Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This blog has been set up to facilitate discussion among the participants in the March session of the Active Literacy Across the Curriculum in the Lakeville Area School District. Each blog is a discussion question for the group. Please respond with your reflections, as well as comments about others reflections.
8 comments:
Advantages
• Better writing by setting higher and consistent standards
• Clear expectations for the students, which should result in less frustration and better writing
• More efficiency since each teacher does not have to re-create the wheel
Disadvantages
• Students who can not or will not meet standards may quit trying.
I see the main advantages being very similar to those listed by math jarl. A main disadvantage appears to be time--to set up the matrix, to be sure all teachers are competent and understanding of the writing policies, and to provide support to teachers who are not confident of their own writing abilities. Another huge disadvantage is the issue of trust and clear communications between teachers. It is not easy and, again, requires time to establish communications and trust. A big district would have a much tougher time establishing those key items.
The most appealing element of this proposal is the consistency with which it is intended to be implemented, yet you advocate different teachers using different criteria of the rubric. If science teachers, for example, do not score for content, convention, etc. what is consistent? Now the student plays the game of meeting only certain criteria for each class (e.g. data collection in math & science, but conventions in language, and content development in social studies). Isn’t this the same game you illustrated at the beginning of the chapter, but with different rules?
I think the vertical discussions involved in creating a K-12 developmental editing and revision plan would be highly valuable. As a non-confident writer myself, I would find clarity of expectations helpful.I agree with engviev that time to develop this policy would be an issue, but I believe that we make time for our priorities, so if this is a priority it would be worth creating time for the discussions involved.
Some advantages include
•student self reliance
•reduced confusion of both students and staff (including subs)
•consistency in expectations AND assessment
•the use of rubrics to provide a prewriting/coaching tool.
Advocating the use of a rubric is the most compelling for me. Unfortunately most of the rubrics found on the internet are not constructed well. I would like to see the district offer workshops to learn the proper creation of rubrics. Students are told what is expected before they begin a project, and the teacher has a clear guide for assessment. It's a win/win.
Oops--I forgot to comment on the disadvantages:
teachers outside the domain of English/language may need to master grammar, usage, structure...before they can teach or assess these elements of writing. Many teachers at the middle and high school levels are not confident of their skills outside their area of specialty. This is an area that needs to be addressed in teacher preparation programs. In the mean time, how do we help current instructors come up to speed quickly?
There are great advantages to having proper grammer and spelling be important across the curriculum. Ideas are important within science, but if a student is unable to communicate, the idea can't be shared.
If there is any disadvantage it will come in the area of knowing what standards should be expected at each grade. In addition, some teachers may have become so accustomed to reading the misspellings and runon sentences, they will read right through them. I know that I tend to see ideas clearly but may not notice the misspelled words. Checking for that will take twice as long. I would hate to see what could happen if I added a peer editing day to my schedule whenever I needed a written product.
Finally, it is not difficult to imagine the whining that will be heard if I tell students to answer questions using complete sentences. (That is the good old fashioned lazy showing. That in itself is a disadvantage.) There are some thoughtful questions that do appear in science texts. They do require students to use the information that they have just suppossedly gained. Even when these are assigned, many students do not like to use complete sentences.
I think the obvious advantage to staying consistent K-12 is that by middle school and high school they should be pretty good at it.
I will always think a disadvantage is that it is really difficult for me to find time in the math room to work on writing and use the same rubric a writing teacher would use. I just don't have the time and am not sure I want to make the time to check a students writing as closely as an english teacher would. In all fairness, it is a little like asking every teacher to teach students how to calculate their percentages the same, and take some time out of their class to reinforce fractions because students struggle with them as well.
Post a Comment