Arnetha F. Ball conducted a study on how composition assessment practices impact and are impacted by power culture. She presents an argument for an assessment reformation that includes input from teachers from diverse backgrounds, particularly when it comes to assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students. Her research is based off of six such students from lower- and working-class backgrounds. Three of the students were African American who spoke African American vernacular English (AAVE) and mainstream American English. Two students were U.S. born Hispanic-American and were fluent in both Spanish and English, and the sixth student was European-American student who spoke only mainstream American English.
The teachers Ball enlisted to partake in the research consisted of four European American teachers and four African American teachers. They were provided with training on a rubric that had a 6-point holistic rating and 4-point rating each on organization, coherence and mechanics. Through their grading of the students’ writings, Ball found both sets of teachers consistently scored the texts written by the European American student with the highest points, the African American students’ texts moderate points, and the Hispanic American students’ texts with the lowest points, despite not having shared student demographics with the teachers in advance.
The African-American teachers on average gave lower scores to all students than the European American teachers did. On the six-point scale, European-American teachers scoring of the European-American student’s work ranged from 3.56-5.06, the African American students’ texts ranged 3.19 to 4.5, while the African-American teachers ranked the European American student’s texts 2.19-3.31 and the African-American students’ texts 2.5-3.69.
Ball states that the higher standards African-American teachers hold for the students stems from a cultural belief. “In the African-American culture, it is often felt that teachers who have low expectations for their students are denying them opportunities to learn how to participate and survive in the real world” (183). While I do not think that belief is unique to African-American teachers, Ball’s statement earlier statement about how the power culture influences writing assessment rings true. As one teacher said, although we “do our students a disservice if we don’t in some way assess for accuracy,” it is equally important that we assess the students’ works for content (184). Another teacher emphasized the need to change teachers’ “expectations of the students by working closer with students of color and being sensitive to their needs as a learner; not sensitive to them being a person of color” (186).
Ultimately, Ball’s research suggests that a change in composition assessments and assessment dialogue is needed, but a simplification of those assessments is not what is needed. Common amongst all four African-American teachers was a concern about doing their students a “disservice” by assessing their writing too gently. Instead, recognition that African-American students’ ideas are complex is a requirement, and their ideas should not be penalized because they need assistance working out the mechanics of writing. As one teacher wrote, “Written language is often an inadequate vehicle to express all the nuances of what African-American students have to say. It’s like jazz music. Jazz musicians will tell you that the European system of music notation cannot capture the essence of what, for example, Charlie Parker played on his saxophone” (189). The real question is, the teacher continues, “what should be judged first?”
Sunday, August 10, 2014
Saturday, August 9, 2014
Experiential Knowledge
At risk of exploiting a cliche, I have to admit I found this article rather enlightening. In “Experiential Knowledge: How Literacy Practices Seek to Mediate Personal and Systemic Change,” Gwen Gorzelsky uses the teachings of a Zen teacher, Thich Nhat Hanh, to demonstrate how procedural knowledge and conceptual knowledge combine to create a framework for experiential knowledge, and then how that experiential knowledge, when appropriately applied within the provided framework, leads to individual and systemic changes. While Gorzelsky’s examples focus on how reading guided meditation and visualization leads to a spiritual and humanitarian change, she suggests substituting general literacy practices for meditation and visualization will offer students similar opportunities for personal growth and self-efficacy.
The procedural knowledge Gorzelsky utilizes in her example is visualization during guided meditations. Nhat Hanh’s guided meditations
Conceptual knowledge (the what) is reflected in the third step in which the practitioner applies the concepts of emptiness, the belief that no one has an inherent nature separate of external influences such as politics, culture, ecology, family and so on, and interdependence, in which there is a relationship between those external causes. When the practitioner applies the conceptual and procedural knowledges in the fourth step, they experience a connection between themselves that which they meditated upon.
The resulting experiential knowledge drives a sense of compassion and a desire to take action. By maintaining sustain, mindful practice of these steps, the ultimate result is not a one-time experience but instead redirects the practitioner’s core understanding. To be most effective, the practice must address intense emotions, emphasize high stakes and offer successful examples of change. This new personal understanding causes systemic shifts because the newly-enlightened practitioners will feel an intense need to address and reconcile social injustices.
In terms of literacy practices, the procedural knowledge students need to learn would be the writing process. The conceptual knowledge, then, would consist of core curriculum topics that allow students to explore subjects that are meaningful to them. When student combine their practice of composition skills with meaningful topics, their writings result in an acquisition of experiential knowledge. They can then take that knowledge and apply it to their personal influences on the world around them.
The procedural knowledge Gorzelsky utilizes in her example is visualization during guided meditations. Nhat Hanh’s guided meditations
asks practitioners to undertake step-by-step visualizations designed to generate calm and relaxation, and then encourages practitioners to focus on this state as the foundation of peace and joy in the present moment. The second emphasizes focusing mindful attention on negative emotions and mental states to generate insights that help transform these states into more positive ones. (407)These two steps are procedures that, when combined with the third step, which introduces the conceptual knowledge Nhat Hanh’s teachings impart, build the necessary framework to allow the practitioner to effect personal change. Procedural knowledge, then, is the how needed to apply the what.
Conceptual knowledge (the what) is reflected in the third step in which the practitioner applies the concepts of emptiness, the belief that no one has an inherent nature separate of external influences such as politics, culture, ecology, family and so on, and interdependence, in which there is a relationship between those external causes. When the practitioner applies the conceptual and procedural knowledges in the fourth step, they experience a connection between themselves that which they meditated upon.
The resulting experiential knowledge drives a sense of compassion and a desire to take action. By maintaining sustain, mindful practice of these steps, the ultimate result is not a one-time experience but instead redirects the practitioner’s core understanding. To be most effective, the practice must address intense emotions, emphasize high stakes and offer successful examples of change. This new personal understanding causes systemic shifts because the newly-enlightened practitioners will feel an intense need to address and reconcile social injustices.
In terms of literacy practices, the procedural knowledge students need to learn would be the writing process. The conceptual knowledge, then, would consist of core curriculum topics that allow students to explore subjects that are meaningful to them. When student combine their practice of composition skills with meaningful topics, their writings result in an acquisition of experiential knowledge. They can then take that knowledge and apply it to their personal influences on the world around them.
Friday, August 1, 2014
Constructing the Perspective of Teacher-as-Reader
Following with my theme of teacher commentary for this week’s reviews, I also studied Melanie Sperling’s article, “Constructing the Perspective of Teacher-as-Reader: A Framework for Studying Response to Student Writing.” Sperling’s goal is to begin understanding “what constitutes reader perspective for students learning to write and how such perspectives can get construed in a high school classroom” (176). The resulting research provides an introductory framework through which additional studies can focus their theories. Sperling labels five orientations characterizing the teacher’s perspective that her research indicates are a factor in teacher-student and reader-writer dynamics. While these orientations are identified independently, Sperling also indicates the connection between them as they are not mutually exclusive.
As a teacher reads and responds to a student essay, the Interpretative Orientation helps shape her commentary. Sperling found that one of two modes of thought fall under the Interpretative Orientation influence: the teacher responds to the work through the lens of “(a) her own world experience / text knowledge / inner feelings or (b) her sense of the writer’s world experience / text knowledge / inner feelings” (183). For example, when lens (a) is influencing the commentary, the teacher might write a statement that deals with her own interpretation of the text. If lens (b) is the influence, then she might write comments that express an understanding of the student’s thoughts or feelings, such as one teacher’s response of, “Great! You’re lucky!” to a student who expresses her close relationship with her parents.
The next influence on teacher commentary is Social Orientation. There are two social group perspectives from which she will write her commentary: (a) a peer or (b) as an expert / instructor / literary scholar (183). If the teacher writes a comment relating with the student on a topic, then the it falls under type (a). One example Sperling provides is the teacher commenting that she, too, was a “roller coaster junkie.” She makes no claim to having more knowledge on the subject than the student, unlike type (b) in which she will take on a didactic role.
The analytical or emotional nature of a comment demonstrates the influence of Cognitive / Emotive Orientation on the teacher’s response. The emotional response is connected to the example for type (b) of the Interpretive Orientation in that a response demonstrating “emotional immediacy” (184) may be an exclamatory remark such as “Great!” or “Yes!” An analytic response, naturally, occurs when the teacher maintains intellectual distance and questions the writer’s thought process, rhetoric, etc.
As the teacher evaluated the texts, she responded either negatively or positively, which falls under the Evaluative Orientation. Essentially, the teacher’s comments will imply, or even explicitly state, whether or not the student’s work accomplished the intended goals.
Finally, the Pedagogical Orientation occurs when the teacher attempts to teach by “(a) changing or correcting the writer’s ideas / text (language, structure), (b) expanding the writer’s ideas / text, or (c) supporting the writer’s ideas / text. Such teaching attempts occur regardless of which Evaluative Orientation type influenced the teacher’s notes. For example, a positive comment would act as positive reinforcement of a concept taught in a previous lesson while a negative comment would indicate a technical error or a misconception that the teacher must reteach and / or correct.
I found Sperling’s work to be interesting, and, as she suggests later in her article, I would assume the orientations to be universal. However, this study consists of one teacher and essays from only eight students. Educators would benefit from more thorough research. Sperling does go on to break down the commentary, focusing primarily on two students at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of their work quality, and she suggests that the teacher modified her commentary type based off of her knowledge of her students’ needs and levels. Although interesting, the limited nature of the study (my opinion against which is more harshly slanted due to having read this article after the Connors and Lunsford study consisting of 300 teachers and 3,000 papers) and what I find to be a fairly obvious conclusion that teachers differentiate their instruction leaves this article wanting. Indeed, I do agree with Sperling that additional studies must be conducted.
As a teacher reads and responds to a student essay, the Interpretative Orientation helps shape her commentary. Sperling found that one of two modes of thought fall under the Interpretative Orientation influence: the teacher responds to the work through the lens of “(a) her own world experience / text knowledge / inner feelings or (b) her sense of the writer’s world experience / text knowledge / inner feelings” (183). For example, when lens (a) is influencing the commentary, the teacher might write a statement that deals with her own interpretation of the text. If lens (b) is the influence, then she might write comments that express an understanding of the student’s thoughts or feelings, such as one teacher’s response of, “Great! You’re lucky!” to a student who expresses her close relationship with her parents.
The next influence on teacher commentary is Social Orientation. There are two social group perspectives from which she will write her commentary: (a) a peer or (b) as an expert / instructor / literary scholar (183). If the teacher writes a comment relating with the student on a topic, then the it falls under type (a). One example Sperling provides is the teacher commenting that she, too, was a “roller coaster junkie.” She makes no claim to having more knowledge on the subject than the student, unlike type (b) in which she will take on a didactic role.
The analytical or emotional nature of a comment demonstrates the influence of Cognitive / Emotive Orientation on the teacher’s response. The emotional response is connected to the example for type (b) of the Interpretive Orientation in that a response demonstrating “emotional immediacy” (184) may be an exclamatory remark such as “Great!” or “Yes!” An analytic response, naturally, occurs when the teacher maintains intellectual distance and questions the writer’s thought process, rhetoric, etc.
As the teacher evaluated the texts, she responded either negatively or positively, which falls under the Evaluative Orientation. Essentially, the teacher’s comments will imply, or even explicitly state, whether or not the student’s work accomplished the intended goals.
Finally, the Pedagogical Orientation occurs when the teacher attempts to teach by “(a) changing or correcting the writer’s ideas / text (language, structure), (b) expanding the writer’s ideas / text, or (c) supporting the writer’s ideas / text. Such teaching attempts occur regardless of which Evaluative Orientation type influenced the teacher’s notes. For example, a positive comment would act as positive reinforcement of a concept taught in a previous lesson while a negative comment would indicate a technical error or a misconception that the teacher must reteach and / or correct.
I found Sperling’s work to be interesting, and, as she suggests later in her article, I would assume the orientations to be universal. However, this study consists of one teacher and essays from only eight students. Educators would benefit from more thorough research. Sperling does go on to break down the commentary, focusing primarily on two students at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of their work quality, and she suggests that the teacher modified her commentary type based off of her knowledge of her students’ needs and levels. Although interesting, the limited nature of the study (my opinion against which is more harshly slanted due to having read this article after the Connors and Lunsford study consisting of 300 teachers and 3,000 papers) and what I find to be a fairly obvious conclusion that teachers differentiate their instruction leaves this article wanting. Indeed, I do agree with Sperling that additional studies must be conducted.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Teachers’ Rhetorical Comments on Student Papers
Writing appropriate, effective commentary on finished essays is one of the greatest challenges teachers face, particularly with the new paradigm’s focus on rhetorical content and process. Robert J. Connors and Andrea A. Lunsford conducted a study of the ways educators judge student writing as well as how their commentary reflected the student-teacher relationship. Their study consisted of 300 teachers and 3,000 papers, and they focused on “global comments… [the] general evaluative comments found at the end or the beginning of papers” (206). Connors and Lunsford asked their readers, the 26 composition teachers who assisted with the study, to ignore comments about topics other than rhetorical effectiveness, such as grammar, punctuation or syntax. As I found it helpful to have a visual aid while digesting their data, I have included graphs of their findings below.
Upon reviewing these findings, Connors and Lunsford said the number of papers that had grades but no commentary amazed their readers. “The overwhelming impression our readers were left with was that grades were implicitly— or often explicitly— overwhelming impediments both for teachers and for students” (208). Further, they found such a wide range of grading styles, ranging from numerical to symbol-based, that they had to abandon their plan to average all the grades.
The most common commentary they found was terminal comments. This, they explain, is likely because of two reasons: the comment is a natural reaction immediately after concluding the reading and it is more private than a note on the front. Those teachers who did partake in initial commentary seemed to Connors and Lunsford to wish to encourage their students to consider key issues prior to their reviewing the graded work. The two researchers studied the contents of these comments to discover whether or not they reflected the beliefs of the field of composition studies. Connors and Lunsford provide detailed explanations for each of the categories listed in the above graphs, however I will only focus on the ones I deem most relevant.
The first grouping that stood out to me was the commentary consisting entirely of negative commentary. According to their findings, 23% of the papers with commentary consisted of such negativity. Many of the teachers, they found, expressed feelings of extreme disappointment, some harshly so. For example, one teacher wrote about a student’s comma splice error, “You must eliminate this error once and for all. Is it because you aren’t able to recognize an independent clause?” (210). Another wrote, “Besides receiving an F for the paper, I’m lowering another grade 20 points” (215). I agree with Connors and Lunsford’s assessment that while this sort of commentary will not improve a student’s writing, it will almost certainly negatively impact their attitude both about writing as well as the teacher. At 42% of the essays, the most common commentary pattern consisted of a positive note that ended with a negative critique, a tendency that the researchers found heartening and one that I recognize as being a trait of my own response style.
The limited number of comments addressing purpose and audience surprised me. According to their research, 11% of the responses addressed purpose, and 6% addressed audience considerations such as tone or voice. The implication the lack of concern about audience and purpose suggests that there is no other audience to be considered beside the teacher. This seems to be a result of the push for a recognition of the teacher as a reader, the history of which Connors and Lunsford outlined earlier in their work. Essentially, prior to the 1950s, the teacher's main job was to rate compositions, not evaluate rhetoric. In 1951, Jeffrey Fleece suggest that “teachers actually consider themselves as students’ real audiences and respond to their essays accordingly… why not stop pretending that the teacher was not the only final and actual audience for students, and make use of that audience relationship?” (203). While this suggestion opened student essays up to a dialectic treatment of their work, it seems to have caused teachers to stop addressing audience considerations in their evaluations.
Connors and Lunsford conclude that overwork, incomplete training and high curricular demands cause teachers to grade compositions in a manner unique to the traditional paradigm, despite those same teachers’ awareness and agreement with the teachings of the new paradigm. They continue to use grading sheets and rubrics that emphasize final product assessment, a habit that the researchers found limited holistic approaches and resulted in harsher grading. Connors and Lunsford culminate their article with a call to future studies to focus on analyzing comment contents more thoroughly, a suggestion with which I agree.
Upon reviewing these findings, Connors and Lunsford said the number of papers that had grades but no commentary amazed their readers. “The overwhelming impression our readers were left with was that grades were implicitly— or often explicitly— overwhelming impediments both for teachers and for students” (208). Further, they found such a wide range of grading styles, ranging from numerical to symbol-based, that they had to abandon their plan to average all the grades.
The most common commentary they found was terminal comments. This, they explain, is likely because of two reasons: the comment is a natural reaction immediately after concluding the reading and it is more private than a note on the front. Those teachers who did partake in initial commentary seemed to Connors and Lunsford to wish to encourage their students to consider key issues prior to their reviewing the graded work. The two researchers studied the contents of these comments to discover whether or not they reflected the beliefs of the field of composition studies. Connors and Lunsford provide detailed explanations for each of the categories listed in the above graphs, however I will only focus on the ones I deem most relevant.
The first grouping that stood out to me was the commentary consisting entirely of negative commentary. According to their findings, 23% of the papers with commentary consisted of such negativity. Many of the teachers, they found, expressed feelings of extreme disappointment, some harshly so. For example, one teacher wrote about a student’s comma splice error, “You must eliminate this error once and for all. Is it because you aren’t able to recognize an independent clause?” (210). Another wrote, “Besides receiving an F for the paper, I’m lowering another grade 20 points” (215). I agree with Connors and Lunsford’s assessment that while this sort of commentary will not improve a student’s writing, it will almost certainly negatively impact their attitude both about writing as well as the teacher. At 42% of the essays, the most common commentary pattern consisted of a positive note that ended with a negative critique, a tendency that the researchers found heartening and one that I recognize as being a trait of my own response style.
The limited number of comments addressing purpose and audience surprised me. According to their research, 11% of the responses addressed purpose, and 6% addressed audience considerations such as tone or voice. The implication the lack of concern about audience and purpose suggests that there is no other audience to be considered beside the teacher. This seems to be a result of the push for a recognition of the teacher as a reader, the history of which Connors and Lunsford outlined earlier in their work. Essentially, prior to the 1950s, the teacher's main job was to rate compositions, not evaluate rhetoric. In 1951, Jeffrey Fleece suggest that “teachers actually consider themselves as students’ real audiences and respond to their essays accordingly… why not stop pretending that the teacher was not the only final and actual audience for students, and make use of that audience relationship?” (203). While this suggestion opened student essays up to a dialectic treatment of their work, it seems to have caused teachers to stop addressing audience considerations in their evaluations.
Connors and Lunsford conclude that overwork, incomplete training and high curricular demands cause teachers to grade compositions in a manner unique to the traditional paradigm, despite those same teachers’ awareness and agreement with the teachings of the new paradigm. They continue to use grading sheets and rubrics that emphasize final product assessment, a habit that the researchers found limited holistic approaches and resulted in harsher grading. Connors and Lunsford culminate their article with a call to future studies to focus on analyzing comment contents more thoroughly, a suggestion with which I agree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)