Semester.ly

Johns Hopkins University | AS.220.105

Introduction to Fiction & Poetry I

3.0

credits

Average Course Rating

(4.35)

An introduction to basic strategies in the writing of poetry and fiction, with readings by Baldwin, Joyce, Lahiri, Garcia Marquez, Munro, Woolf, Donne, Bishop, Brooks, Komunyakaa, Tretheway, and others. Students will learn the elements of the short story and try their hand at a variety of forms: realist, fantastical, experimental. They’ll also study the basic poetic forms and meters, from the ballad to the sonnet, iambic pentameter to free verse. Students will compose short stories and poems and workshop them in class. This course is a prerequisite for most upper-level courses. This course is part one of the year-long Introduction to Fiction and Poetry and must be taken before AS.220.106

Fall 2012

(4.5)

Fall 2012

(4.53)

Fall 2012

(4.22)

Fall 2012

(4.15)

Fall 2012

(4.71)

Fall 2012

(4.21)

Fall 2012

(4.6)

Fall 2012

(4.26)

Fall 2012

(4.25)

Fall 2012

(4.5)

Fall 2012

(4.52)

Fall 2012

(3.92)

Fall 2012

(4.6)

Fall 2012

(4.71)

Fall 2012

(4.0)

Fall 2012

(4.0)

Fall 2012

(4.46)

Fall 2012

(4.0)

Fall 2012

(4.17)

Fall 2012

(4.47)

Fall 2012

(3.9)

Fall 2013

(3.83)

Fall 2013

(4.19)

Fall 2013

(3.91)

Fall 2013

(4.7)

Fall 2013

(4.0)

Fall 2013

(4.4)

Fall 2013

(4.8)

Fall 2013

(4.38)

Fall 2013

(4.57)

Fall 2013

(3.43)

Fall 2013

(4.41)

Fall 2013

(5.0)

Fall 2013

(4.38)

Fall 2013

(4.15)

Fall 2013

(4.36)

Fall 2013

(4.6)

Fall 2013

(4.25)

Fall 2013

(4.18)

Fall 2013

(3.83)

Fall 2013

(4.64)

Fall 2013

(4.42)

Fall 2013

(4.71)

Fall 2013

(4.55)

Fall 2014

(4.23)

Fall 2014

(4.62)

Fall 2014

(4.79)

Fall 2014

(4.85)

Fall 2014

(4.38)

Fall 2014

(4.77)

Fall 2014

(4.43)

Fall 2014

(4.69)

Fall 2014

(4.27)

Fall 2014

(4.0)

Fall 2014

(4.63)

Fall 2014

(4.23)

Fall 2014

(4.75)

Fall 2014

(4.8)

Fall 2014

(4.67)

Fall 2014

(4.87)

Fall 2014

(4.45)

Fall 2022

(4.12)

Fall 2022

(4.27)

Fall 2022

(4.34)

Fall 2022

(4.38)

Fall 2022

(4.17)

Spring 2013

(4.38)

Spring 2013

(4.07)

Spring 2013

(4.29)

Spring 2013

(4.86)

Spring 2013

(4.75)

Spring 2013

(4.53)

Spring 2013

(4.45)

Spring 2013

(4.17)

Spring 2013

(4.67)

Spring 2013

(4.63)

Spring 2013

(4.38)

Spring 2013

(4.47)

Spring 2013

(4.31)

Spring 2013

(4.36)

Spring 2013

(4.56)

Spring 2013

(4.4)

Spring 2014

(4.27)

Spring 2014

(4.0)

Spring 2014

(4.4)

Spring 2014

(4.67)

Spring 2014

(4.4)

Spring 2014

(4.79)

Spring 2014

(4.46)

Spring 2014

(4.43)

Spring 2014

(4.62)

Spring 2014

(4.6)

Spring 2014

(4.67)

Spring 2014

(4.27)

Spring 2014

(4.49)

Spring 2014

(4.22)

Spring 2014

(4.54)

Spring 2015

(4.25)

Spring 2015

(4.5)

Spring 2015

(4.33)

Spring 2015

(4.4)

Spring 2015

(3.69)

Spring 2015

(4.86)

Spring 2015

(3.67)

Spring 2015

(3.93)

Spring 2015

(4.69)

Spring 2015

(4.6)

Spring 2015

(4.47)

Spring 2015

(4.79)

Spring 2015

(4.71)

Spring 2015

(3.93)

Spring 2015

(4.33)

Spring 2015

(4.5)

Spring 2015

(3.86)

Spring 2023

(4.16)

Spring 2023

(3.91)

Spring 2023

(4.06)

Spring 2023

(4.21)

Spring 2023

(4.25)

Spring 2023

(4.0)

Spring 2023

(4.12)

Spring 2023

(3.4)

Spring 2023

(4.37)

Spring 2023

(3.71)

Spring 2023

(3.94)

Spring 2023

(4.46)

Spring 2023

(3.84)

Spring 2023

(4.13)

Summer 2023

(4.25)

Fall 2012

Professor: Glenn Blake, Songmuang Greer

(4.5)

The best aspect of the course was the writing exercises, which gave students the freedom to be creative. Students also enjoyed workshops and the lively professor. The worst aspects of the course included the dull class periods, as well as the poetry section of the class because students found it difficult to analyze and write poetry. The course would improve if there were more workshops and if the professor could find a way to make the class more engaging. Prospective students should know that this is a fun course

Fall 2012

Professor: Glenn Blake, Elizabeth Thompson

(4.53)

The best aspects of the course included the class discussions and constructive feedback students received from their peers and the teaching assistant. The worst aspects of the course included the grading structure; students felt that no matter how much work they put in, it was very difficult to improve their grades. Also, the readings were not analyzed in very much depth and some students found the writing very tedious. The course would improve if students had more practice assignments and support on their writing, as wel as a better grading rubric. Prospective students should know that 282 this course offers an introduction to poetry and fiction, and they should be willing to do the writing that is required to be successful in the course.

Fall 2012

Professor: Glenn Blake, Courtney Sender

(4.22)

The best aspects of the course included the exciting reading and writing assignments. Students were challenged to improve their writing and always received great feedback from the professor. The worst aspect of the course was the strict and subjective grading system. The course would improve if students received their assignments in a more timely fashion, which would help them work on the areas that required improvement. It would also help if the students received more lessons on writing improvement. Prospective students should know that the course is writing.

Fall 2012

Professor: Glenn Blake, Rahul Kanakia

(4.15)

The best aspect of the course was the feedback students received on their weekly assignments. The worst aspect of the course was the grading system, which students felt was overly subjective. The course would improve if students had a rubric for their assignments or more clarity on what exactly the professor was looking for. It would also improve if the class discussions were more engaging and active. Prospective students should know that this course involves reading and interpreting literature. They should bring some creativity to the class in order to really enjoy it.

Fall 2012

Professor: Glenn Blake, Richard Hofmann

(4.71)

The best aspect of this course was the open and creative atmosphere. Students were given creative freedom in their writing assignments and engaged in active class discussions. The worst aspects of the course included the lengthy reading assignments that were not always discussed in class, and the weekly writing assignments, as some students had a difficult time keeping up with them. The course would improve if there were more workshop sessions to help students have their work reviewed. Prospective students should be prepared to do weekly writing assignments.

Fall 2012

Professor: Glenn Blake, Emily Parker

(4.21)

The best aspects of the course included the creative atmosphere and the exposure students received to different kinds of writing. There were also lots of opportunities for students to improve on their writing. The worst aspects of the course included the poorly taught poetry sessions, as wel as the subjective grading. The course would improve if there were more group workshop opportunities and if the poetry section were more structured. Prospective students should commit some time to the writing assignments and they wil become comfortable with the content. 285

Fall 2012

Professor: Glenn Blake, Joselyn Takacs

(4.6)

284 The best aspect of this course was the relaxed class atmosphere where students learned about writing fiction and poetry. The students were engaged in great class discussions and received good feedback on their work. The worst aspects of the course included the subjective writing and grading, as well as the amount of creativity needed to do the assignments. Students also felt the class sessions were repetitive. The course would improve if fewer fiction and poetry pieces were analyzed in class. Prospective students should be ready to do some intensive writing as assignments are due weekly.

Fall 2012

Professor: Glenn Blake, Katherine Robinson

(4.26)

The best aspect of this course was the diverse stories and poetry that students were exposed to. The professor was always prepared and did an excellent job in facilitating discussions that helped students with their own writing. The worst aspects of the course included the unfocused discussions that were often dominated by a few select students. The course would improve if the course discussions were more focused and if the workshops were more open. Prospective students should know that this fun

Fall 2012

Professor: Glenn Blake, Amber Burke

(4.25)

The best aspect of the course was the smal class setting in which students were given the opportunity to do creative writing. Students also found the course reading material very interesting. The worst aspects of the course included the unclear grading system and harshly graded poetry assignments. The course would improve if the grading requirements and expectations for the writing assignments were clearer and not so strict. Prospective students should know that this course involves a substantial amount of reading and writing, but will allow students to be very creative.

Fall 2012

Professor: Glenn Blake, Nathan McNamara

(4.5)

The best aspect of this course was the class discussions that occurred in a relaxed and friendly environment. Students received helpful feedback on their writing from the professor and from fellow students in workshop. The worst aspects of this course included the inconsistency of the assignments and the restrictions on the writing assignments. The course would improve if students were given more time and creative space for the assignments. Prospective students should know that this is a great class where students wil get the opportunity to be creative and wil become better writers.

Fall 2012

Professor: Glenn Blake, Petrina Crockford

(4.52)

The best aspects of this course included the smal class size, workshops, and class discussions. The class was very engaging and many felt they improved their writing through feedback from their fellow students, professor, and teaching assistant. The worst aspects of the course included the early morning class time and the poetry for some students. The course would improve if the class could be moved to a later time in the day and if the schedule was more spread out. Prospective students should know they

Fall 2012

Professor: Glenn Blake, Robert McDonald

(3.92)

The best aspects of the course included the readings and class discussions. The students also enjoyed the opportunity to workshop one another’s work. The worst aspects of the course included the subjective grading system and monotonous class sessions. The course could improve if the students were given clearer guidelines and expectations for their poetry assignments. Prospective students should know that the course involves lots of writing and if they work hard, they will improve their skills.

Fall 2012

Professor: Glenn Blake, Alexander Creighton

(4.6)

The best aspects of this course included the interactive class discussions and creative writing prompts. The worst aspect of this course was the consistent influx of reading assignments. Students also found it initially hard to participate in workshops and wished there were more one-on-one opportunities for them to improve their writing. The course could improve if students had more opportunities for feedback on their work and if the assignment fiction prompts were more guided and focused. Prospective students should know that this course is writing intensive, but engaging and they wil have opportunities to workshop one another’s work.

Fall 2012

Professor: Glenn Blake, Matthew Morton

(4.71)

The best aspect of the course was the professor, who encouraged students to be creative in their writing. The course al owed students to explore different writing styles and it involved lots of interesting open discussions. The worst aspect of the course was the rushed lessons. The course would improve if there was better feedback on student assignments. The course would also improve if students had more time to do their assignments and have them reviewed more effectively at workshops. Prospective students should know that this course involves a fair amount of reading and writing, but wil give them

Fall 2012

Professor: Glenn Blake, Julia Heney

(4.0)

The best aspects of this course included the opportunity to be creative, the interesting class discussions and the enlightening workshops. The worst aspects of the course included the constant writing and reading, as well as the lack of adequate feedback on assignments. Students also felt like the professor chose lots of subjective reading and graded the assignments a bit harshly. The course would improve if the writing prompts were more specific and if students had more guidance for the readings. Prospective students should know that it’s important to start the reading and writing assignments on time so that they have ample time to be creative.

Fall 2012

Professor: Glenn Blake, Jocelyn Slovak

(4.0)

The best aspect of the course was the different creative writing assignments. The worst aspect of the course was the workshops, as some students didn’t find them particularly effective in helping them get adequate assessment of their work. The course was a standard writing class and not many people were as interested in writing poetry. The course would improve if students had more lessons on short stories and how they could write better. Prospective students should know that this is a basic fiction/poetry

Fall 2012

Professor: Glenn Blake, Daniel Stintzi

(4.46)

The best aspects of this course included the professor’s helpful feedback on assignments and the open class discussion forum. The worst aspect of the course was the class discussions, which were a bit dull 281 and dreary. The students felt the grading for the writing was tough and subjective at times. The course would improve if the class were structured to include more group activities. The course would also improve if students were given rubrics for their assignments and updates on their class grade. Prospective students should know that this is a fun course with lots of writing that wil help students tap into their creativity.

Fall 2012

Professor: Glenn Blake, John Grasser

(4.0)

The best aspect of this course was the interactive class discussions. The stories and poems assigned to the class were really interesting and were analyzed deeply. The worst aspect of this course was the untimely feedback, as students often waited for a long time to receive their assignments. The course could be improved if students had better feedback on how to write and improve their writing. Prospective students should know that this course involves some light reading and writing, but those

Fall 2012

Professor: Glenn Blake, Charles Phinney

(4.17)

The best aspects of this course included the interesting readings, class discussions and group feedback. Students enjoyed the creative writing opportunity that this course offered. The worst aspect of this course was the subjective grading. The class discussions were sometimes weak as well. The course would improve if there were a clearer grading system and if there were more ways to engage the students in livelier discussions. Prospective students should be prepared to do lots of writing and familiarize themselves with basic grammatical concepts.

Fall 2012

Professor: Glenn Blake, Nathaniel Washatka

(4.47)

The best aspects of the course included the laid back and smal class size where students were exposed to a variety of writing. Students enjoyed the readings and learned a lot at a steady pace. The worst aspects of the course included the dul and unproductive workshops, as well as a lack of constructive feedback which didn’t help students understand how they to improve their writing. The course would improve if the class sessions were more engaging and diverse and if students received more structured grading and feedback on their writing. Prospective students should know that this is a great introductory writing course and they will notice some improvement on their writing as long as they put in the effort.

Fall 2012

Professor: Glenn Blake, Eric Levitz

(3.9)

The best aspects of this course included the different creative writing assignments and the open class discussions. The students felt like the class exposed them to a different kind of writing and they found the workshops helpful. The worst aspects of the course included the subjective and difficult grading as well as the poetry portion of the class, as students felt it was not well covered. The course would improve if students had clearer guidelines for their writing assignments and much more feedback on how to improve their writing. Prospective students should know that they have to do a significant amount of writing in this class and they should be clear on what is expected of them on the assignments to be successful.

Fall 2013

Professor: Yi Xie

(3.83)

Students found that the best aspects of this course included the workshops, which provided good feedback from their peers. Students al enjoyed the professor’s enthusiasm and wil ingness to help anyone who had difficulty with the materials. Suggestions for improvement included either lightening the reading load or committing more time to analysis, as students found that not al of the pieces they read were discussed. Students also would have liked more feedback, or chances to improve their grades, either through extra credit or revision. Prospective students should have a strong writing ability and be able to produce a fair amount of work each week.

Fall 2013

Professor: Amy Arthur

(4.19)

The best aspects of this course included the active classroom atmosphere and the in-class discussions. Students also found that the materials were interesting and information. Suggestions for improvement include providing samples or detailed structure details for some of the assignments, since some of the students were unsure of the poetic forms they were supposed to use. Students also wanted a bit more flexibility in the writing prompts, with more free topics. Prospective students should be willing to commit time to reading and writing each week, and should be interested in learning to write creatively.

Fall 2013

Professor: Katherine Parr

(3.91)

The best aspects of this course included the smal class sizes that al owed students to get to know one another and feel more comfortable during the discussions. Students especial y enjoyed the opportunity to express themselves creatively. However, many students felt that the grading system was too harsh, and that the course load was excessive for a 100 level course. Suggestions for improvement included creating a more structured syllabus with clear guidelines on how works were scored. Students also wanted more constructive criticism to help them better improve their writing skills. Prospective students should have a basic knowledge of grammar and writing, and be prepared to write often each week.

Fall 2013

Professor: Michael Booe

(4.7)

The best aspects of this course included the open workshops and the exposure to different types of creative writing. Students found the professor to be very engaging and supporting, helping and inspiring them in the discussions. Some students found that the readings felt tacked on, and that the course was rather basic. Suggestions for improvement included a desire for more one-on-one time with the professor to evaluate how students were doing in the class, as well as clarity about how the works were scored. Prospective students should take this class for a basic beginner’s course in creative writing, and be prepared to work on improving their creative writing skills.

Fall 2013

Professor: Cody Ernst

(4.0)

The best aspects of this course included the interesting reading materials, as well as the relaxed setting of the classroom discussions. However, students felt that the grading system lacked structure, and that they did not receive enough feedback on their works. Suggestions for improvements included more workshop sessions to revise works, as well as more specific guidelines to explain what was expected for each assignment. Prospective students should be prepared to read and write often.

Fall 2013

Professor: Nathan McNamara

(4.4)

The best aspects of this course included the personable and helpful manner of the professor, who truly wanted to help his students improve their writing skil s. Students felt that the readings for the class were very insightful, and that the workshops helped them receive feedback to use during revision. Suggestions for improvement included spending more time analyzing the pieces read for class, and changing the grading system to be less subjective and based on opinion. Prospective students should be prepared to read, write, and discuss each week, and should have an interest in creative writing.

Fall 2013

Professor: Taylor Koekkoek

(4.8)

The best aspects of this course included the peer review sessions and the feedback provided by the professor. Students found the small class size especially helpful for getting familiar with the professor and their fellow students. However, many students were unsure of their grades, and wanted more freedom in choosing their writing topics. Suggestions for improvement included increasing the number of writing assignments, as well as providing a more concise list of what each assignment requires for grading purposes. Prospective students should have an interest in creative writing, and should expect a relatively low workload for a writing course.

Fall 2013

Professor: Songmuang Greer

(4.38)

The best aspects of this course included the very fair grading and the many opportunities to receive feedback. Students found the assignments to be quick, although plentiful. However, some students felt the schedule was a bit rushed, and that grading was sometimes subjective. Suggestions for improvement include the inclusion of a grading rubric, as well as a more chances to peer review assignments. Several students also wanted the discussions to be more interactive and wanted more ways to participate in class. Prospective students should be prepared to complete a writing assignment each week, and be sure to show up and participate in each class discussion.

Fall 2013

Professor: John Grasser

(4.57)

The best aspects of this course included the open choice topics for writing, as well as the relaxed atmosphere of the class setting. Students found the feedback from the professor to be very helpful, and the workflow constant but doable. Suggestions for improvement include cutting back on the workshops, which students did not find as helpful as the professor’s feedback. Students also felt that more time could have been spent on the readings. Prospective students should be prepared to write each week and concentrate on improving their work.

Fall 2013

Professor: Amanda Gunn

(3.43)

The best aspects of this course included the open workshop sessions and the in-class discussions to analyze the readings. Some students found that the grading was confusing or feedback was lacking. Suggestions for improvement included a desire for more detailed rubrics or explanations of what was expected for the assignments. Prospective students should be prepared for a relatively heavy but enjoyable workload.

Fall 2013

Professor: Callie Siskel

(4.41)

The best aspects of this course included the interesting reading materials, as well as the open discussions where students could freely voice their opinions. Some students found the pacing of the class to be odd, with some short stories taking longer than others, and classes that skimmed over difficult writing concepts. Suggestions for improvement included boosting student participation during class, and spending more time on fewer assignments to fully edit a work. Prospective students should be willing to read and write each week, and be prepared to participate in the class discussions to get the full creative writing and critique experience.

Fall 2013

Professor: Joseph Frantz

(5.0)

The best aspects of this course included the open workshop sessions and the in-class discussions to analyze the readings. Some students found that the grading was confusing or feedback was lacking. Suggestions for improvement included a desire for more detailed rubrics or explanations of what was expected for the assignments. Prospective students should be prepared for a relatively heavy but enjoyable workload.

Fall 2013

Professor: Mol y Lynch

(4.38)

The best aspects of this course included the smal class sizes that al owed students to get to know their peers and the professor. Students found the workshops and discussions very helpful when revising their works, and thought the professor provided good feedback. However, some students felt the grading policies were unclear or subjective. Suggestions for improvement included having a rubric or specific set of guidelines to explain the grading system would be very helpful. Prospective students should be prepared to read and write a fair amount each week, and to be engaged in the course discussions to get the most out of the writing workshops.

Fall 2013

Professor: Daniel Stintzi

(4.15)

The best aspects of this course included the professor’s ability to engage the students in a subject many of them found difficult at first. Students enjoyed the writing workshops and found the discussions to be useful. However, many of the students found the materials to be older, previously taught pieces, and felt that the balance between fiction and poetry was off. Suggestions for improvement included providing new works outside of the Norton Anthology, and spending more time learning about the structure of writing. Prospective students be prepared to read and write every week, and to participate in class discussions to get the most out of class.

Fall 2013

Professor: Gwen Kirby

(4.36)

The best aspects of this course included the broad overview that provided a good introduction to writing fiction and poetry. Students also found the workshops informative and the feedback very helpful for their revisions. Suggestions for improvement included the desire to have workshops before a work was due to receive advice on how to revise their works. Students also wanted some additional literary examples and advice to help them see how they could improve their writing. Prospective students should be interested in learning more about creative writing in general, and be willing to put in time and effort to complete the assignments.

Fall 2013

Professor: Fiction/Poetry Writing I

(4.6)

The best aspects of this course included the workshop sessions and class discussions, which students found very helpful when writing their works. Many students found the professor to be very knowledgeable and approachable when they had questions, although some felt that the feedback they received was sparse, unhelpful, or subjective. Suggestions for improvement included a faster turnaround time for papers, as well as a more definitive grading structure so students could see how they were being graded. Prospective students should love to write and be prepared to write often.

Fall 2013

Professor: Taylor Daynes

(4.25)

The best aspects of this course included the interesting reading materials, as well as the relaxed setting of the classroom discussions. However, students felt that the grading system lacked structure, and that they did not receive enough feedback on their works. Suggestions for improvements included more workshop sessions to revise works, as well as more specific guidelines to explain what was expected for each assignment. Prospective students should be prepared to read and write often.

Fall 2013

Professor: Julia Heney

(4.18)

The best aspects of this class included the freedom students had when completing assignments. Students also liked the breadth of reading materials covered in the class. Suggestions for improvement include increasing the number of in-class writing exercises, as students found these to be more helpful than analyzing the reading materials. Prospective students should have some creative writing experience, and be prepared for extensive writing exercises and assignments.

Fall 2013

Professor: Rahul Kanakia

(3.83)

The best aspects of this class included the frequent workshop sessions (almost every other class), which gave students ample time to revise and edit their works. However, some students found the discussions less helpful, and felt the class was a bit disorganized at times. Suggestions for improvement included setting up a more structured class schedule to help guide discussions. Prospective students should be prepared to write often and workshop their pieces on a regular basis.

Fall 2013

Professor: Robert McDonald

(4.64)

The best aspects of this course included the very detailed, very helpful feedback the professor provided. Students felt that this feedback helped them improve their writing immensely. Suggestions for improvement include making the class discussions and workshops more lively, as some students felt that very few people actually participated. Other students wanted more emphasis on teaching writing techniques, which they thought also would have helped them improve. Prospective students do not need a background in creative writing to succeed in this course, but they do need to be wil ing to give critiques and present their own works.

Fall 2013

Professor: Joselyn Takacs

(4.42)

The best aspects of this course included the clearly defined expectations for each piece, which helps students understand how the grading system worked. Many students found the professor very friendly and approachable, and spoke with her outside of class to get further insight or assistance on a piece. Suggestions for improvement included having a more interactive classroom experience through livelier discussions and writing exercises, as students found that conversation could sometimes dry up. Prospective students do not need a background in creative writing, but should be prepared to write and read each week.

Fall 2013

Professor: Kjerstin Kauffman

(4.71)

The best aspects of this class included the small class size, which allowed students to give and receive more individualized feedback on their works during workshops and discussions. Many students liked how much they had to write, and liked the different writing assignments. Suggestions for improvement included providing a rubric to cut down on the subjectivity of grading, and breaking the class into smal er groups to ensure that everyone’s work got critiqued during workshops. Prospective students should be serious about their creative writing, and prepared to write often.

Fall 2013

Professor: Emily Parker

(4.55)

The best aspects of this course included having the chance to write creatively each week. Students liked the opportunity to work on improving their writing skil s each week. However, many students felt that the course lacked substance, and that the feedback they received was not as useful as it could have been. Suggestions for improvement include providing more constructive criticism, and creating an advanced or more intensive section of the course for majors looking for a more aggressive way to improve their writing. Prospective students do not need any experience for this class, but should be prepared to present and revise their works.

Fall 2014

Professor: Kjerstin Kauffman

(4.23)

Students enjoyed the opportunity to workshop and receive critiques on their writing assignments in this course. Some students felt that the weakest part of this course was the poetry portion which they thought could have been taught more effectively. They also thought the reading selections could have included more contemporary examples. Students felt that the course could have been best improved if there was a better sense of the criterion for how their work would be graded. Students felt that 307prospective participants should know that while the course requires a demanding amount of reading, it provides a useful introduction to creative writing.

Fall 2014

Professor:

(4.62)

In this class, students appreciated receiving useful feedback from both their instructor and classmates. A number of students expressed that the poetry portion of the class was its weakest aspect, and that they would have liked to have received greater and broader instruction in this area. Students thought the class felt rushed and could be improved with better pacing or more time for both critiques and discussion of readings. Students wanted prospective participants to know that the class does not require extensive writing experience or knowledge of literature.

Fall 2014

Professor: Robert Mitchel

(4.79)

Students enjoyed the way the instructor for this class created an engaging environment and was very approachable. Students felt that the poetry portion of the class could have used greater attention from the instructor. In addition, some students thought that class discussion meandered at times. Students also felt that they would have liked to receive feedback from their work in a more timely fashion. Students taking this course wanted prospective participants to know that this course was taught by an effective teacher and that it offered a good opportunity to improve their writing.

Fall 2014

Professor: Lauren Winchester

(4.85)

306Students appreciated the instructor’s thoughtful writing assignments and ability to lead engaging discussion. Some students felt chal enged by the emphasis on the need to participate in class discussion. Some students also felt that the class could be improved by spending less time in class critiquing other students’ work. Participants thought that students thinking about taking this class that while it required a significant amount of work, it was useful in improving their writing.

Fall 2014

Professor: Nathan McNamara

(4.38)

Students appreciated the opportunity to receive useful feedback and improve their writing in this class taught by an approachable instructor. Students also felt that discussions and workshop processes were not always effective. Students thought that the class could be improved with a better sense of expectations for writing assignments. Students want potential participants to know that the course requires participation in discussion. They also felt that the class offered a good opportunity to improve as a creative writer.

Fall 2014

Professor: Cody Ernst

(4.77)

Students enjoyed the way the instructor provided a relaxed and engaging environment for this course. Students also felt that the instructor was especial y effective in helping students with less writing experience improve their skill and creativity. Students thought the main weak point of the course was the way reading assignments didn’t align with class activities. Students thought the course could be improved by giving the instructor more freedom to adjust the syllabus to their own teaching. Members of this class want future participants to know they should be prepared to submit weekly writing assignments.

Fall 2014

Professor: John Grasser

(4.43)

Students appreciated the way they were given flexibility in approaching their writing assignments for this class. They also felt the instructor for the class was enthusiastic and challenging. Students felt that the assigned readings could have been better matched to the writing assignments. The students also thought that the instructor could have provided more guidance on writing technique. Students thought that prospective participants should know that the course was chal enging but rewarding if they are interested in improving their writing.

Fall 2014

Professor: Joseph Frantz

(4.69)

Students enjoyed the way the instructor for this course created a lively and supportive environment, and his use of engaging in-class activities. Students commented that they would have liked to have received grades for assignments sooner. They also thought that the course could be improved with greater feedback on their writing and more discussion of reading assignments. The participants wanted future potential attendees to know that you do not need to be an experienced writer to benefit from this course.

Fall 2014

Professor: Yi Xie

(4.27)

Students enjoyed the way the instructor supported discussion and provided effective opportunities to explore writing creatively in this course. Some students did not like the workshop process of the course and felt they could have gotten more useful feedback from fellow students. Some students also felt that it was difficult to understand what the expectations were for completing an assignment successful y, and thought the class could be improved with better information about the criterion the instructor used for grading students’ writing. Students thought others considering taking this course should know that this course can be demanding but it will be useful to improving one’s writing.

Fall 2014

Professor: Julia Heney

(4.0)

Students in this course appreciated the variety of reading material and the opportunity to receive constructive feedback on their writing from their classmates. Students felt the least favorable aspect of the class was the demanding workload. Students thought the class could be improved with greater depth in the teaching of the poetry portion of the class. Students also thought it was important for potential participants in this class to know that the class offered a good opportunity to improve one ‘s writing and that class participation was an important element to succeeding in the class.

Fall 2014

Professor: Songmuang Greer

(4.63)

Students in this course appreciated the enthusiasm of the instructor and the way they created a comfortable atmosphere for discussion. They felt they could have received more timely and detailed feedback on writing assignments. Students also felt they could have been given more detailed instruction in technique, especially in the realm of poetry. Students wanted potential participants to know that this course is best suited for people who want an opportunity to write creatively.

Fall 2014

Professor: Daniel Stintzi

(4.23)

Students enjoyed the opportunity to explore creative writing through flexible writing assignments and the opportunity to receive feedback from their peers in this course lead by an engaging instructor. Students felt the weakest aspect of the course was the difficulty perceiving the criterion being used by the instructor to grade their assignments. They felt that the course could be improved with greater and more detailed instruction on writing techniques. Students wanted potential participants to know that this was an enjoyable course requiring participation in discussion.

Fall 2014

Professor: Matthew Morton

(4.75)

Students praised the enthusiasm that the instructor brought to this course. They felt he was approachable and demonstrated his knowledge of the subject matter. Students thought that the most disappointing aspect of the course was the reading material which they thought could have been more varied. Students thought the class could be most improved with greater diversity in the subject matter of classes and readings. Students thought it was important for future participants to know that participation in discussion and openness to the critique process are important components of the course.

Fall 2014

Professor: Mol y Lynch

(4.8)

Students liked the way the friendly instructor for this course provided detailed and thoughtful feedback on their writing. Students felt that the greatest negative for the course was the large writing and reading workload of the class. Some students thought the workshop process in the course could use improvement. Students wanted prospective participants to know that this course offered a great opportunity for people with little experience to explore creative writing.

Fall 2014

Professor: Taylor Daynes

(4.67)

Students enjoyed the way the instructor brought a fun and relaxed atmosphere to this class. However students also felt that discussions didn’t always flow smoothly. Students thought the course could be improved by having more opportunities to write and time dedicated to having their writing workshopped with other students. Students thought it was valuable for potential participants to know that the class was not very difficult, particularly for those who enjoy writing.

Fall 2014

Professor: Taylor Koekkoek

(4.87)

Students enjoyed the way the teacher for this course created a helpful and productive atmosphere. Some students felt that too much time was spent on the poetry portion of the class. They also felt that the course could be improved by requiring them to print fewer copies of their work for the workshop portions of the class. Students thought it was important for prospective participants to know that they found this course helpful in improving their writing. 305

Fall 2014

Professor: Michael Booe

(4.45)

Students appreciated that the instructor for this course effectively guided discussion and gave useful feedback. However, students felt that they could have been given more useful and inspiring prompts for their writing assignments. Some students commented that the course could be improved with clearer grading guidelines. Students thought it was important for potential participants in this course to know that they wil need to produce written pieces of fiction or poetry each week, and that the course does emphasize teaching about writing technique.

Fall 2022

Professor: Ralph Hubbell

(4.12)

Fall 2022

Professor: Josiah Cox

(4.27)

Fall 2022

Professor: Hye ji Choi

(4.34)

Fall 2022

Professor: Samantha Neugebauer

(4.38)

Fall 2022

Professor: Dylan Carpenter

(4.17)

Spring 2013

Professor: Julia Heney

(4.38)

The best aspects of this course included the thought-provoking in-class discussions, the thorough feedback from the instructor, and the assignments that were both interesting and challenging. Students said that the course involved a lot of assignments. Also, student expectations were not always clear. Suggestions included posting assignments on Blackboard sooner than they were and incorporating more draft milestones throughout the process of writing a piece. Prospective students should know the course is a great opportunity to express their creative sides, but that it’s also very writing-intensive.

Spring 2013

Professor: John Grasser

(4.07)

The best aspects of this course included the smal , discussion-based class size, and that it allowed for those who may not be the best at fiction and poetry to try it without worrying too much about a drop in GPA – the work is graded on effort. Some students felt that feedback wasn’t returned in a timely manner and that the grading was often subjective. One suggestion was to provide earlier notices about particular assignments. Another suggestion was to base the final grade on improvement rather than

Spring 2013

Professor: Nathan McNamara

(4.29)

The best aspects of this course included the invaluable input from the instructors and fel ow students, the workshops that provided students with the opportunity to review one another’s work, and the required reading material. One student felt that, at times, the readings were not relevant. A few students felt the grading was based on the overall quality of one’s ability and not on one’s improvement. Suggestions included providing students with grade updates throughout the semester and with support on writing assignments as much as possible. Prospective students should be sure to keep up with the weekly assignments and al ow themselves ample time to complete a piece.

Spring 2013

Professor: Matthew Morton

(4.86)

The best aspects of this course included the attentive critiques from peers, the topics for writing assignments, and the class discussions that were both helpful and interesting. One student felt that some of the questions the instructor asked inhibited conversation. Another student felt the instructor’s grading criteria was harsher than others. Suggestions included improving the facilitation of group discussions and incorporating more workshop opportunities. Prospective students should know that this 271 course is writing-intensive and they are encouraged to take advantage of the instructor’s office hours for help.

Spring 2013

Professor: Richard Hofmann

(4.75)

The best aspects of the course included the opportunity to read and evaluate peers’ work, the chance to write creatively as opposed to writing for clinical and/or research purposes, and the workshops that gave students who are not writing majors the experience of what it’s like to pursue a creative degree. 270 Also, students appreciated the instructor’s enthusiasm and unique sense of humor. Some students felt feedback on their work wasn’t returned in a timely manner and that the attendance policy was “scary.” Suggestions included making the workshop groups smaller and providing more specific writing prompts. Prospective students should know that participation in this class is crucial.

Spring 2013

Professor: Elizabeth Thompson

(4.53)

The best aspects of this course included the short stories and poems that were read/discussed, the opportunity to write “non-academically”, and the instructor’s ability to carefully guide and facilitate class discussions. One student felt the attendance policy was too stringent. Another student felt the weekly assignments were too time-consuming. Suggestions included allowing more leeway with some of the prompts and lightening the workload. Prospective students should know this is a workshop-intensive course with a strict attendance policy.

Spring 2013

Professor: Daniel Stintzi

(4.45)

The best aspects of this course included the relaxed atmosphere, the discussion-based format, and the instructor’s feedback. One student felt that the grades were given arbitrarily. Another student felt that the class progressed at too rapid a pace. Suggestions included providing more opportunities for students to improve their work and implementing a means of making sure everyone participates in workshop. Prospective students should know this is a reading, writing and workshop-intensive course.

Spring 2013

Professor: Rahul Kanakia

(4.17)

The best aspects of this course included the smal , discussion-based class size, and that it allowed for those who may not be the best at fiction and poetry to try it without worrying too much about a drop in GPA – the work is graded on effort. Some students felt that feedback wasn’t returned in a timely manner and that the grading was often subjective. One suggestion was to provide earlier notices about particular assignments. Another suggestion was to base the final grade on improvement rather than

Spring 2013

Professor: Jocelyn Slovak

(4.67)

The best aspect of this course included the peer feedback, the opportunity to write creatively, and the unrestrictive prompts that allowed for easy transition from one writing style to another. One student 274 felt there was not enough time granted between assignments. Another student felt that the grading was subjective. Suggestions included more emphasis on learning literary devices and more feedback during workshops from the instructor. Prospective students should know that this course is writing and workshop-intensive.

Spring 2013

Professor: Alexander Creighton

(4.63)

The best aspects of this course included the instructor’s wil ingness to directly work one-on-one with a student, the smal class size, and the instructor’s thorough, constructive commentary on graded work. Some students felt the amount of required readings was excessive. One student felt that the assignments, particularly in the poetry unit, were too restrictive. Suggestions included providing students with workshop guidelines at the beginning of the semester and timing the critique sessions so that everyone gets a chance for feedback. Prospective students should know this is a writing and workshop-intensive course.

Spring 2013

Professor: WRITING SEMINARS DEPARTMENT

(4.38)

The best aspects of this course included the instrumental feedback provided by both the instructor and the workshops; also, the interesting writing prompts were much appreciated. Some students felt that the grades were, at times, subjective. One student felt that because his/her views were not compatible with the instructor’s, his/her grade consequently suffered. Suggestions included providing a clear and comprehensible grading rubric and focusing more on the reading. Prospective students are encouraged to experiment outside their comfort-zone while understanding that this course is writing and workshop-intensive.

Spring 2013

Professor: Songmuang Greer

(4.47)

The best aspects of this course included the peer interaction during workshops, the intriguing writing assignments, and the stimulating class discussions. Some students felt that feedback was not returned to students in a timely manner. One suggestion was to provide more opportunities to discuss the reading materials. Another suggestion was to devote more time to workshops. Prospective students should know that this is a writing-intensive course and the weekly assignments can be time-consuming, so be prepared.

Spring 2013

Professor: Joselyn Takacs

(4.31)

The best aspects of this course included the instructor’s detailed, invaluable feedback, the constructive workshops, and the comprehensive introduction in creative writing it provided. Some students felt that there was not enough instruction before assignments. Some students also felt that the required reading was excessive. Suggestions included supplying the students with more general resources on Blackboard and giving assignments back before the next one is due. Prospective students should know that their grades will suffer if they procrastinate on the writing in this class; it’s also reading and workshop-intensive.

Spring 2013

Professor: Katherine Robinson

(4.36)

The best aspects of this course included the students’ freedom to freely express themselves via writing; also, the course explored different works and styles that altogether provided pupils with a comprehensive introduction to creative writing. One student felt that the instructor was not encouraging with her in-class commentary. Another student felt the attendance policy was too stringent. Suggestions included having the stories due every other week as opposed to every week and to implement a more objective grading system. Prospective students should know that this is a writing-intensive course and that attendance is critical.

Spring 2013

Professor: Emily Parker

(4.56)

The best aspects of this course included the beneficial workshops, the fun prompts students were given, and the multiple opportunities to receive feedback. Also, students appreciated the instructor’s enthusiasm for the material as well as her encouragement. Some students felt the required reading was tedious and not engaging. Suggestions included incorporating more contemporary work and omitting the quizzes. Prospective students should know that this is a reading, writing, and workshop-intensive class.

Spring 2013

Professor: Nathaniel Washatka

(4.4)

The best aspects of this course included the feedback provided that helped students improve their skil s, the class discussions, and the grading system using checks, check pluses, and check minuses. Some students felt that the assignments were, at times, repetitive and that the prompts were difficult to relate to. One suggestion was to provide students with examples of stories and poems written by previous students. Another suggestion was to offer separate sections to students – either just poetry of fiction. Prospective students should make a legitimate effort on the papers and participate in class.

Spring 2014

Professor: Amy Arthur

(4.27)

The instructor of this course offered a dynamic and positive class environment. She made it fun and easy to participate, and the course taught students how to approach writing in a way that readers understand. Many students agreed that analyzing other authors helped them with their own writing. But, the amount of dependability placed on the peers of students lessened the quality of this course, especially when their peers could not decipher good writing. In addition, it was said that the instructors grading process was very subjective. To improve this course, it was suggested that the class size always be small. Prospective students should make a solid effort on their assignments, and they should receive an A.

Spring 2014

Professor: Kjerstin Kauffman

(4.0)

The flexibility of this course encouraged students to get their creative juices flowing. They didn’t feel constricted to guidelines although they were in place for structure. Instead, they felt free to explore ideas. Also, the writing workshops showed students their strengths and weaknesses so that they could put in the effort to improve upon what was needed. However, many students said that their peers didn’t take workshop seriously, and this made it hard to get feedback from them. In addition, it was said that following along with grades was impossible during this course, so students didn’t know how they were doing. Suggestions for improvement include: less emphasis on peer workshops, more course guidelines, and more assignment options. Prospective students should enjoy open class discussions.

Spring 2014

Professor: Michael Booe

(4.4)

Prospective students who are passionate about practicing their creativity in the writing realm should enroll in this course. Poems and stories read in class were written by previous students, and the professor al owed freedom within boundaries. The professor continued to encourage his students to strive for improvement. The worst aspects of this course seemed to be the conflict of reading and writing assignments due dates and the time spent on critiquing other people’s work. Students suggested that they receive more feedback from him and less from their peers.

Spring 2014

Professor: Lauren Winchester

(4.67)

The inspiring and knowledgeable instructor of this course taught with ease and flexibility because she was able to relate to her students. The workshops were seen as helpful, and many students saw an improvement in their writing. In addition, the stories read by students were enjoyed, and the course was easy to those who completed it. However, readings were dense at times and the grading policy was confusing. Students suggested that feedback from peers be anonymous and that there be more review sessions and available office hours. Prospective students shouldn’t be nervous about writing, but instead embrace their creativity.

Spring 2014

Professor: Daniel Stintzi

(4.4)

Many students who did not have much writing experience found this course to be rewarding because they were exposed to literature and poetry that they may have otherwise overlooked or been uninterested in. The instructor was laid back, but also helpful to his students. The difficultly of receiving an A on assignments baffled students and the poetry section lost their attention. Suggestions for improvement include: less male dominated fiction and more discussion. Prospective students should be prepared to do one essay/poem a week.

Spring 2014

Professor: Robert Mitchel Jr.

(4.79)

This course introduced non-writing majors to writing in a fun way. The instructor eased the pressure students thought they would feel during this course, and he made them actual y enjoy it more than a required course generally is by presenting material in an engaging way. But students felt like the amount of writing required during workshops was way too much, and felt like they didn’t have enough time to come up with ideas. Suggestions for improvement include: a more structured grading system and more time allotted to brainstorming. Prospective students should know that this instructor was highly recommended.

Spring 2014

Professor: Robert McDonald

(4.46)

According to students, creativity was at the center of this course. The instructor chal enged his students with interesting prompts that urged them to write well. The small class environment made class discussions easier to achieve and the feedback given by the instructor was greatly appreciated. Many students agreed that the poetry portion was boring, and that the instructor could be subjective. It was suggested that workshops be eliminated, more varied course structure created, and that different forms of participation be included. Prospective students were encouraged by previous students to take this course for their writing requirement.

Spring 2014

Professor: Taylor Koekkoek

(4.43)

The best aspect of this course was the instructor’s helpfulness to his students. He gave clear advice and insightful responses on papers and the class atmosphere made students feel free and not confined within many guidelines. In addition, the work load was fairly light and students were able to brush up on many writing techniques. However, the instructor’s harsh grading seemed unreasonable to students. Also there was no diversity among authors of the readings that the course required. It was suggested that there be a uniformed grading system and exposure to more modern reading pieces. Prospective students should not expect an easy A, although the course is not difficult.

Spring 2014

Professor: Amanda Gunn

(4.62)

Students enrol ed in this course were constantly involved in conversation during the semester. A good balance between reading the works of authors and writing individual pieces was set by the instructor. In addition, workshop meetings al owed students to receive constructive feedback. However, the strict attendance policy left many students shaking their head and feeling it was unreasonable, especially for commuters. It was suggested that a little more time be spent on lecture so that terms are ful y understood. Prospective students do not need a writing background, and the first half of the course focuses on short stories, while the other focuses on poetry.

Spring 2014

Professor: Cody Ernst

(4.6)

Prospective students seeking a course that will be filled with fun ways of learning fiction and poetry writing should enroll in this course. The small group setting makes the environment a comfortable community for students and their peers. The instructor did a great job of making instructions clear and was successful with helping his students see a distinct difference in their writing. Many students found poetry complicated and a daunting task to analyze and the lack of preparation of peers frustrated them. Suggestions for improvement include: an expansion of literary devices taught and more writing assignments and workshops.

Spring 2014

Professor: Ruhal Kanakia

(4.67)

Many of the instructors who taught this course were tough graders, but this instructor was not. He was fair and students appreciated his feedback. Also many students thought the writing assignments helped them practice their writing and discussions taught them how to improve. However, the peer critiques done during workshops left some students feeling discouraged about their writing, and they disagreed with their feedback. To improve this course, it was suggested that poems of greater relevance be reviewed and that students be able to write in a variety of styles. This class would be perfect for prospective students who want to embark on a fun journey.

Spring 2014

Professor: Julia Heney

(4.27)

Students who were enrol ed in this course found the writing assignments very helpful, and they could see a significant change in their skills. They also enjoyed the luxury of one-on-one meetings with their instructor, where they received feedback. In addition, many students liked the poems and short stories they read during the course. But, many students realized that poetry writing was not for them, and some students said that the instructor was passive aggressive and pessimistic. It was suggested that the course involve more leniency from the instructor and less poetry. Prospective students should know that the grading is somewhat harsh, but the course also wil help them develop their skills through practice and workshop.

Spring 2014

Professor: Emily Parker

(4.49)

According to students, the instructor of this course was terrific. She always found something valuable in each piece and gave constructive criticism that put students at ease. In addition, she encouraged freedom ful y by giving vague prompts, so that students could write without borders. Some students complained about attendance being mandatory, and that the course moves so quickly that there is no time for reflecting on work. It was suggested that there be a laid out guide of expectations as far as assignments go to improve the quality of this course. Prospective students should accept that they have to attend every class period.

Spring 2014

Professor: Yi Xie

(4.22)

This course provided tons of resources for its students for the improvement of their writing. The instructor made sure that she made herself available for students that needed guidance, and the interactive environment allowed students to build great relationships with their classmates. Grading was seen as subjective and many students felt like the instructor was too lenient. Students suggested that there be more workshops to improve the quality of this course. Prospective students should manage their course work appropriately so that it doesn’t build up.

Spring 2014

Professor: Taylor Daynes

(4.54)

Many students agreed that the instructor for this course was more than willing to assist her students and showed her support by giving feedback that led to better writing. The writing prompts were also enjoyed by students. However, students thought that at times the instructor did not state clear expectations and that the workshops were too time consuming. A suggestion made by the students was that there be fewer workshops in the future. Prospective students will have a fairly light work load.

Spring 2015

Professor: Michael Booe

(4.25)

Students enjoyed the fun assignments and relaxed, open class environment. Feedback from students and the instructor was helpful. Class discussion lagged at times and students felt that the instructor did not always engage the class in discussion wel . Some students found feedback and grading to be subjective. Suggestions for improvement included having a clear rubric outlining expectations for assignments and fostering better class interaction and discussion. Prospective students are encouraged to take this course in order to improve creative writing skil s and better understand the creative process

Spring 2015

Professor: Benjamin Goldberg

(4.5)

Students enjoyed the engaging, invested instructor and found the feedback from the instructor and other students helpful. The consistent workload was overwhelming for some students. Many students felt class was disorganized and grades were not delivered in a timely manner. Suggested improvements included having clearly defined expectations and due dates spread evenly throughout the semester. Students also requested having more modern works added to the course and more time dedicated to analyzing assigned readings. Prospective students are encouraged to start assignments early and become familiar with the instructor’s style of writing.

Spring 2015

Professor: Carmen Dol ing

(4.33)

The best aspects of this course were the instructor’s thoughtful feedback on student assignments and engaging, open class environment. Students felt there was not enough time to analyze the many works assigned for the course and grading was subjective and sometimes contradictory. Suggestions for improvement included reducing the number of assignments in order to spend more time on assigned works. Students preferred to have more opportunities to revise works before the final project. Prospective students are encouraged to start assignments early and become familiar with the instructor’s style of writing.

Spring 2015

Professor: Callie Siskel

(4.4)

Students enjoyed the inspiring and engaging instructor. Feedback on assignments was helpful and students felt that their creative writing skills improved. Some students felt that the grading for the course was subjective at times and not delivered in a timely manner. Suggestions for improvement included instituting a clearer grading policy, adding a wider variety of fiction and poetry, and providing faster feedback to students on completed work. Prospective students interested in fiction and poetry are encouraged to take this course. Prospective students should prepare for a consistent amount of writing each week and to have their work evaluated by other students.

Spring 2015

Professor: Christopher Childers

(3.69)

Students enjoyed the engaging, passionate instructor and the opportunity to practice creative writing skills on assignments. Many students found the works assigned limiting and the instructor’s grading subjective and strict. Class lectures often did not stay on topic and students felt that the writing rules set by the instructor constrained their creativity. Suggestions for improvement included encouraging more class discussion, introducing more modern works into the reading list, and incorporating a more definitive and clear grading system. Potential students who are passionate about old literature and more formal writing styles would benefit from this course.

Spring 2015

Professor: Taylor Koekkoek

(4.86)

The best aspects of the course were the encouraging and open instructor, enjoyable class assignments, and interesting readings. Students agreed that the weekly workshop sessions helped them to identify strengths and weaknesses in their writing and ultimately to improve. Some students found assignments to be time consuming and difficult to write. Suggestions for improvement included decreasing the number of assignments, communicating grades to students in a timely manner, and including literary works from authors of different cultures and genders. Prospective students wil enjoy this course as the workload is manageable and the instructor is supportive.

Spring 2015

Professor: Jessica Hudgins

(3.67)

Students enjoyed the interesting works given for reading assignments and the opportunity to improve their own creative writing skills. Many students felt that the grading was subjective and unclear. The amount of work assigned for each class was a lot to keep up with especially with having class three times per week. Suggestions for improvement included increasing opportunities for students to have detailed feedback from the instructor and creating a clear grading rubric for all assignments. Potential students should be passionate about creative writing and be prepared for numerous and at times repetitive assignments.

Spring 2015

Professor: Madeline Raskulinecz

(3.93)

Students found the workload to be manageable and enjoyed the opportunity to freely express their creativity through writing assignments. Feedback from classmates and the instructor was helpful. Many students found that the short stories assignment was time consuming, and that discussion lagged and became awkward at times. Suggestions for improvement included encouraging more structured class discussion. Students also suggested increasing opportunities for detailed feedback from the instructor and encouraging honest feedback from students. Potential students should be prepared to participate in class discussion and be passionate about creative writing.

Spring 2015

Professor: Lauren Winchester

(4.69)

The best aspect of the course was the accessible and engaging instructor who gave students helpful individual feedback and facilitated lively, interesting class discussion. Students reported feeling comfortable presenting their thoughts both in class and through writing because of the inviting atmosphere that the professor fostered. Some students found some of the assignments to be tedious and the poetry unit to be difficult. Suggestions for improvement included spending more time on the poetry unit. Prospective students will find the assignments to be manageable and the stories interesting. No background in poetry or fiction is necessary.

Spring 2015

Professor: Yi Xie

(4.6)

Students enjoyed the freedom to write their own creative pieces and read a variety of interesting stories and poems. The instructor was encouraging and gave helpful feedback on assignments. Students found peer review to be tedious and repetitive. Some students felt that grading was subjective and arbitrary. Suggestions for improvement included spending more time on writing techniques, assigning more relevant readings that better coincide with course work, and decreasing the amount of peer review letters. Prospective students should be prepared to work hard and participate in class activities.

Spring 2015

Professor: Taylor Daynes

(4.47)

The best aspects of this course were the instructor’s commitment to helping students improve their writing and the interesting and engaging class discussion. Many students found the assignments to be time consuming and feedback from classmates to be overly opinionated. Grading was felt to be harsh by some students. Suggestions for improvement included having a clearer and more detailed syllabus, fewer reading assignments, and a more lenient grading system. Prospective students interested in improving writing skills are encouraged to take this course and come to class prepared to participate in class discussion.

Spring 2015

Professor: Joseph Frantz

(4.79)

Students enjoyed the engaging instructor who made class interactive and fostered a relaxed and collaborative learning environment. Students felt that the assignments were lengthy and would have preferred a lighter workload with shorter assignments. Feedback from the professor was not always returned to students in a timely manner. Suggestions for improvement included decreasing the workload and having a well-defined rubric for grading. Prospective students should be prepared for a significant amount of writing. This course is highly recommended as students found the grading to be fair and their writing skills improved.

Spring 2015

Professor: Cody Ernst

(4.71)

Students enjoyed time with the engaging instructor who made classes interesting and entertaining. At times students found the workshops to be boring and discussions stagnant. Some students found the feedback from the professor to be subjective and vague. Suggestions for improvement included increasing writing assignments focused on strengthening specific skills and increasing opportunities for instructor feedback during workshop. Prospective students wil have the opportunity to improve their writing skills within the course and should become comfortable with sharing their work with others.

Spring 2015

Professor: Fiction Poetry Writing I

(3.93)

The best aspects of the course were the interesting literary works assigned and the knowledgeable instructor. Students felt the workload was overwhelming and tedious at times and the grading was subjective. Suggestions for improvement included lessening the amount of reading assignments in order to have more in-depth conversations on a few works. Students also suggested having greater diversity in the assigned literature and more in class poetry assignments for practice. Prospective students should be aware that no prior knowledge is necessary and class participation is an important factor to do well in the course. Assignments should be started as early as possible.

Spring 2015

Professor: Mol y Lynch

(4.33)

Students enjoyed the interactive atmosphere of the class fostered by the engaging instructor. Some students found the amount of writing assignments to be overwhelming and some course topics to be less interesting than others. Suggestions for improvement included adding more interesting readings and having more opportunities to meet with the instructor during office hours to discuss writing assignments and grades. Prospective students will enjoy this course as the workload is manageable and the instructor is supportive. Prospective students are also encouraged to put in the work necessary to benefit from the course and improve writing skills.

Spring 2015

Professor: Byron Landry

(4.5)

Students enjoyed the creative writing assignments and engaging, dynamic instructor. Many students appreciated the freedom that they were given to write on topics of choice within guidelines provided by the professor. Students felt that grades were assigned arbitrarily and that some assignments were overly time consuming. Suggestions for improvement included providing students with a clear grading rubric detailing assignment expectations, and organizing workshops and class discussions better. Prospective students should keep up with al assignments and come to class prepared for discussion. This instructor was highly recommended.

Spring 2015

Professor: Benjamin Eisman

(3.86)

The best aspects of the class included the detailed feedback from the flexible and accessible instructor. Students enjoyed the creativity that the course demanded, as well the interactive smal classroom environment. Students felt the grading was harsh and feedback on graded assignments was not given in a timely manner. Suggestions for improvement included increasing opportunities for personal feedback with the professor and having assignments graded in a timelier manner. Prospective students should keep up with all assignments and come to class prepared for discussion.

Spring 2023

Professor: Nicole Tsuno

(4.16)

Spring 2023

Professor: Dom Guida

(3.91)

Spring 2023

Professor: Landen Raszick

(4.06)

Spring 2023

Professor: Samantha Neugebauer

(4.21)

Spring 2023

Professor: Jameson Owens

(4.25)

Spring 2023

Professor: Dagan Brown

(4.0)

Spring 2023

Professor: Megan Robinson

(4.12)

Spring 2023

Professor: Brett Kessler

(3.4)

Spring 2023

Professor: Gabriella Fee

(4.37)

Spring 2023

Professor: Sam Niven

(3.71)

Spring 2023

Professor: Olakunle Ologunro

(3.94)

Spring 2023

Professor: Cora Clark

(4.46)

Spring 2023

Professor: Gabriel Schicchi

(3.84)

Spring 2023

Professor: Carlee Jensen

(4.13)

Summer 2023

Professor: Samantha Neugebauer

(4.25)

Lecture Sections

(01)

No location info
I. Piña
08:00 - 08:50

(02)

No location info
K. Scott
09:00 - 09:50

(03)

No location info
Staff
09:00 - 09:50

(04)

No location info
K. Scott
10:00 - 10:50

(05)

No location info
G. Garced-Rosa
10:00 - 10:50

(06)

No location info
A. Lucero
10:00 - 10:50

(07)

No location info
K. Scott
11:00 - 11:50

(08)

No location info
G. Garced-Rosa
11:00 - 11:50

(09)

No location info
A. Lucero
11:00 - 11:50

(10)

No location info
Staff
11:00 - 11:50

(11)

No location info
N. Tsuno
12:00 - 12:50

(13)

No location info
A. Lucero
12:00 - 12:50

(14)

No location info
Staff
08:00 - 09:15

(15)

No location info
S. Witherspoon
08:00 - 09:15

(16)

No location info
A. Pham
09:00 - 10:15

(17)

No location info
I. Suazo
09:00 - 10:15

(18)

No location info
J. Kim
09:00 - 10:15

(12)

No location info
G. Garced-Rosa
12:00 - 12:50

(19)

No location info
A. Pham
10:30 - 11:45

(20)

No location info
P. Passantino
10:30 - 11:45

(21)

No location info
J. Kim
10:30 - 11:45

(22)

No location info
Staff
10:30 - 11:45

(23)

No location info
A. Pham
12:00 - 13:15

(24)

No location info
Y. Guru
12:00 - 13:15

(25)

No location info
J. Kim
12:00 - 13:15

(26)

No location info
Staff
12:00 - 13:15

(27)

No location info
D. Danklin
18:00 - 20:30

(28)

No location info
N. Tsuno
18:00 - 20:30

(29)

No location info
Staff
18:00 - 20:30

(30)

No location info
D. Danklin
18:00 - 20:30

(31)

No location info
Staff
18:00 - 20:30