysis)
6. What is the essential function of X? (Functional Analysis)
7. What are the causes of X? (Causal Analysis)
8. What are the consequences of X? (Causal Analysis)
9. What are the types of X? (Classification)
10. How is X like or unlike Y? (Comparison)
11. What is the present status of X? (Comparison)
12. What is the significance of X? (Interpretation)
13. What are the facts about X? (Reportage)
14. How did X happen? (Narration)
15. What kind of person or thing is X? (Characterization/Profile)
16. What is my personal response to X? (Reflection)
17. What is my memory of X? (Reminiscence)
18. What is the value of X? (Evaluation)
19. What are the essential points or features of X? (Summary)
20. What case can be made for or against X? (Persuasion)
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
How to Start UW20 on the Right Foot!
Every semester students needlessly underperform in UW20. And not because they're ill-prepared or "bad writers." They perform below their abilities because their expectations of what the course is meant to accomplish for them don't match the University’s expectations of the course’s functions.
Confronted with a course that's more challenging, less rule-bound, and less focused on grammar, style, and technique than expected, some students resign themselves to simply getting through the course with minimum effort. They not only risk having to retake the course, but also miss out on a major educational opportunity that the University values so highly that it’s the only course that the University requires of every single first-year student.
Approaching UW20 with the right attitude is vital to making the most of the course. So let's dispel some myths about the course and offer you some success strategies.
One last thing before we get on with it: I'd love to hear what you think about all this. Please leave a comment by clicking on the link at the end of this post.
UW20 is not remedial. It's not the University's way to ensure that you can write competently or proficiently. It's the University's way to introduce you to the intellectual practices and communication conventions of an institution dedicated to creating new and productive knowledge. Think of UW20 as the University’s way to invite you to become full participants in our most important mission.
UW20 does not teach “good” writing according to some arcane universal and timeless standards (like “concision” or “one-idea-per-paragraph”). Communities of people who create and use pieces of writing to do work establish local standards of what counts as “good” writing, “good” argument, “good” style, “good” research, and so on. As you might expect, what counts as “good” in one locale might be deemed “bad” writing in another, depending on the needs, customs, and purposes of the local discourse community. Since UW20 is designed to introduce students to the ways of writing and the habits of mind of academics and public experts, you’ll need to expect a class where the “rules” for writing well are contingent, flexible, and dependent on idea, audience, and purpose.
Accordingly, UW20 is not an extension of the kind of writing required of students in High School or other first-year University classes. The writing tasks assigned to you in UW20 are not simply longer, more complicated, and more intense than what you’ve done in HS and other first-year classes. In the main, they will be qualitatively and purposively different. In UW20 you’re not just working on developing clear and logical expressions of ideas. More than any other course early in your GW career, this one asks you to think of yourself as an emerging scholar, capable of creating new knowledge. With this change come new standards, new motives for writing, new analytical and argumentation techniques, and new responsibilities to readers.
Our best advice: EMBRACE CHANGE!
Don't trust that what worked in HS will work to the same degree or at all in UW20. Expect that you'll probably have to change your beliefs about yourself as a writer, as well as about what writing is and does. You’ll definitely have to change your work processes, and the standards by which you evaluate your achievement.
Change your self-image with regard to your role in UW20. When you think of yourself as an emerging scholar, not a first-year student learning a “skill,” you’ll expect more of yourself and see writing both as part of the way you learn something new, and the way you teach that new thing to other people in a way that enables them to do something with the knowledge.
Develop effective study methods for doing more than memorizing and reproducing facts or expert opinion. Ask your peers, professor, or librarian for help.
Expect more frequent, more complex, and more interrelated homework assignments, ones that will directly shape your abilities to do the major projects of the course. Poor work on the supporting assignments will make success on the larger assignments far more difficult.
Realize that grading will be more process/results-oriented and less related to amount of effort.
Develop a conviction that responsibility for passing the course rests primarily with you, although your instructor and your librarian are there to help you do your best.
Work on the course frequently, diligently, and consistently. Don't think you can fall behind by a couple of weeks and catch up in a marathon session the night before the paper is due. All you’ll do is lose sleep, miss the deadline, and have to re-do the project.
Use office hours—early and often, and not just when you’re experiencing problems.
Go along with the learning processes your professors have designed for you, even if you don't fully understand them (but do ask lots of questions to better comprehend what's being asked of you and why).
Try to do the tasks assigned at the level of complexity with which they're presented to you. Don't substitute what you know how to do from high school for what is being asked of you. Don't reduce "interpretive synthesis" to "compare and contrast" or "write a persuasive argument" to "have an opinion."
Expect revision to be more about testing and developing ideas, rather than simply correcting errors in style, grammar or working on clarity of expression. Revision will be ongoing throughout the writing process. Editing for grammar, style, and clarity will come at the end of the project.
Don't believe in the myth of writing as a talent. It's a craft—something that can be learned through practice and response. No one is inherently a "bad" writer. Everyone can improve their ability to communicate complex, interesting, and useful ideas more persuasively. But you have to work well and effectively at it.
Don't believe that “proper” writing instruction should focus primarily on skills, techniques, style or grammar. Because academic and expert public writing seeks to provide its communities with rich, productive, and transformative knowledge, time spent working on reading, interpretation, idea-development will enhance your writing.
Don't quit on the course when: a) it gets difficult, b) it gets confusing, c) the instruction you’re getting doesn’t match what you learned in other settings, d) you don't get the grade you wanted, e) you realize that you’re going to have to change your approach to academic or expert public writing. Instead, get help—Fast. Form a study group, ask a peer for help, visit your librarian or professor.
Don't browse the internet, check your e-mail, update your Facebook page, tweet or text in class or while you’re working on your UW20 homework. Recent scientific research shows that multitasking strongly disrupts learning, particularly the kind of complex analytical and logical operations you’re setting out to learn in this class (http://www.webmd.com/balance/guide/20070201/multitasking-hurts-learning). So while you might have been able to listen to music, chat with a friend, watch YouTube, do some algebra problems, and write your history report in HS, you’re very likely to be sabotaging your chances of success if you apply the same strategies to your UW20 work.
Expect to work on UW20 outside of class, between 8 to 12 hours a week.
Expect to be pushed well beyond your current capacities—no matter what level of proficiency you bring to the course.
Go to class, every time.
Be well prepared for class, every time.
Do assigned work to the best of your aspirations, not to meet minimum expectations.
Participate fully and actively in every class.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Top Tips to Finish UW20 Strong!
13. Use the Writing Center!!!! (UW20 student Ashley Dennee).
12. Primary sources are your friends! (UW20 student Alyson Corbett).
11. When you find sources, capture the information. Write it down; print it out; "print to screen." Otherwise, you end up searching for an essay or a primary source for hours without any luck (UW20 student, anonymously submitted).
10. Sleep enough. Eat well. Minimize sugar intake. Avoid the Red Bull! Get some exercise (endorphins are stress-relieving). Have some fun--but not so much that you can't work the next day! (Prof. Drown).
9. Give your writing, revising, and final researching the time that it needs. Do a little bit every day (Prof. Fruscione).
8. Contact your professor and librarian. They can help you find valuable resources (UW20 student Ashley Dennee).
7. Instead of trying to write new material at the beginning of your writing session, try to start a period of writing/revising by rereading what you did during the previous session. This can be a helpful way of easing back in to the writing process, instead of hitting the ground running (Prof. Fruscione).
6. Be ruthless with yourself when it comes to revising. If material doesn't belong, it should be taken out.
5. Give yourself a physical and mental break--take a short walk, do some yoga, go for a jog, or something else to get you away from the computer for a bit (Prof. Fruscione).
4. Sometimes, it is good to work on just one section of the paper, for a couple of hours, and then return the next day, to work on another section (UW20 student, anonymously submitted).
3. You have many different sources for sources available to you, DON'T be afraid to use something other than the internet! (UW20 student, anonymously submitted).
2. Expect that your end-of-the-semester tasks will take longer than you think (Prof. Drown).
1. Don't revise when your tired. You miss a lot of stuff. Instead, take a nap beforehand. It's better to say up a little later revising and not be tired because you took a nap than it is to rush through revisions while exhausted and get to bed early (UW20 student Joanne George).
Posts
