"A portfolio system that promotes self-assessment and self-confidence in students as readers and writers, for example, will look very different from a portfolio that provides a valid and reliable basis for a statewide evaluation of student performance in literacy."
"A portfolio is [...] a collection of information gathered for specific purposes" and "The aim of a portfolio is to advance student learning."
"The accountability portfolio [...] is tightly constrained so that student performance can be more fairly, efficiently, and reliably evaluated on a large scale."
"Portfolios are only as good as the curriculum and instructional opportunities afforded to students"
1st quote. This is a fact of reality. Assessment is different than teaching, yet we require our teachers to be both teachers and assessors. Our assessments already focus what we teach, teachers "teach to the test" willingly and often. Why is that going to change when they can "teach to the portfolio?"
2nd quote. Again, assessing is different from teaching. These sentences seems to suggest that they can and should be combined. Are portfolios the best way to do this?
3rd quote. Be making portfolios more "standardized" how do we avoid the pitfalls of standardized tests?
4th quote. This can be said about any strategy, anywhere. We need teachers to teach better, it's true. If portfolios don't help teachers teach better, what good are they?
MadS
Showing posts with label Assignment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Assignment. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
On Revising
I love revising.
I love reworking my own work, I love reworking other's work. I went to school to be an editor. I could revise stuff for hours. I'm the reason that there is a publishing stage in the writing process. Otherwise, nothing would get done. Revisions would recur endlessly.
I actually get upset, for example, if people don't have any comments, or say some hyperbole such as "I wouldn't change a word!" Because, if you wouldn't change a word, you might as well have written it.
I love the discourse that happens in revision, the relationship between the author and audience, whether it is internal or external. The tug and pull. The compromises, the mutual understandings.
A lot of satirists have lampooned workshopping. We got a handout in class that did so, showing how one of Emily Dickinson's poems would be torn to shreds. While they definitely have a point, I think they miss something as well.
Would Dickinson say that that poem was perfect? If yes, you're lying. Simply from the fact that she wrote additional poems, you know the poem isn't perfect. It may have been publishable, it may have been complete in itself, it may even be great, but it wasn't perfect.
If no, what's the harm in workshopping it?
Of course, in school classrooms, workshopping and revising have a different feel. They are a neccesary part of the writing process in the real world (rarely do you not get a chance to revise, and rarely, if you're resourceful, do you not get another pair of eyes on something before it's published), but in the academic world, with it's essay tests and SATs and so on, it's lacking. We have to teach students not just to revise, but to revise while they write. This is one reason why I do not like handing in drafting, especially at once, with the final draft. The teacher should be part of the process, in this case, not just the evaluator of it.
MadS
I love reworking my own work, I love reworking other's work. I went to school to be an editor. I could revise stuff for hours. I'm the reason that there is a publishing stage in the writing process. Otherwise, nothing would get done. Revisions would recur endlessly.
I actually get upset, for example, if people don't have any comments, or say some hyperbole such as "I wouldn't change a word!" Because, if you wouldn't change a word, you might as well have written it.
I love the discourse that happens in revision, the relationship between the author and audience, whether it is internal or external. The tug and pull. The compromises, the mutual understandings.
A lot of satirists have lampooned workshopping. We got a handout in class that did so, showing how one of Emily Dickinson's poems would be torn to shreds. While they definitely have a point, I think they miss something as well.
Would Dickinson say that that poem was perfect? If yes, you're lying. Simply from the fact that she wrote additional poems, you know the poem isn't perfect. It may have been publishable, it may have been complete in itself, it may even be great, but it wasn't perfect.
If no, what's the harm in workshopping it?
Of course, in school classrooms, workshopping and revising have a different feel. They are a neccesary part of the writing process in the real world (rarely do you not get a chance to revise, and rarely, if you're resourceful, do you not get another pair of eyes on something before it's published), but in the academic world, with it's essay tests and SATs and so on, it's lacking. We have to teach students not just to revise, but to revise while they write. This is one reason why I do not like handing in drafting, especially at once, with the final draft. The teacher should be part of the process, in this case, not just the evaluator of it.
MadS
Friday, February 2, 2007
"I look forward to reading multi-genre papers. I hated to read traditional research papers because I had to sit in an uncomfortable chair and literally pinch myself at times to stay focused. Such papers, when well done, revealed the belnding of many sources--except for the most important one--the student's voice. I began to resent spending my precious life reading this lackluster writing." --Sue Amendt, quoted in Blending Genre, Altering Style by Tom Romano, page s 5-6
For some reason, teachers complaining about grading papers is becoming one of my leading pet peeves. In conversations with some of my fellow co-horters, we've come to the conclusion that while Romano does give us a great guide for guiding students in creating multi-genre papers, it doesn't do a very good job of telling us what multi-genre papers actually do. I'm trying to find a way that the reason doesn't lie in the above quote--that we would be doing these papers for some pragmatic, altruistic reason--but instead, I'm left with a feeling of a shortcut, or a concession. "Fine" we seem to be saying, "if you can't write an enganging essay, would you please just write a freaking poem? I'm bored to tears, here!"
Why does expository writing exclude the student's voice? The truth is that it doesn't, it could never hope to, but for some reason, the perception is that the 5-paragraph essay structure comes attached with the idea that we must be as nuetered, as non-prominent, as possible. This is a misconception, especially since high schoolers should begin writing persuasive essays, which better well voice an opinion. And labeling expository writing as inherently boring and factual, while narrative writing is inherently exciting and emotional and interesting, is a huge diservice to both creative writing and expository writing.
Teachers need to find a way to make expository writing engaging for their students (making the writing engaging to read as a result), not just allow students to create engaging projects in the hope that they will include some expository details, such as a 5 year old report on Allosaurs.
Teachers also need to understand, that if you are sick and tired of reading the same boring esays time and time again, then there is something wrong with the method, not the students, and not the genre. I'm sure that I could easily teach creative writing in such a formulaic, stilted way that soon, all student poems would begin to look the same as well, and then I would have to begin pinching myslef to get through it all. In fact, if multi-genre papers become a standard somewhere, it's only a matter of time.
MadS
For some reason, teachers complaining about grading papers is becoming one of my leading pet peeves. In conversations with some of my fellow co-horters, we've come to the conclusion that while Romano does give us a great guide for guiding students in creating multi-genre papers, it doesn't do a very good job of telling us what multi-genre papers actually do. I'm trying to find a way that the reason doesn't lie in the above quote--that we would be doing these papers for some pragmatic, altruistic reason--but instead, I'm left with a feeling of a shortcut, or a concession. "Fine" we seem to be saying, "if you can't write an enganging essay, would you please just write a freaking poem? I'm bored to tears, here!"
Why does expository writing exclude the student's voice? The truth is that it doesn't, it could never hope to, but for some reason, the perception is that the 5-paragraph essay structure comes attached with the idea that we must be as nuetered, as non-prominent, as possible. This is a misconception, especially since high schoolers should begin writing persuasive essays, which better well voice an opinion. And labeling expository writing as inherently boring and factual, while narrative writing is inherently exciting and emotional and interesting, is a huge diservice to both creative writing and expository writing.
Teachers need to find a way to make expository writing engaging for their students (making the writing engaging to read as a result), not just allow students to create engaging projects in the hope that they will include some expository details, such as a 5 year old report on Allosaurs.
Teachers also need to understand, that if you are sick and tired of reading the same boring esays time and time again, then there is something wrong with the method, not the students, and not the genre. I'm sure that I could easily teach creative writing in such a formulaic, stilted way that soon, all student poems would begin to look the same as well, and then I would have to begin pinching myslef to get through it all. In fact, if multi-genre papers become a standard somewhere, it's only a matter of time.
MadS
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Writing and Williams
In Chapter 3 of Preparing to Teach Writing, while James Williams is bemoaning such things as the horrific declining literacy of our students (although so many things have changed the population and the task in the last 60 years - the GI bill, equal opportunity schools, the television, the computer, the Internet - that this "Golden Age" of high quality or quantity literacy must have happened from March 21-April 2nd, 1952, or somesuch), he does bring forth an effective model for teaching writing as a student-centered, process-focused activity. The writing process he describes is especially unique because it is descriptive rather than prescriptive, and anyone who knows me knows I am a huge fan of descriptive processes.
I especially like the idea of the phase model, as he describes it. While it is a bit messy, it is important that students recognize that writing can be an organic activity, that good writing doesn't neccesarily have to feel like an undue burden, or a bunch of work. The important parts of each step (Prewriting, Planning, Drafting, Pausing, Reading, Revising, Editing and Publishing) is that the student can and does recognize them when they happen, not that each one takes a certain form or amount of time ("OK students, pencils down! It's time for our Pausing! Who brought the deck of cards?").
The problem is that this is tough to teach, even in college classrooms. This is why, when teachers teach outlining, they focus so much on structural details, why planning is not discussed, and why for the longest time, my method for making a thesis statement for a literature essay was:
1. Read the book.
2. Gather significant quotes/actions.
3. ??????
4. You've got a Thesis statement!
It's easier to just give the students a standardized form and structure and hope they come up with the good ideas on their own. It's hard to communicate what exactly goes into an outline and how exactly you come up with a thesis statement, especially in group lecture, since these are individual, unstandardized activities. In addition to that, there is a large, almost unspoken taboo about unduly influencing students thought processes by "giving them the answers". In my view, we as teachers should be all about "giving them the answers". That way, if they still get it wrong, then there's no excuse, is there? Writing is hard enough as an activity without having to guess if the arguement itself is valid.
So, if I plan to use Williams's phase model, I think I have to make peace with the fact that it's going to be a lot more work, in that I have to know where every student is in the writing process, and what they are writing about. I have to be willing to guide and correct them, as well. Fortunately, I doubt that this is going to be too much of a problem.
MadS
I especially like the idea of the phase model, as he describes it. While it is a bit messy, it is important that students recognize that writing can be an organic activity, that good writing doesn't neccesarily have to feel like an undue burden, or a bunch of work. The important parts of each step (Prewriting, Planning, Drafting, Pausing, Reading, Revising, Editing and Publishing) is that the student can and does recognize them when they happen, not that each one takes a certain form or amount of time ("OK students, pencils down! It's time for our Pausing! Who brought the deck of cards?").
The problem is that this is tough to teach, even in college classrooms. This is why, when teachers teach outlining, they focus so much on structural details, why planning is not discussed, and why for the longest time, my method for making a thesis statement for a literature essay was:
1. Read the book.
2. Gather significant quotes/actions.
3. ??????
4. You've got a Thesis statement!
It's easier to just give the students a standardized form and structure and hope they come up with the good ideas on their own. It's hard to communicate what exactly goes into an outline and how exactly you come up with a thesis statement, especially in group lecture, since these are individual, unstandardized activities. In addition to that, there is a large, almost unspoken taboo about unduly influencing students thought processes by "giving them the answers". In my view, we as teachers should be all about "giving them the answers". That way, if they still get it wrong, then there's no excuse, is there? Writing is hard enough as an activity without having to guess if the arguement itself is valid.
So, if I plan to use Williams's phase model, I think I have to make peace with the fact that it's going to be a lot more work, in that I have to know where every student is in the writing process, and what they are writing about. I have to be willing to guide and correct them, as well. Fortunately, I doubt that this is going to be too much of a problem.
MadS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)