- Explicit instruction in basic writing skills
- The Write Structure: A Simple, Effective Method for Teaching Writing Across the Content Areas
- Instructional Services / Effective Strategies for Teaching Writing
- A Handbook of Writing in Education
- Personal profile!
- Teaching Methods, Skills, and Approaches.
- Introductory Part: Strategy Teaching for Learning to Write and for Writing to Learn.
- Just Wait Till You Have Children of Your Own!.
- "Effective Teachers of Literacy"!
- Focke Wulf Ta-183(1-33);
- Blog Sidebar.
Feedback is one of the best ways to support student learning. According to John Hattie , Feedback has an effect size of. Most of the time the feedback students receive consists of answers to the questions: Where am I going? How am I going? But neglect the thrid essential answer to the question, Where to next?
Explicit instruction in basic writing skills
Rubrics can support this need and provide the type of feedback, by self, peer, or teacher, to move all students forward, but not all rubrics are created equal. Rubrics are a traditional part of most classrooms. Web20Classroom thought leadership expert, Steven Anderson and I are big fans of a type of rubric you might not have heard of before, the single-point rubric.
We believe the single-point rubric should be a part of every classroom and because of its flexibility, there are multiple ways educators can use them in the classroom or with colleagues. Rubrics have been a part of the assessment toolbox since at least the mids. In fact, we would guess that many teachers reading this post have created quite a few over the years. Traditionally they have fallen into 2 categories, Holistic and Analytic. Holistic — Criterion is written as a paragraph.
Assessed overall achievement on an activity or product. Analytic — Written with levels of achievement as columns and assessment criteria as rows. But there is a more impactful and flexible rubric everyone should be aware of, the single-point rubric. The single-point rubric was first created by Mary Dietz in and has been gaining popularity in recent years.
The Write Structure: A Simple, Effective Method for Teaching Writing Across the Content Areas
Different than the Holistic and Analytic Rubric, Single-Point Rubrics identify one achievement level for a set of criteria. This single column based on proficiency for each identified area allows students and teachers the opportunity to provide targeted feedback instead of a circled number or grade. The clarity in success criteria. Single Point Rubric — Display a set of criteria written with a single level of achievement for each demonstrating quality work.
No alternative levels included. Open space for feedback, goal-setting, or evidence. On top of that, the Single-Point Rubric can be used for a variety of purposes across multiple grades and disciplines. The core content areas like math and language arts can certainly benefit from the use of the single-point rubric.
But other content areas like physical education, art, music, and others can use and benefit from the single point rubric as well. And while they can function as a traditional assessment tool, their versatility allows educators and students the ability to reimagine its use and adapt to multiple uses in the school.
I love teaching writing. Following my graduate studies my philosophy on the teaching of writing changed. I found my students more interested in writing and sharing their thoughts. I, too, began to write more and eventually started a blog to share with other educators. And along with an increase in enjoyment and confidence, the skills and craft of writing strengthened.
Now, I work with other educators on how they can best refine their instructional practices. And when I am lucky, I get to also share my best practices in the teaching of writing. One thing is certain when I share my love of writing with other educators; I have been influenced by many experts in the field of writing.
The following is a small sampling of what I feel are important quotes, suggestions, and affirmations on the teaching of writing. A person can read without writing, but he cannot write without reading. If we neglect writing, it is also at the expense of reading. The world of writing is a mural, not a snapshot. Writing is not thinking written down after all of the thinking is completed.
Writing is thinking. We are living in a new era of literacy, one in which participation is key — participation in: A digital culture A democracy A global conversation What this participation mostly entails is writing.
- Shaelynn Farnsworth – Educator. Writer. Learner?
- The Mourner (Parker, Book 4).
- Effective Learning and Teaching of Writing | SpringerLink;
- Automotive Engines: Diagnosis, Repair, Rebuilding (6th Edition)?
- Effective Learning and Teaching of Writing: A Handbook of Writing in Education (Studies in Writing).
- Delta Green: Denied to the Enemy (A Call of Cthulhu Mythos Novel of World War II).
- Mobile NMR and MRI : developments and applications.
You learn to write by grappling with a real subject that truly matters to you. Studies over time indicate that teaching formal grammar to students has a negligible or even harmful effect on improving student writing. Very young children can write before they can read, can write more than they can read, and can write more easily than they can read—because they can write anything they can say.
Writing, in this instance, is a particularly powerful tool for helping adolescents listen, reflect, converse with themselves, and tackle both cultural messages and peer pressures.
Instructional Services / Effective Strategies for Teaching Writing
After all, teachers should not be able to grade all of the writing students do. Teaching students to write is something very few teachers learned how to do during their undergrad. But when we do teach writing, the voice that is developed in our students carries with them into their adult lives.
These policies come into play every single day. They are a set of expectations that all constituents within the school are held accountable by. Policies and procedures typically are written with a specific target audience in mind, This includes students, teachers, administrators, support staff, and even parents. Policies and procedures should be written so that the target audience understands what is being asked or directed of them. For example, a policy written for a middle school student handbook should be written at a middle school grade level and with terminology that the average middle school student will understand.
A Handbook of Writing in Education
A quality policy is both informative and direct meaning that the information is not ambiguous, and it is always straight to the point. It is also clear and concise. A well-written policy will not create confusion. A good policy is also up-to-date. A clear policy is easy to understand. The readers of the policy should not only understand the meaning of the policy but understand the tone and the underlying reason the policy was written. It does not mean that the effective teachers discounted the importance of children learning the coding systems of literacy. We have no evidence that this was the case and, indeed, from our classroom observations of these teachers in action, they were clearly spending a lot of their teaching time focusing on these coding systems.
What seems to be the case, however, is that the effective teachers strongly emphasised the functions and purposes of the codes of literacy as they taught them. We also collected data about teachers' knowledge of literacy through a quiz which all the teachers undertook. A copy of the quiz will be found in Appendix 2. We shall show that, although superficial analysis of the quiz results indicates quite low levels of performance for all teachers, the effective teachers performed better and, importantly, more quickly than the validation teachers.
There are also apparently contradictory patters in the performance of the effective teachers in elements of the quiz. They demonstrated in the classroom, for example, effective knowledge of some aspects such as the use of phonemes which they could show only poorly in the quiz.
The first part of the quiz asked teachers to underline in a sentence words belonging to various word classes: nouns, verbs adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions and articles. In this way we would be able to see which teachers knew these language terms and could recognise them. These basic parts of a sentence are the most likely aspects of grammar to be taught to primary aged children, so knowledge of them is likely to be important to the teachers. Our test, of course, was very brief and tested teachers' ability to recognise an example of each word class in a sentence.
Of a possible total score of 18 the median score for the effective teachers was The results suggests that the effective teachers were more likely to be able to identify word classes in a sentence. Detailed analysis shows that whilst all the effective teachers and validation teachers could pick out nouns and verbs correctly, and most could pick out adjectives, the rates of success for the other items were more variable. These parts of words are important in the teaching of phonological awareness, phonics and some aspects of spelling so, whilst it was not possible to test teachers' awareness of all sub-word units, these were chosen as representative.
This part of the test not only allowed us to see whether the teachers knew certain technical terms for parts of a word, but also to add extra items so that we could see whether teachers were more likely to be able to segment words into sounds and meaning units, terms they are familiar with, than phonemes and morphemes, terms which they might not know. Of a possible 22 points the results produced a median score of 9 for the effective teachers and 10 for the validation sample. However, further investigation of these results shows that a large proportion of these scores is accounted for by the ability to break down words into syllables and pick out meaningful units within words.
Few teachers were able to complete other items effectively. Less than half of each group could segment words into onsets and rimes and very few indeed could segment words into phonemes. Although this suggests that the term 'phoneme' caused the teachers some problems, it was noticeable that they found the task difficult even when the better known term 'sound' was used. Directly before completing the test we had observed a number of the effective teachers teaching initial and final sounds and blends in ways which were clearly successful and comprehensible to the children, although we did not observe the validation teachers doing this.
We shall discuss the implications of this apparent contradiction later in this chapter. A further part of the quiz asked the teachers to comment on a very partial, but traditionally used, definition of a verb, to see whether this was understood to be partial and whether teachers could expand it. This item was chosen to indicate the teachers' levels of understanding about one of the word classes they had been asked to recognise in Item 1. This item also reflected the observation that some of the validation teachers used this definition, and others like it, frequently in their classes, whereas the effective teachers were more likely to draw up functional definitions in conjunction with the children.
This suggests that the effective teachers may feel more able to offer explanations, although not using formal linguistic terminology. The quiz contained two items about language variation to enable us to gain some insight into teachers' understandings about the nature and structure of standard English.
http://experiencetheleap.com/2805-mujeres-maduras-en.php We considered this important as all teachers are required to teach primary children to use and study standard English and the ability to do so may be related to their knowledge and ability to recognise it. The first part of the item asked teachers to define accent and dialect, the second to pick out the ways in which a transcribed piece of dialect speech differed from standard English.
However, the teachers all appeared to avoid linguistic terminology in doing so and were more likely to pick out and correct examples of the way that the dialect differed from standard English, than explain this in words.