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
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Week 2 post
While going through the readings for this week, I could not help but notice how Tom Romano's work failed to meet the primary undergirding principles that were laid out in Willam's ninth chapter. Within that chapter, Williams asks that the reader always keep the question in mind "why am I teaching/assigning this?" In other words, he suggests that teachers should always keep their goals and objectives in mind while creating lessons and assignments. While this seems painfully intuitive, Williams makes the claim that there is a majority of teachers who do not keep this in mind, that many teachers throw things together the night before with little real thought to its purpose and utility on a larger level. I wish that I could disbeleive this, but I simply cannot. In my experience as a high school student, as well as a teacher in training, I have been witness to teachers who do not seem to practice this kind of straightforward thinkning. Keeping this in mind, I switched over to the Romano reading imediately after I had finished with the aforementioned.
Romano opens his book up with a very strange and pompous introduction that fails to acheive what he claims to set otut to accomplish. He then jumps straight into his back to back chapters that detail how to include multi-genre paper instruction in a typical classroom. What I felt was lacking here was any sort of hook, or reason to include this method or writing style into the classroom. It seemed to me that Romano wrote the book based on an assumption that the reader would want to immediately include multi-genre papers into the classroom. What was lacking was any sort of reason that this should be done. To be entirely honest in this blog posting, I thought that what I found within the pages of Romano's book, while a great form of personal expression that I am sure will be more fun to correct, might have very little to offer students on an academic level.
Romano opens his book up with a very strange and pompous introduction that fails to acheive what he claims to set otut to accomplish. He then jumps straight into his back to back chapters that detail how to include multi-genre paper instruction in a typical classroom. What I felt was lacking here was any sort of hook, or reason to include this method or writing style into the classroom. It seemed to me that Romano wrote the book based on an assumption that the reader would want to immediately include multi-genre papers into the classroom. What was lacking was any sort of reason that this should be done. To be entirely honest in this blog posting, I thought that what I found within the pages of Romano's book, while a great form of personal expression that I am sure will be more fun to correct, might have very little to offer students on an academic level.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
week 1 post
I feel like many of my classmates and I have been frustrated by many assigned readings from the past several months. A concern that I have had in particular is that much of what we have spent time on is theory, and theory alone. While I feel that it is ultimately essential that we all have a good understanding and knowledge of such published theory, I almost felt unequipped to make good sense of it when it was given to me. I have very little real teaching experience, and therefore don't know first hand what works and what doesn't (as far as strategies go), and I think that my preparatory classes should give me some concrete knowledge about tried and true methods and strategies as well as the theory that undergirds them. This is why I very much enjoyed the assigned Carney reading for this week - the reading openly addressed the compromise that is necessary for working within the constrictions of the real world. Too seldom is this acknowledged (in my experience) when discussing methods and strategies.
I think that it is safe to say that this entire cohort is expecting there to be many difficulties and obstacles to overcome when implementing finely tuned lesson plans, be they technical, practical, or otherwise. In addition, I think that we as a student group are all willing to put in any extra time and effort into our teaching methods that might produce a significant return. In other words, if it requires more work but gets results, this cohort will be happy to give it a shot. Additionally, I think that it is fairly reasonable to assume that we as a student group would not feel that traditional instructional writing practices are appropriate insomuch as they are generally not conducive with good writing, and good writing practices. Not all students will have the opportunity to take writing electives, and not all will want to. Nevertheless, I feel that all students deserve to be exposed to the writing process as offered in more intensive courses, and as described by Carney.
In my experience as a student of writing, I think that Carney identifies much of what I felt was most beneficial in learning the writing process. I did everything I could to avoid writing multiple drafts until my last semester of high school, when I had a teacher who took notice of the lazy writing practices I had developed, and would not allow me to employ them further. At first, I think I was too lazy to go through the drafting and editing process that was generally assigned. I viewed compositions and essays differently than I do now - I looked at writing assignments, and tried to decide how to get the best grade possible with the least amount of effort... a path of least resistance kind of thing. It was not until going much deeper with writing that I began to take pride in what I produced, and looked for ways to genuinely improve my writing and editing skills. I think that I am not alone in how I reacted to the two different approaches to writing instruction, and I believe that many students can benefit greatly by going more in depth with the entire writing process as described by Carney. Even the smaller details - like reading out loud, and only allowing the writer to make changes - were details that I remember making a big difference for me and my classmates years ago.
And for my link...
www.questia.com
This is an online research library that has many of our texts on it. It costs money, but is far cheaper than buying the texts... Unless you sell them back on amazon. Either way, its another option.
I think that it is safe to say that this entire cohort is expecting there to be many difficulties and obstacles to overcome when implementing finely tuned lesson plans, be they technical, practical, or otherwise. In addition, I think that we as a student group are all willing to put in any extra time and effort into our teaching methods that might produce a significant return. In other words, if it requires more work but gets results, this cohort will be happy to give it a shot. Additionally, I think that it is fairly reasonable to assume that we as a student group would not feel that traditional instructional writing practices are appropriate insomuch as they are generally not conducive with good writing, and good writing practices. Not all students will have the opportunity to take writing electives, and not all will want to. Nevertheless, I feel that all students deserve to be exposed to the writing process as offered in more intensive courses, and as described by Carney.
In my experience as a student of writing, I think that Carney identifies much of what I felt was most beneficial in learning the writing process. I did everything I could to avoid writing multiple drafts until my last semester of high school, when I had a teacher who took notice of the lazy writing practices I had developed, and would not allow me to employ them further. At first, I think I was too lazy to go through the drafting and editing process that was generally assigned. I viewed compositions and essays differently than I do now - I looked at writing assignments, and tried to decide how to get the best grade possible with the least amount of effort... a path of least resistance kind of thing. It was not until going much deeper with writing that I began to take pride in what I produced, and looked for ways to genuinely improve my writing and editing skills. I think that I am not alone in how I reacted to the two different approaches to writing instruction, and I believe that many students can benefit greatly by going more in depth with the entire writing process as described by Carney. Even the smaller details - like reading out loud, and only allowing the writer to make changes - were details that I remember making a big difference for me and my classmates years ago.
And for my link...
www.questia.com
This is an online research library that has many of our texts on it. It costs money, but is far cheaper than buying the texts... Unless you sell them back on amazon. Either way, its another option.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)