Formulaic writing?
I identified further challenges in supporting the development of student writing when I analyzed the use of the rubric for the nonfiction essay assignment (Artifact #1). I explored this issue in a discussion post for my English Methods class:
I find myself unable to take off points on their rubrics even for incoherent, repetitive drivel that technically meets the stated requirements of the rubric. When I make comments in support of developing ideas further, clarifying their points, or analyzing, I worry that they won't understand the need for such work because it does not conform to what they have been asked to do in English class. It is my hope to build up their motivation to develop their writing in this direction and wean them off of the template to some extent, but at the moment I feel stuck perpetuating a system I don't believe in. Looking back at this now, I can see that I was quick to make decisive statements and pass judgment on the template. I get the sense from the English teachers I’ve spoken with at my school that they see formulaic writing as an unsatisfying but necessary step on the road to better writing in the future. While I believe that writing proficiency develops in fits and starts and improves over time, certainly, Vygotsky’s theory that students can learn at any level if it is scaffolded properly is also a compelling view. Writing can be carefully facilitated without divorcing it from a real world context or immediacy by helping students take some ownership or independence in the process.
|
As we manipulate everyday words, we forget that they are fragments of ancient and eternal stories, that we are building our houses with broken pieces of sculptures and ruined statues of gods as the barbarians did.
|
I would like to help my students see writing as flexible, authentic, and empowering, something they have a stake in that isn’t imposed from above.
Tomlinson and McTighe (2006) have described this equilibrium as the “practical balance point between completely individualized assessments and standardized, “one-size-fits-all” measures” (p. 35). There are ways to differentiate writing instruction that help students see the template as a tool they can strategize with to communicate with others. In this process, I would like to help my students see writing as flexible, authentic, and empowering, something they have a stake in that isn’t imposed from above. Interestingly, figure 5.3 (right) shows the possibility of the template to occupy either realm, inauthentic or authentic, depending on how it is taught and used. Accordingly, I have seen students use the template as a "fill in the blank" exercise, which decontextualized their writing from a context and purpose. I have also seen students use it as a structure to help them organize their thoughts on controversial issues (10th grade, nonfiction unit), as a tool for applying critical theory (12th grade, ad analysis paragraph), and to structure literary analysis (12th grade, feminist perspective essay). In “Skills and Other Dilemmas,” Lisa Delpit (1995) recognized the potential danger of losing this balance and creating a solely skill-based education (where students become “the trainable, low-level functionary of the dominant society”), which echoes my initial concerns with the template. Like Delpit, I see a potent need for incorporating skill-based education in my classrooms despite this very real danger. Delpit ultimately “insist[s] on “skills” within the context of critical and creative thinking” (1995, p. 19). As I analyze artifacts of student writing, I will consider this context and the kind of writing it inspires.