tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7719550.post6055476797386327726..comments2023-11-13T04:55:40.769-05:00Comments on Tuttle SVC: Etymology of a StandardTom Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08577165613934129833noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7719550.post-36317599673966964162013-10-18T11:23:41.471-04:002013-10-18T11:23:41.471-04:00I'd say New York is the canary in the coal min...I'd say New York is the canary in the coal mine on this issue. Teachers thought they had a handle on the Common Core expectations based on PD but were taken aback by the... stranger analytical questions on the tests. Tom Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08577165613934129833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7719550.post-65470942143785733742013-10-17T21:15:52.470-04:002013-10-17T21:15:52.470-04:00Tom,
This is a superb post.
It's interesting...Tom,<br /><br />This is a superb post.<br /><br />It's interesting because when we've looked at the new CC language in department meetings, we mostly just nod our heads and think, okay, not so bad, this more or less supports what we want to do anyway. <br /><br />But looking closely at this final standard, it emerges that they are saying something *close enough* to what we do that we can pretend it's the same when it actually isn't. <br /><br />For example, I teach an open-ended essay workshop in which students read and write a variety of essays, very few of them of the traditional "school" kind, all of them anchored in published models.<br /><br />I do require students to cite and use evidence, which is something we all (in our department) think is important. I would generally think that my rubric about integrating quotes into a paper, analyzing sources and so on would align to this standard.<br /><br />That said, when my students research, say, breast cancer, and read some or other text on the subject by an expert, and then quote it, that appears to no longer count as meeting the standard unless the student is writing not an essay about breast cancer but an essay about the source they read on breast cancer, which would be a much stranger sort of thing to be writing. As a rule, of course, it's much more natural to write about real things (history, ideas, science, relationships, etc.) than about texts about those things, and so if this standard now means we will only be writing analyses of these informational texts, then all our writing assignments just got worse.<br /><br />The bigger question, though, is will this ever matter. To the extent that the CC is written for test-writers, then of course no one was ever going to write a test that would look anything like my essay class. At best, students will read sources given to them and use them to make an argument within narrowly defined parameters (also given to them) using those sources. If my class taught them to read informational sources and integrate quotations, they should be all set. <br /><br />If, on the other hand, these things grow to actually drive instruction in some kind of rigorous way, we have a much bigger problem, because now the research essay on breast cancer is out, and in its place we have nothing but close readings of documents and literature as such ("analyze this" vs. "use this") and that of course is a big step backward.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11695483832969202754noreply@blogger.com