Oops! I hit publish before this post was ready. This looks better. Apologies to those who were appalled. :D
Model for a Stock or Flat Character
As mentioned in a previous post, several students were alarmed that the characters they had selected for their character sketches were not round enough to write about using the model the class had developed. As a class, we figured out what a character sketch might look like for a flat or stock character. The new model looks like this.
Paragraph 1: Description
Paragraph 2: Role in the story - how they help advance the plot.
Paragraph 3: Strengths/Weaknesses
Paragraph 4: Relationship to other characters.
Paragraph 5: Personal opinion.
Every student was now satisfied that the writing task could be accomplished.
This marks a shift in my practice and comes from our work in Integrative Thinking and mental models. Previously, I would have taught one model for a character sketch. This creates rigid thinkers. Part of our thinking now involves learning that every structure is only a model and we consider where that model doesn't apply or might not be useful. This meets a goal of 21 Century learning: creating flexible thinkers who learn, make use of and then abandon concepts which are no longer useful.
Writing Process, Feedback and When to Intervene
Rubrics and Success Criteria which are co-constructed with students have become the norm in Ontario classrooms. When I first began using Success Criteria for writing, it was done at the beginning of a task. I would present a model that we analyzed together and then we'd generate criteria for their own writing. This was not a bad approach; however, it certainly has limitations. For students who quickly grasp abstract concepts, it works well. Most students need to experience and spend time working with a genre,though, before they can describe what success looks like. Often when co-constructing Success Criteria, the strong students speak and the ones who really don't quite understand remain quiet. Developing criteria too early in the process also means that as a teacher, I am unable to see which students have a strong grasp of a concept and which ones truly need support so they can develop conceptual understanding. It is possible, after all, to follow a recipe for writing but understand nothing.
Students have been working on rough copies of their Character Sketches and I have been circulating, answering questions, providing feedback and most of all allowing students to struggle as they consider how to describe their characters in writing. They have a rough outline for their paragraphs but nothing more.
They are far enough into the process, however, that I can see where the gaps are and what needs to be discussed. Providing evidence to support ideas is one element that needs to be addressed. All students are including evidence to support their ideas; however, much of it is poorly written, vague or doesn't really explain how the evidence supports the opinion. Today I gathered the class together to explore how to provide quality "evidence".
It became very easy for students to examine their own writing and see where improvements need to be made. The Success Criteria for evidence was developed at the right moment for deepest learning. The above example is Level 3. It meets grade level expectations for a student's ability to provide evidence, but does not go beyond expectations. I asked the class for ideas of how to turn this into a level 4 response. Several suggestions were made including comparing the character to one in another book and providing more examples of the trait.
The Hidden Curriculum
In the lead up to writing their character sketches, students were provided with many resources.
1. We read a character sketch which students deconstructed.
2. Students developed 2 different formats for writing the sketch.
3. Students were provided with a list of character traits.
4. We looked at how similes create pictures for the reader.
5. We explored types of characters.
6. Students watched The City of Ember and made notes on their character.
What puzzles me as an educator is that some students instinctively make use of those kinds of resources to create quality work and others never make the connection nor consider how the resources might be used. They don't understand the game of school and what is needed to successfully jump through the hoops.
We took time today for hoop jumping. We learned how to think about how the resources they are given by teachers. This is part of the meta-cognitive process that leads to better learning.
I began by talking about clever students, the ones who know to include certain information even though they have not been explicitly told to do so. What do they see that other students don't? I placed some of the resources from our lessons on character sketches on the bulletin board and described what I saw in their writing.
"Some students just knew that the list of character traits was useful and used it to find sophisticated words to describe their characters. How many of you realized that after we had gone over those words, it would be wise to include them in your writing?"|
"Some students have included similes to describe their characters, even though I never explicitly told them to do so, after the lesson on similes. How many of you made the connection between your own writing and the lesson?"
"After we examined types of characters, some people used the types (protagonist, stock, dynamic ...) when describing their own characters and it never occurred to other people to do so. Why is that?"
... and so on.
We had a fantastic discussion on how to make strategic use of resources to produce higher quality work. We talked about how students submit work they think is fantastic and then are disappointed with their marks, but have no idea why their mark is low. This led to a discussion of the hidden curriculum: what some students understand that other students never realize. Some students know how to make use of resources.
Finally we talked about the limitations of Success Criteria. How does being handed a checklist at the beginning of a task, such as for the Science Essay, limit them? My students were insightful:
If you're always given a list of what to do, you never really have to think for yourself or figure things out on your own.
All work ends up looking the same.
You don't have a chance to be creative.
It's possible to be successful without really having learned anything.
This doesn't mean that students should never be handed a checklist. Students must understand, though, that sometimes they are following a recipe and sometimes they must make connections and decide how to proceed independently.
Model for a Stock or Flat Character
As mentioned in a previous post, several students were alarmed that the characters they had selected for their character sketches were not round enough to write about using the model the class had developed. As a class, we figured out what a character sketch might look like for a flat or stock character. The new model looks like this.
Paragraph 1: Description
Paragraph 2: Role in the story - how they help advance the plot.
Paragraph 3: Strengths/Weaknesses
Paragraph 4: Relationship to other characters.
Paragraph 5: Personal opinion.
Every student was now satisfied that the writing task could be accomplished.
This marks a shift in my practice and comes from our work in Integrative Thinking and mental models. Previously, I would have taught one model for a character sketch. This creates rigid thinkers. Part of our thinking now involves learning that every structure is only a model and we consider where that model doesn't apply or might not be useful. This meets a goal of 21 Century learning: creating flexible thinkers who learn, make use of and then abandon concepts which are no longer useful.
Writing Process, Feedback and When to Intervene
Rubrics and Success Criteria which are co-constructed with students have become the norm in Ontario classrooms. When I first began using Success Criteria for writing, it was done at the beginning of a task. I would present a model that we analyzed together and then we'd generate criteria for their own writing. This was not a bad approach; however, it certainly has limitations. For students who quickly grasp abstract concepts, it works well. Most students need to experience and spend time working with a genre,though, before they can describe what success looks like. Often when co-constructing Success Criteria, the strong students speak and the ones who really don't quite understand remain quiet. Developing criteria too early in the process also means that as a teacher, I am unable to see which students have a strong grasp of a concept and which ones truly need support so they can develop conceptual understanding. It is possible, after all, to follow a recipe for writing but understand nothing.
Students have been working on rough copies of their Character Sketches and I have been circulating, answering questions, providing feedback and most of all allowing students to struggle as they consider how to describe their characters in writing. They have a rough outline for their paragraphs but nothing more.
They are far enough into the process, however, that I can see where the gaps are and what needs to be discussed. Providing evidence to support ideas is one element that needs to be addressed. All students are including evidence to support their ideas; however, much of it is poorly written, vague or doesn't really explain how the evidence supports the opinion. Today I gathered the class together to explore how to provide quality "evidence".
It became very easy for students to examine their own writing and see where improvements need to be made. The Success Criteria for evidence was developed at the right moment for deepest learning. The above example is Level 3. It meets grade level expectations for a student's ability to provide evidence, but does not go beyond expectations. I asked the class for ideas of how to turn this into a level 4 response. Several suggestions were made including comparing the character to one in another book and providing more examples of the trait.
The Hidden Curriculum
In the lead up to writing their character sketches, students were provided with many resources.
1. We read a character sketch which students deconstructed.
2. Students developed 2 different formats for writing the sketch.
3. Students were provided with a list of character traits.
4. We looked at how similes create pictures for the reader.
5. We explored types of characters.
6. Students watched The City of Ember and made notes on their character.
What puzzles me as an educator is that some students instinctively make use of those kinds of resources to create quality work and others never make the connection nor consider how the resources might be used. They don't understand the game of school and what is needed to successfully jump through the hoops.
We took time today for hoop jumping. We learned how to think about how the resources they are given by teachers. This is part of the meta-cognitive process that leads to better learning.
I began by talking about clever students, the ones who know to include certain information even though they have not been explicitly told to do so. What do they see that other students don't? I placed some of the resources from our lessons on character sketches on the bulletin board and described what I saw in their writing.
"Some students just knew that the list of character traits was useful and used it to find sophisticated words to describe their characters. How many of you realized that after we had gone over those words, it would be wise to include them in your writing?"|
"Some students have included similes to describe their characters, even though I never explicitly told them to do so, after the lesson on similes. How many of you made the connection between your own writing and the lesson?"
"After we examined types of characters, some people used the types (protagonist, stock, dynamic ...) when describing their own characters and it never occurred to other people to do so. Why is that?"
... and so on.
We had a fantastic discussion on how to make strategic use of resources to produce higher quality work. We talked about how students submit work they think is fantastic and then are disappointed with their marks, but have no idea why their mark is low. This led to a discussion of the hidden curriculum: what some students understand that other students never realize. Some students know how to make use of resources.
Finally we talked about the limitations of Success Criteria. How does being handed a checklist at the beginning of a task, such as for the Science Essay, limit them? My students were insightful:
If you're always given a list of what to do, you never really have to think for yourself or figure things out on your own.
All work ends up looking the same.
You don't have a chance to be creative.
It's possible to be successful without really having learned anything.
This doesn't mean that students should never be handed a checklist. Students must understand, though, that sometimes they are following a recipe and sometimes they must make connections and decide how to proceed independently.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Heidi invites you to comment on your attempts to transform your teaching practice.