Entry #5: On Revision (CG)

Regarding the revision process, I definitely feel like the students that Lindemann and Sommers described. As it was, I found it difficult to produce an essay quickly enough and thoughtful enough, so many of my essays in high school were not great, which made the revision process way less effective. Revision was about checking off a list of things that I made sure to include in my paper, but even then, it was all subjective. I remember being in AP Literature and never finding any hope of scoring about a 4 or 5 on a 9-point scale because I never actually understood what was being asked of me, so imagine trying to correct my work or the work of my peers. Visually, something could look good, but what did that really mean?

These readings, to me, all come back to the same concept: student-centered classrooms. I found all the strategies in the Lindemann chapter incredible helpful. I am truly adopting Lindemann's approaches in my classroom next year because these techniques are so good! The one that stood out to me the most was the three-step method because it took me back to a three-step method for revision my first school adopted for its teachers. In groups of three or four, one person would present their unit or performance task, then the other members would discuss out loud what made the unit or task work (or didn't work) while the presenter listened and jotted notes, and finally, the presenter would read the feedback aloud and describe his/her next steps. Moreover, I also see a call for a student-centered classroom within the Elbow & Belanoff reading when they assert how the writer should be the one to determine the kind of feedback needed, not the teacher. I think Roskelly, who argues for more shared writing experiences within partners and groups, would agree with Elbow and Belanoff. Writing is often seen as a transaction between a teacher and a student, but language and communication is a shared exchange between two or more people. As a teacher, I feel more conscious about this fact thanks to Dr. Sherman's class/readings on alternative discourse coinciding with these concepts presented this week. 

My final highlight has to come from the Sommers reading and the disparities between how students define "revision." Somethings in the classroom are crucial for growth as a writer and as an individual. Being able to truly define revision beyond the replacement of words for other words is so important. Perhaps I see it from a psychological or a social-emotional standpoint with students and their behaviors. If a behavior is deemed inappropriate, it is not that the student is bad, but rather, the behavior being exhibited. That problematic behavior can be intervened and corrected only if the student is open, willing, and ready to make the changes; the student needs to know the distinction between behavior and his/her person. The same goes with writing. I tell the students, "Look, if you and I were perfect, we wouldn't be in school." It's so important to be as explicit about revision as possible in order to promote this growth mindset within a student-centered classroom. Easier said than done when there seems to be so many elements in action all at once, but I know it is possible, and all students deserve to have an authentic experience where they are reassured that their writing has the potential of being even greater.