Department of English

Dear Committee Members,

My name is Daniel Lumb, and for the last six months I have been working on my thesis for the Masters in
Transnational Creative Writing program at Stockholm University with the aid of Sarah Rose Nordgren,
who served as my supervisor for the creative segment of my two-part thesis. The project was a poetry
project in the form of a novel-in-verse.
Sarah was absolutely indispensable during this time, and I could not have asked for a better supervisor. She
went above and beyond the call of duty to aid me in whatever I needed, whenever I needed it. When
reading my project, she noticed that two of the narrators had similar voices. Rather than simply telling me
there was a problem, she instigated a conversation on exactly what I wanted from the characters, why their
voices tended to blend together, and offered ideas for solutions to the problem. One section, written in a
very strict rhyme scheme, sounded very forced in places. Sarah made a very sound argument to help me see
that the rhymes could be relaxed a little, and offered very thorough suggestions for tweaks whenever I asked
her for help.
Even though Sarah was not the operator for my critical thesis, she came through for me in this area too.
My critical supervisor had instructed me to tackle my essay in the form of a Derridan deconstruction, but
had given me very little help with what that entailed before going on holiday. I asked Sarah, who
immediately found me resources to help me more easily understand what I had to do, without which I may
never have finished the piece within the deadline.
Outside of craft issues, Sarah also provided a huge amount of assistance. At one, point, a month or so
before the thesis was due to be turned in, I started to have a panic attack, and wanted to postpone
submission of my thesis, which I thought was in no fit state for submission. I messaged Sarah, and she
immediately came to the rescue, dropping what she was doing at the time to reassure me and to help me
make the (relatively small, as it turns out) changes that needed to be made in order to get the piece ready to
be submitted. Multiple times throughout this project, Sarah has helped me to keep calm, to get back on
track, and her assistance has always been invaluable in keeping my head above the proverbial water.
As I have said multiple times in this letter, Sarah’s support with my creative project over this last six
months has been priceless, and I am not sure I would have made it through my thesis without her help.
Throughout all my years in academia, I have not had a teacher or supervisor so supportive or so
understanding. I thoroughly enjoyed my time working with her, and feel I have come out of this process a
better writer, with her help.
Yours faithfully,
Daniel Lumb
Caitlin Doyle
Peer Teaching Observation
ENGL 2010: Introduction to Creative Writing – Multi-Genre (Online)
Fall 2017

Observations:

In English 2010, an introductory creative writing course incorporating multiple genres, Sarah
Rose Nordgren has demonstrated her mastery of online pedagogy by constructing a class that
expertly combines accessibility and complexity. She makes brilliant use of the virtual format
through offering learners a rich and varied multimodal experience, including a wide range of
written, visual, and audio material, as they progress through the weekly units.

Nordgren’s highly organized, well-paced, and innovative approach to online course design in
English 2010 gives students a strong sense of guidance while also prompting them to take
significant intellectual and creative risks on the page. Specifically, the combination of weekly
“workshop” and “craftshop” assignments allow students to take each week’s lecture and readings
in two directions: students are encouraged to “experiment” with their own writing with the
guidance of relevant prompts, while also reflecting on the craft techniques that allow writers to
achieve various purposes and effects.

Another powerful merit of Nordgren’s teaching presence in the online sphere is her ability to
cultivate the feeling of a real-world community by facilitating active peer exchange, via frequent
discussion board posts and written feedback assignments, and encouraging attendance at on-
campus readings and literary events. Drawing from her remarkable talents as a writer, along with
her many years of experience as an educator in traditional classrooms and virtual settings,
Nordgren has developed an approach to online pedagogy that connects students with language as
a vibrant, urgent, and ultimately transformative force.
 Teaching Observation: Sarah Nordgren
October 5, 2015
University of Cincinnati, ENGL 1001

Strengths:
●Overall “flow” of lesson: You began by checking to make sure students had received your comments
on annotated bibliographies, and ended likewise ended with a few reminders. In between, you
maintained a steady rhythm of discussion, writing, and activity.
●Tone: Even when you discussed your “pep talk” email, which was clearly meant to kick some students
into gear, your words and tone were firm and assertive but encouraging and nurturing.
●Focus: On the day I observed, your class was discussing logical fallacies. You began with a brief
review of their assigned reading in Allyn & Bacon, and then quickly took students beyond the book,
assuring students that they didn’t need to memorize terms. When you asked questions, multiple students
seemed immediately ready to respond. You built on those responses very naturally and from your own
knowledge and expertise. You then led into the videos and writing activities.
●Good use of classroom technology: You showed a few video commercials to demonstrate logical
fallacies. These were interesting and engaging for students.
●Integration of writing: After watching a video, you asked students to write about the commercial’s
argument and possible logical fallacies. You could have simply created a discussion, but you purposely
chose to incorporate writing. Excellent! Again at the end of class, you asked students to pair up and
examine and write about logical fallacies related to their own topics. (I’m going to steal this activity and
use it in my classes, by the way.) This activity was fun and kept students writing while incorporating
some small group discussion.
●Good connection between assignments: On more than one occasion, you drew a connection between
the Texts in Action essay and the research essay. This helps to provide a cohesive class experience for
students.
●Command of the classroom: The vast majority of students in this 8 a.m. class were alert, awake, and
engaged. I also noticed (and you mentioned) that this was a Learning Community. It was a heavily male
class as well. Sometimes LCs can be challenging, but this group obviously respects your authority and
comes to class eager to learn and participate.

Areas to improve:
●Allow students to write for themselves: During the writing activity on the more extreme political
commercial, you prompted students at least four times while they were writing. You were simply trying
to help so they wouldn’t get stuck. However, when we speak while students are trying to write, it’s
inevitable that some of them begin writing what we’re thinking, not what they are thinking. As tempting
as it is, try to remain quiet as students write, especially when strong opinions are involved.

Overall:
I had a difficult time finding ways to critique your teaching. Watch the minor issue above, but otherwise
continue doing exactly what you’re doing: incorporate writing, enjoy your students and the material, and
exude your calm, positive, and encouraging attitude.

Lisa Beckelheimer, PhD

Director of Undergraduate Studies, Dept of English
University of Cincinnati
Classroom Visit Notes

Date of Visit: Instructor:

October 18, 2012 Sarah Rose Nordgren
Course: Observer:
English 111 MM JHN 012 Marianne Cotugno
Number of Students:
19

Notes:

When I arrived, the students had a paper that they were handing in, and the class was to be covering
Inquiry 3. The atmosphere seemed comfortable and relaxed. Students were chatting with each other
and with the instructor.

The instructor wrote the following on the board: introducing topic; specific example; appealing
directly to audience; providing context or history; overview of issue; posing a question; acknowledging
opposing views; logos; pathos; claim; evidence/reasons; cited quotation; syllogism; provides evidence
for warrant.

The instructor handed out a copy of a student sample paper, and she explained that the students
were to read the paper over and note what strategies the writer used in the essay. The students were
then to work as a group and annotated their essays based on what they felt the writer was trying to
do. The phrases on the board were descriptions of strategies that a writer could use.

The students read quietly, and then worked in their groups. The instructor walked around the room
and answered questions from students. The students appeared to be focused on the task.

After the students finished in their groups, the instructor projected the essay using the document
viewer, so that the whole class could see it. She then asked the students to talk about what they
observed in terms of the strategies used by the writer. Many students volunteered to respond, and
there was a good amount of discussion about how the essay worked. As the students gave their
answers, the instructor prompted them to identify particular sentences that illustrated the strategy.
The instructor then annotated the essay. I could see many students making similar annotations on
their papers.

Nearing the end of the period, the instructor explained her goal for this activity: she wanted students
to see how these strategies can come together in an essay.

The instructor also talked about the overall essay structure and made two drawings to represent it.

The instructor noted another sample essay that students might find useful to consider, which followed
a different structure. There was a New York Times Op-Ed piece included in the student packet that
shows how a writer uses quotation and evidence as well as personal experience to support an
argument.

The instructor ended class by reminding students about what was due the next week.

 
Comments and Suggestions:

Overall, I enjoyed visiting the class. The instructor appears to have a good rapport with the students,
and the students respond well to her. The learning environment appears to be a comfortable one.
Students appeared willing to ask questions, and the instructor responded effectively.

The day’s activity was effective. There was an appropriate balance of individual, group, and class
work. Students appeared to take the work seriously, and I never got the sense that students were
“off task” in their groups.

Once the class discussion started, I liked how the instructor sometimes prompted students for more
details or elaborated on a particular point.

I also thought the inclusion of the op-ed piece was a good selection; I just wish the students had time
to discuss it. It would be a good opportunity to point out how the strategies the students practice for
academic writing in a school setting also “transfer” to the workplace and everyday life.