10-Second Review: Comparing two sets of papers, one in the 1980s and the other in 2006.
Title: “ ‘Mistakes Are a Fact of Life’: A National Comparative Study.” AA Lunsford and KJ Lunsford. College Composition and Communication (June 2008), 781-806. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Summary: Attempt to compare student mistakes from a study completed in the mid-1980’s and from 2006. Concludes that in 2006, “… papers are longer, employ different genres and contain new error patterns.” 877 papers were analyzed.
The most frequent mistake in 2006 was “wrong word.” Resulted from students who accepted a spell-checker’s suggestion of a word like “fanatic” for the right word “frantic.” There were 3,080 mistaken words, but only 48% of teachers caught them.
The second most frequent mistake was a missing comma after an introductory element. [Real writers frequently ignore a comma after a short prepositional phrase as an introductory expression in a sentence. I wonder if that was counted as an error. RayS.]
The third most frequent mistake was incomplete or missing documentation.
Fourth was vague pronoun reference. [In my opinion, a fairly significant mistake since the reader cannot tell to whom the pronoun refers. I’ve had the same trouble in reading Henry James. RayS. ]
#20 in the list was a sentence fragment. Farther up the list at was the fused run-on and the comma splice.
#14 was an unnecessary or missing apostrophe, including “its” and “it’s.”
Comment: I don’t know how significant such a list is. It could suggest an emphasis on correcting these types of mistakes in class. But I did miss a category: sexist language. Don’t students make mistakes like that? I know nothing that smooths style better than avoiding “his” and “her,” etc. or “Everyone returned to his house.” RayS.
The purpose of this blog is to share interesting ideas I have found in recent American professional publications dealing with the teaching of English at all levels, elementary, secondary and college.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Topic: Plagiarism
10-Second Review: Working with students as they write will do much to lessen the possibility of students’ plagiarizing.
Title: “The Scarlet P: Plagiarism, Panopticism and the Rhetoric of academic Integrity.” Sean Zwagerman. College Composition and Communication (June 2008), 676-710. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Summary: We need to work with students during the process of writing in order to lessen the chances that they will cheat by plagiarizing. “…the argument in favor of engaging the process rather than punishing the product….” Edward M. White: “When a writing assignment attends to the writing process, instead of only the end product, plagiarism becomes almost impossible.” p. 702.
Comment: It would appear that working with students during the process of completing a writing assignment is a basic step in preventing plagiarism. RayS.
The purpose of this blog is to share interesting ideas I have found in recent American professional publications dealing with the teaching of English at all levels, elementary, secondary and college.
Title: “The Scarlet P: Plagiarism, Panopticism and the Rhetoric of academic Integrity.” Sean Zwagerman. College Composition and Communication (June 2008), 676-710. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Summary: We need to work with students during the process of writing in order to lessen the chances that they will cheat by plagiarizing. “…the argument in favor of engaging the process rather than punishing the product….” Edward M. White: “When a writing assignment attends to the writing process, instead of only the end product, plagiarism becomes almost impossible.” p. 702.
Comment: It would appear that working with students during the process of completing a writing assignment is a basic step in preventing plagiarism. RayS.
The purpose of this blog is to share interesting ideas I have found in recent American professional publications dealing with the teaching of English at all levels, elementary, secondary and college.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Topic: Plagiarism
10-Second Review: In concentrating on fighting student plagiarism, don’t forget to teach.
Title: “The Scarlet P: Plagiarism, Panopticism and the Rhetoric of academic Integrity.” Sean Zwagerman. College Composition and Communication (June 2008), 676-710. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Summary: We may be spending so much time worrying about catching cheaters that we are not teaching productively. “Unfortunately, we may have reached the point where the suppression of academic dishonesty is deemed more important than anything that might be sacrificed in the effort—including education.”
Comment: “Ouch!” RayS.
The purpose of this blog is to share interesting ideas I have found in recent American professional publications dealing with the teaching of English at all levels, elementary, secondary and college.
Title: “The Scarlet P: Plagiarism, Panopticism and the Rhetoric of academic Integrity.” Sean Zwagerman. College Composition and Communication (June 2008), 676-710. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Summary: We may be spending so much time worrying about catching cheaters that we are not teaching productively. “Unfortunately, we may have reached the point where the suppression of academic dishonesty is deemed more important than anything that might be sacrificed in the effort—including education.”
Comment: “Ouch!” RayS.
The purpose of this blog is to share interesting ideas I have found in recent American professional publications dealing with the teaching of English at all levels, elementary, secondary and college.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Topic: Plagiarism
10-Second Review: In preventing student plagiarism, don’t forget to value students’ ideas.
Title: “The Scarlet P: Plagiarism, Panopticism, and the Rhetoric of Academic Integrity.” Sean Zwagerman. College Composition and Communication (June 2008), 676-710. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Summary: Suggests that the teacher’s valuing students’ ideas is the spirit that will defeat the temptation to plagiarize.
Comment: It’s not that simple, but this attitude on the part of the teacher is basic to successful writing by students and might cause them not to need to plagiarize. The author’s question after successfully trapping a student plagiarist, “Why did he need to do it?” is worth thinking about. RayS.
The purpose of this blog is to share interesting ideas I have found in recent American professional publications dealing with the teaching of English at all levels, elementary, secondary and college.
Title: “The Scarlet P: Plagiarism, Panopticism, and the Rhetoric of Academic Integrity.” Sean Zwagerman. College Composition and Communication (June 2008), 676-710. A publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
Summary: Suggests that the teacher’s valuing students’ ideas is the spirit that will defeat the temptation to plagiarize.
Comment: It’s not that simple, but this attitude on the part of the teacher is basic to successful writing by students and might cause them not to need to plagiarize. The author’s question after successfully trapping a student plagiarist, “Why did he need to do it?” is worth thinking about. RayS.
The purpose of this blog is to share interesting ideas I have found in recent American professional publications dealing with the teaching of English at all levels, elementary, secondary and college.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Topic: Assessment
10-Second Review: There’s a significant difference between assessment OF and Assessment FOR learning.
Title: “Balancing the Assessment OF Learning and FOR Learning in Support of Student Literacy Achievement.” Patricia A. Edwards, et al. The Reading Teacher (May 2008), 682-684. A publication of the International Reading Association.
Summary: As the title of the article indicates, assessment must be of two types: assessment OF learning and assessment FOR learning. Assessment OF learning is a dead end, summarizing what students have done, their levels of achievement, pigeon-holes labeled “dumb,” “average,” “has potential” and “bright.” Assessment FOR learning is designed to determine how to help students overcome weaknesses in learning and how to utilize students’ strengths in learning.
Comment: Those two prepositions OF and For make all the difference. RayS.
NOTE: As you have probably recognized, I am using the word “literacy” too often. That’s because in elementary education today, the word “literacy” is repeated too often. The trouble with the word “literacy” is that it now applies to too many things: reading, writing, film, technology, science, geography and every other subject in which students do not know as much as experts in the subject do and are, therefore, considered to be deficient.
I can’t avoid using “literacy” in the titles or summaries of the articles I review, but I can try to “write around the word” in my comments. I promise to work at it. RayS.
The purpose of this blog is to share interesting ideas I have found in recent American professional publications dealing with the teaching of English at all levels, elementary, secondary and college.
Title: “Balancing the Assessment OF Learning and FOR Learning in Support of Student Literacy Achievement.” Patricia A. Edwards, et al. The Reading Teacher (May 2008), 682-684. A publication of the International Reading Association.
Summary: As the title of the article indicates, assessment must be of two types: assessment OF learning and assessment FOR learning. Assessment OF learning is a dead end, summarizing what students have done, their levels of achievement, pigeon-holes labeled “dumb,” “average,” “has potential” and “bright.” Assessment FOR learning is designed to determine how to help students overcome weaknesses in learning and how to utilize students’ strengths in learning.
Comment: Those two prepositions OF and For make all the difference. RayS.
NOTE: As you have probably recognized, I am using the word “literacy” too often. That’s because in elementary education today, the word “literacy” is repeated too often. The trouble with the word “literacy” is that it now applies to too many things: reading, writing, film, technology, science, geography and every other subject in which students do not know as much as experts in the subject do and are, therefore, considered to be deficient.
I can’t avoid using “literacy” in the titles or summaries of the articles I review, but I can try to “write around the word” in my comments. I promise to work at it. RayS.
The purpose of this blog is to share interesting ideas I have found in recent American professional publications dealing with the teaching of English at all levels, elementary, secondary and college.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Topic: Applied Literacy--Class Newspaper
Title: “Providing All Students ACCESS to Self-regulated Literacy Learning.” SA Parsons. The Reading Teacher (May 2008), 628-635. A publication of the International Reading Association.
Summary: Elementary students put together a class newspaper. Author says teachers can use authentic experiences in literacy as well as training for high-stakes tests.
Comment: This idea has been recycled from many years ago. Why not? RayS.
The purpose of this blog is to share interesting ideas I have found in recent American professional publications dealing with the teaching of English at all levels, elementary, secondary and college.
Summary: Elementary students put together a class newspaper. Author says teachers can use authentic experiences in literacy as well as training for high-stakes tests.
Comment: This idea has been recycled from many years ago. Why not? RayS.
The purpose of this blog is to share interesting ideas I have found in recent American professional publications dealing with the teaching of English at all levels, elementary, secondary and college.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Topic: Applied Literacies
Title: “Museum Literacies of a Second-Grade Classroom.” AJ Eakle and BL Dalesio. The Reading Teacher (May 2008), 604-613. A publication of the International Reading Association.
Summary: Students put together museum exhibits on topics that involve traditional (reading and writing) and technological (pictures, sound) literacies. Information came from books, people and the Internet.
Comment: Another form of research—at a very early age. RayS.
The purpose of this blog is to share interesting ideas I have found in recent American professional publications dealing with the teaching of English at all levels, elementary, secondary and college.
Summary: Students put together museum exhibits on topics that involve traditional (reading and writing) and technological (pictures, sound) literacies. Information came from books, people and the Internet.
Comment: Another form of research—at a very early age. RayS.
The purpose of this blog is to share interesting ideas I have found in recent American professional publications dealing with the teaching of English at all levels, elementary, secondary and college.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)