"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
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
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
On the 5 paragraph essay
What a mess...
Plaid coats ripped to shreds, old denim jeans torn and sundered, corncob pipes splintered and shattered. The horizon is thick with old cloth hats and cotton undershirts, full of holes and unfit for man or scarecrow.
And the straw, my God, the straw...it's knee-deep in places, the air filled with allergens and grass seed.
This is the gruesome consequence of strawman after strawman after strawman being constructed, propped up, and destroyed by both those in favor of, and against, the Five Paragraph Theme (FPT).
What exactly are the two sides of the issue, here? No one, I hope, is saying that the five paragraph theme is completely without merit, that it "must be thrown away entirely" (as Novick states in her letter to English Journal). Instead, the rhetoric seems to focus on how formulaic writing stiffles creative minds. In his critique of the Schaeffer method (essentially a FPT on steriods, with eight-sentence paragraphs and two (no more, no less) comments for every citation), Wiley states "Nevertheless, writing formulas are attractive, precisely because they render the "messy" more manageable. But at what cost?"
At what cost?
A good question. What are we losing, by teaching our students? Surely, Math and Science teachers must ask that question all the time: "If only we hadn't of taught them Euclidian geometry, they might have discovered Non-Euclidian on their own!"
It's the same for Music and Art teachers as well, I'm sure: "Why are we bothering teaching fugues? How droll and repeptitive!"
This idea that we are harming our students by teaching is part of many of the arguments presented agains the FPT and it boggles my mind a little. Why is the student complaint "how can I write a seven page paper in five paragraphs?" alarming, and not, as in my view, funny? Is the student incapable of writing a seven-page paper? Probably not, although she might think she is. Will the teacher have to correct that misconception? Sure, but that's the teacher's job. Will it be hard work? Well, yes. But why are you assigning a seven page paper, when your students have only done FPTs? Where's the 3-5 page paper first, or just the free form essay? Or was it "someone else's" job to develop those skills in your students?
The truth is, "At what cost?" is the wrong question, unless we're no longer concerned about the benefits of teaching the FPT. And the benefits are clear: it helps non-writers become writers. It helps students learn how to organize and construct an argument effectively without relying on the student's intuitive sense of rhetoric, which is not inherent, but needs to develop. In Nunnelly's article, he demonstrated how the FPT helped raise the standardized scores of students in his state. He also showed that other schools caught up, and that the FPT isn't the be-all, end-all of student writing. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be taught.
Student literacy, especially in urban schools, is not a rosy picture right now. Students need a guide to help them along their way, and the FPT is a very effective guide. Do students need to learn to write without it? Definitely. But they need to learn to write with it (or with something like it) first. Nunnally compares the FPT to training wheels. This is apt. And it's a definition that both sides should be able to agree with.
Plaid coats ripped to shreds, old denim jeans torn and sundered, corncob pipes splintered and shattered. The horizon is thick with old cloth hats and cotton undershirts, full of holes and unfit for man or scarecrow.
And the straw, my God, the straw...it's knee-deep in places, the air filled with allergens and grass seed.
This is the gruesome consequence of strawman after strawman after strawman being constructed, propped up, and destroyed by both those in favor of, and against, the Five Paragraph Theme (FPT).
What exactly are the two sides of the issue, here? No one, I hope, is saying that the five paragraph theme is completely without merit, that it "must be thrown away entirely" (as Novick states in her letter to English Journal). Instead, the rhetoric seems to focus on how formulaic writing stiffles creative minds. In his critique of the Schaeffer method (essentially a FPT on steriods, with eight-sentence paragraphs and two (no more, no less) comments for every citation), Wiley states "Nevertheless, writing formulas are attractive, precisely because they render the "messy" more manageable. But at what cost?"
At what cost?
A good question. What are we losing, by teaching our students? Surely, Math and Science teachers must ask that question all the time: "If only we hadn't of taught them Euclidian geometry, they might have discovered Non-Euclidian on their own!"
It's the same for Music and Art teachers as well, I'm sure: "Why are we bothering teaching fugues? How droll and repeptitive!"
This idea that we are harming our students by teaching is part of many of the arguments presented agains the FPT and it boggles my mind a little. Why is the student complaint "how can I write a seven page paper in five paragraphs?" alarming, and not, as in my view, funny? Is the student incapable of writing a seven-page paper? Probably not, although she might think she is. Will the teacher have to correct that misconception? Sure, but that's the teacher's job. Will it be hard work? Well, yes. But why are you assigning a seven page paper, when your students have only done FPTs? Where's the 3-5 page paper first, or just the free form essay? Or was it "someone else's" job to develop those skills in your students?
The truth is, "At what cost?" is the wrong question, unless we're no longer concerned about the benefits of teaching the FPT. And the benefits are clear: it helps non-writers become writers. It helps students learn how to organize and construct an argument effectively without relying on the student's intuitive sense of rhetoric, which is not inherent, but needs to develop. In Nunnelly's article, he demonstrated how the FPT helped raise the standardized scores of students in his state. He also showed that other schools caught up, and that the FPT isn't the be-all, end-all of student writing. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be taught.
Student literacy, especially in urban schools, is not a rosy picture right now. Students need a guide to help them along their way, and the FPT is a very effective guide. Do students need to learn to write without it? Definitely. But they need to learn to write with it (or with something like it) first. Nunnally compares the FPT to training wheels. This is apt. And it's a definition that both sides should be able to agree with.
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
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Good Morning!
Right. Let's get to it.
This is my blog for CI 5461: Teaching Composition in the Secondary School. This is going to be a "professional" blog, I'm told, but it is named quite unprofessionally. I'll get into that later.
I am in school to become a High School English teacher. Most of the links on the right are my cohort, which are a swell bunch of guys and gals.
Some of my posts will be quite boring, as they will be assignments for classes, such as CI 5461. These will be tagged "assignments" for your viewing or non-viewing pleasure.
That's about all.
MadS
This is my blog for CI 5461: Teaching Composition in the Secondary School. This is going to be a "professional" blog, I'm told, but it is named quite unprofessionally. I'll get into that later.
I am in school to become a High School English teacher. Most of the links on the right are my cohort, which are a swell bunch of guys and gals.
Some of my posts will be quite boring, as they will be assignments for classes, such as CI 5461. These will be tagged "assignments" for your viewing or non-viewing pleasure.
That's about all.
MadS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)