One of the things that I learned early on in my university writing classes is that it can be very dangerous and short-sighted for a teacher to pre-suppose that his or her class automatically obtains the skills necessary for thoughtfull and constructive criticism. I would hazard a guess that everyone in our cohort has had at least one bad experience in either workshopping or receiving criticism on a paper that was editied by their peers...
During my career as an undergraduate at the U of M, I took several writing classes, and unfortunately, I took to the habit of disregarding much of the peer feedback I received simply because of the way that the workshop clinics were set up and the lack of experience many of my peers had (I include myself in that lot). The blame must not belong to the individuals, however. I blame a lack of sufficient time - both for the appropriate instruction of what the workshops aimed to truly accomplish, as well as sufficient time to digest the work in question. Often we would workshop three 15 page papers in a 50 minute period (that would be to include reading time). This was ineffective at best, for the sake that it was so hard to get into a paper in such a short time as to give feedback that was beyond the surface level.
I cannot help but think of the same problem as I read the selected peices for this week's class session. I beleive whole-heartedly that thoughtful and appropriate assessment is a crucial aspect of the learning process - especially when it comes to writing. In the Spandell reading for this week (right #7), there is much thought given to the way we assess student writing, both in the classroom and for standardized testing. She then speaks to the credit of carefully developed rubrics that very accurately define what is being assessed. I especially liked her reccommendation of providing specific examples of writing that would correspond to each level of a given rubric - if an instructor cannot do this, then the rubric should be revised. She then insists that the class as a whole discuss the writings and the rubric together, and identify the elements of the writing that qualify it to be on either the "needs development" or other column.
I really like this idea.
I'm just scared about what might get pushed out of an already tight curricular unit in order to make time for the advanced rubric development and discussions.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Week 4 post
Two strokes for every poke.
That was the turn of phrase I was taught when I was first promoted to foreman of my old painting crew. The idea was that whenever I was to reprimand a worker for shoddy work or blatant mistakes left unfixed, I was to precede the conversation with two things that the painter did well.
For instance, "You did a great job cutting around those windows and masking off the granite, but the door trim you spent an hour on looks like shit."
In essence, this was a practice of praise for the sake of praise so that a worker didn't get too down on themselves and lower their production rate. The fact of the matter is that it comes across as contrived and forced. Nobody enjoys hearing exclusively about thier mistakes, but meaningless praise does nothing to soften the blow, in my opinion. Still, I do think that it is crucial that individuals hear authentic praise where and when it is due to them.
When applied to writing, I think that this is especially important. For whatever reason (I haven't given it quite enough thought yet to pinpoint the reason), many people take their writing projects very seriously and react to them very personally. Even in the most technical of expository assignments completely void of intimacy, it can be very easy for a writer to take personal offense to criticism or excessive revision suggestions. For this reason, I think that it is ultimately important to find good things about any peice of writing, as suggested in the Daiker reading. However, I think that Daiker goes just a bit overboard with this. Praise should not be given for its own sake, as suggested by Daiker "...but no one applauded the effective use of appositive adjectives as modifiers..." (Daiker, 363). I agreed with much of what this author had to say, but... come on.
At the same time, Daiker continues on to suggest that teachers are trained to spot comma splices, and very seldomly give praise for stepping outside one's boundaries... perhaps this is the heart of the problem. Daiker and Spindel should get together and have a beer.
That was the turn of phrase I was taught when I was first promoted to foreman of my old painting crew. The idea was that whenever I was to reprimand a worker for shoddy work or blatant mistakes left unfixed, I was to precede the conversation with two things that the painter did well.
For instance, "You did a great job cutting around those windows and masking off the granite, but the door trim you spent an hour on looks like shit."
In essence, this was a practice of praise for the sake of praise so that a worker didn't get too down on themselves and lower their production rate. The fact of the matter is that it comes across as contrived and forced. Nobody enjoys hearing exclusively about thier mistakes, but meaningless praise does nothing to soften the blow, in my opinion. Still, I do think that it is crucial that individuals hear authentic praise where and when it is due to them.
When applied to writing, I think that this is especially important. For whatever reason (I haven't given it quite enough thought yet to pinpoint the reason), many people take their writing projects very seriously and react to them very personally. Even in the most technical of expository assignments completely void of intimacy, it can be very easy for a writer to take personal offense to criticism or excessive revision suggestions. For this reason, I think that it is ultimately important to find good things about any peice of writing, as suggested in the Daiker reading. However, I think that Daiker goes just a bit overboard with this. Praise should not be given for its own sake, as suggested by Daiker "...but no one applauded the effective use of appositive adjectives as modifiers..." (Daiker, 363). I agreed with much of what this author had to say, but... come on.
At the same time, Daiker continues on to suggest that teachers are trained to spot comma splices, and very seldomly give praise for stepping outside one's boundaries... perhaps this is the heart of the problem. Daiker and Spindel should get together and have a beer.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Week 3 post
The five paragraph method... I remember it well.
When I was in high school myself, I remember writing assignments - one after another - organized within the same parameters. As an undergraduate, I reviewed and revised innumerable essays for friends and roommates that fell within the same restrictions. While it is certainly safe to say that the five paragraph method is overly formulaic and can in many cases be restrictive when taught by lazy instructors, there is also much to be said about its benefits.
Like Sara Speicher mentioned in her blog, one must learn to write, as a chef must learn to cook. Rigid and formulaic recipes do for a cook what this five paragraph method can do for an aspiring writer. A master chef, however, does not restrain himself within the parameters of a pre-written recipe. S/he invents and reinvents recipes to suit his or her specific needs and desires for the particular task at hand. For a novice like me, however, the recipe is an aid by which I can learn and practice my cooking to get better. In this same way, the five paragraph method can help some writers learn valuable lessons about organization and coherence. To others, who are more advanced in their expository writing skills, the five paragraph method could perhaps be a jumping off point, or a frame of reference that is to be used as the writer moves forward and experiments with new methods and forms.
What I think that all of this week's authors can agree upon is that the five paragraph method is not the be all and end all of writing method. Additionally, it can be a very valuable tool for learning. When this method is treated as if it is the only way to write, however, we run into a very severe problem. When this occurs, the five paragraph method ceases to exist as a tool, and becomes a constraint on the development of students' writing.
I found this quite interesting after reading all of the articles, especially that on the SAT grading. Naturally, I was interested in researching the practical effects, and what I found was a bit disheartening. What we have here are five tips for success on the SAT writing portion.
http://encarta.msn.com/college_article_NewSAT5tips/5_Ways_to_Write_a_Great_Essay_on_the_New_SAT.html
When I was in high school myself, I remember writing assignments - one after another - organized within the same parameters. As an undergraduate, I reviewed and revised innumerable essays for friends and roommates that fell within the same restrictions. While it is certainly safe to say that the five paragraph method is overly formulaic and can in many cases be restrictive when taught by lazy instructors, there is also much to be said about its benefits.
Like Sara Speicher mentioned in her blog, one must learn to write, as a chef must learn to cook. Rigid and formulaic recipes do for a cook what this five paragraph method can do for an aspiring writer. A master chef, however, does not restrain himself within the parameters of a pre-written recipe. S/he invents and reinvents recipes to suit his or her specific needs and desires for the particular task at hand. For a novice like me, however, the recipe is an aid by which I can learn and practice my cooking to get better. In this same way, the five paragraph method can help some writers learn valuable lessons about organization and coherence. To others, who are more advanced in their expository writing skills, the five paragraph method could perhaps be a jumping off point, or a frame of reference that is to be used as the writer moves forward and experiments with new methods and forms.
What I think that all of this week's authors can agree upon is that the five paragraph method is not the be all and end all of writing method. Additionally, it can be a very valuable tool for learning. When this method is treated as if it is the only way to write, however, we run into a very severe problem. When this occurs, the five paragraph method ceases to exist as a tool, and becomes a constraint on the development of students' writing.
I found this quite interesting after reading all of the articles, especially that on the SAT grading. Naturally, I was interested in researching the practical effects, and what I found was a bit disheartening. What we have here are five tips for success on the SAT writing portion.
http://encarta.msn.com/college_article_NewSAT5tips/5_Ways_to_Write_a_Great_Essay_on_the_New_SAT.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)