Yesterday Jane wrote about helping a student who’s a visual thinker to actually understand what was wrong with her/his paper. She mentioned using cards and sticks to do this, and that this was a technique she’d learnt when working in writing centres as a grad student. (In the US they have writing centres where students can drop by when they need help writing their papers – and the people working there actually know about techniques for helping people with various disabilities or just different styles of thinking and learning – it sounds a wonderful concept.)

Anyway, we all chimed in in the comments asking what the cards and sticks system is. And Jane answered – and it sounds glorious! You write down your thesis statement and supporting claims and evidence for them on cards and join them all up in a tree shape – that way you can see whether your “argument tree” is not going to stand up because it has no roots (no evidence, for instance) and also whether it’s lopsided, so there’s lots of evidence for some claims and none for others. There’s lots more too it, go read it yourself.

I want to try and use this with my students. I really don’t have enough techniques yet for really helping students understand WHAT is wrong. The way I was trained, it was all sort of implicit, we were expected to either just get it or to drop out, I suppose, but really, it would be better to be able to actually teach these sorts of things.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

4 thoughts on “cards and sticks for teaching writing

  1. Ali

    What a great idea. I too struggle with getting students to understand why I gave therir paper the grade it got….using visual aids had never occured to me.

  2. Jess

    I always draw them a hamburger for explaining argument paragraph structure — without the top (claim) it’s a mess, without the meat (evidence) nobody will eat it, and without the bottom (analysis), well, the bottom falls out. It’s always very gratifying to see them dutifully copying down hamburgers in their notebooks. But that doesn’t work for the structure of the whole paper. I love the tree analogy, though I’d be sort of mixing my metaphors.

    P.S. hi, I’m back in the blogging game. :>

  3. Jill

    Great to see ya, Jess, I was wondering where you went! But, um, you realise that’s a pseudonymous or even anonymous blog you got yaself? And hamburger – ha – might try that, though they’d accuse me of americanism 😉

  4. Jess

    Yeah, it’s roughly anonymous for now until I’ve got more good stuff up. See, my mom’s a science writer and I want to avoid coat-tailing as much as possible. Quite possibly this is a miscalculation.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.