Posts
10 years ago
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Literacy Journal - Week 9
Blog Prompt:
What are the key points you want to keep in mind as you assess students? Why?
I like the points that Elbow makes in his article, "Ranking, Evaluating and Liking," particularly as it applies to assessing students' writing skills. I think it is easier to make a case for de-emphasizing ranking and grading for the more "subjective" subjects, such as Language Arts and Social Studies, since I think it is harder to "evalutate" or "like" an incorrect math exam or science report.
I was also glad to see that Elbow doesn't rely solely on evaluation, since, as he correctly implies, there comes a point in a school term or year where there are certain expectations related to grammar, vocabulary and spelling that cannot override an otherwise valid piece of writing. The notion of "evaluation free" zones struck me as highly original and inspiring. One of the frustrations I have had as a teacher intern in my main placement is where I see very original writing skills on display, only to be undermined by poor spelling and grammar, and have always wished that there was a better way to delineate between style and substance, so to speak. (I have also definitely seen the reverse, where a student turns in a good, solid piece of writing that is unforgivably dull or uninspiring).
I really liked some of Elbow's suggestions, such as a ten minute nonstop freewrite or the single unevaluated assignment, which has the benefit of instilling a certain degree of freedom and unrestrained creativity, as long as it is tempered with some solid structure and the notion that good writing is not only about good ideas and creativity, but also in effectively conveying and communicating that writing to an audience. I think it is possible to go overboard on the other side of the equation and give TOO much credit and credibility to creativity if the piece doesn't hold together structurally or fails to connect with the reader.
As a teacher, I would like to follow Elbow's model, perhaps even giving separate "evaluations" or "likability" scores for a student's substance and style, which could provide a good guidepost to let a student know how to make the overall piece stronger and "better," subjective as that may sound. The important thing is to build on a student's strengths to bolster his or her weaknesses, and this is especially true in writing, although it doesn't do much to solve the problem of the student who is extremely weak and deficient in both structure and style.
What are the key points you want to keep in mind as you assess students? Why?
I like the points that Elbow makes in his article, "Ranking, Evaluating and Liking," particularly as it applies to assessing students' writing skills. I think it is easier to make a case for de-emphasizing ranking and grading for the more "subjective" subjects, such as Language Arts and Social Studies, since I think it is harder to "evalutate" or "like" an incorrect math exam or science report.
I was also glad to see that Elbow doesn't rely solely on evaluation, since, as he correctly implies, there comes a point in a school term or year where there are certain expectations related to grammar, vocabulary and spelling that cannot override an otherwise valid piece of writing. The notion of "evaluation free" zones struck me as highly original and inspiring. One of the frustrations I have had as a teacher intern in my main placement is where I see very original writing skills on display, only to be undermined by poor spelling and grammar, and have always wished that there was a better way to delineate between style and substance, so to speak. (I have also definitely seen the reverse, where a student turns in a good, solid piece of writing that is unforgivably dull or uninspiring).
I really liked some of Elbow's suggestions, such as a ten minute nonstop freewrite or the single unevaluated assignment, which has the benefit of instilling a certain degree of freedom and unrestrained creativity, as long as it is tempered with some solid structure and the notion that good writing is not only about good ideas and creativity, but also in effectively conveying and communicating that writing to an audience. I think it is possible to go overboard on the other side of the equation and give TOO much credit and credibility to creativity if the piece doesn't hold together structurally or fails to connect with the reader.
As a teacher, I would like to follow Elbow's model, perhaps even giving separate "evaluations" or "likability" scores for a student's substance and style, which could provide a good guidepost to let a student know how to make the overall piece stronger and "better," subjective as that may sound. The important thing is to build on a student's strengths to bolster his or her weaknesses, and this is especially true in writing, although it doesn't do much to solve the problem of the student who is extremely weak and deficient in both structure and style.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
