Writing for Education 705: Blog—Chapter IV

I hope that what I engendered, more than taught, is a love of poetry. Or at least that I helped, in some way, demystify poetry as an esoteric genre that can only be known and loved by the select. What I taught directly was how to annotate a poem, and taking my cue from Calkins, I discussed and modeled using examples (some from their own writing) the importance of being specific and precise in writing.

The Impetus

My plan for this experiment was to build engagement. My specific question: Does collaboration improve student engagement? Every year, my students read poetry, choose two similarly themed poems, and write an analysis paper in which they compare or contrast the tone or use of figurative language in their chosen poems. Specifically, the students are to discuss how a poetic element conveys or emphasizes the theme of their poems. But they never talk to each other during this process. I wanted to know if students collaborated with each other in the selection, discussion, and focus of their papers in the prewriting stage as well as in the drafting and publishing stages would their personal engagement improve? Thus, also improving the quality of their finished pieces. The specific elements that I added to this unit (all of which were collaborative in nature with the exception of mini-lesson on annotating a poem):

Library Day—classes went to library; librarian had set aside poetry anthologies for students to peruse.

Writing groups—established writing groups for students to discuss and share their poems and papers.

Poem annotation—mini-lesson on annotating a poem as a prewriting step.

Poem share day—students shared and discussed chosen poems with their writing group.

Peer conferencing—writing groups shared papers and gave each other feedback

Publishing—students read excerpts from finished papers with their writing group.

Strategies

Although the thrust of this project was to build student interest and engagement, my students were, after all, going to be writing about poetry. Many of the collaborative elements that I added to this unit, I think, also promoted better writing. For example, the writing groups, in addition to being collaborative, were also incorporated to promote writing improvement. I mixed the ability levels of these groups, placing weaker writers with more adept writers. I included the poem annotation requirement and annotating mini-lesson to promote a greater depth of understanding of chosen poems. Thinking that if students understand their poems, they will be able to write about them with more clarity. Obviously, the mini-lesson on writing with precision and specificity was aimed at improving writing.

Effectiveness

From my observations, I feel the added elements to this writing project were successful. Students were talking to each other and to me about their poems and their writing. During the poem share day as I walked about the room, my students were talking (and not about their plans for the weekend) to each other about what this line means, they were asking each other for help, and they were sharing their thoughts with me. Likewise, on the peer conferencing day, they were also engaged in reading, discussing, and helping each other with their drafts.

Evaluation & Conclusion

I love the idea of the writer’s workshop. The challenge, of course, is how to adapt it to the secondary classroom. At the secondary level, I think the collaboration that a writer’s workshop affords is vital. These students are all about each other, and I think that if I can tap that peer-to-peer energy and need, and use it to further instruction and understanding; then, it’s a goldmine! My plan for the future is to incorporate principles of the writing workshop into my writing instruction as well as to pilot writing groups for year-long work in my classes. This is just my seed. I have nothing else right now; it will have to take root in my mind over the next several months.