College Comp I and II is going to get a whole lot better

Our biggest professional development?

Other teachers.

Today, Avis, a former teacher of mine and a teacher I work with concerning my College Comp classes, stopped in and we visited for a good hour.

I stole some great ideas from her that will totally change how I teach College Comp next year.

All of that in an hour of face to face conversation.

I didn’t need to sit in an auditorium and listen to some ‘hired gun’ - who I have never met and will never see again - preach about standards or high-stakes tests or differentiated learning.

Avis’ first idea is on peer revision groups.

I always start out with a renewed devotion to peer revision groups. Yet, after about a four weeks, things fall apart.

Students really aren’t equipped to edit peers’ papers. They often don’t know what to look for (how many are going to say, “You have a run-on sentence here” or even “Your first paragraph is boring”). So many just resort to saying “it’s good” or “I like it.”

I have specific editing sheets for each theme. I allow students to work in small groups while they fill out these editing sheets, which I hope give students clear ideas about what to comment on and respond to in each others’ papers. This too, though, becomes routine after awhile.

Since students don’t get the most effective feedback this way, I tend to end up editing their papers for them. And that means a lot more work for me. But, worse yet, it means students don’t develop the ability to edit work the way I would like them to.

Avis’ solution - which I would never have though of - is to have each student fill out a little index card. They put the names of three people they know in the class and would feel comfortable having in their peer edit group. Then they also list one person (if there is one person) that they don’t think they’d be able to work with or with whom they’d have conflicting interests. I really like this last idea. While she teaches at NCTC and most of the students don’t know each other, that’s not the case in high school where most of these students have been together for six or eight years. That’s a lot of time to build up both positive relationship and also resentments.

Avis then sits down with the index cards and tries to group them so that no one works with anyone they have a conflicting interest with. And they also get to be in a group with at least one person they listed on their card that they said they would feel comfortable working with.

I love this idea.

When it comes to the actual editing, Avis has each person bring in copies of their essays and read them aloud to their small group. That way each person in the group has a hard copy of the essay that they can comment on as the writer reads their essay.

After the paper is read, the group waits one minute and then begins giving positive feedback (and sometimes this degenerates into “I really liked it”). But it also puts the writer at ease.

Next, the readers are to give suggestions as to how to make the paper better.

While this is going on, Avis watches them like a hawk and is ready to pounce whenever a suggestion cross over to an insult or when there is a legitimate question.

Better yet (and this is the part I would never have thought of), Avis assigns a recorder and leader for each revision group. Even better, the roles of recorder and leader rotate among the group.

The leader keeps the editing group on task and moving along. The recorder fills out the editing sheet that Avis has designed (this one step is the extent of how we peer review now!).

The recorder’s sheet is then turned in to Avis.

I think this is brilliant; can’t wait to try it next year.

Another idea that I really like it Avis’ rule on revision.

Currently, I allow students to revise one essay per quarter.

The format for each essay in my classes tends to follow this formula

First, we have several prompts to write drafts on. (For example, if we write a descriptive essay, students can describe their favorite place, their favorite time of the year, and their favorite person).

Second, they take their initial draft and develop it into a solid draft.

Third, they peer edit it and turn it in to a final draft, which they then submit that for a final grade on that paper. If they score low enough, they can choose that one to revise for that quarter.

Avis’ approach is much better -

A students final paper grade is dependent upon three things -

1. The peer edit process

2. The submission of a peer edited paper (this would be the final draft under my system)

3. The revised copy of the essay. Students can improve the score on their paper from the second step by up to one letter grade. So if a student has a B, they can attain an A with excellent revision (and I like the idea of giving no grade higher than a B on the peer edited paper). However, if a writer doesn’t really try and earns a D on their peer edited paper. Well, then the best they can do through revision is earn a C.

I like this because the revision process is so key. As Tom Romano says, “Revision is writing.” I like that and want students to experience that. Avis’ approach should allow for that.

I used to allow students to revise every essay as often as they wanted, but then it just became a scavenger hunt for misplaced commas and run-ons. That’s copy editing. Not revision.

I think Avis’ approach allows for something closer to real, authentic revision where one student might just need to fix their sentence structure but another may need to come up with a more interesting beginning or show more or make their essay flow better.

I can’t wait to totally redesign my curriculum for College Comp I and II.

Now, that professional development took all of 45 minutes. And it cost zero.

And next to the majority of our common preps, the fall SAMRTboard inservice training, this is the best professional development all year - and that includes two district wide professional development inservice days that cost the district who knows how much money!