Across the Drafts

* Nancy Sommers' article, "Across the Drafts," argues that a partnership between the student and teacher can be the best setting for influential feedback. In what ways can this partnership be beneficial to the editing process? *

One of the most important parts of giving adequate feedback is to provide an honest critique that is paired with sufficient instruction. This means that the instructor is responsible for providing the student with a legitimate critique of their work, but then also providing them with actual instruction on how to improve their ideas or errors. An instructor should not just tell the student what they have done wrong, but should offer an explanation of how the student can improve their work for the next draft, of for future assignments. After all, the whole purpose of providing feedback for students is to help them see what they did well, what they need to improve and also how they can improve. When implemented in this manner, constructive criticism can be very beneficial for students. The students also have an important role in this process. They must learn how to receive criticism and to then put the advice into effect in future assignments. Students must not view their instructor's comments as personal attacks, but as enlightening knowledge that they can carry on into their next assignment and other courses as well.

Responding to Student Writing

* In "Responding to Student Writing," Nancy Sommers argues that an edit of a first draft should focus on developing students' ideas and not on the specific mechanics of the paper. Do you agree or disagree? *

Before reading this article, I had never really thought about the different purposed throughout the editing process. However, after reading Sommers' article, I have realized how critical these processes can be for the development of a sound paper. I agree with Sommers' argument that when editing a first draft, a teacher should put the most emphasis on critiquing the students' ideas and development of their argument. It seems pointless to edit the mechanics within a student's paper if you are then going to suggest that the student expand or revise a paragraph or entire section of their work. By advising the student to expand their ideas within their paper first and then focusing on mechanics in a second or third draft, teachers can provide students with a much more efficient critique of their work.

Also relating to Sommers' ideas, I believe the most important part of editing is to not only tell the students what needs to be revised, but to actually teach them better ways of communicating their ideas. It is part of a teachers job to show and further explain to students specifically how they can revise their paper in order to more effectively communicate their ideas. By being introduced to new techniques and approaches, students will actually feel like there is a real reason to revise and improve their work.

Scoring Rubrics

*Mertler's article discusses how to design scoring rubrics for classroom use. In the article, Mertler states, "It is important to note that one type of rubric is not inherently better than the other" (p.3). In your educational experiences, do you feel that your teachers have implemented both analytic and holistic rubrics? If so, do you feel they've used the two equally?*

In my educational experiences, my instructors have used both holistic and analytic rubrics for grading. I do, however, feel that the instructor's preference has changed in my years in school. When I was in middle and high school, my teachers most often implemented an analytic rubric when grading our assignments. They would score individual parts of the assignment and then sum up these scores to create a total score. Although Mertler states, "an individual's work should be examined a separate time for each of the specific performance tasks or scoring criteria," I doubt many of my teachers took the time to do this (p. 3). Regardless, I feel that the main focus of this type of grading was to produce adequate feedback for us, as students. By assigning either qualitative levels for specific criteria, these teachers were hoping to give students a more significant degree of feedback on their work.

Since I've been in college, most of my professors have used holistic scoring rubrics. These professors are usually scoring the overall product as a whole, without judging the components separately. I believe they most often use this style of rubric because most of our assignments are summative in nature and their focus is on the overall quality, and understanding of specific content. This style of scoring is also much faster for the professor considering they do not have to read hundreds of assignments multiple times to formulate each student's score. Also, they seem to be less concerned with providing descriptive feedback to students. Due to this and the time restraints put on them, this is probably why professors are more likely to choose the holistic rubric over the analytic one.

Williams-Chapter 9

*In Williams' discussion of writing assignments, he refers to Erika Lindemann's idea that, "teachers must decide what they want students to do in an assignment, how they want them to do it, who the students are writing for, and what constitutes a successful response to an assignment." In your educational experiences, do you feel that your instructors have followed these guidelines when presenting you with a writing assignment?*

Based on my educational experiences thus far, I would agree that the majority of my instructors have followed these basic guidelines. In my writing assignments, I am usually given a topic, and the basic instructions of a font size and style, a word or page length, and an acceptable format. Although these are helpful for the structure of the paper, they do not present the student with clear expectations for what is acceptable within the actual writing.

I feel that many times the instructor's expectations are not clearly defined for a writing assignment. This point has both positive and negative sides to it. On the positive side, leaving an assignment open-ended with very few guidelines can allow for more creativity and originality from the students. However, the lack of direction can cause many students to go in a direction that doesn't follow what the instructor expected from an assignment. A student may formulate an effective argument and give outstanding supporting details, but because the paper doesn't follow what the instructor had in mind, they may be marked down for it. As a future educator, I feel a way to counteract this would be for the teacher to have a more open-minded approach to evaluating and grading an assignment. On the other hand, as a student, it is our responsibility to be sure that we completely understand what will qualify as an acceptable response to an assignment. This is where I feel a more structured set of guidelines would be helpful for students who are struggling to adequately formulate a response to a given topic. I believe it is absolutely possible for an instructor to clearly lay out his/her expectations and criteria for an "A" paper while still allowing the students to formulate a response that implements their own creative style and approach.

Analysis of Educating Esmé

While reading Educating Esmé, as a future educator, I found many passages throughout the text to be quite compelling. If I had to choose my two favorite, they would be:

"She urged me to forgive myself at the end of each day, that no single thing I could say would break a child . . . or make a child." (page 16)

"The difference between a beginning teacher an experienced one is that the beginning teacher asks, "How am I doing?" and the experienced teacher asks, "How are the children doing?" (page 191)

I feel that these passages are not only great representations of Codell's teaching style, but also provide great advice for other teachers as well. Throughout the text, Codell proved herself to be an independent and creative teacher who truly wanted the best for each of her students. The experiences Codell describes in the text provide insight into the trials and tribulations of a teacher's first year. She discusses specific incidents with students, parents, administrators, and coworkers. Although many of these episodes caused stress and anxiety for Codell, in the end, each one helped her become a more influential and productive teacher. Her eccentric style of teaching brought life to the classroom content and allowed the students to have real-life opportunities to expand their own creativity and knowledge. I was truly inspired by her ambitious outlook on teaching and her willingness to go outside of the box in order to assure that each of her students gained the critical knowledge that she was presenting.

Throughout the text, Codell showed how she, like the second quote states, moved from a beginning teacher to an experienced one. I would hardly consider her the average first-year teacher, however; her outspoken and demanding personality isn't exactly what you would expect from a beginning teacher. Regardless of how others around her felt (even the administration), Codell always followed what she believed was best for her students. In my opinion, this is what truly shows the difference between a beginning teacher and an experienced one. She always seemed to be concerned about how her students were doing, both in school and with their own personal lives. Overall, I feel that this book gives an excellent glance into the life of teacher's first-year and provides many examples of what an incredible teacher Codell was.

Discussion Questions:

1. Critique Codell's style of teaching, providing both the pros and the cons. (evaluation)

2. How does Codell's teaching style compare to that of teachers you have had experiences with? (analysis)

3.Explain the significance of Codell's experiences for future, or even current teachers. (application)

Technology and Teaching Writing

Warschauer, Mark. "Technology and Writing."International Handbook of English Language Teaching (Springer International Handbooks of Education). 1 ed. New York: Springer, 2007. 907-917. Print.Available on JMU's link to Google Scholar: www.springerlink.com/content/l617530j77h027qu/fulltext.pdf

In this chapter, Warschauer explores some of the useful benefits to using technology to teach writing in the classroom. He discusses three aspects of technology that can be used: computer-assisted classroom discussion (CACD), e-mail exchanges, and web-page authoring. After conducting classroom studies, Warschauer found that production increased (in the opinions of the teachers as well as the students) with all three types of technology.

When using CACD, students became better writers since they had a more authentic audience and purpose for writing. There was also an increase in student participation, as even the quietest students were willing to add to the discussions. Warschauer states how this approach can promote collaborative learning in a classroom because it breaks up the teacher-centered nature of discussion. Also, students were more likely to use more complex language in their writing opposed to the casual speech that is used most often in face-to-face classroom discussions. Teachers felt that there was an improvement in the depth and strength of students’ arguments as well. Another important part of CACD is the peer feedback sessions, which allowed students to make more “detailed, local revisions” after they had received input from their peers.

By participating in e-mail exchanges, Warschauer found that teachers communicated more with their students, especially with those who were considered to be lower-performing students. Also, students were able to communicate more with each other as there was less anxiety than in face-to-face communication. Also, the class became more learner-centered as the content shifted away from the standard syllabus and more towards the students’ own writings. Warschauer found that the quality of writing improved as students made better use of peer editing and teacher feedback.

Warschauer found that the use of web-page authoring was beneficial to the students’ writing as well. Web pages are created for a broad public audience and therefore, students found the assignments to be more relevant and useful in their lives. Also, creating a web-page allowed for much more student creativity. In this chapter, Warschauer also discusses how beneficial these activities can be for English Language Learners because they can use other students’ work as a guiding support for new vocabulary and grammar structure.

Collaborative Learning

*In your past classroom experiences, do you feel that collaborative learning has been a benefit or a burden to your educational experience?*

In my past experiences, I feel that I have truly benefited from collaborative learning. I enjoyed having the opportunity to work with other students in order to solve a given problem. I also feel that working together with my peers allowed me to feel less anxiety about a given task. Not only did I feel less stressed by this idea, but it was also helpful for me to hear others' views on the situation at hand.

As an aspiring teacher, I learn best by explaining things to others. It has always been helpful to me to explain my ideas aloud, and then to receive feedback from my peers. As Bruffee mentions in Collaborative Learning and the "Conversation of Mankind," I feel that peer criticism can be very beneficial to both the writer and the reader as well. While partaking in peer criticism, the writer benefits by receiving an outsiders' opinion and the reader benefits by having the opportunity to be exposed to a different perspective, style, or technique.

Because I am in the field of elementary education, I have been exposed to many different forms of collaborative learning which I feel are extremely beneficial to students' learning experiences. I believe that through collaborative learning, students benefit not only intellectually, but socially as well. This style of learning can allow students to progress their social and communication skills while also allowing them to learn from others' points of view. Overall, I feel that collaborative learning is a valuable technique that should be present, in some way, in every classroom.