This week's reading, from Jenkins, was a good reminder of how creative teenagers are. Our future students are likely to be creating something new at this very moment, and they're sharing it with others thanks to technologies like YouTube and Facebook. I liked the way this report validated the time young people spend creating as well as the cognitive processes they're using and the skills they're developing. With all the talk these days about the jobs of the future being in creativity and innovation, it seems students are getting more training at home on the computer than they are in our classrooms.
The section on gaming definitely caught my attention. I wrote about my experiences with video games a couple of weeks ago on my blog for the Pop Culture and Education class (http://emilyci5472.blogspot.com/2009/02/week-three-video-games.html), and I discovered that despite my lack of experience, the power that video games have to immerse you in a particular world is a valuable tool, especially if what we aim to teach is perspective-taking. It was so interesting to read the narratives of the students playing the Revolution game because they had clearly felt on some level what it would be like to live during that time in history (and isn't that a major goal of history class?) However, I believe that video games can't do all our work for us. I played a lot of Oregon Trail as a kid and while I did learn some things about what it was like for settlers in covered wagons, I would have been much more educated about the subject had my teachers devoted some of their classroom instruction to the topic.
Another section of the report that interested me was the performance/roleplay/cosplay section. While I've never dressed up as an anime character, I LOVE visiting places like Fort Snelling and Murphy's Landing where everyone is dressed up and stays in historical character. I feel I can learn so much from both walking around and observing and asking lots of questions of those in character. As a summer nanny, I took my girls (aged 8 and 12) to Fort Snelling, and their interaction with the "laundress" actually led to an opportunity to learn about a game children at the time would have played called Graces. We played the game all week, and the experience wouldn't have happened if that opportunity for interaction hadn't been there. Asking our students to "get in character" is another great way to encourage perspective taking.
The section on appropriation also caught my eye, especially the phrase "students learn by taking culture apart and putting it back together" (32). This is a relatively new phenomenon to me, but it's completely natural for our students. While they're working on digital remixes of music and video at home, we might just as easily tap into their understanding of remixing to apply it to print media (because yes, print still exists). I had so much fun in my poetry classes in college messing around with found poetry. If you're unfamiliar with the poetry of Mark Nowak, I urge you to check it out. Once I understood the link between found poetry and music styles like techno, I realized that poets like Nowak weren't stealing, they were using text already out there to create an entirely new message. I think kids will come to this understanding so much more quickly than I did, especially if you teach found poetry alongside digital appropriation like YouTube videos or music.
Lastly, I wanted to comment on the collective intelligence piece. This idea of "ours" rather than "mine" is changing. Think about how much more complicated it is to teach plagiarism, or explain why Wikipedia isn't an appropriate source for a research paper. That should be evidence that people are starting to see information as "ours" again. I love that the internet has done that for us. While it's made the idea of a "reliable source" a little fuzzy, it's a great reminder that the credit for new ideas and innovation should to to all of us because we all build on each others' knowledge.
RESOURCE LINK OF THE WEEK
http://www.bayareawritingproject.org/digitalpaper/
I came across this link to "Digital Paper," an online magazine for the Bay Area Writing Project. I'm not entirely sure the specifics on the students who participate in this project, other than than it's an offshoot of the National Writing Project. What I liked about this site is that it's so simple; it's basically just a page that showcases student writing. The articles we've been reading lately about writing and digital literacies stress the need for a real audience, and this eZine has all the features of a "real" publication. When I took a poetry class in high school, we put out a collection of the best pieces at the end of the semester. Certain students (including me) were part of the selection committee, which read the poetry and voted on which ones would go into the anthology. I realize now that this process could easily be repeated for a digital publication rather than the lame Kinko's paper book that my high school put together. I liked the model the above site uses for that.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Week Four: Assessment
This week's chapter in Within and Beyond the Writing Process makes it pretty clear that assessment of student writing is not the fun part. I'm sure the group that read Papers, Papers, Papers would agree with that sentiment. We want to hear students' voices, guide them along, help them communicate their message, but we'd rather not judge them when it's finished.
The textbook does make an important distinction between the types of assessment that help and the types of assessment that judge, and I think that's important. I think teachers have the power to communicate a very strong message about writing in the way they choose to evaluate students. In the AP Composition course I took my junior year of high school, Mr. Heydanek (Kim's cooperating teacher, incidentally) graded each of us on how much we improved over the semester. This gave me the message that every paper was an opportunity to learn something new, and that continued efforts all year were necessary to make the grade. The purpose of the course was to make our own writing the best it could be, and I can honestly say that I learned to write that year.
The Writing Process authors would agree that the types of assessments that grade solely on one product rather than process, a collection of products or progress sends the message that students are not in class to learn to write but to produce something good enough for the teacher's standards. It shows students no reminders that writing is an individual craft that takes a lot of practice and lessons to master, and doesn't help students to remember the teacher is there to help.
I think the most important lesson I've learned about writing instruction so far this semester is that the way you frame learning to write to your students is so important. I strive to be able to communicate to my students that "You have something to say, you have a story, and I will help you communicate that message." Ideas, revision, editing, all of these lessons fall under the umbrella of making yourself understood, which is of utmost importance to teenagers especially.
The Adger article on vernacular speech and writing reminded me of a writing lesson teachers shouldn't overlook: Audience matters. I think a simple discussion on what implications audience has on writing (Is your English teacher going to respond well to "IM-speak" in your paper? Are readers of your standardized writing test going to take away points for non-standard English?), how this reflects on our society and what each student, as a writer, can do about it is so important. Mr. Heydanek always asked us to write our audience and our purpose at the top of each essay, so the instruction could be as simple as that or an entire lesson plan on stigmatized language. Also, a reminder that there are times (a personal narrative, for example, or a poem) when "writing how you talk" is completely appropriate and adds voice (one of the six traits!) to a piece of writing.
RESOURCE LINK OF THE WEEK:
It occurs to me that, just as in writing, we must negotiate language to communicate a message, so must we do so in editing. To get all students on the same page in terms of the editing marks they are using look at their own and their peers' papers, I found the following handout. I'd probably transfer the entire thing to a poster, but I liked the simplicity of this handout so I thought I'd share it.
http://www.thewritingsite.org/resources/managing/workshop/pdf/editmark.pdf
The textbook does make an important distinction between the types of assessment that help and the types of assessment that judge, and I think that's important. I think teachers have the power to communicate a very strong message about writing in the way they choose to evaluate students. In the AP Composition course I took my junior year of high school, Mr. Heydanek (Kim's cooperating teacher, incidentally) graded each of us on how much we improved over the semester. This gave me the message that every paper was an opportunity to learn something new, and that continued efforts all year were necessary to make the grade. The purpose of the course was to make our own writing the best it could be, and I can honestly say that I learned to write that year.
The Writing Process authors would agree that the types of assessments that grade solely on one product rather than process, a collection of products or progress sends the message that students are not in class to learn to write but to produce something good enough for the teacher's standards. It shows students no reminders that writing is an individual craft that takes a lot of practice and lessons to master, and doesn't help students to remember the teacher is there to help.
I think the most important lesson I've learned about writing instruction so far this semester is that the way you frame learning to write to your students is so important. I strive to be able to communicate to my students that "You have something to say, you have a story, and I will help you communicate that message." Ideas, revision, editing, all of these lessons fall under the umbrella of making yourself understood, which is of utmost importance to teenagers especially.
The Adger article on vernacular speech and writing reminded me of a writing lesson teachers shouldn't overlook: Audience matters. I think a simple discussion on what implications audience has on writing (Is your English teacher going to respond well to "IM-speak" in your paper? Are readers of your standardized writing test going to take away points for non-standard English?), how this reflects on our society and what each student, as a writer, can do about it is so important. Mr. Heydanek always asked us to write our audience and our purpose at the top of each essay, so the instruction could be as simple as that or an entire lesson plan on stigmatized language. Also, a reminder that there are times (a personal narrative, for example, or a poem) when "writing how you talk" is completely appropriate and adds voice (one of the six traits!) to a piece of writing.
RESOURCE LINK OF THE WEEK:
It occurs to me that, just as in writing, we must negotiate language to communicate a message, so must we do so in editing. To get all students on the same page in terms of the editing marks they are using look at their own and their peers' papers, I found the following handout. I'd probably transfer the entire thing to a poster, but I liked the simplicity of this handout so I thought I'd share it.
http://www.thewritingsite.org/resources/managing/workshop/pdf/editmark.pdf
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Week Three: Revision
Last Friday in my cooperating teacher's classroom, the 9th graders were working on their first revision of their papers on To Kill a Mockingbird. I thought the topic of the paper was pretty intriguing--they were to choose one of the statements from the "Anticipatory Guide" they'd completed before reading the book (we saw an example of this in Gallagher's Deeper Reading; the list of statements included "All people are created equal" and "If someone insults you, you should find with your head, not with your hands"). The thesis of the paper was to state their position on one of the statements, then use evidence from history, personal experience and the novel to support that position.
I observed the day the class was completing peer revision. In pairs, they were to read each other's papers and essentially go though a checklist that identified the required parts of the paper. For example, their partner had to answer "Does the paper have an original, thought provoking opening? Yes or No" and "Briefly summarize the author's evidence for his or her position." From what I could tell, the students did a pretty nice job working independently on this, and I heard a lot of discussions about improving each others' paper.
My cooperating teacher made it known that I was there to help conference students individually, so I got to read quite a few student papers. A few observations:
RESOURCE LINK OF THE WEEK:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-11-10-NSSE-writing_N.htm
I wasn't sure if we were allowed to post news articles for the resource link, but I liked this one because it underscores Jessie's mantra of "writing is thinking." Looking for a way to encourage critical thinking in the classroom? Make students write more and more thoughtfully, this study finds. I thought we might need a little encouragement of our craft as writing teachers from the fine people at USA Today.
I observed the day the class was completing peer revision. In pairs, they were to read each other's papers and essentially go though a checklist that identified the required parts of the paper. For example, their partner had to answer "Does the paper have an original, thought provoking opening? Yes or No" and "Briefly summarize the author's evidence for his or her position." From what I could tell, the students did a pretty nice job working independently on this, and I heard a lot of discussions about improving each others' paper.
My cooperating teacher made it known that I was there to help conference students individually, so I got to read quite a few student papers. A few observations:
- While I agree it's important for students to understand transitional phrases, I would under no circumstances simply give students a list of transitional phrases to use (i.e. Consequently, Furthermore, In summary, etc.) and require that one be present at the beginning of each paragraph. I witnessed the most ridiculous usage problems, and it negates the idea that there are more sophisticated ways to transition from idea to idea than simply tacking on a "Most importantly" in paragraph one. A simple "My personal experience also supports my position that killing is wrong" is a much more logical transition.
- I agree with both Atwell and Gallagher, who argue that revision needs to be separate from editing. Many students were so busy looking for places to insert commas that they completely missed that a student really hadn't taken a position on the issue at all. I did like that my cooperating teacher made the peer restate both the thesis and the evidence back to the student, which hopefully was enough to show students whether their position was clear.
- I couldn't agree more with the Harper article, as well as the premise of Mechanically Inclined, which argue for offering students specific tools to use during revising and editing. I sensed that my vague commentary would be lost on students if I didn't give them something specific to DO (for example, the Snapshot activity described). I also found that the blanket direction of "edit" was incredibly overwhelming. One boy asked for my help revising his partner's paper, so we sat down and did it together (modelling helps, let me tell you!). During the editing process, I said "First, look that every time your partner asks a question, he uses a question mark" because it was something I had noticed. Breaking the task of "editing" down seemed to help him a lot, especially since he was more than able to recognize a question in his partner's writing. Kelly Gallagher's writing textbook reminds us that peer revision just doesn't work as well when it comes to editing because students just aren't as well versed in conventions as we need them to be to correct each other. He sends students to ask designated "student grammarians" (students he trusts to edit well) or to himself. Even Atwell admits to editing each of her students' papers herself.
- I tried Atwell's suggestion of asking students to read their essays aloud, with a pencil in hand to mark errors they noticed themselves (one student especially liked this; "you'll ba good teacher, he said" Thanks, man). It's harder than you think not to correct everything you see or hear! This will definitely be something I have to work on. Can I listen carefully and send the students back with only one or two problems to consider? Next time, I will add Atwell's stipulation that you must come to me with a specific problem in mind (the writing center's motto, right Rick?).
RESOURCE LINK OF THE WEEK:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-11-10-NSSE-writing_N.htm
I wasn't sure if we were allowed to post news articles for the resource link, but I liked this one because it underscores Jessie's mantra of "writing is thinking." Looking for a way to encourage critical thinking in the classroom? Make students write more and more thoughtfully, this study finds. I thought we might need a little encouragement of our craft as writing teachers from the fine people at USA Today.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Week Two: Organization
I must admit I am having a hard time digesting the "Writing Process" book. The book's title, and this chapter in particular, seems to be advocating for process over product, but I admit the authors seem to be taking it a bit overboard. Chapter 5 severely dissuades teachers from introducing students to any strict forms or organizational tools, arguing that this stunts the ideas that can come out while writing the paper. It's not that I don't agree rigid forms can stifle in-depth thinking. Wesley's article about the five-paragraph essay convinced me of that fact, as well as my personal experience working with students one-on-one with their writing.
However, I think a significant amount of time set aside to varied and cognitively demanding pre-writing assignments is the solution to this problem. The purpose of pre-writing is to spend time thinking, to get first thoughts out on paper, to question one's thinking without worries of structure. After looking back on ideas generated during pre-writing, a student can and must devise an organizational strategy to convey those ideas to the best of his or her ability. And how is a student to learn about those organizational strategies without instruction from the teacher? After generating ideas, effective organization is, in my opinion, the most difficult part of writing. Because of this, the two issues should be tackled thoughtfully and separately.
It's not that I don't believe writing is thinking and the process of writing generates new ideas. The issue I have is that some writing products are better than others, and they are better for reasons that we can and should explain to our students. To let them wander willy-nilly using any form they feel like with no discussion of craft is doing them a disservice as writing teachers. I agree that learning the process is more important than the finished product, but I also believe that students should learn the process that will lead them to the best possible product.
Resource Link of the Week: I have not tried this resource out myself yet, but my cooperating teacher alerted me to its existence. Apparently his students discovered some version of this last year while writing their research papers. I'm posting it here because I'd like to have you all evaluate it--try it, let me know if it works, and let me know if you think this "fill in the box" approach would help or hinder "writing to learn."
http://www.atech.org/faculty/burke/writing/thesisoutlinegenerator.html
However, I think a significant amount of time set aside to varied and cognitively demanding pre-writing assignments is the solution to this problem. The purpose of pre-writing is to spend time thinking, to get first thoughts out on paper, to question one's thinking without worries of structure. After looking back on ideas generated during pre-writing, a student can and must devise an organizational strategy to convey those ideas to the best of his or her ability. And how is a student to learn about those organizational strategies without instruction from the teacher? After generating ideas, effective organization is, in my opinion, the most difficult part of writing. Because of this, the two issues should be tackled thoughtfully and separately.
It's not that I don't believe writing is thinking and the process of writing generates new ideas. The issue I have is that some writing products are better than others, and they are better for reasons that we can and should explain to our students. To let them wander willy-nilly using any form they feel like with no discussion of craft is doing them a disservice as writing teachers. I agree that learning the process is more important than the finished product, but I also believe that students should learn the process that will lead them to the best possible product.
Resource Link of the Week: I have not tried this resource out myself yet, but my cooperating teacher alerted me to its existence. Apparently his students discovered some version of this last year while writing their research papers. I'm posting it here because I'd like to have you all evaluate it--try it, let me know if it works, and let me know if you think this "fill in the box" approach would help or hinder "writing to learn."
http://www.atech.org/faculty/burke/writing/thesisoutlinegenerator.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
