Cynthia and Andrew Sheehan's article was really helpful. The mother's frustration didn't surprise me; so often, when students with LD get to high school the parents are exhausted and beyond frustrated by the long battle to advocate for their children. But that's another blog. Andrew's portion on the article really put a cognitive/socio-emotional face on the challenges faced by students with dysgraphia and ADHD. Andrew shared specific strategies he uses to be successful--and the one I'm going to chose to focus on in this blog is technology.
Those who have only known me a few months--nay, those who have only known me a few days--are painfully aware of my limitations in the technological arena. Right now our building is struggling with getting the Kurzweil reader up and running. Last Friday we had a conference day; Special Ed devoted the morning to fine tuning the Kurzweil system which has nominally been in place since October. At the end of three hours, half of us teachers/TAs hadn't been able to log on: some of us had figured out how to scan things in but couldn't figure out how to get them into Kurweil form.....you get the picture.
"It's just easier to read to the kid!" I heard.
"It's not going to be good for Mark and Evan, anyway," I heard, "the computer isn't going to discuss the readings. They won't understand what they're reading."
"This is a complete waste of my time!" I heard.
What I found most interesting was this: I wasn't making those negative comments. Was I frustrated? Yep. Could I think of more productive ways to spend 3 hours? Yep. But Andrew Sheehan's article had highlighted the benefits of technology for students with learning challenges for me. Andrew has good reading comprehension; some of my students don't. This technology won't be a panacea for every student with reading challenges. Yet Andrew's comments helped me see that technology can bring the possibility of independence...the "level playing field." So, I'm all for the Kurzweil. We just have to figure out how to make it work!
Barb
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The pitfalls of conferencing with Struggling Writers
OK, this is why I signed up for this class--how can I better help struggling writers? Circling mistakes in red doesn't work...either the students merely copy the teacher's corrections into their papers, or (more likely) they don't even read them in the first place. I am a big fan of conferencing with students--but reading Glasswell's article opened my eyes to bad practices of which I am guilty.
Most important--interruptions. Because of the resource setting in which I work, I am constantly interrupted by students needing direction, asking for clarification, etc. while I'm conferencing on a writing piece with a student. The weaker the writer, the longer it takes to go through his paper--Glasswell is right, I do tend to take care of small problems with others and then come back to the writer. Now that I am aware of this, I will make it a priority to minimize interruptions and give the writer sustained attention. Interruptions are not as much of a problem in my Coteach English 9 class, as one teacher can concentrate only on conferencing while the other supervises/answers questions for the rest of the class.
Glasswell found that teachers conferencing with struggling writers tended to focus on lower levels such as mechanics, word choice, and punctuation rather than higher levels such as goals of the writing. Once again, I see this as an area where I can definitely improve. I can see that it is important to help the student see his writing as a way of communicating ideas, not just a sequence of sentences which contain mistakes.
Mrs. Marilyn Shelton, who teaches creative writing and 12th/10th grade English at JD, uses a technique where she marks grammatical errors with a red check at the end of the line. That just means that there is some error--the student is responsible for figuring out how to correct the sentence. This is very time consuming for her and for the students, but it forces a student to think about his own revision; the student becomes stronger at spotting and fixing the errors he/she tends to make.
Late for work--I'd save the draft and publish later, but I don't trust that I'll get the post back. Please forgive my "mechanical" error...no time to double proof!
Barb
Most important--interruptions. Because of the resource setting in which I work, I am constantly interrupted by students needing direction, asking for clarification, etc. while I'm conferencing on a writing piece with a student. The weaker the writer, the longer it takes to go through his paper--Glasswell is right, I do tend to take care of small problems with others and then come back to the writer. Now that I am aware of this, I will make it a priority to minimize interruptions and give the writer sustained attention. Interruptions are not as much of a problem in my Coteach English 9 class, as one teacher can concentrate only on conferencing while the other supervises/answers questions for the rest of the class.
Glasswell found that teachers conferencing with struggling writers tended to focus on lower levels such as mechanics, word choice, and punctuation rather than higher levels such as goals of the writing. Once again, I see this as an area where I can definitely improve. I can see that it is important to help the student see his writing as a way of communicating ideas, not just a sequence of sentences which contain mistakes.
Mrs. Marilyn Shelton, who teaches creative writing and 12th/10th grade English at JD, uses a technique where she marks grammatical errors with a red check at the end of the line. That just means that there is some error--the student is responsible for figuring out how to correct the sentence. This is very time consuming for her and for the students, but it forces a student to think about his own revision; the student becomes stronger at spotting and fixing the errors he/she tends to make.
Late for work--I'd save the draft and publish later, but I don't trust that I'll get the post back. Please forgive my "mechanical" error...no time to double proof!
Barb
Quindlen Author Update :)
As I was putting away my "Quindlen" stiff (alright, I did file some of it in the circular file!), I came across some essays that I had thought to use in my "talk." Some of them seemed pertinent to those with families and teachers, so I thought I'd use my new found skills and provide a link (!!). These are all from her Newsweek column:
"Write for your life" (1/22/07) is about journaling both in and out of a classroom setting, a respose to Freedom Writers.
"Playing God on No Sleep" was one I wanted to read about Andrea Yates, the mother who drowned her five kids in a bathtub; it was very controversial, but honest.
There are two that I really like about mothering "The Good Enough Mother" (2/2005) and "Doing Nothing is Something" (5/13/2002). The latter harkens back to the days before the scheduled childhood...
The nice thing about essays is that they are short!
Barb
"Write for your life" (1/22/07) is about journaling both in and out of a classroom setting, a respose to Freedom Writers.
"Playing God on No Sleep" was one I wanted to read about Andrea Yates, the mother who drowned her five kids in a bathtub; it was very controversial, but honest.
There are two that I really like about mothering "The Good Enough Mother" (2/2005) and "Doing Nothing is Something" (5/13/2002). The latter harkens back to the days before the scheduled childhood...
The nice thing about essays is that they are short!
Barb
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Finding Voice
In preparation for my author's talk this week (Anna Quindlen) I have spent a lot of time thinking about voice. If you knew my history with "voice," you would find this ironic. "How can they take off points for "voice" they can't even explain what it is!" my 15-year old daughter would complain staring at the red circles on the graded essay rubric. I commiserated with her...How indeed?! T o me, voice was some undefined, elusive quality to which I responded without analysis. This class on composing has definitely made me more critically aware of "voice" in writing, as well as the inner and interconnections between what is being said, who is saying it, how it is being read, and who is reading it.
Two of the articles we read for this week, "'Speaking Up' and 'Speaking Out' " by Annette Henry and "The Listening Eye: Reflections on the Writing Conference" by Donald Murray caused me to reflect on the importance of a student writer finding his/her voice and the role of the writing teacher in facilitating this to happen. In both cases, but in different ways, Henry and Murray moved toward the importance of listening to the student, validating his/her concerns and manner of expression, helping the student communicate his/her thoughts and voice in writing itself. Henry, interested in designing a writing workshop that would help ESL, African Carribean 14 and 15 year old girls find their "voices." Her interest was in supporting freeing those girls speak up for themselves. She did a lot of prewriting activities (drama, problem-posing circles, discussion--great ideas I will use) to prepare them to write. She did create a space that empowered them to write. Yet as her students "came to voice," they challenged some of her assumptions. Some girls assumed traditional female roles in their writing; one raised issues private areas of morals and sexuality the Henry had not foreseen exploring. Henry found a "commitment to student's voices" and "collective curricular" decisions necessitated allowing her "research aims and agenda to be reshaped or even die off" (Henry 248)
Murray did not have an activist agenda--his article speaks about the value of conferencing. Like Henry, he created an environment where students were encouraged, actually required, to find their voices. His writing class is non-directed...the students write with their own voices. He models what questions they should ask themselves; they figure out what their writing will become and how to make it stronger. The teacher is first of all a listener...and he listens for the authentic voice and purpose of each author. I was struck by the fact that Murray respects the author's authorship. He says that you can't help edit until near "the end of the process, until the author has found something important to say and a way to say it."
After reading these articles, I will ask more questions of the author in a writing conference, rather than assume that I know what he/she wants to express. I realize I am guilty of this. I will try to remember that "it is not my mind's eye that is looking at the subject" or "my language which is telling me what the eye has seen" (Murray 17). Most of our writing conferences, though, are really about editing; the subjects have not been chosen by the students; the ideas to be expressed often have more to do with the task designer than the author. Expressive writing is not a big part of our curriculum at my high school except for a creative writing elective that can be taken repeatedly. At the high school level, we don't consistently create opportunities and spaces where students can find their literary voices. It's hard not to say, we should.
Barb
Two of the articles we read for this week, "'Speaking Up' and 'Speaking Out' " by Annette Henry and "The Listening Eye: Reflections on the Writing Conference" by Donald Murray caused me to reflect on the importance of a student writer finding his/her voice and the role of the writing teacher in facilitating this to happen. In both cases, but in different ways, Henry and Murray moved toward the importance of listening to the student, validating his/her concerns and manner of expression, helping the student communicate his/her thoughts and voice in writing itself. Henry, interested in designing a writing workshop that would help ESL, African Carribean 14 and 15 year old girls find their "voices." Her interest was in supporting freeing those girls speak up for themselves. She did a lot of prewriting activities (drama, problem-posing circles, discussion--great ideas I will use) to prepare them to write. She did create a space that empowered them to write. Yet as her students "came to voice," they challenged some of her assumptions. Some girls assumed traditional female roles in their writing; one raised issues private areas of morals and sexuality the Henry had not foreseen exploring. Henry found a "commitment to student's voices" and "collective curricular" decisions necessitated allowing her "research aims and agenda to be reshaped or even die off" (Henry 248)
Murray did not have an activist agenda--his article speaks about the value of conferencing. Like Henry, he created an environment where students were encouraged, actually required, to find their voices. His writing class is non-directed...the students write with their own voices. He models what questions they should ask themselves; they figure out what their writing will become and how to make it stronger. The teacher is first of all a listener...and he listens for the authentic voice and purpose of each author. I was struck by the fact that Murray respects the author's authorship. He says that you can't help edit until near "the end of the process, until the author has found something important to say and a way to say it."
After reading these articles, I will ask more questions of the author in a writing conference, rather than assume that I know what he/she wants to express. I realize I am guilty of this. I will try to remember that "it is not my mind's eye that is looking at the subject" or "my language which is telling me what the eye has seen" (Murray 17). Most of our writing conferences, though, are really about editing; the subjects have not been chosen by the students; the ideas to be expressed often have more to do with the task designer than the author. Expressive writing is not a big part of our curriculum at my high school except for a creative writing elective that can be taken repeatedly. At the high school level, we don't consistently create opportunities and spaces where students can find their literary voices. It's hard not to say, we should.
Barb
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Just Some Thoughts--Revising and Editing
I have to say that I would love to be student in a class led by either Barry Lane or Richard Kent. Barry Lane would make me want to write. I loved the visual prompts he provided--thoughtshots and snapshots, the flashlight activity for focus, inside questions and outside questions, and seeing the tension in the story as "the potato, the thing that both the writer and reader want to dig up and find out more about." The reader and the writer are working together to uncover the truth (as is always the case, really.) The idea of soliciting reader questions to spur and give purpose to revision seems promising. Students tend to view revision as basically unnecessary..just a matter of correcting the grammar and spelling. In the real world, revision is a critical part of composition. When readers have raised questions about the meaning, intent, etc. of his paper, an author would be revising for a "real-life" purpose--and least more "real life" than simply to meet the expectations of his teacher.
Richard Kent's Room 109 with its sense of community, gift of choice, emphasis on peer editing and reader reflections student's work seems like a warm, supportive, yet challenging writer's environment. I was struck the part of Matthew's year end reflection: "Reading other people's papers has also helped my own writing." I had not fully considered the benefits to the editor as well as the writer in effective peer editing!
Barb
Richard Kent's Room 109 with its sense of community, gift of choice, emphasis on peer editing and reader reflections student's work seems like a warm, supportive, yet challenging writer's environment. I was struck the part of Matthew's year end reflection: "Reading other people's papers has also helped my own writing." I had not fully considered the benefits to the editor as well as the writer in effective peer editing!
Barb
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
WAC article- "Can you Hear Us Now?"
"Can You Hear Us Now?" by Julie Reynolds and Vicki Russell from Duke University (WAC Journal vol 19, Aug 2008) considers whether the quality of student peer reviews vary depending upon the form in which they are delivered. In 2004, Duke University began giving each student an IPOD to support academic learning. These professors used the IPOD to review student work, creating podcasts which they would either post on blackboard or email to students. The professors felt that the audio reviews were more time effective, and resulted in feedback that stressed higher order concerns (HOC; organization, argument, etc.) and specific rather than generic comments.
Reynolds and Russell designed a study to determine whether audio peer review would improve the quality of feedback over traditional written peer reviews. They also investigated which format (audio or written) reviewers and authors preferred. The study involved 3 Duke freshman Academic Writing classes in spring, 2007. Each student received an audio and written evaluation of his work. Each peer reviewer "wrote" an equal number of reviews in both formats. At the end of the semester, 75% of the reviews were scored for quality, and 91% of students answered an attitudinal survey.
Results found:
I chose this article because one of the challenges for students with a language disability is written peer conferencing and journaling. Last year, a 9th grade English teacher tried having a pair of students with learning disabilities journal about their outside reading book using tape recordings. (IPODs would have been way cooler!) The students were reluctant at first, commenting that it seemed unnatural to talk into a machine rather than write. By the end of the book, though, both felt that removing the writing piece encouraged them to be more expansive in their entries. They also found it less time consuming. My student made brief notes before taping.
The peer reviews in Renold and Russell's study were far more extensive than any we use in non-college, non-AP high school classes at JD. The audio responses ranged from 2-30 minutes (mean=10; SD=6); written peer reviews ranged from 213 to 705 words (mean=496; SD=146). The authors append instructions they gave their reviewers and authors which provide comprehensive criteria and standards that I will consider when designing peer review sheets. In our high school classes, the peer reviews tend to be more superficial and generally focus on LOC. From what I have observed, peer reviews do not tend to be truly helpful in the composing process. These are often superficial, viewed as one more step that needs to be turned in "for full credit." Authors often don't understand the cryptic comments of the reviewers--- due to poor handwriting, lack of specific detail, or both. The study suggests that using an audio format fosters more HOC feedback. Students might enjoy recording a pod cast, uploading, and downloading. Usually the more technology, the higher the interest in the task; the higher the interest in the task, the more invested the student. Using an audio format might make the peer review process more meaningful. I know our school won't be providing IPODS (!), but I think the use of audio peer reviews should be considered as an alternative and/or modification in high school classes.
If you want to read the article, I'll try to provide a link to the article. Nothing venured, nothing gained!
Barb
Reynolds and Russell designed a study to determine whether audio peer review would improve the quality of feedback over traditional written peer reviews. They also investigated which format (audio or written) reviewers and authors preferred. The study involved 3 Duke freshman Academic Writing classes in spring, 2007. Each student received an audio and written evaluation of his work. Each peer reviewer "wrote" an equal number of reviews in both formats. At the end of the semester, 75% of the reviews were scored for quality, and 91% of students answered an attitudinal survey.
Results found:
- Audio reviews contained significantly more HOC (comments on argument, organization, etc.) than LOC (punctuation, word choice, etc.)
- Audio reviews contained more specific comments; written reviews tended to have more generic comments.
- 73% of student responders preferred to receive written peer reviews, many citing they valued LOC comments and having a hard copy. Listening to the audio and taking notes took them more time than just getting a written review.
- 72% of student responders preferred responding to another student's work in written form, siting that it was easier for them to organize their thoughts in written form.
I chose this article because one of the challenges for students with a language disability is written peer conferencing and journaling. Last year, a 9th grade English teacher tried having a pair of students with learning disabilities journal about their outside reading book using tape recordings. (IPODs would have been way cooler!) The students were reluctant at first, commenting that it seemed unnatural to talk into a machine rather than write. By the end of the book, though, both felt that removing the writing piece encouraged them to be more expansive in their entries. They also found it less time consuming. My student made brief notes before taping.
The peer reviews in Renold and Russell's study were far more extensive than any we use in non-college, non-AP high school classes at JD. The audio responses ranged from 2-30 minutes (mean=10; SD=6); written peer reviews ranged from 213 to 705 words (mean=496; SD=146). The authors append instructions they gave their reviewers and authors which provide comprehensive criteria and standards that I will consider when designing peer review sheets. In our high school classes, the peer reviews tend to be more superficial and generally focus on LOC. From what I have observed, peer reviews do not tend to be truly helpful in the composing process. These are often superficial, viewed as one more step that needs to be turned in "for full credit." Authors often don't understand the cryptic comments of the reviewers--- due to poor handwriting, lack of specific detail, or both. The study suggests that using an audio format fosters more HOC feedback. Students might enjoy recording a pod cast, uploading, and downloading. Usually the more technology, the higher the interest in the task; the higher the interest in the task, the more invested the student. Using an audio format might make the peer review process more meaningful. I know our school won't be providing IPODS (!), but I think the use of audio peer reviews should be considered as an alternative and/or modification in high school classes.
If you want to read the article, I'll try to provide a link to the article. Nothing venured, nothing gained!
Barb
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
