Working Too Well?
Cunningham, P. & Allington, R. (2007). Classrooms that work: They can all read and write. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Fletcher, R. & Portalupi, J. (2001). Writing workshop: The essential guide. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
"Children did a lot of reading and writing throughout the day and for homework" (CTW, p. 4).
"They planned their time so that children did a lot of reading and writing throughout the day--not just in the 100 minutes set aside for reading and language arts" (CTW, p. 7).
As a reader of Alfie Kohn's work, particularly his article entitled "The Truth About Homework," I would hesitate to put these tidbits in the positive category of the schools observed in the chapter's opening study. Let me be clear, however; I do not hesitate on the grounds that I am an advocate of no homework at all. I merely want to point out an alternative view that urges us to reconsider the notion of viewing homework as an essential teaching tool, particularly if we plan to lump it in with the "classrooms that work."
In his research, Kohn writes that he "failed to turn up any evidence that homework is beneficial for students in elementary school." Indeed he goes on to say that "the only effect that does show up is more negative attitudes on the part of students who get more assignments. The only miniscule benefits he found to homework did not show up until high school, and even then, it only correlated to standardized test scores, hardly sufficient evidence in support of its use for younger children, which appears to be his primary bone of contention. Homework, in his view, becomes a statistic we can trumpet because, in the world of No Child Left Behind, high test scores are the standard. If we can elevate those scores, then we can be proud of ourselves.
Having read the above statements in the study, and taking into account Kohn's stance I find myself asking questions. How much time did students average each night on the reading and writing assignments? What were the methods of assessment? Did teachers accumulate data in an easily quantifiable manner that perhaps made it "seem" like a positive trend was taking place in the classroom? Did students have any say in how much homework was assigned or in what manner it was to be completed (in reading the glowing statements on classroom management, I am led to assume this might not have been the case)? Was there a difference in emphasis on homework as opposed to work completed in the class? If so how did the students perceive it? How did the teachers perceive it?
The first few chapters in Fletcher's book...in all honesty, I felt underwhelmed. Now don't get me wrong; there is plenty of good in these installments. It authenticates the student-driven aspect of the writing workshop, which is the model that I believe generates the best results. But in my opinion, Fletcher could have used less step-by-step instruction on precisely how to incorporate an authentic workshop and more true-to-life examples of how the writing process functions in the classroom. I suppose on the heels of a difficult first year of trying to sort this out, I'm slowly becoming jaded on the glowing prospects of the difference that an authentic writing workshop makes. Again, please don't misinterpret me. I'm not in any way disputing the crux of Fletcher's message. But it's easy for chapters 1-4 to come across as talking-down to a teacher that has the same or similar goals for the class, but is struggling with a significant obstacle that keeps him from seeing it through to his students' liking.
Fletcher, R. & Portalupi, J. (2001). Writing workshop: The essential guide. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
"Children did a lot of reading and writing throughout the day and for homework" (CTW, p. 4).
"They planned their time so that children did a lot of reading and writing throughout the day--not just in the 100 minutes set aside for reading and language arts" (CTW, p. 7).
As a reader of Alfie Kohn's work, particularly his article entitled "The Truth About Homework," I would hesitate to put these tidbits in the positive category of the schools observed in the chapter's opening study. Let me be clear, however; I do not hesitate on the grounds that I am an advocate of no homework at all. I merely want to point out an alternative view that urges us to reconsider the notion of viewing homework as an essential teaching tool, particularly if we plan to lump it in with the "classrooms that work."
In his research, Kohn writes that he "failed to turn up any evidence that homework is beneficial for students in elementary school." Indeed he goes on to say that "the only effect that does show up is more negative attitudes on the part of students who get more assignments. The only miniscule benefits he found to homework did not show up until high school, and even then, it only correlated to standardized test scores, hardly sufficient evidence in support of its use for younger children, which appears to be his primary bone of contention. Homework, in his view, becomes a statistic we can trumpet because, in the world of No Child Left Behind, high test scores are the standard. If we can elevate those scores, then we can be proud of ourselves.
Having read the above statements in the study, and taking into account Kohn's stance I find myself asking questions. How much time did students average each night on the reading and writing assignments? What were the methods of assessment? Did teachers accumulate data in an easily quantifiable manner that perhaps made it "seem" like a positive trend was taking place in the classroom? Did students have any say in how much homework was assigned or in what manner it was to be completed (in reading the glowing statements on classroom management, I am led to assume this might not have been the case)? Was there a difference in emphasis on homework as opposed to work completed in the class? If so how did the students perceive it? How did the teachers perceive it?
The first few chapters in Fletcher's book...in all honesty, I felt underwhelmed. Now don't get me wrong; there is plenty of good in these installments. It authenticates the student-driven aspect of the writing workshop, which is the model that I believe generates the best results. But in my opinion, Fletcher could have used less step-by-step instruction on precisely how to incorporate an authentic workshop and more true-to-life examples of how the writing process functions in the classroom. I suppose on the heels of a difficult first year of trying to sort this out, I'm slowly becoming jaded on the glowing prospects of the difference that an authentic writing workshop makes. Again, please don't misinterpret me. I'm not in any way disputing the crux of Fletcher's message. But it's easy for chapters 1-4 to come across as talking-down to a teacher that has the same or similar goals for the class, but is struggling with a significant obstacle that keeps him from seeing it through to his students' liking.
posted by david @ 6:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home