I wanted to chime in on the NJASK materials passed out during our last department meeting—to be honest, there was a vast amount of material and while most of it was insightful, not all of it was entirely helpful.
Let me qualify this post with the main issue that I take with any workshop—there’s rarely an opportunity for follow-up either because of the number of attendees enrolled, or because it’s a “one-shot deal” lasting only long enough for attendees to get their hours “certificated.” Usually, if there are questions or problems with what was learned, it can be nearly impossible to resolve them…at least not until the next workshop date.
I’m a firm believer in degree programs for purposes of professional development (and of substantively furthering one’s personal and professional abilities), and whenever, wherever, and however possible, of creating PLCs (professional learning communities) and using these to foster professional growth.
Now that that’s out in the open, let’s get to these NJASK workshop materials! Just to make it easier for everyone, I’ll pick out salient points from each of the stapled handouts, and, where applicable, I’ll note caveats not found in these materials and the like…
“Conferencing with Students to Maximize Their Writing Achievement”: That there is a whole section of the materials dedicated to conferencing with students about their writing is especially important; where I would caution people from buying too heavily into what’s on offer within, though is the notion of “Teaching the writer, not the writing.” The whole idea of giving feedback (i.e., conferencing, I.M. Revision Conversation, Author’s Chair) is to point out strengths and weaknesses in writing—essentially, so that we can have grist to teach how to parlay the former into greater successes and as regards the former, in how to avoid the many pitfalls that await young writers. Sometimes finding out your writing isn’t perfect and needs more work hurts (ironically, empty praise also hurts); trying to avoid this pain by navigating around what’s popularly considered “being negative”* only forestalls what the young writer will discover for him/herself in the future, and honestly, is not best practice.
*The concept of “being critical” only takes on a pejorative standing and negative connotations for those who focus solely on the points of weakness; true criticism is also celebrating about what works within someone’s writing.
“Understanding the Architecture of the NJASK”: Although it’s stated in other sections of the NJASK workshop materials, the concept of “unpacking” a question to students—in addressing all parts of a question—is an important one.
“Core Best Practices in the Teaching of Reading”: The effective best practices in literacy instruction (read alouds, think alouds, shared reading, guided reading, independent reading), practical classroom practice of comprehension strategies, and tips for teaching fluency are only of any significance if one actually knows what they really are, and how and when to implement them in the classroom. Thinking that any of these is as obviously defined by its qualifier is much like thinking “butter” is qualified by “peanut”…or something equally as silly and irrelevant.
“Implementing Cross-Curricular Reading and Writing to Deepen Literacy Learning”: Two quotes here are questionable: There is a great deal of data suggesting that improvements in writing will have a payoff across the curriculum” and “Likewise, there is a great deal of research that sharing the responsibility of building effective readers and writers will yield greater achievement across the disciplines…” Does anyone else think it’s a little elliptical for a teacher’s workshop (where it’s commonplace to cite one’s sources for best practice methods presentation) to not have the references included in the packet? I do, especially because there is a great body of research that is a little more than “suggestive” about the gains to be had from cross-curricular instruction, which involves much more planning and forethought than can be found in the stapled pages of Schillinger Educational Consultants.
“Core Best Practices in the Teaching of Writing”: The suggestions for writing openings/leads for narrative writing are really useful. The types of conclusions, while being helpful just for listing them in one place isn’t so useful as the section on openings as actual examples are called for, not citing books where the endings might be a little more than a little fuzzy in everyone’s memory. Banishing boring words, using literary devices, parsing out components of persuasive writing are all spot-on necessary.
But here is my second gripe with all of this material: If it were September and an educator were exceedingly ambitious, s/he might be able to incorporate a sampling of what’s proffered in these pages into his/her instructional paradigm. As it is, it would take anyone who was really and truly interested in actuating these practices in the classroom at least two years to try out what works for him/her and his/her students. Sometimes when you throw everything at the wall to see what sticks, it all just becomes a high holy mess, as my grandmother used to say.
“Starting Early: Getting a Jumpstart on Preparing for the NJASK”: There are two sections here that I think are helpful: one, that there is an actual quote that goes “Even if you cannot think of real experiences that apply to your life, make them up” and two, the acronyms pneumonic for addressing parts of open-ended responses. Regarding the former, it’s so obvious to any teaching adult that no one in Trenton’s going to know whether or not the experiences students are asked to provide (text-to-self) are real, yet for students—who oftentimes excel at prevarication and equivocation for reasons all their own—lying on paper to a stranger they will never meet seems inconceivable. Regarding the pneumonic, it’s been different in every school I’ve taught at, but there are always four parts, and whether it’s R.A.C.E., L.S.A.Q., R.S.S.E. (restate, support, support, extend), or Q.A.S.I., so long as students understand they don’t have to write a paragraph in response to each, any of these work fine. I also thought the six ways to begin a piece of writing were really clever.
“Utilizing 6+1 Traits to Improve Student Writing”: More than any other section of these NJASK workshop materials, this is what I believe to be the most valuable and useful from front to back. The only reservation I have is that of the different quick check cards for students' writing--these would be exhaustive to do in one go, or even over the course of a week, week-and-a-half. It would be far more useful for students to put some of their drafts into their Writer's Folders and work on other prompts so that students could return again to their previous drafts with fresh eyes (and replenished wherewithal to see their writing through to completion). Funny (and not "haha" funny) how none of these materials mention the process of creating an instructional paradigm of working through from brainstorming to drafting to publishing (not even that, really)--they only give discrete tip and tricks for this sub-process or for that sub-process. Sort of difficult to create an instructional paradigm from bits and pieces, no?
“Succeeding on Open-Ended Questions”: I don't know why I saved this one for last as it's the most useful. By the way, the last two pages of this packet should smack of something you've seen/read/heard before: me talking ad nauseam about my Literature Responses, how Do Nows should relate to whatever text you're reading, how important it is for students to have a Writer's Notebook (i.e., journal), etc.
