Reflections Involving Trial and Error

2.10.05

I had the students read their poetry out loud to one another in order to gain feedback. This made a world of difference. Student realized what they should have included, they didn’t like the way something sounded, they wanted to play around with the punctuation, etc. It was eye opening for me because this was such a simple thing and it was helping them immensely as they got a sound for their piece out\loud. Sometimes I think that we miss what we write because we don’t read it out loud. This was a great piece of the process for the kids today.

Once they read out loud I gave them time to do a few more corrections and then had them read it again the way that they wanted it. Giving that time for immediate work over seemed to help them paint a clearer picture to their reader concerning what they wanted their poem to be about and sound like.

3.2.05

What do I think I want to concentrate on in terms of the questions that I have about peer conferring. I see that rubrics, checklists, etc. have helped keep the students on task but how do I push their thinking further? Is it in the questioning? Is it in the details of what is being asked of them? A student told me today that when a sub comes into they don’t get anything done because it takes so long for her to explain things. This left me to think about her comment. I don’t know if I have just gotten to know how to communicate with these children after a year or so in an effective way or if I don’t give as much time to explaining things. I also am thinking, How do I give them a structure without being too structured or not structured enough? Is it the consistency of the language that is used or the accuracy of the questions that makes students delve into the work that they are doing? This is something to consider at this point in time. Where should I focus in?

3.3.05

Today we had a lesson regarding good writing and the elements of good writing. The kids had a packet to look at where the elements of good writing were highlighted and then they had examples good vs. bad and they had to choose, with their partners, what was good. I tried to push it a step further by asking them what made it good specifically. When we were done with that we read over a sample question done by a “fourth grader”. It had two drafts, Draft A and B, Draft A was the copy that needed some work and we talked about what needed to be changed and Draft B was an example of a better copy. I don’t know if it would have been more effective to have us write one together so that they could see the process but I think that would have taken too long and would have lost sigh of what we were trying to work towards.

So the culmination of this lesson was to have the students look over a rubric that I had created based upon a rubric that assesses the picture prompt writing portion of the test. I am having them look over this rubric because I want them to be able to come up with the language that they use to assess themselves. They will be using these rubrics not only for themselves, but for one another when they look at their peer’s writing. I want them to get a sense of ownership over the assessment.

After we went through the packet on good writing and talked through Draft A and B we outlined some basic parts of good writing by them sharing aloud and me jotting them down on chart paper. I thought that this would give them a good focus and visual to work with.

Once we charted this out I had the students turn to their writing buddies to discuss what they would have wanted to change on the rubric to make it clearer for them. I felt as thought this was a little fuzzy when I left them to go and do their work. I thought about this and I think that this may have been because I had given them a rubric that was already written out. Initially I thought that this would be helpful because it would incorporate everything that needed to be included but would allow them to turn it into their own words. I think that having the rubric already completed may have set up a situation where the students had a harder time coming up with their own ideas because what was written may not have been understood by them, kept them in a box instead of allowing them to naturally come up with their own ideas, or were overwhelmed with the amount of text that they were looking at.

If I were to do it again, I think that I would have started them with the rubric and then had them go off where their partners to add on to the work. This might open up room for more of a natural discussion and a better feeling of ownership. I do think that they did a good job making changes. They added on some information that wasn’t in the rubric and they also turned some wording around so that it was clearer to them. I am hoping that this will be a good tool to help them assess themselves and each other and will feel to them as though they have established the tool. I think that this will be a question that I will ask of them when we talk about peer conferring. DOES IT HELP YOU TO HAVE A TOOL THAT YOU HAVE COME UP WITH OR DOES IT NOT MATTER IF YOU OR I HAVE COME UP WITH IT? I have to come up with a better way to ask this question of them.

All in all I think that this lesson went basically well and I think it has established a good base for the children to work with. I think that the more structures that we put into the peer conferring the more successful it will be. Though I think that they discourse and permit for new types of thinking to occur.

3.7.05

I am attempting to create feedback sheets with pointed questions that will help them to be able to give each other structured responses. I am using some questions for each major area that they are looking at in hopes that this will focus them. I don’t know if this will push them too far into my box of what I want them to do. Will it allow them to be creative enough to come up with new, personally helpful questions of their own? I do want to keep them independent enough to work on their own and use their own resources but I don’t want to give them too much. This always seems to be a question that plagues me!

3.11.05

Today I tried taping a peer conference. I wanted to incorporate some of the reading that I have been doing on the subject and try out some of the new things I have been introduced to.

I had the girls read their pieces to one another and make changes to their own pieces after they read them out loud. I have found that this is a very valuable way for them to think and work with their writing. This is echoed in the book Sharing and Responding by Peter Elbow and Pat Belanoff who explain the positive in sharing out loud as it, “…you learn so much by using your mouth and ears” (p. 10). I find that most children do some sort of work to their piece after they read it aloud to a partner.

After they read aloud, the listener jotted down some ideas about the piece and what they wanted to share with the partner. This allowed for a quick reaction, something that they would have to talk off of when they sat down with one another. Each student got a chance to do this.

I videotaped them reading to one another and then I jumped in to make clear what it was that they were supposed to do for the next step. I felt that I didn’t explain myself very well in the beginning of the conference time and that there was a lot to the instructions and I had to jump in to make sure that they girls knew what was expected of them. I felt that I needed to act as a guide for them. I found that student 1 had written down some reactions while student 2 did not, mostly because she wasn’t sure of the directions that were given. Student 1 had clarified what she was supposed to do before they moved on. In the future I may have left directions on the board or might move to make generic directions for the use of peer conferring. This might be something that they go to each time they enter into a peer conference.

Once they initially shared and gave their overall feelings, they went to the feedback sheet that was prepared for them by me based upon their construction of the rubric that they were using to assess their piece. Part of me felt as though I wanted to open up room for them to come up with their own assessment guide but I think that, in this case, I didn’t want to put as much emphasis on their work with creating an assessment piece rather I wanted them to go through the process of thinking through each other’s piece in a structured way.

Once the girls were done with their work on the worksheet, they shared their overall feedback with one another. What they think went well overall and what they think they could have improved. I had them explain the overview because going through the worksheet would be tedious and they were able to read one another’s comments on their own. I also gave them time off camera to read through the feedback that was given and ask any questions of one another that they needed to in order to clarify and understand what the other had written.

3.25. 05

As I am reading through the logs I am finding that some students have gotten more focused while others have added information that doesn’t seem to fit what the question is asking. I have typed up three before and after logs with their feedback and have been looking at those closely. It looks as though one student has answered her question quickly and then has gone on a tangent in terms of her answer. The peer also missed that the question was not one that was large enough to garner more than a yes or no answer. I think that this is something I will need to revisit. They need to make sure that they are doing the basics before they can worry about the other parts of their writing.

Another student’s log seemed to get more focused but there was still some of parts, such as the last sentence, “They also did not want to make a deal because if they did they would still fight over it”, that could have been explained to a greater degree. I think that this is all part of taking steps towards making his writing better and more focused. I think that it is one step at a time and he has made some headway in focusing in and using evidence from the book to support his answer.

A third student’s log improved some in terms of the use of punctuation and he did explain a bit more but I think that he still has some problems explaining how his evidence fits his text. This is all such a worthwhile experience looking over their work and thinking about what they are doing well and what still needs to be dealt with. I think that the peer conferring is helping them to make some strides in changing their work. I also find that students are able to share their knowledge, which is bringing about a boost in confidence. Writing is one of those things that can always be improved upon. There is no finite way to write properly and I think that peer conferring allows students to look at their writing through a different set of lenses, their peers.

4.1.05

I was thinking today about what might make a peer conference fall apart. What makes the differences between what you have told the children that you expect of them and then what they go and do when they meet in their groups? I am left to think about whether or not it is too many directives, were they not paying attention, did they not gain the correct clarification, did my instructions not seem clear to them? There are so many ways that I could interpret the idea of why something didn’t go well but a colleague mentioned to me today, why not just ask them? What a novel thought.

4.10.05

Reading back through my journal I have noticed that my ideas about what led to effective peer conferencing experiences have transformed over the last couple of months. I initially thought that the children’s social skills, knowledge of whatever they were conferencing about, self confidence, and communication skills would lead to a great peer conferring experience. I thought that teaching explicitly both social and communication skills would enable the students to have an effective peer conference.

Though all of those things are key components of peer conferring, I am left to think that there are more aspects that I had never considered. These other components of peer conferring came about as I began to critique myself and the peer conferring experiences in my classroom. Other aspects that I began to notice were the use of rubric and checklists as supports to keep the children focused on what they needed to look at. It was also apparent that timing was important. It was much easier to talk about feedback right after a peer looked over the piece and wrote about rather than write about the piece and then go back to that feedback and explain it the next day. It made the feedback much fresher and focused for both the one who was critiquing and the one who was getting critiqued.

I also found that the way that I modeled the way that the conference should unfold was another great way to set the stage for a more successful peer conference. If the students could go through a “trial run” of what they needed to do that day, it was much easier for them to transition into their work. They already had a base from which to emerge and they had “tried out” their conference already.

What has begun to enlighten my thinking is that, though I have begun to realize all those important aspects, the reality is that I am working with human beings. I may be able to utilize all of the different components of a peer conference but ultimately, a student could be having a bad day or an amazing day. The way that you think a peer conference might go might not be the avenue it travels down. I have found that I need to be open to the work that they are doing and the questions that they ask of one another. I have been most pleasantly surprised when I see feedback that I never thought that I would. Letting the students lead the way does surprise you sometimes!

I am also open to the fact that I haven’t found every component that can help to make a peer conference successful. The more that I look into their work and reflect upon my practice, I find that there are different ideas and thoughts that emerge. I can always learn more from my students and I need to remind myself to stay open to that learning.

Back