Postmortems in the Composition Classroom

The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp by Rembrandt
The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp by Rembrandt

I recently ran across an article on grading writing that began by quoting a tweet from a fellow Composition teacher that equated grading a final piece of writing with performing an autopsy on a dead body. I have desperately tried to find the article, but to no avail (if you know the article I’m thinking of or recognize the tweet being referenced, please let me know so that I may give the authors credit).  What puzzled me was that this analogy was meant to have a negative connotation (at least that’s how I read it). I by no means support a summative assessment-only form of grading. I, too, emphasize the process of writing and provide formative assessments that seek to help students to internalize the importance of thoughtful revision and careful proofreading before submitting a “final” version of a piece of writing. And, at one point, I too viewed that final version as a relic to be archived with all of the other finished pieces the student accumulated during the term. But several things have changed for me during the past few semesters: 1) I’ve switched to having students blog instead of submitting traditional word-processed essays; 2) I’ve switched to a portfolio system that allows students to select which pieces they wish to be formally graded, allowing them to revise and edit those pieces before adding them to their portfolio; and 3) I read Lauren Griffin’s “An Open Letter to Writing Instructors from a Motived Student,” which included the following eye-opening (for me) observation:

In many courses, I felt like an overworked employee at an essay factory, producing ten to twelve mediocre and forgettable papers — ones that teachers accepted as final drafts that were, in actuality, first drafts. . . . I wish that all of my instructors had challenged me to produce portfolios with five or six mind-blowing papers instead of valuing quantity over quality.

Griffen, in effect, sums up the kind of traditional method for organizing the First-Year Composition course that I had been told to use as an adjunct and everything wrong with that method: a focus on quantity over quality.

These three things have altered the way I view both the student’s writing process and their writing products, in that I now value both as equally important. For one thing, blogging allows students to view their writing as something alive; they see their readers respond to it and, often, realize that their own views of it change as a result.  Since their blog posts are living things, they can be revised and edited after they’ve been published; much like a garden, a blog needs regular maintenance, from pruning dead links to “growing” or expanding upon a previous post. Secondly, as Griffin argues, the portfolio system encourages writing students to make conscientious changes to pieces. As students read through their work in order to select which pieces to include, they often recognize weaknesses in earlier pieces because they see them in juxtaposition with later pieces. Hence, they begin to recognize their own growth and learning.

I have tried various methods for providing both formative and summative assessments of student writing, including utilizing both anonymous peer review for rough drafts and anonymous peer evaluation of finished products. This past semester, I had great success with having students submit a rough draft to me for feedback and then allowing them to evaluate each others’ finished product (these evaluations were not grade-based and had no impact on the student’s grade). The reason why I made this change was because I have realized that, especially for first-semester composition students, peer review is not as effective as I would like it to be. Even in anonymous, guided peer review, students have difficulty providing constructive criticism on someone else’s draft. Emotions are often involved, either on the reviewer’s end (“I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings”) or on the reviewee’s end (“One person said this and another said that, and I’m not sure whose advice to take”). While I think college students need to develop the ability to take criticism, writing is already emotionally fraught for them and the added emotions of peer review seem to make the writing process more, not less, difficult for many students. So, I decided to forego peer review and have students submit their drafts to me for review. While this did require quite a bit of time on my part, I think it paid off in dividends in the students’ final posts. I was able to direct their energies much more effectively than their peers could. I stuck with the minimal marking method and focused on asking questions about the students’ ideas and suggesting areas that needed further development or that seemed off-track. Students responded very enthusiastically to this method and, for the first time ever, I saw students really focusing on revising their writing (rather than the kind of minimalist adding on and editing that often passes for revision with most first-year composition students).

Unlike peer review, students seem particularly adept at evaluating final pieces. I am often amazed at how accurately their evaluations reflect the very things I would have pointed out in my own summative evaluation. I am not sure why this is the case and why they cannot do the same with peer review of rough drafts, but I decided to capitalize on it; since I was investing so much extra time and energy into reading and providing feedback on rough drafts, I completely handed summative assessments over to the students. I did perform a quick read-through of final posts in order to see how much effort the student had put into revising and editing the original draft and I did read through the summative feedback to ensure that student evaluations were accurate. Again, this system was very effective, as it removed the burden of summative assessment off of my shoulders (so that I could focus on helping with the writing process), it gave students multiple assessments of their final product, students were much more honest with each other about weaknesses in their writing, and they genuinely valued their peers’ evaluations and integrated them into their revisions and edits for their portfolio.

Next semester, I would like to add a few more layers of feedback to each piece of writing. I am considering, for example, adding a peer review session back into the process, after my own review of their drafts, to encourage a multiple-draft process. I am hoping that I can model effective feedback methods and encourage students to apply them to their own reviews. I would also like to focus more on the finished product and to integrate a postmortem of that product. I already have students write a reflection on each piece that takes their peers’ summative evaluations into consideration and establishes goals for the next piece of writing. But I would like to encourage students to autopsy their products in a much more explicit way after their emotional attachment to the piece has cooled a bit. While some may view the idea of an autopsy negatively, I see value in the process for FYC students.

Let us consider what, exactly, an autopsy is. It is, foremost, a thorough examination that seeks to determine the cause of death. But an autopsy often reveals much more than the cause of death, including diseases or injuries, both past and recent, that are not directly related to the death but that tell us more about the subject’s life and their relative health. But pathologists are not the only ones who perform autopsies. Game developers also perform postmortems. These postmortems seek to identify strengths and weaknesses in the game and to brainstorm how to improve it in future iterations. I think that having students work in groups to perform postmortems on the pieces they select for their portfolios would be an ideal way to encourage them to both value their final products and consider what they could do to add more life to each to make it an even stronger piece of writing. More than a pathologist, I’d like to encourage my students to become like Victor Frankenstein, seeking to collect the best pieces they can find in order to create something greater than the sum of its parts and imbuing it with life. But, rather than being afraid of and rejecting their creature like Frankenstein, I want them to thoroughly examine it and come to love it, both for its strengths and its faults.

 

Advertisements

Building a Learning Skatepark, Part 2: Zen and the Art of Failure

photo credit: amber_rsm via photo pin cc

In a Chronicle of Higher Education post I read last week, “The Benefits of Making It Harder to Learn,” James M. Lang summarizes a recent study that found that creating cognitive disfluency helps students learn more deeply. In other words, the easier we make things for our students, the less they will learn. This is not really news to me. I’ve been trying for several years now to create cognitive dissonance in my students by asking them to do things they’ve never done before–to read, think, and write critically and analytically; to use software and tools that are unfamiliar and have, in some cases, steep learning curves; to question, debate, and disagree with me and each other; to not be satisfied with good enough or mediocre thinking or writing. These are hard things to ask students to do, especially freshman, because making learning hard is not the norm in our current educational system. In fact, I would argue that we’ve made things too easy on students. I used to be one of the worst offenders. I coddled and spoon fed my freshman because I bought into the idea that they weren’t smart enough or mature enough or didn’t want to do the kind of work that I really thought college students should do. While I inwardly cringed whenever a colleague would remark upon the need to “dumb down” the curriculum, I nonetheless contributed to the process out of fear.

But fear of what?

Failure. I didn’t want my students to fail. If my students failed, I thought, then somehow I also failed as a teacher. And, like my students, I was afraid of failure.

I, too, am a product of the factory system of education. Failure was never an option for me as a student. Failure was scary and to be avoided at all costs. Failure was bad.

Schooling has made us all fear failure, the teachers just as much as the students. But, as Dr. Tae points out in “Can Skateboarding Save Our Schools?”, in skateboarding, failure is normal. Not only is it normal, but it’s expected. When failure is expected, then it’s no longer stigmatized. Everyone who skateboards fails, so they know what failure feels and looks like and they know that failure is a necessary part of the process of learning. This is just the opposite of what students experience during traditional schooling, when it should be the norm. What happens when failure is not the norm–when it is stigmatized–is that students become so uncomfortable with failure that they’ll do anything to not fail, including avoidance and dishonesty, which, ironically, are behaviors that will lead to certain failure in college. I experience the most push-back–in the form of everything from anger to tears to plagiarism to tuning out–when I ask students to step out of their comfort zones and into cognitive disfluency. They barrage me with verbal maneuvering: “This is too hard.” “I don’t know how to do this.” “I can’t do this, can’t you let me do something else?” “I don’t understand this.” They put an inordinate amount of effort into avoiding the possibility of failure.

So, how do we make failure the norm and remove the stigmatism?

First, I think that we have to model what we expect from our students. We have to overcome our own fears about failure. As I’ve stepped out of my own teaching comfort zone, I’ve become much more comfortable with failure. In fact, I’ve learned to not only admit my teaching failures, but to share them via my blog. I also purposely place myself in the same situations that I place my students in. Last term, for example, I began using Google spreadsheets to gather data from students in some of my classes. I’m comfortable with Excel, but Excel does not do what Google Docs can do in terms of open, collaborative access and real-time updating. I had already created a draft of the course schedule in Excel (within a matter of minutes), but decided to finish it in Google Docs. What followed was a laborious process as I learned how to format codes for hyperlinks. Each time I failed to code the link correctly, I would have to meticulously examine my coding to locate my mistakes and then correct them. My cognitive disfluency was at a maximum, but if I had stuck with Excel, then I never would have learned how to use Google spreadsheets.

Secondly, I think that we have to be open with students about failure–our own and theirs. We need to talk about failure with our students and let them know that it’s okay to fail–that failure is, in fact, expected. When it became painfully obvious that my hybrid FYC course was a failure, I openly discussed it with my students and asked them to stop and assess the course so that we could figure out what had went wrong and how we could fix it. Failure is not the end of the world, as some students believe. In fact, sometimes it’s just the beginning.

Thirdly, I think that we need to make students responsible for thinking about and assessing their own learning. We need to teach them how to be more “meta.” I try to do this via regular student self-assessments within the context of deliberate practice and by using portfolios for summative assessments. Today, a student pointed out that there was a disconnect between my assessment of their writing and their own. Whereas they had thought their early writings were much better than I had, they saw their recent writings as less effective than I did. The explanation was simple: the student had learned how to recognize their own failings as a writer and was now much harder on themselves. My early feedback seemed harsh because at the time they saw their writing through rose-colored glasses; they hadn’t yet learned how to practice deliberately . But now, they’ve achieved “meta:” instead of wanting to not fail at writing, they want to be better at writing (and there is a distinct difference).

photo credit: Steve A Johnson via photo pin cc

The problem with creating cognitive disfluency, as I’ve pointed out, is that there’s a zen-like balance that we, as teachers, have to achieve between challenging our students and motivating them. Lang identifies the same dilemma:

But, of course, if we push them too hard toward disfluency, we may end up discouraging them and shutting off their learning altogether. . .

The challenge that we face, then, is to create what psychologists call “desirable difficulties”: enough cognitive disfluency to promote deeper learning, and not so much that we reduce the motivation of our students.

This is the part of pedagogy that poses the most difficulty for me and that I am struggling with at the moment. I don’t automatically know the correct formula. Which means that I’m going to have to play with it, which means that, more than likely, I’m going to fail at it before I get it right (if I ever get it right). But I’m okay with that.

In the meantime, the question that keeps harshing my mellow is how do I address the even bigger challenge of teaching my students to be okay with the discomfort of cognitive disfluency?

The Role of Self-Assessment in Deliberate Practice

photo credit: dkuropatwa via photo pin cc

In my last post, I discussed the need for students to engage in deliberate practice. I think that this is especially true in First-Year Composition courses. For one thing, I’m not sure that we can really teach students how to write. I think we can give them some best practices to follow and show them models of good writing, but writing is one of those skills that you can only learn by doing. And writing, especially academic writing, is a complex skill that takes years to develop. And I only have 14 weeks ( or in the case of my current Summer short-term class, eight weeks).

The other problem that we face in the FYC classroom is the fact that our students come to us with such varied abilities and backgrounds in writing instruction. Some have had little instruction in writing or, if they have, it was poor instruction because they struggle to write coherent sentences and put them together in a logically-organized paragraph. Some have had intense instruction in a very structured form of writing (the old five paragraph, 5-7 sentences per paragraph, keyhole style of essay) that works well on standardized exams but does not allow for the varied disciplinary styles that they will be asked to tackle in college. Some have had their heads filled with a lot of bullshit do’s and don’ts: don’t start a sentence with and or but; don’t use the first-person pronoun; always start your essay with a catchy hook, preferably something that sounds cosmically philosophical; always place your thesis at the very end of your introductory paragraph. I always have my FYC students read a chapter from Surviving Freshman Composition by Scott Edelstein called “The Truth about Freshman Composition” because it does an excellent job of explaining the differences between the kind of writing instruction they received in high school and the kind that they will (hopefully) receive in college and it also dispels a lot of the writing myths that they almost certainly have been taught. Students are always surprised and sometimes even angry that so much of what they were taught in high school has not prepared them for writing in college and, in some cases, was just plain wrong. So I spend quite a bit of time forcing students to unlearn bad writing habits and learn new ones, only the new ones I ask them to learn deal less with how to write and more with how to think about what they’re writing and how to assess how well it accomplishes their purposes. I provide them with lots and lots of chances to deliberately practice writing an academic essay, and with each practice, I ask them to assess what went well and what didn’t go so well and what they need to focus on improving on in their next practice. Here’s my method for doing so.

Even though my students will eventually publish their essays on their blogs, I have them type them up in Word or Open Office first. For one thing, Word will catch some of the more blatant typos and grammar errors that wouldn’t be caught if they were composing within the Blogger dashboard. And if I happen to be using peer review that semester (some semesters I do, some I don’t), I always have them do so from hard copies, which are much easier to print out and read from Word. Some of the newer versions of Word even have a blogging template that will allow students to easily type their posts up in Word and then publish them to their blog.

Another pro of having students initially type their blog posts in Word is that I can have the students highlight and annotate their essays using Word’s commenting tool (I’ve tried Google Docs, but the commenting tool does not allow for the kind of detail that I need when providing my own annotations). I ask students to highlight and comment on any parts of the essay that they have questions/concerns about and to use the commenting tool to communicate their questions/concerns to me so that I can address them. Students rarely take me up on this offer, but some do, so I continue to encourage them to do so. But the real purpose of the Word version of their post is provide them the space to answer five questions that require them to assess the essay. The questions vary from semester to semester, depending on if I’m using peer review or if I’m focusing more on writing process or revision, but they always have the same goal: to encourage the student to reflect on their writing using their own judgement and valuation, rather than waiting for me to pass judgement on the piece’s value. Here’s the five questions I had students answer last semester:

  1. What do you think is working well in this blog post?
  2. What do you think is not working well in this blog post?
  3. What challenged you the most about this blog post and how did you overcome the challenge? If you didn’t overcome it, how will you deal with this challenge the next time?
  4. How successful were you in addressing the weakness that you and/or I identified in you last blog post?
  5. Do you have any questions for me?

The three questions that, to me, are the most essential are 1 (because I think it’s just as important that they be able to recognize strengths as weaknesses), 2, and 4.

After reading and annotating the student’s essay using Richard Haswell’s minimal marking method, I then focus my feedback on their answers to these questions. Sometimes, in the case of a student who is not adept at assessing their own writing, my feedback focuses on correcting their misconceptions about their writing. This past semester, for example, I had a student who was extremely resistant to self-assessment and refused to admit that there were weaknesses in her writing, so I spent my initial feedback efforts in trying to convince her of the necessity of taking an honest look at her writing; eventually, my frustration with her resistance got the better of me and I dedicated all of my feedback to listing all of the weaknesses in her essay (needless to say, her response was less than positive; she complained to the Department Chair about how mean and uncaring I was because I was constantly criticizing her writing). For those students who are more open to self-assessment and are, consequently, much better at honestly evaluating their writing, my feedback efforts are focused on providing tips and links to resources that will help them address their weaknesses. When one student expressed a dissatisfaction with her rough drafts, I suggested that she read Anne Lemott’s “Shitty First Drafts.” On the next self-assessment, the student thanked me for suggesting that she read it and said that it helped her out tremendously. She then suggested it to another student in her comments on a blog post in which they expressed frustration with the invention stage of the writing process.

Not all students act on my recommendations and even fewer pass them along to their peers, but at least their self-assessments provide a dialogue that is not encouraged in traditional, instructor-centered summative assessment models. And this dialogue continues throughout the semester, as students use their previous self-assessments and my feedback on them to answer the next. This dialogue culminates in the writing portfolio that students submit at the end of the term. In putting together their portfolios, students have a semester’s worth of assessments that provide a narrative map of their progress as writers. They can use these narratives to select representative pieces of writing and write their final self-assessment. But it’s only final in terms of that particular class. For the portfolio, I ask them to identify aspects of their writing that they still see as weaknesses and to discuss how they plan to continue to deliberately practice at eliminating those weaknesses from their writing.

photo credit: giulia.forsythe via photo pin cc

Because they have been conditioned by their K12 education to see the teacher as the sole authority in evaluating and valuing their learning, some students need guidance in assessing their own writing and a small minority will be resistant to doing so. But for those students who are willing to learn how to do so, self-assessment can mean much more productive practice and, based on my observations, results in more meaningful learning than that experienced by students who depend solely on their instructor’s summative evaluations. This past semester, I asked my two FYC classes to anonymously respond to a midterm course evaluation. One of the questions asked them what aspect of the course had helped them to improve their writing the most, and the majority of students indicated that the self-assessments had been one of the most helpful aspects of the course (second only to blogging). Here’s a few examples of students’ feedback on the self-assessments:

  • Having to specifically address issues in our writing through our [self-assessments] has helped me out immensely.
  • The instructor commenting on my writing and telling me how I can improve. FEEDBACK from the instructor helps a lot.
  • I really like how helpful you have been. I really like the [self-assessments] we get back each week.
  • I love the [self-assessments]. They help me. ALOT.

As an instructor who often struggles with doubts about the impact I am having on my students’ writing, that ALOT, though misspelled, really means A LOT.

By the way, if you’re wondering about why I needed to change the wording on the feedback, I don’t call the question sets self-assessments. I call them process memos or revision memos (again, depending on the focus of the course and the questions I’m asking them to answer). So, my students may not even realize that they’re engaging in the grading process (I don’t like the term grade, but that’s their only frame of reference and that’s what I’m ultimately required to do to their writing). And I’m not sure that it would be a good idea to muddy the water by telling them this. I don’t want them to start saying things like “I’d rate this essay at a B,” like their writing is an egg that met certain interior and exterior qualities at the time it was packaged.

My student self-assessment system is, as is everything I do as an instructor, a work in progress. There may be better questions that I can ask. And I’m not sure I’m very good at  teaching students how to evaluate their own writing. I’m interested in how others ask their students to assess their own learning and how they guide them in doing so. Please share your tips and experiences. How can we encourage students to assess themselves and be less dependent upon us as arbiters of their learning?

Creating a Learning Skatepark, Step 1: Deliberate Practice

photo credit: Andrés Navarro García via photo pin cc

In my last post, I shared a video that compared learning to skateboarding; while this video has had a major positive impact on my teaching philosophy, I mentioned the negative impact that it has had on the control that I feel I have over the learning that takes place in my classroom:

I think that everything Dr. Tae says is true about learning. And it’s kind of scary because it means that there’s even less that I can do about my students’ learning than I thought. They all learn at their own pace, learning is not always fun for them (and if we think that we can make it fun all the time, then we’re deluding ourselves and setting ourselves up for failure), and failure is guaranteed (at least at first).

I thought that I would write a series of posts that address how I have remixed my classroom as a result of these realities. I now see myself less as a sage on the stage or even a guide on the side, and more of an architect. As Albert Einstein said, “I never teach my pupils. I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn.” The first thing that is necessary for creating conditions for learning is allowing students the freedom, space, and time to practice (and failure needs to be both expected and acceptable, but that’s a topic for another post). It does no good to create the conditions for learning–a skatepark, to use Dr. Tae’s analogy–and then try to tell your students what they need to do and how to do it. And then tell them they get one chance to try it and if they fail then, not only will they be penalized with a bad grade that stays with them for the rest of their time at the skatepark, but they won’t get any further opportunities to try to master the trick (unless it’s by re-taking the class again next term) and they’ll have to move on to the next trick on the list of tricks they must learn, whether they’ve mastered the first trick or not. And guess what? The next trick is even harder and requires mastery of the first trick. This is no more of an effective way of helping students learn as it is to put your kid on a bicycle with no training wheels, tell them they’ve got one chance to get it right, and then give them a big push.

But just any old practice is not going to do. One of the characteristics of learning to skateboard is working at a skill or trick until you get it right, not half-way or almost there, but right. This requires a type of practice called deliberate practice, which requires both a focused and concerted effort on mastery of a skill and reflection on what worked and what didn’t work during each practice session. I often have my students read this article from Time on the role of deliberate practice in becoming a great musician and we discuss the similarities between learning to play an instrument (or learning to perform a skateboard trick) and writing. What the studies on deliberate practice make clear is that the most important thing about practice is not how long or how much you practice; it’s about being able to recognize what you did wrong and making a commitment to figuring out how to do it right.

And this is what I require my students to do with each of their writing assignments (which I now call opportunities because, at the skatepark, every session is an opportunity to practice with and learn from other skaters). Firstly, I use a portfolio system. This allows students some freedom from the pressures of being graded on each writing performance. It also means that I’ve removed the sticks and carrots from my classroom. If students do anything in my classroom, they have to do it because they want to. I refuse to bribe them into being there and doing anything they don’t truly want to do. Only hardcore skaters are allowed at my park. And, yes, that means that some students drop or opt out. That’s their choice.

The second way I have integrated deliberate practice into my writing classes is by requiring students to self-assess each of their writing “practice sessions.” I’ll discuss my method in depth in a future post, but basically each student has to answer a set of questions about their final draft that addresses what they think is working and not working in the piece. They also have to set goals for themselves for their next “practice session,” selecting at least one weakness in the current piece they will work at weeding out of their next draft (and, if necessary, the next one and the next one, etc.). I then focus my feedback around their assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of their writing and where they need to focus their deliberate practice efforts.

photo credit: Kalexanderson via photo pin cc

But what I really wanted to focus on in this post is allowing my writing students to have some deliberate practice with engaging in the academic conversation–the type of dialogue that I want them to have with the sources that they are integrating into their blog posts. By far the most effective method for teaching students the type of summary and response that all academic writing engages in that I’ve used is Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein’s “The say/I say/So what?” method. But even with providing them with the templates from the book, my freshmen still struggle with how to effectively agree with someone (and disagreeing they won’t touch with a thirty-nine and half foot pole). So I designed a couple of different spaces  that allow them some deliberate practice with agreeing and disagreeing with their peers in preparation for agreeing and disagreeing with their sources.

We begin with a safe zone–the physical classroom–and a buddy system–peer groups–for testing the academic conversation waters. Students are grouped from the very first class meeting with 3-4 peers with whom they will stay for the whole term (I’ve considered the idea of rotating group members, as some instructors do, but once students become comfortable with each other, I think fear of failure decreases dramatically, so right now I’m opting for building a layer of protection with the peer groups). Their groups are where they will test out their ideas, bounce around arguments, and receive feedback during the entire process of brainstorming, drafting, revising, and publishing a piece of writing. I’ve spent quite a few semesters eavesdropping on the conversations that go on during these group sessions and am always surprised at how honest students will be with a small group of peers, especially once they have connected with each other and realize that everyone else is just as lost as they are when it comes to this academic writing thing.

Once students are pretty secure about their ideas and how best to communicate them, they publish their piece on their blog. I won’t spend time here discussing the benefits of having students blog. There are pros and cons and I have weighed them both and tried various methods and have had overwhelming success with public student blogs, both in terms of the quality of the students’ ideas and their writing and in terms of the feedback from the students on the positive impact of blogging on their feelings about writing. Among the many reasons why I require my students to blog, one is the dialogue that it creates around the students’ own writing. That’s the whole purpose of a public blog–to generate a discussion about an issue or topic. How much more exciting do you think students find it that their writing will be read and discussed by their peers rather than unceremoniously tossed in the trash after a cursory once-over by their profs? Just ask your students this question and see what happens. And if it doesn’t excite them, then you need to find something that does and that may not involve blogging (but that’s okay, there’s other ways to skin a cat).

The point of publishing their writing on their blog is so that the entire class has an opportunity to read what they have to say and respond to it in some way. So I require students to read and respond to at least three peers’ blog posts each week (I’m currently trying out a system of rotating students between the roles of bloggers and readers/commenters; I’ll let you know how that turns out and whether I’ll make it a regular practice or not). I give them some guidelines on how to comment on a blog post using a handout on commenting in online discussions that I found online and remixed to focus on blog comments. And then I let them practice–deliberatively. And I model effective blog commenting by commenting myself (more on the importance of role models in the skatepark later). One thing I’m trying out this summer is having students use Storify to create annotated bibliographies for their research, embed their “stories” in their blog, and then read and comment on each others’ bibliographies. So far, I think it’s working. Here’s a snippet from the comments on a student’s annotated bibliography post:

There are a couple of things going on here (all good, I think). Students are practicing agreeing and disagreeing with each other and they are providing feedback on the reliability and relevancy of research sources. The hope is that they will internalize these assessment skills and learn to apply them to their own research and writing practice.

That’s my hope, anyway. I don’t expect these kinds of comments from every student with every blog post. Some will get it faster than others. Some will not get it until the very end. Some may never get it (but hopefully will down the road if they get another instructor who’s willing to provide them the chance to try). And that’s okay. I’ve provided them with the space to practice in, some guidelines on how to know when they’ve got it right, and the freedom to try and fail as many times as they need to to get it right. If they learn anything, I hope it’s that it’s okay to suck at something when you try it the first time and that it doesn’t mean you can’t get better at it, and maybe even great at it, with a little deliberate practice.

I’m interested in how others are integrating deliberate practice into their classrooms and which methods you’ve found effective and ineffective. So, please share your ideas, stories, and questions. After all, students aren’t the only ones who benefit from deliberate practice.