Learning to Proofread

We worked on our word choice over the past two days. We looked at two samples of writing, one which mimicked some of the formulaic writing I read in our writing assessments and another without the transitions (and more voice). We had partner and whole group conversations about why a piece was or wasn't at standard. Kids talked about how one sounded like a robot, and didn't sound like me. They also talked about the word choice and description.

After showing kids a Wordle word cloud, we had similar conversations. More words, better description, larger cloud. I set kids loose to read an article called the Disappearing Dollar. They needed to pick a side of the debate (Dollar Coin or Dollar Bill), and then write about it. They used Wordle, and eventually posted on our discussion forum. The result? Great writing with voice and word choice. You could actually see a kid talking in a way that mimics their writing. They added details that gave you a mental picture of what they were writing about. Seeing them toggle between word cloud and writing was awesome.

The one downside was in their proofreading. Oh my goodness! I'm not sure if it was because they typed it first, or just weren't paying attention as well as they could have. Either way, their writing ended up lacking that attention to detail that they paid to their word choice.... but proofreading can be fixed. Word choice is far harder. We're making progress!

Tomorrow is the day. Yep. We're going to start to examine our writing a little more closely, and start to put it together into a coherent, multi-sentence, sophisticated piece. I will restate the following from yesterday: My kids can write. Where I am taking issue is with the overall sophistication in their work. At times it is more formula than substance, almost checking off the box on the writing checklist instead of really putting feeling into it. That isn't always, nor with all students, but it is certainly an affliction.

Where we'll start tomorrow is with two examples of tackling the same writing prompt they had yesterday. The first will look a little something like the image to the left after it is been put through Wordle. While it looks like quite a few words, phrases and expressions... it really isn't. It follows the formulaic process of "first, then, next." The writing is also riddled with sentences that are a little empty. For example: "I like running because it is outside. Running outside is fun." Does it accomplish the task of writing and explaining your favorite activity? Kinda. Does it tell you much about this favorite activity? Not really. My example mimics some of the prompts I have read (or parts of them).

Now we'll also look at the example to the right, also from Wordle. The first thing that kids will notice is the volume of words by comparison to the first piece. Hmm, why is that? Word choice and sentence variance. If you change up your sentences, and vary your wording you end up with a larger word cloud. Is a larger word cloud better? It certainly can signal more sophisticated writing, even if "really" and "like" are two of my most used words. The beauty of that is conversation is how it naturally brings us to: How did you get there? At that point there real work begins.

We are going to start from their basic structure. We'll use the topic sentence and details. The difference is that we are going to work on explaining those details or making connections to those details... "Awesome, you like running. What is it about it? Being outside? Tell me what that is like...". We're also not going to beat a dead horse. We're going to do this in response to a news article from Time for Kids about transitioning to the dollar coin. Kids will need to say if it is a good thing or bad thing, and why. It seems like a lot, and is... but should be relevant, challenging, and engaging. We'll use Wordle to check our word choice and volume. Finally, we'll post on Communicator and respond to each other. Big undertaking that should be interesting.

Formulas in Writing

I just finished scoring 75 fall writing assessments. I was struck by the number of similar styles kids used in their writing. Transitions like "First, Second, Third" or "First, Next, and then" were prevalent. There were also a myriad of expansion sentences that didn't add as much as you would want. I learned quite a bit about my kids, but was also left with a variety of questions. Some sentences left me as a reader wanting to know more about a particular topic, but being left a bit on the empty side. My kids can write, that much is certain. When I say my kids, I mean ALL of my kids can write. Really. It's true. But at times I wonder whether the process or formula is getting in the way.

The question that I was left with was: would I rather have kids that can write by formula, or those that have voice but could struggle to get started? To me, I'd rather the former than the latter. I think it is easier to model clay than to make clay. If kids have a fall back, default to which they can utilize when they struggle, then I am all for it. Everyone needs a safe zone. While I am great a motivating, writing can be an intense struggle for kids. It is like any area where kids struggle (math, reading, anything): I'm not good at it so why try. The mountain at that point becomes Everest, not one of those small east coast mole hills (I can say that being an ex-east coaster).

We as teachers need to do a better job giving kids tools for their toolbox. I use Units of Study, which has more of a flowy, go through the writing process approach. Others tend to use Step Up to Writing... formula, transitions, IVF, here is how it is done. Both work. But kids need a little bit of both. My challenge is to ensure that their voices get louder as they use (or break free of) these transitions and formulas.

When Tech Tools Disappear

Teaching today isn't quite teaching from 20 years ago. The technology innovations, and their prevalence have made their use (and teaching of how to use them) a vital part of practice. Ultimately, if we are to prepare kids for a future we need to embed these tools in our work. We need to do this even if we don't know what the future looks like. One thing is for certain: the toothpaste isn't going back in the tube, and technology isn't going away.

My district has a technology levy, and the use of technology is expected. We are actually paid to be trained to use particular tools (in fact I helped create a class for this year). I think the funding comes through the levy, although I might be wrong (I have been known to forget). The funny thing about these classes is that they are tech tool dependent. If the tool goes away, your class doesn't exist.

That brings me to an issue that arose on Friday. One of the tools that my district adopted is going away... and we don't know when! The company that is responsible for managing the tool (an online forum/portal that was secure) is pulling it from the market because of an economic slowdown issue. We don't know when it will be unavailable, we just know it is going away. There is an upside to this: the same strategies we were using for an online forum can be translated into in-class work. Instead of posting online, I can have students print responses and post them on a bulletin board. Kids can then make handwritten or typed responses to reply. I could also have them email or send responses to a dropbox. I can then print them with names, or anonymously, for kids to reply to. We can analyze and give feedback in small group or whole class settings.

The beauty of the online format has been seeing kids respond to each other. They've agreed/disagreed and been specific in their feedback. Kids can then go back and edit, which they have! The power of the online discussion has let kids who are quieter move to equal footing. Seeing this tool go away (although they are going to find another service that is similar) will be sad. But it is just part of the world we live in... things change, innovation happens... global slowdowns happen!

Wildwood by Colin Meloy

My school just had a book fair hosted by the University Bookstore. It was well done, and had many quality books. One of the books I picked up was Wildwood by Colin Meloy. Yep, it is the same Colin Meloy who is the lead singer for the Decemberists. Let me tell you this: it is 500+ pages of wonderful.

The story is about Prue McKeel and her journey to find her brother. You see, her brother Mac was swooped up by crows and taken to a wooden area called the Impassable Wilderness. Those familiar with Portland OR (where the book is set) will recognize this as much like Forest Park. Along the way she runs into a boy in her class named Curtis who follows her into the wilderness, thus beginning a long and weird sequence of events.
In the wilderness they meet a band of talking coyote soldiers, a postman delivering mail to different parts of the "wood" and other assorted talking animals. What Prue doesn't realize is that 1) she is special and connected to the wilderness somehow, and 2) she needs to save her brother before the former ruler of the Wood, the Dowager Governess, feeds Mac to the ivy (yep, I said it was weird!).

While a relatively large book, I think kids will identify with the characters. They will enjoy Prue and her quirkiness, as well as her determination to find her brother. They'll also like how Meloy weaves the animals in the story. The animals bring a different dimension, embodying many of the traits of humans while as maintaining their animal qualities. I'm excited for my kids to read it.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5. Long but well written with threads that ensure the story moves along.  

Discussion in Online Formats

I enjoy getting kids talking to each other. While I enjoy talking, that isn't the most effective format for learning. Kids need to wrestle with ideas, and discuss things thoughtfully with their peers. Previously I've done that in a myriad of ways. We'll have literature circle groups where kids talk about books. We will also talk as a whole group, debating using thumbs up/down (or through "clickers"/Activotes) and talking about why we agree/disagree. Those have been great strategies, and I plan to continue to use them.

Currently I'm in my second full week of using Communicator with my kids. In short, it is an online, secure portal where my 5th graders can post to a discussion board, post on a blog, and create a wiki. I can effectively track their work using an RSS feed. All the while no one needs to worry about outsider drifters coming in and doing anything elicit. Hooray! We're using each of the functions in a different capacities, and with different rates of success so far.

What I'm most excited about is the discussion their having currently. Thus far I have posted two analysis/judgement questions for them to respond to, each linked to our work in Social Studies. They needed to evaluate different landforms/geographic features, and explain which would be most difficult to settle near. This required understanding of landforms, and their potential impact on humans. The conversation has been great! We've started posting our responses, and quickly the question turned to "can I reply to someone else?" I limited that at first, modelling how we want to give constructive feedback that is specific (positive and negative). The response has been overwhelming. Seeing my kids give great feedback and edit their posts to make them more specific has been wonderful, and precisely what I was hoping for.

Not all kids thrive on the in-class discussion. This other method is simply another way for me get kids engaged, and get kids talking to each other. So far, so good!

Data and Teaching

I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine the other day. She was talking about how her school was climbing up the missed AYP ladder that NCLB has established. Ultimately that has resulted in her school focusing on teaching to the test- the results of that not yielding what they (school/district admin) have hoped (still really low, still "failing").

I understand the argument against one high stakes test. There are kids who have really good days, as well as really bad days. A kid might miss the standard by one question, whereas one makes it by a question. The delineation seems somewhat arbitrary, and the kids mentioned above usually are very similar in their skill sets. Eliminating the test wholesale isn't really a valid option for me. I'm ok with the idea that we need a yearly measuring stick. It could be helpful information for kids, parents, and teachers.

What I struggle to grasp is the logic behind teaching to the test. I understand the stakes that necessitate this sort of practice- jobs are at stake for adults, funding for the school, things of that nature. But if the test is based on the state standards, why not just continue to use the state standards? My teaching is rooted in those standards, and I make sure to periodically check which standards I still need to incorporate as the year goes on. I'll use some of the state released test items throughout the year, but not as my only teaching materials. They are a means of exposing kids to the question format, as well as test-taking strategies. But as a whole, when we use the released items I highlight the strategies we already use (go back to the text, look for clues, monitoring to see if the story or response makes sense).

The whole concept made me scratch my head. I've really tried to get away from the national/political end of education. But comes up from time to time and I'm still left confounded. I won't even get into the other issue at hand: who is actually responsible when cohort groups don't achieve, and what should be done with that information (the former being an easier question to answer than the latter I think).