Whirling Thoughts and an Idea about Grading Essays Constructively
It's been far too long since I've posted anything on my blog. Much has been swirling inside me this year. I feel like a brand new teacher, even though I've taught for 32 years. I'm redoing so many assignments and am trying to bring a constructivist slant to my teaching. I haven't been very successful with new technology--mainly because whenever I incorporate that element into my teaching, I experience the frustration of lost mouse balls, unavailable computer labs, or the filter's restriction of my access to a web page. I've cut back on the technology quite drastically as a result. It was getting in my way, if you want to know the truth. When I finally "earn"/"deserve"/"acquire" (What's the right word???) a lap top classroom, I'll bring in Skype, Wikkis, blogging, etc. In the meantime, I'll stick to chalk and talk.
But here's what I'm excited about. I love handing over the power to my students. I've always conducted seminars in my A.P. courses, but now I'm bringing Socratic Seminars to my "regular" seniors and to my "regular" English 10 students--and the students simply amaze me. I almost get teary-eyed when I listen to sophomores discuss Tortilla Curtain or Bless Me, Ultima with such intelligence and sensitivity. I learn so much from hearing what seniors have to say about Brave New World. In the past, I thought I had to tell my students what to think. I didn't trust them enough to let them figure out the deep ideas for themselves.
Also, in the middle of the night (last weekend), I woke up with an idea about how to make paper grading more constructivist. For over 30 years, I've used up hundreds of red pens marking the mechanical errors in students' writing. I've always prided myself on being very thorough. I've tried to catch every error and have operated on the assumption that if they saw the error, the students would stop making the mistake (I know that sounds stupid--but that's been my guiding principle for many, many years.....)
Here is a better idea:
I decided to circle only 5 errors in each paper. I used a code and I numbered each error. Then I told the kids to fix these five errors (as a separate assignment). They must go on-line and find the writing rule that they violated. They must copy the rule and the examples, rewrite the rule in their own words, and then fix their error.
It's true that computers fix many mechanical errors--but every English teacher knows that a computer misses many, many mistakes.
I know, Karl, that you probably believe mechanics are insignificant, and that only the ideas matter. I agree with you to a certain extent. I always concentrate on what the student's thoughts are, and I always comment on the quality of the ideas. Content is the most important element of writing. But clarity and style are also very important. Bad mechanics ruin clarity (and style), so I must teach the kids to eliminate them.
In theory, this "constructivst" approach should make my job a bit easier, because I only mark 5 errors per paper. In reality, I labored over the essays (for 5 hours last weekend), because I was trying hard to find the most significant errors--those that interfered most with style and clarity. But as I keep practicing this new, more discriminating form of grading, I figure I'll get better at it. I also figure my students will begin to make fewer errors because they'll really learn the rules of grammar.
But here's what I'm excited about. I love handing over the power to my students. I've always conducted seminars in my A.P. courses, but now I'm bringing Socratic Seminars to my "regular" seniors and to my "regular" English 10 students--and the students simply amaze me. I almost get teary-eyed when I listen to sophomores discuss Tortilla Curtain or Bless Me, Ultima with such intelligence and sensitivity. I learn so much from hearing what seniors have to say about Brave New World. In the past, I thought I had to tell my students what to think. I didn't trust them enough to let them figure out the deep ideas for themselves.
Also, in the middle of the night (last weekend), I woke up with an idea about how to make paper grading more constructivist. For over 30 years, I've used up hundreds of red pens marking the mechanical errors in students' writing. I've always prided myself on being very thorough. I've tried to catch every error and have operated on the assumption that if they saw the error, the students would stop making the mistake (I know that sounds stupid--but that's been my guiding principle for many, many years.....)
Here is a better idea:
I decided to circle only 5 errors in each paper. I used a code and I numbered each error. Then I told the kids to fix these five errors (as a separate assignment). They must go on-line and find the writing rule that they violated. They must copy the rule and the examples, rewrite the rule in their own words, and then fix their error.
It's true that computers fix many mechanical errors--but every English teacher knows that a computer misses many, many mistakes.
I know, Karl, that you probably believe mechanics are insignificant, and that only the ideas matter. I agree with you to a certain extent. I always concentrate on what the student's thoughts are, and I always comment on the quality of the ideas. Content is the most important element of writing. But clarity and style are also very important. Bad mechanics ruin clarity (and style), so I must teach the kids to eliminate them.
In theory, this "constructivst" approach should make my job a bit easier, because I only mark 5 errors per paper. In reality, I labored over the essays (for 5 hours last weekend), because I was trying hard to find the most significant errors--those that interfered most with style and clarity. But as I keep practicing this new, more discriminating form of grading, I figure I'll get better at it. I also figure my students will begin to make fewer errors because they'll really learn the rules of grammar.
posted by Cheryl Makovsky at 4:07 PM
3 Comments:
Hey, I replaced the mouse balls! Don't give up on that technology just yet - just find your own path toward using it effectively in your classroom.
And, no, I don't believe mechanics are insignificant. They are a powerful and intrinsic part of how we communicate. I do believe, however, that focusing on mechanics outside of any relevant context is an exercise in futility. When done with a purpose - as you are clearly doing - it can do wonders for a student's ability to communicate their ideas.
So, the real question is, how well is this working so far? Have you gotten anything back yet that would indicate that your students are figuring it out better than they did before?
Karl--I just began this new approach, so it'll take some time to see if it's working. I'll let you know!
Cheryl,
I love that you circled the errors and told them to go online and fix them. Wonderful! What was the reaction and their end result, did they do a good job? Did they feel they learned the rules instead of just fixing what the teacher already fixed?
Post a Comment
<< Home