After four days of assessing research papers, I've now finished. I've found that reading each one of them 3 times gives me a good perspective on the total writing style of each one of my students. Like all long-term assignments, I wonder if all of the work is totally theirs in some cases. The writing seems more organized and more polished for some of them than what they produce on a weekly basis.
From the "Feedback" book we've read this year, I have chosen two different ways of responding to student writing: 1) writing my expectations when I correct their papers, and 2) using a rubric. My reason was that I wanted to see if my feedback really would change the way students write in Social Studies. I've used these methods before, but in using them more extensively, I thought I could determine the results more clearly than in years past. So, did my feedback change the way students write?
My conclusion: I don't know.
It seems to me that in the analysis of student writing, the purpose for their writing is the determining factor. On their writing assignments when they have to give reasons for the actions of history, I point out the difference between stating opinion and stating fact with reliable research. In this way I had hoped to change their thinking and see it translate to their writing. What I have noticed is that the week-to-week assignments have become clearer, but this long-term assignment still showed a lack of understanding in 36 out of 54 papers. In those 36 papers there were 11 students who glaringly did not apply the "rules of writing for Social Studies". The other 25 students did try to use research as evidence for their thesis, but still used "I" and "you" in their explanations to some extent. All in all, this number of 36 is ten students better than when the process began in October.
The rubric was constructed to lead students to a better understanding of writing with an organized purpose. According to the rubric, many students were able to "Meet Expectations" or "Exceed Expectations" for this first attempt as formal research. I wanted them to have the experience before High School because High School teachers have requested that this be one writing experience that 8th graders have before entering 9th grade.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Monday, March 21, 2011
The Research Essay: My Observations - Part I
Every year, Kathy Degi and I assign a research project. The best part of it is that students choose their own subject. It helps them take ownership and I receive an amazing variety of subjects. From the beginning, students choose subjects that must relate to American History. Any event is acceptable, but biographies are not, neither are generalized topics. i.e. Pearl Harbor. They are required to formulate a thesis statement in their introductory paragraph and build 5 - 7 paragraphs around it. Of course, it ends with a conclusion. Sometimes the conclusion contridicts their thesis. When this happens students usually approach me in a bit of an alarmed state. "Is this okay?" "It didn't really end up like I thought it would." As far as I am concerned, contridicting ones own thesis statement shows thought and considerable research, not failure. I am concerned that they connect the research to the thesis statement in one way or another. In addition to the writing, student must have a chart or graph, or table of some kind. It must be properly labeled. I wait for it every year, and someone always comes through. It goes something like this: "Hey, wait. This is like what we do in Math! I get it. That's why they put that kind of stuff in our books."
I don't know about you, but I love that light bulb!
Now, that they've given their research presentation, I begin to read and read and read and....
The rubrics were given to each class and explained well within the time limit for finishing it. So in the next few weeks, I'll read and give feedback and score. I can't even speculate right now to their progress. If the titles of their papers are any indication, I should have a good time over spring break reading and seeing the progress. Wish me professional luck!
I don't know about you, but I love that light bulb!
Now, that they've given their research presentation, I begin to read and read and read and....
The rubrics were given to each class and explained well within the time limit for finishing it. So in the next few weeks, I'll read and give feedback and score. I can't even speculate right now to their progress. If the titles of their papers are any indication, I should have a good time over spring break reading and seeing the progress. Wish me professional luck!
Goals revisted
About a month ago, I had students set their academic goals for Social Studies. In order to cement those goals, I began to provide extensive feedback to every assignment, short or long, in class or out of class, because so many students indicated that they would follow my feedback as they went forward in our study of history. So, what happened in the last month?
The classroom writing of 8th graders is more back on track with what I know they can do. Before they were just wandering with no energy to write. While I would like to think that my prompting (and warnings) might have influenced them, I tend to think they were just tested out and tired. An 8th grader's thinking becomes lax in the winter. One good grade and CSAP and their personal lives and the work for other classes, lulls them into a false sense of security.
The last two assignments that have required their writing to show what they know in how they are problem solving for the Slavery unit, have come alive. I believe that the timeline work we've done helps to solidify the events of the past, so that nothing is in isolation. Knowing that the cause and effect relationships in history can be analyzed, is a wonderful writing tool when students truly discover it and apply it.
The classroom writing of 8th graders is more back on track with what I know they can do. Before they were just wandering with no energy to write. While I would like to think that my prompting (and warnings) might have influenced them, I tend to think they were just tested out and tired. An 8th grader's thinking becomes lax in the winter. One good grade and CSAP and their personal lives and the work for other classes, lulls them into a false sense of security.
The last two assignments that have required their writing to show what they know in how they are problem solving for the Slavery unit, have come alive. I believe that the timeline work we've done helps to solidify the events of the past, so that nothing is in isolation. Knowing that the cause and effect relationships in history can be analyzed, is a wonderful writing tool when students truly discover it and apply it.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Book Review: Nonfiction Matters
Last Saturday, I finally finished Nonfiction Matters, Reading, Writing, and Research in Grades 3-8 by Stephanie Harvey (1998, Stenhouse Publishers). I had a difficult time getting through it because it should have been titled Literary Nonfiction for Grades 3-6. This was the book I told Marcy that I would read for this PDU, but I did not find it as informative as some of the other books I have been reading.
The author wants to make nonfiction writing more entertaining so that it is not so boring to grade. Toward the end of her book she used the word “literary nonfiction” and I finally understood what she wanted. Literary nonfiction is not what I teach my science students to write, I do not want them to include their persona (voice) in their writing. Her bias toward literary writing was present throughout the book. She had many ideas that would work well for social studies, but not many for science.
It did not seem like Ms Harvey had much experience with middle school students, except for being the parent of one. She wrote that middle school students are usually too shy to ask questions – this is definitely not my experience. Most of her suggestions were for a self- contained classroom that taught all subjects, another indication that she has not taught middle school. With “No Child Left Behind” there are very few secondary teachers who are highly qualified to teach all subjects. We also do not have the flexibility to spend two hours a day on reading and writing, which is something that she proposes.
Harvey did have some strategies and ideas that I found helpful. She cited a project by an elementary teacher who collected editorials for students to read before they begin writing their own editorials, which is an idea I am expanding into a science magazine for my 8th graders. She has a good general outline / timeline for research projects (1st teacher gets the proper resources, 2nd teacher builds background information, 3rd students commit to a topic, 4th students conduct research and take notes, 5th students spend time writing, 6th students finalize their papers and work on visual aids, 7th students present their projects). She had interesting insights to writing with clarity and other topics.
Overall, I would not recommend this book to middle school teachers, especially science or math teachers, I think it would have more value to elementary teachers and secondary social studies teachers.
The author wants to make nonfiction writing more entertaining so that it is not so boring to grade. Toward the end of her book she used the word “literary nonfiction” and I finally understood what she wanted. Literary nonfiction is not what I teach my science students to write, I do not want them to include their persona (voice) in their writing. Her bias toward literary writing was present throughout the book. She had many ideas that would work well for social studies, but not many for science.
It did not seem like Ms Harvey had much experience with middle school students, except for being the parent of one. She wrote that middle school students are usually too shy to ask questions – this is definitely not my experience. Most of her suggestions were for a self- contained classroom that taught all subjects, another indication that she has not taught middle school. With “No Child Left Behind” there are very few secondary teachers who are highly qualified to teach all subjects. We also do not have the flexibility to spend two hours a day on reading and writing, which is something that she proposes.
Harvey did have some strategies and ideas that I found helpful. She cited a project by an elementary teacher who collected editorials for students to read before they begin writing their own editorials, which is an idea I am expanding into a science magazine for my 8th graders. She has a good general outline / timeline for research projects (1st teacher gets the proper resources, 2nd teacher builds background information, 3rd students commit to a topic, 4th students conduct research and take notes, 5th students spend time writing, 6th students finalize their papers and work on visual aids, 7th students present their projects). She had interesting insights to writing with clarity and other topics.
Overall, I would not recommend this book to middle school teachers, especially science or math teachers, I think it would have more value to elementary teachers and secondary social studies teachers.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Writing and math
In trying to push my kids to write more during math, I decided to take one small step and use an idea from the Everyday Math Teacher's Manual. The kid's always have review math boxes to do with almost every lesson. On some lesson's they have writing and reasoning prompts with one of the boxes. For example the box will have the kids finding the perimeter of a shape, and then simply put the answer. I noticed that Gretel typed up a small square of paper to put over the boxes, and for this box...I would write, Describe how you determined the perimeter of the rectangle in problem 4. I plan on modeling how I want this to look for the kids and will then make copies of both great and not so great examples from the students to share and evaluate together.
Special thanks to Gretel who sent me a template to get me started.
Special thanks to Gretel who sent me a template to get me started.
Writing and Science
I have spent years writing for science related projects, mostly on the job when I worked as a geologist (for over 10 years), as lab tech in the synchronous belt test lab at Gates Rubber, and as an aquarium hobbyist. I am published in both the oil and gas industry and in the aquarium hobbyist world and have written many in house reports for several of my former employers. I have been reading science related magazines and professional journals since I was in junior high and have been reading and writing about science for both my undergraduate and graduate degrees in geology, as well as for the many education related classes that I have taken. I believe I have a solid understanding of what good science writing looks like.
My struggle in teaching writing in my science classes is that I have not had any coursework in teaching language arts – so I don’t have the vocabulary and background information that allows me to communicate effectively with my language art’s peers and to use the same language that my students learn in their language arts classes. My students do a substantial amount of writing in science class, but I am just beginning to know what to call the different types of writing assignments I use (in the language arts vernacular). I have never been trained in “the writing process” and until recently did not know what steps that term referred to. According to my research, teachers usually mean that the student should use the following steps before undertaking a written assignment: invention / draft / sharing and responding / revising / editing / publishing. I should help my students use the writing process when they are working on research papers or projects. These longer term science assignments should be scored on grammar, spelling, etc. in addition to the science.
Last year I learned the term “quick write” which describes the type of writing assignments I often use after watching a video, doing an activity, or holding a discussion. I give students a few minutes to write a paragraph or so about what they learned, which is then their exit ticket as they leave my class. I like this type of quick written assessment because it gives me a snapshot of what the students got from the lesson, what they found interesting and important, and what they are thinking about. These assignments are graded on effort, not “language arts skills” since they are written under the pressure of a short time constraint. Many of the books and articles I have been reading support my position of not grading these types of assignments for grammar, spelling, etc.
I have students write in their learning journal when we begin a unit or topic and again when we have finished with it. These entries are based on written prompts that students are expected to respond to, and may include drawings, graphic organizers and diagrams in addition to written text. The books and articles I have been reading on how the brain works when it learns call these types of assignments either “priming” for introducing the topic, or “writing to learn” when students summarize their thoughts. Again, what I read says these types of assignments should not be graded for grammar, spelling, etc., doing so inhibits the learning that is taking place as students ponder the material being covered.
This past Saturday I read the book, Teaching Adolescent Writers, by Kelly Gallagher (2006, Stenhouse Publishers). It gave me much food for thought (enough to keeping posting blog entries for some time!!!). The newest term to add to my writing vocabulary is “on demand writing”, which is much of what we do in science (and CSAP). According to Gallagher, this type of writing uses a different process than the “writing process” as it is traditionally taught; instead he suggests teaching the “ABCD”’s; which stands for Attack the prompt, Brainstorm possible answers, Choose the order of your response, and Detect errors before turning in your draft/work. I do expect students to write complete thoughts, but usually grade on the science that was included, not the “language arts”.
I must admit, I often read about writing and the teaching of writing from a self-defense position so that I am able to justify what I do and how I do it and not because I am interested in learning about the craft of writing. I have been told by language arts teachers in my building that I should be grading every piece of writing that is turned in to me for grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc., but when I look at the building’s writing rubric that is to be used in all content areas, I don’t know what several of the terms mean – so how am I supposed to scores student writing on these mystery items? As I read more and more about the teaching of writing, assessment, and brain research, I feel that I am on the right track in how I teach, use, and assess writing in my classroom. By building my own background knowledge and vocabulary for writing, I can now explain why I do not grade every piece of writing done in science class for grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, word usage, etc. and I am learning how to do a better job of teaching students to write in science class.
My struggle in teaching writing in my science classes is that I have not had any coursework in teaching language arts – so I don’t have the vocabulary and background information that allows me to communicate effectively with my language art’s peers and to use the same language that my students learn in their language arts classes. My students do a substantial amount of writing in science class, but I am just beginning to know what to call the different types of writing assignments I use (in the language arts vernacular). I have never been trained in “the writing process” and until recently did not know what steps that term referred to. According to my research, teachers usually mean that the student should use the following steps before undertaking a written assignment: invention / draft / sharing and responding / revising / editing / publishing. I should help my students use the writing process when they are working on research papers or projects. These longer term science assignments should be scored on grammar, spelling, etc. in addition to the science.
Last year I learned the term “quick write” which describes the type of writing assignments I often use after watching a video, doing an activity, or holding a discussion. I give students a few minutes to write a paragraph or so about what they learned, which is then their exit ticket as they leave my class. I like this type of quick written assessment because it gives me a snapshot of what the students got from the lesson, what they found interesting and important, and what they are thinking about. These assignments are graded on effort, not “language arts skills” since they are written under the pressure of a short time constraint. Many of the books and articles I have been reading support my position of not grading these types of assignments for grammar, spelling, etc.
I have students write in their learning journal when we begin a unit or topic and again when we have finished with it. These entries are based on written prompts that students are expected to respond to, and may include drawings, graphic organizers and diagrams in addition to written text. The books and articles I have been reading on how the brain works when it learns call these types of assignments either “priming” for introducing the topic, or “writing to learn” when students summarize their thoughts. Again, what I read says these types of assignments should not be graded for grammar, spelling, etc., doing so inhibits the learning that is taking place as students ponder the material being covered.
This past Saturday I read the book, Teaching Adolescent Writers, by Kelly Gallagher (2006, Stenhouse Publishers). It gave me much food for thought (enough to keeping posting blog entries for some time!!!). The newest term to add to my writing vocabulary is “on demand writing”, which is much of what we do in science (and CSAP). According to Gallagher, this type of writing uses a different process than the “writing process” as it is traditionally taught; instead he suggests teaching the “ABCD”’s; which stands for Attack the prompt, Brainstorm possible answers, Choose the order of your response, and Detect errors before turning in your draft/work. I do expect students to write complete thoughts, but usually grade on the science that was included, not the “language arts”.
I must admit, I often read about writing and the teaching of writing from a self-defense position so that I am able to justify what I do and how I do it and not because I am interested in learning about the craft of writing. I have been told by language arts teachers in my building that I should be grading every piece of writing that is turned in to me for grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc., but when I look at the building’s writing rubric that is to be used in all content areas, I don’t know what several of the terms mean – so how am I supposed to scores student writing on these mystery items? As I read more and more about the teaching of writing, assessment, and brain research, I feel that I am on the right track in how I teach, use, and assess writing in my classroom. By building my own background knowledge and vocabulary for writing, I can now explain why I do not grade every piece of writing done in science class for grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, word usage, etc. and I am learning how to do a better job of teaching students to write in science class.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Collaborative Writing discussed in Corey's post--Write Arounds,Read Arounds,focused Peer Interaction, WTL/LTW
Even though, as Kurt pointed out, the studies in Corey's post refer to adolescents and not elementary students, I believe there is tremendous value in peer interaction as it relates to the teaching of writing even at the elementary level. At the Southeast Regional Principal Meeting in-service I attended with Kurt in January, the facilitator had principals reflect on the use of a schoolwide RACE (Restate, Answer, Cite, Explain) strategy and questions they had about it. In a write-around activity, principals were given only a few minutes to respond, they wrote a question/reflection and then passed their paper to the person next to them and had to respond quickly in writing to the other person's comment. This continued until all four people seated at the table had responded to one another. This activity had high engagement and could be used in a class to help build writing fluency. For example, a teacher could seat students in groups of 4, ask a guiding question, have students respond in a sentence of two and then pass their paper to the next person and respond to their writing until each student has 3 responses to their original paper. Even with younger students with emerging literacy skills, this could be valuable. It is not an editing activity, but a fluency building activity that also helps strengthen content knowledge (WTL--Writing to Learn/LTW-- Learning to Write movement). It could also be used for creative writing activities, etc.
How many times in a day do we ask students questions, have them raise their hands for responses and only a few students are selected to be called on? How much more effective might it be to ask a question, have them write a quick response, then have a few share their written responses. Some students don't process so quickly and need more time to reflect before responding. In guided reading, when students are looking at pictures and predicting what will happen in a story or if you are using a word splash for students to predict what might happen in a text prior to reading, instead of having them respond orally, have them do a quick write. WTL has great implications not only for improving writing fluency but for also strengthening content knowledge.
Read-arounds are also great ways of building student engagement, particularly when students are trained on a rubric ahead of time so they know what they are looking for in a paper. Again, in first grade, second, etc. this may be a very simple rubric and a very short writing piece, nevertheless, it engages students (they love to read each other's writing) and employs higher order thinking skills of applying, synthesizing, and evaluating (Bloom's taxonomy). Just as adults do a practice read and eval training for inter-rater reliability before they score papers, it is important that students do a teacher-led practice evaluation to establish inter-rater reliability prior to peer scoring of writing.
How many times in a day do we ask students questions, have them raise their hands for responses and only a few students are selected to be called on? How much more effective might it be to ask a question, have them write a quick response, then have a few share their written responses. Some students don't process so quickly and need more time to reflect before responding. In guided reading, when students are looking at pictures and predicting what will happen in a story or if you are using a word splash for students to predict what might happen in a text prior to reading, instead of having them respond orally, have them do a quick write. WTL has great implications not only for improving writing fluency but for also strengthening content knowledge.
Read-arounds are also great ways of building student engagement, particularly when students are trained on a rubric ahead of time so they know what they are looking for in a paper. Again, in first grade, second, etc. this may be a very simple rubric and a very short writing piece, nevertheless, it engages students (they love to read each other's writing) and employs higher order thinking skills of applying, synthesizing, and evaluating (Bloom's taxonomy). Just as adults do a practice read and eval training for inter-rater reliability before they score papers, it is important that students do a teacher-led practice evaluation to establish inter-rater reliability prior to peer scoring of writing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)