Homework for Feb. 25th: Weaver's "Perspective on Error"
Read the assigned article by Constance Weaver, "Towards a Perspective on Error," and offer your personal opinion about student errors as a comment to this thread.
In my eyes, the main point that Weaver is trying to get across is that teachers need to understand "errors" that students make. We as teachers need to accept that students will make mistakes and it is the only way that they will learn. Not to mention, the mistakes that they make can also help us grown as teachers. When we take notice of their errors and reflect on them, we may see that it is something in our teaching that caused this error; maybe we did not explain something fully or worded something incorrectly. I think that she also stresses that the teacher should give students the room to make mistakes. the students need to try on their own to complete a task, not run to the teacher every time they are unsure about something. She really stress the influence of the autonomy of the students. All of these things that I have gathered from the reading, I agree with. I believe that I belong in the Process approach to learners' errors. She also made me realize that it is up to me as a teacher how I decided to grade. I have the choice to place emphasis on grammar or not. As English teachers, we all value the content over the presentation, but Weaver showed me that it is okay to reflect that in my grading. Not to mention, she has enlightened me on the fact that errors are sometimes a matter of opinion. I think that is is important that students and teachers realize that when it comes to communicating through the written word style sometimes overrides grammar. Basically, Weaver has shown me that thought should go into looking at student's errors.
I think that Weaver in this journal is trying to give teachers alternatives and ways to enjoy the writing process instead of making it something that teachers dread. While she is not encouraging laziness or that the students will not work as work on their papers, she is actually suggesting the oppoisite. That students work more and teachers work less. Througout the journal she gives suggestions to teachers about how they can better manage the paper load. An activity that I liked was the exercise where the day that students were supposed to turn in a paper they would hang their papers around the room with tape. Then the teacher would pair all of the student up and they would then go around and edit the other students' papers. Weaver emphasized that the students need to be doing more editing and revising work before the teacher grades the paper. Then the teacher will be working with better written papers and less comments to write on the paper. In dealing with comments, Weaver makes a helpful suggestion that the teacher make up a check list for all of the areas that they want to see in the paper. Then when they are grading the paper, they then just check off whenever they see this in a student's paper. Then at the end they just add all of the points up. This adds more fair grading and less work commenting on a student's paper. All in all, I feel that Weaver is most concerned about the amount of unneccessary work that teachers are doing and the learning that students could be doing, by allowing more time and more copites of revision in a student's work instead of one copy for the teacher from the beginning.
I believe that Weaver is trying to send the message that, although we (as teachers) believe that mistakes are bad, and a signb f trouble for our students, they help out in countless ways. Being able to identify the mistakes for our students helps us to get a better ideas of what we need to work on as teachers. It opens an indirect window for us to look at ourselves and see if what we are doing is actually as effective as we believe it is. I was really intrigued when she mentioned the fact that different errors are going to come with new information. While that statement seems obvious enough, not many people see it that way. Sometimes when students are given new information, they back track and second guess some of the easier grammar techniques taht they are normall familiar with. They think, "new information, new technique." This isn't always the case, and they just need to be reminded of that. ANother point that was brought up that I found to be very interesting was that our job, as teachers, is to find the errors in our students' work, and correct them. Too often, teachers get caught up in fixing the paper, and they forget to take notice of the good work that the students have done. THere are theories and ideas behind the childrens' work, and when we cloud their papers with red ink, and don't mention anything about the effort that was put into it, they are instantly discouraged. Weaver even states that, "it's no wonder they hate writing." This article puts into perspective, the many different approaches to correcting errors, and to grading students' papers most effectively. Teachers need to realize that it's more than putting a comma here, and removing an awkward sentence there. These kids try very hard to do what isexpected of them, and the way we go about editing their work is crucial to their confidence with writing in the future.
It is easy for teachers to lose sight of what is really important about teaching writing to these kids. Students are being told “don’t do this,” and “don’t do that” with their writing, but just telling is not enough. It is sort of like allowing a child to burn himself on the stove as a learning experience. Young writers learn through experimentation and making mistakes. As teachers, we should not discourage them from taking risks by putting them down for every little error. Weaver implies that growth comes from creativity, and this “witch hunt” for comma splices and whatnot is killing that growth. It is better to praise the student for experimenting with language, while at the same time teach them the “correct” way of writing. We can’t even call one way of teaching writing “correct” either. Some textbooks say never use fragments in writing. To me, fragments actually carry out the message clearer than a typical complete sentence. Weaver provided an example of a college student’s narrative about kissing her boyfriend, and one of the fragments I liked was “Sparks. I saw them before I opened my eyes.” A spark is quick, just like that fragment. There just would not be as much emphasis on that kiss if she had written as “There were sparks. I saw them before I opened my eyes.” Professional writers often use fragments in their writing—creative writing more so than academic writing—but still, fragments should not be shunned from the classroom like they are today. Students need to learn how a fragment can be effective in writing, not be told that it’s bad because the textbook said so.
In my eyes, the main point that Weaver is trying to get across is that teachers need to understand "errors" that students make. We as teachers need to accept that students will make mistakes and it is the only way that they will learn. Not to mention, the mistakes that they make can also help us grown as teachers. When we take notice of their errors and reflect on them, we may see that it is something in our teaching that caused this error; maybe we did not explain something fully or worded something incorrectly. I think that she also stresses that the teacher should give students the room to make mistakes. the students need to try on their own to complete a task, not run to the teacher every time they are unsure about something. She really stress the influence of the autonomy of the students. All of these things that I have gathered from the reading, I agree with. I believe that I belong in the Process approach to learners' errors. She also made me realize that it is up to me as a teacher how I decided to grade. I have the choice to place emphasis on grammar or not. As English teachers, we all value the content over the presentation, but Weaver showed me that it is okay to reflect that in my grading. Not to mention, she has enlightened me on the fact that errors are sometimes a matter of opinion. I think that is is important that students and teachers realize that when it comes to communicating through the written word style sometimes overrides grammar. Basically, Weaver has shown me that thought should go into looking at student's errors.
ReplyDeleteI think that Weaver in this journal is trying to give teachers alternatives and ways to enjoy the writing process instead of making it something that teachers dread. While she is not encouraging laziness or that the students will not work as work on their papers, she is actually suggesting the oppoisite. That students work more and teachers work less. Througout the journal she gives suggestions to teachers about how they can better manage the paper load. An activity that I liked was the exercise where the day that students were supposed to turn in a paper they would hang their papers around the room with tape. Then the teacher would pair all of the student up and they would then go around and edit the other students' papers. Weaver emphasized that the students need to be doing more editing and revising work before the teacher grades the paper. Then the teacher will be working with better written papers and less comments to write on the paper. In dealing with comments, Weaver makes a helpful suggestion that the teacher make up a check list for all of the areas that they want to see in the paper. Then when they are grading the paper, they then just check off whenever they see this in a student's paper. Then at the end they just add all of the points up. This adds more fair grading and less work commenting on a student's paper. All in all, I feel that Weaver is most concerned about the amount of unneccessary work that teachers are doing and the learning that students could be doing, by allowing more time and more copites of revision in a student's work instead of one copy for the teacher from the beginning.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Weaver is trying to send the message that, although we (as teachers) believe that mistakes are bad, and a signb f trouble for our students, they help out in countless ways. Being able to identify the mistakes for our students helps us to get a better ideas of what we need to work on as teachers. It opens an indirect window for us to look at ourselves and see if what we are doing is actually as effective as we believe it is. I was really intrigued when she mentioned the fact that different errors are going to come with new information. While that statement seems obvious enough, not many people see it that way. Sometimes when students are given new information, they back track and second guess some of the easier grammar techniques taht they are normall familiar with. They think, "new information, new technique." This isn't always the case, and they just need to be reminded of that. ANother point that was brought up that I found to be very interesting was that our job, as teachers, is to find the errors in our students' work, and correct them. Too often, teachers get caught up in fixing the paper, and they forget to take notice of the good work that the students have done. THere are theories and ideas behind the childrens' work, and when we cloud their papers with red ink, and don't mention anything about the effort that was put into it, they are instantly discouraged. Weaver even states that, "it's no wonder they hate writing." This article puts into perspective, the many different approaches to correcting errors, and to grading students' papers most effectively. Teachers need to realize that it's more than putting a comma here, and removing an awkward sentence there. These kids try very hard to do what isexpected of them, and the way we go about editing their work is crucial to their confidence with writing in the future.
ReplyDeleteIt is easy for teachers to lose sight of what is really important about teaching writing to these kids. Students are being told “don’t do this,” and “don’t do that” with their writing, but just telling is not enough. It is sort of like allowing a child to burn himself on the stove as a learning experience. Young writers learn through experimentation and making mistakes. As teachers, we should not discourage them from taking risks by putting them down for every little error. Weaver implies that growth comes from creativity, and this “witch hunt” for comma splices and whatnot is killing that growth. It is better to praise the student for experimenting with language, while at the same time teach them the “correct” way of writing. We can’t even call one way of teaching writing “correct” either. Some textbooks say never use fragments in writing. To me, fragments actually carry out the message clearer than a typical complete sentence. Weaver provided an example of a college student’s narrative about kissing her boyfriend, and one of the fragments I liked was “Sparks. I saw them before I opened my eyes.” A spark is quick, just like that fragment. There just would not be as much emphasis on that kiss if she had written as “There were sparks. I saw them before I opened my eyes.” Professional writers often use fragments in their writing—creative writing more so than academic writing—but still, fragments should not be shunned from the classroom like they are today. Students need to learn how a fragment can be effective in writing, not be told that it’s bad because the textbook said so.
ReplyDelete