"Writing to learn 'involves getting students to think about and to find the words that explain what they are learning, how they understand that learning, and what their own processes of learning involve" (140-141). I think this perfectly pinpoints why this strategy is so useful across the content areas -- knowing answers is great and useful, but knowing the process and being able to put it in your own words and relate that process or information as well as the "why" behind it indicates a much deeper level of comprehension. The text and the article compliment each other, but I think the text does a better job exploring how useful the writing to learn process is across content areas. The article features lots of useful strategies, but the text provides ways to implement those strategies in non-language arts specific classrooms, which is something that I consider a challenge. The text, then, is a useful supplementation of the article, providing insight on how the proposed strategies may be successfully implemented across the curriculum.
1. How harshly or leniently do you "grade" students' writing to learn pieces? It seems there would be a delicate line between keeping them "low stakes" and ensuring students take them seriously enough that they be useful.
2. Do you think it would be more effective to adopt, say, one or two "go to" strategies that are used across curriculum to cut down on time spent explaining the strategy or is it worth that bit of extra time to keep things "fresh" daily or from subject to subject?
No comments:
Post a Comment