Harper touches on the importance of revision and the fact that few students actually know what it means/how to do it. I see this to be very true in looking at my past experiences in high school and undergrad. In high school, peer review sessions were always a time to chitchat. In college when I did them in my Spanish classes, they became a time of anxiety; not quite understanding what your partner wrote but being too ashamed to admit to it. I agree with Harper that we need to give our students the tools to understanding how to revise. I really loved the snapshot tool and the visual representation that Harper gave her students to understand how to add more detail to a scene that didn’t just include adding more adjectives. To be honest, I can definitely see this technique affecting my future writings! I think it would also be beneficial to hand students a drab description of a scene and ask them to write down what emotions were evoked during their reading. Then, to show them the power that an effective description has I would hand them a description in which the writer was showing, not telling. I would hope that the students would learn that in well-written pieces, the reader can almost feel the emotions of the writer. Additionally, I like the snapshot tool because sometimes a writer can feel so blocked that it is almost frustrating to describe a particular occasion. Drawing it out gives them another means to describe their experiences without being so focused on coming up with an astonishing word that conveys what they want.
I think we need to change the mindset of students in what they think revision is. It’s not-add a couple words, delete this sentence because it is awkward (seriously, what does that even mean?), fix your choice of words-and BAM a perfect piece of written work! Gosh, that even sounds boring to me! Now I see why I just wanted to chat the whole time while we were supposed to be doing “peer revision” in high school! The techniques that Harper talks about even SOUND fun. I would really enjoy reading some one else’s paper searching for moments that they can expand on, and, as a writer, I would love to hear that feedback—much more than I would love to hear that my sentence is awkward.
I also really liked Fulwiler’s article because his first opening sentences got me thinking about how we put limits on the number of drafts a student’s work includes. Although I completely agree with him that you can’t put a time limit on perfection, I question if students will really be able to take their drafts seriously (no matter how many there are) and eventually turn in a polished piece of work. Also, when there are standards to fulfill, how do you spend such an enormous amount of time on one piece of writing? Fulwiler also gets into a little bit of what we talked about last week—the importance of not exposing EVERYTHING to the reader in the first paragraph--It made me think of the inductive vs. deductive discussion we had.
Ahh the art of argumentation. What a GREAT way to have students access higher-level thinking! "[Kuhn] believes that thinking as argument reflects 'real-world intelligence' and that 'no other kind of thinking matters more-- or contributes more-- to the quality and fulfillment of people's lives both individually and collectively'"(Dickson 34). I couldn't agree more. Being able to present an argument, recognize conflicting sides and still provide evidence as to why one feels the way they do not only accesses higher order thinking, but also reflects the characteristics of an intelligent member in democracy. However it may be difficult for a teacher to grade arguments that conflict with their own without being biased. I often wonder about grading student writing--For example, what if a student argues something that is just plain wrong. Not wrong in the sense that they didn't provide evidence, but the way of thinking that they created shows hints of racism, sexism, or other such things. I understand that student voice and opinion is important, but when is it up to the teacher to step in and declare the when something is wrong?
Nicole,
ReplyDeleteI love your thoughts on revision! It is so true, looking back, that revision time in high school was often just a time for chit-chat. I think, in theory, that peer revision offers many benefits, but it is definitely a challenge within itself to keep students on track and focused. Further, I liked your expanse on how peer revision time turned into a source of anxiety when you had to give written papers to classmates in Spanish class. I wonder what would happen if we forced students who did not like or feel comfortable writing (in our English classes) to peer review – would they feel the same source of anxiety and shame? Could that turn them off of writing for a long time to come? Finally, I, too, liked Harper’s suggestions for the snapshot tool and visual representation. I think it is so important to give students a voice in their writing by using and drawing on their own experiences.
Continuing with revision, I agree with the importance and difficulty of teaching students that revision does not just mean changing a few words and moving a sentence or two around. As someone who masters the first feat of even writing something (whether it be memoir, research paper, book essay), it may be extremely difficult for them to significantly change or revise a paper and take out things they worked hard to write in the first place. We need to find a way to teach students that evolution in writing is essential, and it is important to not become to attached to every sentence/idea in writing because it may be necessary to remove or change it during the revision process.
Finally, I think you know, from AVID, that I am all about higher-level thinking! The art of argumentation is another great way to think of the voice of the author and the intended audience in writing. Further, it helps students think out other conflicts they may have in their lives. I struggle, too, and I know we touched on this last semester in Kristen’s class, how do we subjectively grade a student’s paper that argues something we morally do not agree with? Or, in that case, do we even grade it subjectively without opinion or bias?
Great job, Nicole!