Writing as Process in Undergraduate History: A Reflective Review
This reflective review examines Olwell and Delph's 2004 article on implementing a writing-as-process model in an undergraduate history course. The review summarizes the article's key findings — including students' struggles with thesis statements and last-minute writing habits — and evaluates the authors' nine-strategy curriculum designed to guide students through semester-long writing. The reviewer highlights the cross-disciplinary significance of the article, particularly the insight that students' difficulty with thesis formation stems from binary thinking rather than poor writing skills. The review concludes by identifying unanswered questions about how student-teachers carry these lessons into secondary classrooms and calls for further research to validate the model's broader application.
- Introduction: Overview of the article under review
- Summary of Olwell and Delph's Article: Key findings and strategies from the source article
- Significance of Non-Composition Faculty Addressing Writing: Why history faculty engaging writing instruction matters
- The Thesis Statement Problem and Undergraduate Reasoning: Binary thinking as root cause of weak thesis statements
- The 'Gulping' Writing Pattern and Process-Based Solutions: Last-minute writing habits and semester-long process models
- Unanswered Questions and the Need for Further Research: Gaps in evidence and unresolved pedagogical questions
- Conclusion: Call for further research to validate the model
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The reviewer moves fluidly between summary and personal evaluation, clearly distinguishing the source article's claims from their own analytical responses.
- The paper identifies a genuinely important cross-disciplinary insight — that students' thesis-writing failures reflect reasoning habits, not just writing skill deficits — and develops it with original commentary.
- The conclusion avoids false closure by honestly noting unresolved questions, which models strong academic reflection and intellectual humility.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates effective critical summary: the writer does not merely restate the source article but evaluates its significance, connects its findings to broader pedagogical questions, and identifies gaps that future research should address. This technique — summarize, evaluate, extend, question — is a foundational skill in graduate and upper-level undergraduate writing courses.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a concise summary of the Olwell and Delph article, covering its major findings and strategies. It then shifts to reflective evaluation, discussing why the article's cross-departmental perspective matters, before examining specific insights around thesis statements and writing process habits. The final section raises open questions about the article's long-term implications, calling for follow-up research. The structure moves cleanly from summary to analysis to critique.
Introduction
This paper offers a reflective review of Russell Olwell and Ronald Delph's 2004 article, "Implementing Assessment and Improving Undergraduate Writing: One Department's Experience," published in The History Teacher. The review summarizes the article's key findings, evaluates its cross-disciplinary significance, and identifies questions that remain unanswered.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.