Finding Their Voice—Personal Narrative and Performance in a Communication-Intensive Classroom

Weeks 10–12: Building confidence, critique, and connection

Jul 28, 2025

This is the sixth installment in our C-I in Action series where we follow Dr. Naomi Bennett through her process of teaching a communication-intensive course. This week, we look at students turning their knowledge into practice.

By Weeks 10 through 12 in Performance Composition, something was becoming clear. The students weren’t just completing assignments—they were learning to communicate with greater clarity, purpose, and presence. The course, taught by Naomi and certified as Communication-Intensive (C-I), had been carefully built to this moment. Now, with the poetic language unit behind them and personal narratives underway, students were applying what they’d learned—and supporting one another in the process.

Confident student presenting a project to classmates in a modern classroom setting with attentive audience — Credit: Adobe Stock

From Performance Critique to Meaningful Discussion

The unit opened with a discussion of Far Halcyon Days, a required on-campus performance directed by Travis Brisini in the HopKins Black Box. Students had written response papers using the DIET method (Describe, Interpret, Evaluate, Theorize), a structure that Naomi had introduced earlier in the semester as part of the final poetic language performance assignment.

In the past, students often struggled with the "theorize" portion. This time, however, they came prepared—thanks to their earlier practice applying the method to one another’s performances. Their papers showed a new level of insight, especially in how they drew on class concepts like thick description and audience interpretation to analyze the work.

In class, each student was required to contribute something meaningful to the discussion—an expectation Naomi worried might be too much for quieter students. But using DIET as a conversation structure, and layering in new context she’d picked up from a departmental talkback, the conversation unfolded beautifully. Even the most reserved students found ways to participate, offering interpretations that were both thoughtful and personal.

C-I connection: Teaching structured methods like DIET not only supported stronger written communication but also gave students an entry point for spoken discussion, building confidence through shared language and clear expectations.

Crafting and Sharing Personal Narratives

As the class transitioned to the personal narrative assignment, students were asked to take what they’d learned about metaphor and sensory language and apply it to a story from their own lives. This shift—from poetic abstraction to personal prose—can be rocky. But Naomi noticed something encouraging: even students who didn’t nail the first draft were aware of what was missing and sought out help from their peers.

"I like to start with poetic writing and performance because it is the least familiar to my students, and I find this unfamiliarity leads to more playful and creative experimentation. By the time we shift into personal narratives, students have learned how to use metaphor and thick description to paint a picture in the imagination of their audience, creating an experience rather than just reporting it."

In workshops, students offered each other constructive, concrete feedback—not just on what was written, but how it was delivered. Observations about vocal tone, pacing, and gesture revealed that students were thinking critically about their spoken communication as much as their text.

Strengthening the Feedback Loop

At this stage of the semester, Naomi leaned heavily on Liz Lerman’s Critical Response Process (CRP), which students had used throughout the course. To reinforce the method, she asked students to write the four CRP steps (and Lerman’s name) on the board before each workshop. This small move helped cement the structure and philosophy behind the technique in students’ minds.

C-I connection: CRP continued to anchor a culture of process-based, peer-supported communication, with students learning how to give and receive feedback rooted in respect, inquiry, and interpretation.

This emphasis on community and dialogue also eased the grading burden. Students weren’t focused on scores—they were focused on improving and understanding. For Naomi, this made grading more efficient and less stressful.

When Community Becomes Real

One of the clearest signs of growth was how openly students shared their narratives—and how deeply their classmates responded. In one moment, two students realized they had independently written about the same party where a traumatic event had occurred. The recognition that others could relate to experiences they had assumed were singular brought a powerful sense of connection.

C-I connection: This openness speaks to one of the long-term goals of C-I teaching: creating spaces where students not only share ideas but build empathy and trust through communication.

The comfort in the room became visible in small ways—jokes, support, and casual mentions of meeting up outside class. Whether or not those social plans materialized, the sense of belonging had clearly taken root.

What Still Needs Work

Not everything ran smoothly. The second round of readings, assigned through Perusall, fell flat. Fewer students completed them, and Naomi wasn’t able to integrate discussion into class time as planned. She suspects the transition from performance writing to analytical reading was poorly timed.

Still, she’s learning from the experience—and feeling confident about the road ahead.

Do you have questions about the process of teaching this course as Communication-Intensive? Drop a comment below for Naomi and the CxC Team!

C-I Teaching Highlights from Weeks 10–12

Structured methods for analysis and critique: DIET and CRP gave students tools for written and spoken reflection.
Scaffolded transfer of skills: Techniques from poetic language were carried into personal narrative writing.
Multimodal communication: Students evaluated not only what was written but how it was performed.
Feedback over grading: Students prioritized growth, which made grading faster and more collaborative.
Community as foundation: Empathy, trust, and shared vulnerability supported deeper learning.