Reflection Paper Graduate 962 words

Writing as Process in Undergraduate History: A Reflective Review

~5 min read

Abstract

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.

📝 How to Write This Type of Paper Writing guide — click to expand

▼

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.

Summary of Olwell and Delph's Article

In their article, Olwell and Delph discuss how they used the writing-as-process model to assess and assist students in an undergraduate history course. The results of their assessment revealed several weaknesses that undergraduate writers commonly exhibit. First, the authors point out that many undergraduate-level writers do not include thesis statements in their work, nor do they "believe their papers need a thesis" (Olwell and Delph, 2004, p. 24). Rather than reflecting poor writing skills, the authors suggest that this inability reflects the way undergraduates think, as students primarily considered history to be a discipline that could be discussed using only absolutes.

Second, the authors acknowledged that many students try to complete their writing as quickly as possible. They write that "many of our students practice a very abbreviated writing process in which they research, outline, write, and revise all in the same forty-eight hour period before a paper is due" (Olwell and Delph, 2004, p. 25). To combat this tendency, the authors integrated a writing-as-process model similar to those advocated by composition teachers and the "Writing Across the Curriculum" movement (Olwell and Delph, 2004, p. 25), guiding students through the process of writing a paper over the course of an entire semester.

The authors developed a list of nine strategies to support this semester-long writing process, including helping students find resources — especially primary sources — meeting with students individually, and providing peer editing opportunities. In their conclusion, the authors suggest that the writing-as-process model used in the course was one that students intended to adopt in their own future classrooms. They also acknowledge, however, that the papers received still "var[ied] greatly from year to year" (Olwell and Delph, 2004, p. 29).

Significance of Non-Composition Faculty Addressing Writing

Because the authors of this article are history teachers rather than composition instructors, the article carries particular significance. While college writers are taught to research, write, and revise in composition classes, professors in other departments often overlook writing instruction. This article demonstrates that faculty outside of composition do recognize the value of being able to write thoughtfully about one's field of study. Furthermore, the article offers insight into the world of undergraduate writers — their values, their strengths, and their weaknesses — suggesting that their frustrations with writing spring from even deeper sources than surface-level skill deficits.

3 Locked Sections · 360 words remaining

The Thesis Statement Problem and Undergraduate Reasoning · 140 words

"Binary thinking as root cause of weak thesis statements"

The 'Gulping' Writing Pattern and Process-Based Solutions · 90 words

"Last-minute writing habits and semester-long process models"

Unanswered Questions and the Need for Further Research · 130 words

"Gaps in evidence and unresolved pedagogical questions"

Conclusion

The authors of this article take a unique and important approach to the writing-as-process model and the history classroom. Their work highlights how writing instruction is not solely the responsibility of composition faculty, and how deeper cognitive habits — such as binary thinking — must be addressed to improve undergraduate writing. Further research to corroborate their ideas will most likely make meaningful contributions to the field of undergraduate education.

You’re 50% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.

130,000+ paper examples AI writing assistant Citation generator Cancel anytime

Key Concepts in This Paper

Writing as Process Undergraduate Writing Thesis Formation History Pedagogy Writing Assessment Binary Thinking Peer Editing Writing Across the Curriculum Process Model Critical Reasoning