Thinking of the Daiker here, what are the pet peeves you'll have to check yourself for when assessing student work? I imagine we'll all have different go-to areas of critique when we consider the conceptual, structural, sentential, and lexical responses to student work. What strategies will you employ for balancing positive and corrective responses?
Belanoff notes, "What I'm saying is that I inevitably judge the paper in front of me in terms
of all other papers I've read." Given most of us are new at this, how do you plan to level set your assessment in your first semester teaching?
Aram,
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the Daiker article, I think I would probably lean first to what I know best, would fall under the conceptual and structural levels of a paper. With this I can provide positive feedback and constructive criticism for the rest of the paper. Start with what you know should always be a good strategy in the classroom and beyond, you feel confident and that can only help in the feedback.
Hi Aram,
ReplyDeleteDaiker's article made me think a lot about my tutoring and teaching practices. Even though I was trained as a tutor to interact with student writing with warm and cool feedback, it’s sometimes just easier to spot the mistakes that seem glaring to us.I think grammar and sentence-level things are what most teachers struggle not to nit-pick. I liked Daiker’s suggestion of allowing myself to make nothing but positive comments the first time I read a paper. Grading is unpleasant, but if we go into evaluating writing with a positive mindset, it will be much easier to see the strengths in the writing.