This is the last and final chapter in Gallagher's book. This chapter is a sum up of all the previous chapters, and is more of a reflection on his 10 core beliefs about teaching writing. He starts by explaining the chapter title, and the reasons the Wizard of Oz would be a horrible teacher is because "he hides behind a curtain projecting a false sense of expertise" (pp 224). What Gallagher means by this is that we need to model for our students. Model, model, model. The point of a mini lesson is to teach for 10 minutes, then model the writing project so students can see the struggles you, the teacher and the expert, work through while writing. Once faced with a model, students become more comfortable with their own faults, which allow for a better flow of creative juices.
I will not go through all 10 of Gallagher's core values, but another one I really liked is the importance he plays on background knowledge. Not only does background knowledge help you to be a better reader, but it also helps in becoming a better writer. This plays on the whole researching section of his book. Relating this section back to Gee, Gallagher is saying that the more information we have about secondary Discourses, and possible filtered in primary Discourses, the better writers we are. Students can become more creative in their writing, using better adjectives rather than generalizations. In addition, the more they know, the more excited they will be to share that knowledge.
I also loved core belief 5, which is "There is no such thing as a five-paragraph essay" (pp 230). Gallagher says that in the real-world, the five paragraph essay doesn't exist. Now, I personally think that the five-paragraph essay can be a basis in which to introduce essay structure, but spending too much time on this is a waste. It is limiting. Gallagher's response to this is that it is much better to teach the structure of having a beginning, middle, and end, because students may be able to write an effective essay in only four paragraphs. What really made me laugh is when he says that for school districts that absolutely mandate a five-paragraph essay, spend 95% of your time teaching authentic writing, and only 1 week on the five-paragraph essay. (:
Lastly, I must post the importance of core belief 7, which is having students continue to write by hand. Yes, we're a technologically based society. Yes, kids are playing with phones and computers earlier than 18 months old. Does that mean that penmanship no longer has a place? Absolutely not! Writing free hand can often times be more creative and visually appealing to a growing mind as opposed to staring at a computer screen and writing in Times New Roman. Writing is an art, and there is so much more appreciation for the loops of u's, and w's, and the squiggles of s'. Handwriting causes students to think with a different part of their brain, and sometimes you will find that creativity is limited when restricted to a screen.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Monday, July 1, 2013
Response to Matt's post
I absolutely had to repost this video Matt put up and a summation of my feelings. There's too much possibility for debate to not post it. You can click his name to view the original post, or click here.
"Oh gosh, I have so much to say about this; where to start and do I include it all...?
Well, first, perhaps standardized testing is a bit limited, however, without it how can universities then judge who to admit, or how can jobs determine the hard workers from the lazy ones from the ones who just get it or the ones who try hard but struggle harder. The thing is, we all want to be judged as individuals outside the limits of standardized testing, yet is is impossible for university admissions or hiring managers to know the entire history of an individual before they are accepted; there isn't enough time, money, or resources to immerse oneself into the full cultural, emotional, mental, and educational background of each applicant. There does need to be some kind of "standard" to determine qualifications. I think the question may be what should that standard be, and who gets to determine it? Perhaps some find the common core standards limiting, but at the very least they set some kind of guideline as to where a child should be in developing. Perhaps it is unfair and unjust to apply those same standards to every single individual, but I think it is also unrealistic to have a free for all in the classroom when we as teachers are going to be managing ~200 kids each week.
I understand what the boy is saying in this video, and the message he is trying to address, but as a younger kid, I'm sure he also isn't thinking that some of those kids learning the pythagorean theorem are actually going to go on to be engineers who WILL use it to build a steady bridge one day. Or that some of the silly information he learns one day and "forgets" the next is actually a subcontext theory that he has to understand before he can understand something else. Maybe I won't have to ever use the water cycle in application ever again, however, learning about the water cycle helped me understand the world around me in a better way so that I know when I recycle I'm helping to prevent acid rain.
I really just don't think anyone can value the simplicity of the lessons we sit through in school until we're developed enough to understand the simple connections they have to each other and how they in turn connect to how we understand the world. Best example, this kid's poetic words were made possible through his ability to learn and comprehend language.
I think I'll cut off here, and I hope I didn't start a huge debate on your blog :/ but what I think this kid is suggesting is an apprenticeship type education where people are carted off to study the subjects they're most passionate about. Coming from someone who changed their major from math to english/math to english to journalism in my first 2 years of college, having core requirements are the best way for kids to explore every subject in an attempt to find what they're truly passionate about. How can you choose a passion when you haven't experienced everything there is the world has to offer."
"Oh gosh, I have so much to say about this; where to start and do I include it all...?
Well, first, perhaps standardized testing is a bit limited, however, without it how can universities then judge who to admit, or how can jobs determine the hard workers from the lazy ones from the ones who just get it or the ones who try hard but struggle harder. The thing is, we all want to be judged as individuals outside the limits of standardized testing, yet is is impossible for university admissions or hiring managers to know the entire history of an individual before they are accepted; there isn't enough time, money, or resources to immerse oneself into the full cultural, emotional, mental, and educational background of each applicant. There does need to be some kind of "standard" to determine qualifications. I think the question may be what should that standard be, and who gets to determine it? Perhaps some find the common core standards limiting, but at the very least they set some kind of guideline as to where a child should be in developing. Perhaps it is unfair and unjust to apply those same standards to every single individual, but I think it is also unrealistic to have a free for all in the classroom when we as teachers are going to be managing ~200 kids each week.
I understand what the boy is saying in this video, and the message he is trying to address, but as a younger kid, I'm sure he also isn't thinking that some of those kids learning the pythagorean theorem are actually going to go on to be engineers who WILL use it to build a steady bridge one day. Or that some of the silly information he learns one day and "forgets" the next is actually a subcontext theory that he has to understand before he can understand something else. Maybe I won't have to ever use the water cycle in application ever again, however, learning about the water cycle helped me understand the world around me in a better way so that I know when I recycle I'm helping to prevent acid rain.
I really just don't think anyone can value the simplicity of the lessons we sit through in school until we're developed enough to understand the simple connections they have to each other and how they in turn connect to how we understand the world. Best example, this kid's poetic words were made possible through his ability to learn and comprehend language.
I think I'll cut off here, and I hope I didn't start a huge debate on your blog :/ but what I think this kid is suggesting is an apprenticeship type education where people are carted off to study the subjects they're most passionate about. Coming from someone who changed their major from math to english/math to english to journalism in my first 2 years of college, having core requirements are the best way for kids to explore every subject in an attempt to find what they're truly passionate about. How can you choose a passion when you haven't experienced everything there is the world has to offer."
Polishing the Paper
Only 2 more chapters left in Gallagher's book. The 8th chapter is called "Polishing the Paper" and is all about, yup, you guessed it, the revision process. I've found that every teacher has their own process, or acronyms to use when revising, and just like every other person, so does Gallagher. His method is titled RADaR and stands for Replace, Add, Delete and Reorder.
When using this method for a mock lesson for one of my other classes, I've had a week (2 days really) where the students were using RADaR on their own papers, then during the second draft students would use the RADaR method on their peers papers. I think peer revision is great because sometimes it takes a second eye to see edits or revisions, but I don't think the 2nd draft assignment should have shared grades because some students may be more invested than others.
The biggest point of this chapter is distinguishing between editing and revising. I know that some kids will be intimidated seeing so much red on a paper (all of the edits), and so revising may hold so much more value. Also, revising for content is less restricting and allows for a more creative process. I know when I focus so much on spelling or grammatical errors in my own work I lose train of thought or my ideas are less developed.
This chapter for me really jumped back to the example in class of Rachael. She in a way was editing her work by removing some pieces from her project, but more importantly she was revising by distinguishing which content was more valuable to her. I think if we can get kids more focused on revising and leave the editing to the end, the content would be much more developed and profound. I really do hope that the process of revising first and editing second is something that can be worked into my primary Discourse.
When using this method for a mock lesson for one of my other classes, I've had a week (2 days really) where the students were using RADaR on their own papers, then during the second draft students would use the RADaR method on their peers papers. I think peer revision is great because sometimes it takes a second eye to see edits or revisions, but I don't think the 2nd draft assignment should have shared grades because some students may be more invested than others.
The biggest point of this chapter is distinguishing between editing and revising. I know that some kids will be intimidated seeing so much red on a paper (all of the edits), and so revising may hold so much more value. Also, revising for content is less restricting and allows for a more creative process. I know when I focus so much on spelling or grammatical errors in my own work I lose train of thought or my ideas are less developed.
This chapter for me really jumped back to the example in class of Rachael. She in a way was editing her work by removing some pieces from her project, but more importantly she was revising by distinguishing which content was more valuable to her. I think if we can get kids more focused on revising and leave the editing to the end, the content would be much more developed and profound. I really do hope that the process of revising first and editing second is something that can be worked into my primary Discourse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)