As Yancey suggests, waiting to the last to grade
portfolios until closer to the end and make a holistic assessment of the
finished products (110-111). However, she does claim that some teachers prefer
to grade along the way and make it clear that revisions can improve grades
(111). Does this work? I mean I can visualize conferences with students
regarding the components of their portfolios where they receive constructive
feedback, but can they also have grading all along as a tentative numerical
value based on the way the component stands without revision? Is this counterproductive
or does this encourage revision?
Conform or not to conform to genre constructions and
conventions? That is the question I ask after reading Reiff’s article. While I
understand that genre is not static, I also understand the need for certain
boundaries for form, structure, and adherence to the conventions surrounding
genres. What I do not understand in Reiff’s argument is are we encouraging “antigenre”
(161-162) or are we encouraging students to “resist genres by creating
alternatives” (161)?
I think we are encouraging students to be critically aware of genres, so they can both adhere to them when necessary, and resist them when the situation allows for it. Sometimes, we need to adhere to standards (getting published), while other times, it is productive to push the envelope of what can/should be done (conference presentation)
ReplyDeleteThat was a great way to put it Joel. I am always impressed by the ability of students to bend the rules of a genre even when constrained by a prompt or certain conventions. Some of the most profound or successful pieces are created when pushing these often imagined if not ill defined boundaries.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Kristy's other question, I was thinking along the same lines: where in a perfect world (where one has all the time and it would not interfere with a student's creative impulse), the first versions of a composition piece could be graded more strictly and to a higher standard than otherwise because the student would revise it for the portfolio (which is ultimately graded heavier). Of course that is a lot of grading, and it could disrupt the student's natural revision process…
Hi Kristy - I integrated e-portfolios in my classroom a year ago and did it very similar to the way you are describing. I did grade paper by paper with the normal drafting, revision process in place. This included peer review, conferences, etc. Once graded I asked students to revise and reimagine their essay on a digital multimodal space. Each essay included a guided reflection so they were discussing differences in projects as well as revisions made and how this impacted their writing process. While it yielded some good feedback from students, it was definitely labor intensive because I ended up grading each project individually twice and then as a whole on their final portfolio. I really wanted my students to understand the recursive nature of writing and to see that their work had a life and audience beyond the classroom. I will continue the portfolios in my classroom, but will be streamlining it a little to cut down on some of the intensity while not compromising the goals of the project. :) We will see how it goes!
ReplyDelete