Following is the most current teaching evaluation on 11/2/22:
Due to COVID-19, a teaching evaluation update is coming Fall 2022
Below is my latest teaching evaluation that I received from Dr. Norbert Elliot. The evaluation notes two specific evaluative measures: 1) my teaching methods and evaluation, and 2) an evaluation of my work in ENC 6745: FYC Practicum. To verify this recommendation, feel free to email Dr. Elliot at elliot3@usf.edu
Date: December 4, 2019
Justiss Wilder Burry
PhD in English, Rhetoric and Composition (Expected 2023)
Department of English
University of South Florida
Website: https://justissburry.com/
Dear Justiss,
I am writing to provide you with an evaluation of the ENC 1101 class I visited on November 14 (Section 93, meeting from 11:00 pm to 12:15 pm, in SOC 286). I also want to situate my visit in relationship to the classroom visit by your mentor, Michelle Sonnenberg, on October 24. Additionally, I want to contextualize your teaching in terms of your work in Practicum (ENC 6745) this semester. I will conclude with suggestions for future research-based instruction that may be useful to you.
Informing this review is that fact that you are a talented teacher and committed early career scholar in writing studies dedicated to informing your pedagogical practice by research.
Classroom Visit
When I arrived, your students were ready to work. You had prepared a Google Slides presentation that you would use to structure the class. You rapidly reviewed Project 2 (Discourse Community Expository Overview) that had just been completed. You also reviewed Tasks 22.2 and 22.4 that had just been completed as part of Project 3 (Textual Evaluation of Individual Discourse Practices). You also posted a student learning outcome for the day that had been tailored from the syllabus to fit the lesson at hand: to continue to understand the complex relationship between discourse and audience; and to continue exploration of code switching and code meshing. This kind of tailoring is important to student success, and it is indicative of your commitment to student success.
In Part 1 of the class, you began with a discussion of a rhetorical moment involving school bullying—a topic quite relevant to students who have just graduated from high school. After showing a brief video on the topic, you asked students to discuss relationships between language and power, the impact of language, the nature of rhetorical messaging on Twitter, ethical elements of individual response, and ethical elements of group responsibility. Both the video and the discussion resonated with students, and they were then clearly ready for the more extended discussion to follow.
In Part 2 of the class, you structured a group activity based on a reading from Janet Boyd’s “Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking)” from Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing (vol. 2, 2011). The reading describes a group exercise of ratiocination in a contextualized situation involving a fictitious murder. Boyd stresses the setting as rhetorically constructed and, at least potentially, rhetorically solved. To enact the exercise, you divided students into groups (the investigators, the suspects, the victim’s family members, and the witnesses) and invited them to solve the mystery. Students enjoyed the task, but it was your leadership in the discussion that followed that was most interesting. You reminded students that rhetoric was a system in action that had real value in their lives. You additionally recalled for them of the element of silential relations from John M. Swales (“The Concept of Discourse Community,” Composition Forum, vol. 37, 2017)—a complex academic paper that they had just completed as part of Project 2. And you also recollected for them the force of metacognition. It strikes me that this well-planned group activity was the ideal transition from Project 2 to Project 3 in fostering rhetorical contextualization and mindfulness—core concepts for Project 3.
In Part 3 of the class, you moved the concepts in Part 2 forward by remining students of the three sites for analysis in Project 3. This overview concretized for the class, just as you have planned, that the activities of ENC 1101 were deeply connected in terms of their success.
In Part 4 of the class, you concluded the lesson with additional work on code switching and code meshing. Once again effectively using video, you showed clips from the film White Chicks (dir. Keenen Wayans 2004) to demonstrate connotations and conventions within rhetorical spaces. In introducing the film, you referenced Task 24.1 (Making Moves) so that students engaged in purposeful viewing and listening. Following the clips, you led a discussion of audience, language use, semantics, semiotics, and behavioral disposition.
In Part 5 of the class, you returned to Task 24.1 (Making Moves) and briefly reviewed the questions to be answered in the required Canvas discussion. You again reviewed key terms and concepts from the lesson so that students would be prepared to complete this task—one important move for the successful completion of Project 3.
Using the rubric you prepared for my visit, I find that your performance was excellent in these areas: care for student success; well-structured, student-oriented teaching practices; different collaborative methods incorporated to address varied learning styles; and proactive formative assessment. It is clear that you care deeply about each student, and each student responded to you as part of a learning community.
Formative Visit by Mentor
Throughout this semester, you have been fortunate to have been mentored by Michelle Sonnenberg. In her visit to your class on October 24, she wrote the following: “Wow. Justiss creates a wonderful, engaging classroom environment. He is a seasoned instructor who prioritizes student engagement and seeks out ways to build relationships in the classroom.” She praised your effective use of Google Slides to structure your class and your effective use of video. As she concluded, “I cannot say enough about his competence in the classroom and the passion he expresses. His students will line up to retake his class and will crave growing, learning, and achievement. There was no category in which Justiss scored any lower than excellent. He is a natural role model.”
I agree with each observation and conclusion by Ms. Sonnenberg. You are truly a gifted and talented instructor.
Pedagogy and Practicum
I find a deep relationship between your own discourse analysis work in Practicum and your work with your students. With Marshall Martin, Kristen Grafton and Kaelah Scheff, you designed a digital group presentation on two discourse communities interested in social justice—with one artifact published in an edited collection (James Hammond’s chapter in Writing Assessment, Social Justice, and the Advancement of Opportunity, 2018) and one presented online (Asao B. Inoue’s 2019 chair address at the CCCC). With your colleagues, you used Kenneth Burke’s dramatistic pentad (A Grammar of Motives, 1945), as well as the taxonomy of Swales (“Concept”), to provide an analytic framework for the analysis of linguistic, cultural, and substantive language patterns.
In your classroom, I noted that you leverage the concepts of situated language used by Swales, with special attention to silential relations—at once the most difficult and most useful concept from his study. I also noted that you worked with your students to explicate specific terminology associated with situated language use and discourse analysis. Evidence of your effective teaching is found in the class discussions I observed: Students effectively used difficult terminology as critical frameworks leading to successful project completion.
I also want to note that, in Practicum, you served an important role as a seasoned instructor who created connections with your colleagues. Because of your previous experience as an instructor at University of Central Florida, you were able to identify areas where your fellow students needed further explanation from me. Often, I could visibly see the gratitude of students when you acted on their behalf when I moved too quickly. I deeply appreciate the coordinating role you played in our Practicum.
Suggestions for Further Research-Based Pedagogy
In your future classroom practice, you will surely want to maintain your current emphasis on research-based instruction and community creation. In your teaching statement, you identified six pedagogical approaches that are important to your pedagogical practice: 1) Knowledge-making is a collaborative process; 2) Principled and evidence-based decision-making; 3) Constitutive forms of genre that include multilingual perspectives; 4) Intersectionality and identity integration necessitate student engagement; 5) Transparency, justice, and fairness are paramount for student success; and, 6) Formative assessment bolsters Language Arts construct modeling.
As you write, “I believe that these particular approaches are key to how I value student learning and outcomes, and are rooted in effective teaching practices essential to my identity as a teacher-scholar.” Further, your website includes a commitment to diversity. Such a statement is most welcome, especially in our diverse USF environment.
These are the goals and values you will surely want to maintain as you continue to demonstrate your instructional leadership.
We are fortunate to have you at USF, and I want to thank you for all you are doing to support our students.
Sincerely.
Norbert Elliot
Interim Director of First Year Composition
Justiss Wilder Burry 