Blog # 5

O.k., so I'm obviously a tool. Monday's class really made me think about grading papers and how there are no cut and dry lines in which to do it. As we soon found out, we can't all be perfect and many of us can be way, way off. Although I feel our class experiment wasn't entirely accurate (I feel we needed more time to make the grade assessments, while carefully following the rubric), it was a revelation to me; I need to consider all the possibilities of my students' writing, and pay more attention to how they can improve their works of art.

Which is why the reading from Spandel was interesting this week. Of course, it had everything to do with our class discussion (had I read the text by that point.) Many of the things she writes about makes us reconsider every possibility in evaluating writing--and we will still struggle with the right decision...However, there are easier methods of assessing a students drafts/final papers without guessing too much, while keeping in mind that there is no real "formula". As Dr. Kearney was saying in class (and as Spandel was writing about), we absolutely need to walk away from a paper feeling good about what we've just read and be able to feel as if we've gained enlightenment or a perspective we may not have had before. We need to "feel" the writer and relate to their message, even if we don't agree or can't relate through experience. The only way we can make this happen with our young writers is to eradicate the use of boring outlines which make the writing process a whole lot more scary than what it need be. Of course, I agree with some of my classmates regarding teaching it anyhow (for standardized testing and such) but feel it should be a last resort, not the first one.

I am relieved that Hillocks "alleges that formula not only fails to 'support higher level thinking skills' but actually imposes 'a way of thinking that eliminates the need for critical thought.'" (Spandel, 125). This is exactly what I stated in class and exactly what I meant. Don't take me the wrong way; I'm not insinuating that some formal method is not useful to teaching, I just feel as though this "formula", pertaining to writing,is the wrong way to teach. Yes, the "real world" requires us to learn and teach it, yet it does not require that we use it all the time. And yes, "vacuous thinking" labels the ideology just fine.

In addition, Kramer states that "we do need to help our students understand and apply concepts..." I have the same ache inside me when I graded my third-graders' work and realized what was happening to their talent. The fact that I was only the assistant hurt even more--knowing I could do nothing to stop their aggravation with learning the procedure. (It does sound like surgery, right?)This writing class struggled to maintain focus, learning had suddenly become dull, and the teacher made sure she listed all the elements (rules) for writing on the blackboard so everyone would have a clear idea of exactly what SHE wanted. Nice...I was bored reading the papers too...

In "The language of coats", I found myself exhausted at what the author had gone through in one day of teaching. It makes me wonder if I'll have the stamina to "make the day" and whther I'll cut it as a teacher. I also like Sommers' explanation of what she likes to hear from gifted writing teachers. I will be sure to include the writing process (just as Dr. Kearney so eloquently led us to understand was the main topic for discussion)and will always make sure I define my success in teaching writing by using the "language of coats." I just hope I'm wearing the right one.