Expository Writing: Writing about A Film - the Tragedy of Macbeth
3.0
creditsAverage Course Rating
“Expos” is designed to introduce more confident student writers to the elements of academic argument. Students learn to apply the paradigm of academic argument in academic essays of their own. Classes are capped at 15 students and organized around four major writing assignments. Each course guides students’ practice through pre-writing, drafting, and revising, and includes discussions, workshops, and tutorials with the instructor. In addition to its central focus on the elements of academic argument, each “Expos” course teaches students to document sources correctly and provides its own topic or theme to engage students’ writing and thinking. Please see the Expository Writing Program's website for individual course descriptions to decide which sections of “Expos” will most interest you.
Spring 2013
Spring 2013
Spring 2013
Spring 2013
Spring 2013
Spring 2013
Spring 2013
Spring 2013
Spring 2013
Spring 2013
Spring 2013
Spring 2013
Spring 2013
Spring 2013
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Spring 2015
Spring 2015
Spring 2015
Spring 2015
Spring 2015
Spring 2015
Spring 2015
Spring 2015
Spring 2015
Spring 2015
Spring 2015
Spring 2015
Spring 2015
Spring 2015
Spring 2015
Spring 2015
Spring 2015
Spring 2013
Professor: Grant Shreve
Some of the best aspects of this course included the clear expectations given by the instructor and the well-paced structure of each class. Students also appreciated that a lot of the assignments revolved around art. One student felt that it was unfair to have to accept all of the instructor’s revisions on a draft in order to get a good grade on the revision. One suggestion was to focus more on stylistic writing. Prospective students should know that the grading can be tough and the course requires one’s ful attention, but that the assignments and class discussions are engaging.
Spring 2013
Professor: Robert Webber
110 Some of the best aspects of this course included the interesting content and the thought-provoking and helpful one-on-one meetings with the instructor. One student felt that not enough feedback from the instructor was given. Another student stated that deadlines were announced too late. One suggestion was to make sure the syllabus is up to date and that deadlines are given in advance. Prospective students should be prepared to read a lot and steer clear of procrastination because the workload can become difficult to manage.
Spring 2013
Professor: Roger Maioli dos Santos
Some of the best aspects of this course included the conferences and the smal class size. Students also appreciated the detailed feedback the instructor provided. Some of the students felt that the amount of writing required was time-consuming. One suggestion was to make the final paper due the week of finals. Prospective students should be prepared to write a lot and keep in mind that their final grade is based on a total of four papers.
Spring 2013
Professor: Andrew Sisson
Some of the best aspects of this course included the small class-size and the focus on old films. Students appreciated the instructor’s undivided attention, thorough explanations, and support on assignments. Some students felt that the instructor’s lectures were too long. Suggestions included more in-class discussions, more conference time, and more workshops. Prospective students should know that this class can improve their writing skills but that the grading can be tough.
Spring 2013
Professor: Jacob Chilton
Some of the best aspects of this course included the clear expectations given by the instructor and the well-paced structure of each class. Students also appreciated that a lot of the assignments revolved around art. One student felt that it was unfair to have to accept all of the instructor’s revisions on a draft in order to get a good grade on the revision. One suggestion was to focus more on stylistic writing. Prospective students should know that the grading can be tough and the course requires one’s ful attention, but that the assignments and class discussions are engaging.
Spring 2013
Professor: Nan Zhang
The best aspects of this course included the interesting material and the conferences with the instructor. Students also appreciated the instructor’s thorough feedback. Students felt too much class time was devoted to lecture and that there was not enough required student participation. Suggestions included typing or making legible the written feedback from the instructor and making class participation mandatory. Prospective students should know that this class is writing-intensive.
Spring 2013
Professor: Maria Lubina
Some of the best aspects of this course included the clear expectations given by the instructor and the well-paced structure of each class. Students also appreciated that a lot of the assignments revolved around art. One student felt that it was unfair to have to accept all of the instructor’s revisions on a draft in order to get a good grade on the revision. One suggestion was to focus more on stylistic writing. Prospective students should know that the grading can be tough and the course requires one’s ful attention, but that the assignments and class discussions are engaging.
Spring 2013
Professor: Matthew Flaherty
The best aspects of this course included the interesting material and the assignments that were thought-provoking, making homework more enjoyable. Students appreciated the instructor’s enthusiasm, willingness to offer support, and flexibility in regards to out-of-class work. Some students felt that the reading assignments were too large and that the quizzes were too tricky. Suggestions included spacing out the workload more evenly throughout the semester and focusing on fewer texts. Prospective students should know that the course covers work from contemporary writers; also, that it’s absolutely crucial to keep up as the instructor administers detailed pop quizzes on most of the readings.
Spring 2013
Professor: Anthony Wexler
Some of the best aspects of this course included the in-class discussions and the variety of readings. Students also appreciated the feedback the instructor provided them with. Some students felt that too much writing was expected to be completed in a short amount of time. A common suggestion from students was for the instructor to provide more time between essay deadlines. Prospective students should be prepared to do a lot of writing and analyzing.
Spring 2013
Professor: ENGLISH
The best aspects of this course included the interesting material and the conferences with the instructor. Students also appreciated the instructor’s thorough feedback. Students felt too much class time was devoted to lecture and that there was not enough required student participation. Suggestions included typing or making legible the written feedback from the instructor and making class participation mandatory. Prospective students should know that this class is writing-intensive.
Spring 2013
Professor: John Waterman
Some of the best aspects of this course included the scope of discussion topics and the conferences that provided students with invaluable help. Students also appreciated that the instructor was very approachable and understanding. Some students felt that because feedback on essays wasn’t given until just before the next assignment was due, learning from their mistakes was difficult. Suggestions included giving feedback sooner and discussing the writing process earlier in the semester rather than later. Prospective students should know that the material is intriguing but that the writing assignments
Spring 2013
Professor: Amanda Zecca
Some of the best aspects of this course included the instructor’s thorough explanation of the content and her eagerness to help the students. Students also appreciated the interesting material. One student felt that he/she was graded on the quality of his/her work rather than on improvement. Others noted that they did not like the assignment structure. Suggestions included more readings and for the instructor to grade based on a student’s progress. Prospective students should know that the content is interesting and that a lot of writing/rewriting will be required of them.
Spring 2013
Professor: George Oppel
Some of the best aspects of this course included the in-class discussions and the interesting literature. Students also appreciated the conferences that the instructor held with them. Some of the students felt that the course load and/or readings were too time-consuming and tedious. Suggestions included having more in-class discussions in which students are encouraged to participate; also, providing the students with a grading rubric. Prospective students are encouraged to participate in the group discussions and must be prepared to do a lot of writing. 111
Spring 2013
Professor: David Schley
The best aspects of this course included the interesting material and the conferences with the instructor. Students also appreciated the instructor’s thorough feedback. Students felt too much class time was devoted to lecture and that there was not enough required student participation. Suggestions included typing or making legible the written feedback from the instructor and making class participation mandatory. Prospective students should know that this class is writing-intensive.
Spring 2014
Professor: Aliza Watters
Many students seemed to enjoy this course, as wel as the professor’s bubbly personality. Students also enjoyed the assigned readings because of how engaging they were. In addition, students saw an improvement in their writing, which was attributed to conferences and class assignments. However, many students felt that the course was fast paced and deadlines seemed to be too close together. Suggestions for improvement included quicker rough draft feedback, more one-on-one time with the professor, and more in-class workshops. Prospective students should be flexible and prepared to write.
Spring 2014
Professor: Kel an Anfinson
The best aspects of this course were the student-teacher meetings, the structure of the class, and skil s learned. Many students found the student-teacher meetings helpful, and the feedback given during these meetings led to an improved approach to writing. The course also only had four major writing assignments, which allotted a great amount of time to analyzing and making each piece better. However, the grading system was harsh and the workload is demanding. Many students suggested more time to outline essays before working on them and group workshops to improve the quality of this course. Prospective students should realize how intensive the course and assignments wil be.
Spring 2014
Professor: Hitomi Koyama
During this course, many students grew fond of the professor. She was engaging and offered guidance with editing papers. Students also found the professor extremely relatable and an excellent teacher of writing. The course included interesting topics, small groups, and class discussions. It was suggested by students that the grading rubric be less vague and there be more time to complete writing assignments. Prospective students should know that this professor wil not be returning in the fal .
Spring 2014
Professor: Andrew Sission
Students interested in Hitchcock films will love this course. Previous students enrol ed in this course said that the professor was always smiling and friendly. They also said that they received constructive feedback from him regularly. Often times, lectures became boring and grading was harsh. Students suggested that the course have more class discussion, more structure, and more time in between essays. Prospective students should be comfortable with humanities so that they can analyze films effectively.
Spring 2014
Professor: Robert Webber
The best aspects about this course were the feedback from the professor and TA, the discussions, and the material covered. The professor taught his students important elements of writing like structuring arguments, summarizing texts, and providing evidence. Students felt like there was a good balance between writing and discussion and the professor was not afraid to discuss controversial topics. However, many students did not see progress in their writing and felt like the class should be restructured in a way that makes students want to attend class. It was suggested by students that more guidance be given, more overall organization be worked on, and a more technologically advanced setting would improve the quality of this course. Prospective students should be aware that the professor grades fair and the class is what they make it. It can either be exciting or boring.
Spring 2014
Professor: Elisabeth Campbel
Students enrol ed in this course learned how to summarize a work and then give it merit. The conferences were a great place for students to assess their writing and progress. Students found the peer review helpful, and the articles chosen sparked the interest of many. Towards the end of the semester students felt rushed when it came down to producing papers. The professor was also a very hard grader and there were no breaks between assignments. Students suggested that the content of the course be reworked to improve the quality. Prospective students should know that this class wil either help them structure an academic essay or it won’t help at all.
Spring 2014
Professor: John Sampson
Students enrolled in this course learned more about Baltimore from the perspective of authors. The professor was attentive and gave honest and timely feedback to his students. Many students found the course material to be interesting and really enjoyed reading Flap Doodle and watching different TV shows that were based in the city. However, students complained that the professor does not give out good grades and does not appreciate the growth of his students. Also, some of the class discussions seemed to drag on, according to students. Suggestions for improvement include a clearer rubric for grading, more freedom, and more discussion. Prospective students should know that their grade may not always reflect their effort.
Spring 2014
Professor: Katarina O’Briain
Many students thought that the professor of this course was approachable and gave great feedback during conferences. The professor also pushed her students to become better writers. Students learned how to write arguments without a prompt and were able to step their writing skills up a few notches. The texts assigned were also enjoyed by students. However, the constant reading and writing became time consuming and at times, the professor’s instructions were not made clear. The course was also vigorous and there were back to back assignments due. Students suggested that more time be spent on new topics and themes, more conferences and peer editing, and less course work. Prospective students should be good at managing their time because the work quickly piles up.
Spring 2014
Professor: Bican Polat
Students who are looking for a course with a professor who is straightforward and uses clarity in explanations should enrol . Previous students learned techniques that they can apply to many other writing assignments in the future. Students also received great feedback on their writing and participated in group workshops. However, the professor often times exhibited tardiness and returned papers late. Students suggested that the professor be a little more helpful during conferences and return papers in a timely fashion. Prospective students should be prepared for an interesting course and to learn about psychology and emotional attachment.
Spring 2014
Professor: Robert Higney
Many students were appreciative of the feedback received from the professor of this course, and found the individual conferences effective. Students also enjoyed the class discussions and found the topic of the American wilderness to be intriguing. Some students complained that they didn’t learn how to cite sources and correctly use quotation marks. Often times, the class discussion would go off topic and the work load was unpredictable. Students suggested more structure for this course, and prospective students should expect a lot of writing and reading.
Spring 2014
Professor: John Waterman
The best aspects of this course were the conference discussions and the interesting topics covered. The professor was attentive to his students and offered constructive and timely feedback to students. The worst aspects of this course were the drawn out lectures, the lack of freedom, and the way essays were graded. Some students were disappointed with this course and felt like it was a waste of time. It has been suggested by students that they be given more time to complete essays, use more scientific material, and better essay structure and topics. Prospective students should know that the professors are hard graders and keep an open mind.
Spring 2014
Professor: Maria Labina
Students seemed to like the professor for this course and the topics discussed while they were enrol ed. The professor gave individualized attention to each student and peer evaluation was both helpful and successful. Instead of focusing on texts, like many of the other sections, this professor allowed her students to focus on analyzing paintings. However, students felt rushed because four essays were packed into the semester and the workload became heavy at times. It was suggested by students to limit the course to three essays, spend more time on the editing stage of writing, and design a grading rubric for assignments. Prospective students wil be expected to do lots of writing and know that it is very difficult to receive an A in the course.
Spring 2014
Professor: Nora Lambrecht
Many students agreed that the freedom granted by the professor made this class enjoyable. For the final essay, students were able to choose their own topics and the professor’s teaching style was both helpful and passionate. The professor was also clear on expectations. Students disliked the pace of the course for the amount of work required. Often times, assignments were due within a few days of each other. Grading was also described as “strict.” Students suggested that the course include more class workshops and quicker return of assignments to improve the quality of the course. Prospective students should know that the course requires a lot of work but they wil see their writing change.
Spring 2014
Professor: Kevin Roberts
Both the generalized and individualized feedback was great for students who were enrol ed in this course. Many students learned how to write properly by proving points using evidence. The class discussions were engaging encouraged students to explore the ideas they were learning about. However, some students disagreed and thought discussions were not effective because there was a lack of participation. Often times, many students noticed significant changes made to their work by the professor and found this frustrating and difficult. Suggestions for improvement include cancelling class to al ow students to use that time to work on their papers, more clarity in feedback, and more peer review sessions. Prospective students should know that this course might involve more work than a typical introductory writing class.
Spring 2014
Professor: Joseph Haley
Many students enrol ed in this course were quite fond of the professor’s lenience and flexibility when it came to scheduling conferences and submission dates. Students also enjoyed the topics covered throughout the course and the significant change they saw in their writing. However, students complained about the professor’s disorganization and failure to return assignments on time. Students also complained about discussions and grading being difficult to understand. Suggestions for improvement include less procrastination from the professor, in-depth one-on-one sessions, and fewer essays. Prospective students should be aware that the professor is a tough grader and there is a great amount of work required in order to complete this course.
Spring 2014
Professor: Tim Hanafin
Students who were enrol ed in this course said that the professor is great at explaining and critiquing essays in a one-on-one setting. Many students walked away with valuable knowledge and felt more confident in their writing abilities. The worst aspects of this course were the slow return of assignments and lack of class discussion. It was suggested by students that the professor return papers in a quicker manner and more conversation about the topics being covered. Students interested in the 2008 financial crisis should enroll in this course.
Spring 2014
Professor: Marie O’Connor
The best aspects of this course were the class discussions, the readings, and the professor’s helpful hand of guidance. Students also appreciated that the professor would not hold class sometimes so that students had ample time to complete their assignments. The class discussions were thought-provoking and the pace of the class worked with lots of students’ schedules. However, at times the professor talked too much and the last assignment made students feel rushed. The number one thing suggested to improve the quality of the course was a conference for the final essay. Students with a love for fairy tales and writing should take this course.
Spring 2014
Professor: Anthony Wexler
Many students enrol ed in this course agreed that the thought-provoking conversations initiated by the TA were extremely effective and that the professor was awesome. Many students also witnessed the improvement of their writing skil s. Although the students were fond of the professor, they thought he graded very harshly. The inclement weather made the assignment schedule frustrating and the turn-around time on receiving papers back was often slow. It was suggested by students that the number of essays be cut down to three and a variation in reading material be used to improve the quality of this course. Prospective students should be prepared for a lot of reading and writing and a clear improvement of writing skills.
Spring 2015
Professor: Erica Tempesta
The best part of this course was the small class size and interesting course material. Some students found the grading to be overly strict and harsh. This course could be improved by spending more class time discussing major themes of assigned works, and having an equal amount of time to complete all assignments. Prospective students will find the course writing intensive and should allocate enough time to dedicate to the writing and editing process.
Spring 2015
Professor: Pavle Stojanovic
The best part of this class was being able to think critically and write about theories in biological diversity and the origin of intelligent life. Some students felt it took an excessive amount of time to get graded work back. This course could be improved by offering students more writing prompts for their first three assignments and having more time to discuss topics in the assigned readings. Prospective students should know that this course does not require any background knowledge.
Spring 2015
Professor: Donald Berger
The best part of this class was the opportunity to gain feedback from the instructor during individual conferences. Some students felt this class had too many time consuming assignments and the amount of course material that had to be printed was excessive. This course could be improved by offering students more freedom in writing assignments and providing more opportunities for students to meet with the professor during office hours. Prospective students should be aware of al due dates and seek out resources, such as the writing den, for help.
Spring 2015
Professor: Andrew Sisson
The best part of this course was being able to analyze Hitchcock films. Students felt grading was subjective as there was no rubric and lectures were boring at times. This course could be improved by having more peer-to-peer conferences, spending more time to discuss movie elements, and providing students with a clear grading rubric. Prospective students should know they do not need a background in film to do well in this course.
Spring 2015
Professor: Johannes Schade
The best aspects of this course was the fun, interesting discussions and the opportunity for students to watch westerns. Some students felt course discussion was poor and only a handful of students participated. This course could be improved by offering more peer review of essays, watching movies during class, and providing longer conference times. Prospective students should stay on top of all assignments and be interested in film analysis.
Spring 2015
Professor: Robert Webber
The best aspect of this class was Professor Webber’s use of various mediums in teaching which forced students to explore how to write in a number of different styles. Some students found this course disorganized and felt as though there was not enough information on how to improve writing skills during lecture. This course could be improved by offering more time for peer edits. Prospective students should know this class requires you to write four papers.
Spring 2015
Professor: Elizabeth Campbel
The best part of this course was the interesting, open, and engaging class discussion. This course allowed all students the opportunity to share their perspectives and opinions. Some students found grading to be subjective as there was no grading rubric. This course could have been improved by offering longer conference sessions and focusing more on the advertised topic of gladiators. Prospective students are encouraged to stay on top of assignments and put forth a good effort in order to benefit from the course.
Spring 2015
Professor: Maria Libina
Students enjoyed the opportunity to discuss art, visit the BMA, and gain feedback on written assignments. Students felt that assignment dues dates were too close to each other and there was not enough time for revisions. Suggestions for improvement included incorporating more cultural y diverse art to discuss, providing students with more than one conference during the semester, and spreading out submission timelines for essay assignments. Prospective students interested in art history should be prepared to devote a significant amount of time to the writing and editing process.
Spring 2015
Professor: Marie O’Connor
The best part of this class was the professor’s ability to engage all students in the classroom and the helpful feedback gained during workshops. Some students felt that there was too much lecturing and not enough discussion. Written assignments should have been more evenly spaced throughout the semester. This class could be improved by having more engaging discussions. Prospective students are expected to come to class prepared with assigned readings completed.
Spring 2015
Professor: John Hoffmann
The best aspect of this course was the professor’s passion for the subject. Some students felt the grading was harsh and the instructor’s expectations were set too high for a 100 level course. This course could be improved by having more class discussion, focusing on fewer assignments, and providing students with clearer grading criteria. Prospective students interested in history and war literature should be prepared for a significant workload.
Spring 2015
Professor: Matthew Flaherty
The best aspects of this course were the helpful feedback during teacher conferences, the opportunity to learn how to write a philosophical paper, and the small class size that allowed for interesting discussions. Some students found this course to be time consuming and the grading harsh. This course could be improved by incorporating a clear grading rubric and assigning more readings on biological enhancements. Prospective students should be prepared to participate in class discussion and work through some chal enging ideas.
Spring 2015
Professor: Douglas Tye
The best part about this course was the interesting assigned reading material and enjoyable course discussions. Some students found certain sources to be long and hard to understand. This course could be improved by incorporating more graded material, and teaching students how to read different types of writing. Students also suggested finding ways to increase class participation during discussion. Prospective students should know that this course was writing intensive and the grade was determined by four essays.
Spring 2015
Professor: Aliza Watters
The best part of this course was the attentive and insightful instructor. Course readings were interesting and intel ectual y chal enging. Some students found grading criteria to be ambiguous and harsh. This course could be improved by lecturing more on writing skills, having more lenient and specific grading criteria, and focusing more on elevator pitches and oral presentations. Prospective students should know that this course is difficult and time consuming, yet writing skills will improve.
Spring 2015
Professor: William Miller
The best part of this course was the professor who was generally available to help students. Some felt that peer conferences were not always beneficial and there was not enough time to complete assignments. This course could be improved by incorporating smaller assignments into the syllabus, leading more guided class discussions, and having clearer instructions for assignments. Prospective students should be prepared for a heavy course load and be able to put in the time to improve writing skills.
Spring 2015
Professor: Jonathan Brandau
The best part of this course was the interesting, open, and engaging class discussion. This course allowed all students the opportunity to share their perspectives and opinions. Some students found grading to be subjective as there was no grading rubric. This course could have been improved by offering longer conference sessions and focusing more on the advertised topic of gladiators. Prospective students are encouraged to stay on top of assignments and put forth a good effort in order to benefit from the course.
Spring 2015
Professor: Nicholas Bujak
Students found the readings to be thought provoking and interesting. This course chal enged students to develop their writing skills. Some students felt they did not receive enough feedback on their writing and class discussion was boring at times. This course could be improved by providing students with opportunities to gage progress throughout the semester and finding ways to have more engaging class discussions. Prospective students should know this class is time consuming and should be prepared to devote a significant amount of time to the writing and editing process.
Spring 2015
Professor: Robert Day
The best part of this course was the stimulating and effective teaching method. Students found the conferences to be useful and the class discussions were helpful in forming compel ing arguments. Some students found the readings to be dul . This course could be improved by incorporating more interesting readings, encouraging more participation from students during discussion, and having a more structured syl abus. Prospective students should know that a significant amount of writing and editing is required.