FailSafely
  • Home
  • About
  • Home
  • About

First Draft Advice: Don't Be Great

11/8/2016

0 Comments

 
We’ve all seen it: the student staring at the blank GoogleDoc on their laptop, or the empty lined paper in front of them, desperately willing the words to arrive. One of my former students put it best:

“That must be why they call it a cursor; it feels like every time it blinks on the screen it’s cursing at me.”

Granted, there are some students who just flat-out refuse to write; those students to whom the act of writing anything for school has already been equated directly with pain and suffering. We will talk about those students in due time. Today, I’d like to address the students who have been crippled by the need for “first draft perfection.”

First Draft Perfection Syndrome (FDPS) is chronic among “high performing” and “ambitious” high schoolers, those tracked early into gifted and accelerated programs, but can appear within any student population. The causes of this ailment are manifold, but can ultimately be traced back to one root: frequent exposure to "high-stakes" writing environments.

This approach, unfortunately, often clashes with the philosophical rhetoric we espouse regarding writing in general. “Writing is a process of continual refinement and improvement,” we say, “all the greats went through countless drafts...do you think Shakespeare just sat down and wrote Hamlet?!” The message that’s conveyed with this approach, however, is that fearless drafting is something that’s done out there; in here those rules don’t apply.

I want to be clear: locking students into permanent grades on their first attempt at writing is contrary to the nature of recursive, reflective practice; it discourages a respect for and love of writing in general.

This is not to say, of course, that first drafts can’t or shouldn’t be assessed; in fact, taking a student’s pulse via their first attempt at a piece of writing is an essential formative assessment approach. But to treat a first draft as the be-all and end-all of the writing process establishes a dangerous mentality: don’t fly too close to the sun, young Icarus, or you will get burned. This approach tacitly encourages “safe” writing, and as a result, students are deprived of opportunities to attempt more advanced writing techniques.

I am of the rather unpopular belief that the top ten percent of our student population stagnates, on average, as much or more so than the bottom ten percent. The reason we don’t notice is because the evidence for this is in many ways obfuscated by arbitrary “ceilings” placed on high-performing students through the “far left” column of traditional writing rubrics. In short, “honors-level” students learn early in their academic careers what constitutes “A-level” writing, and in turn perpetually write to that level, rarely venturing outside the safety of that assumed paradigm. The fact that these students continue to receive high grades on their writing speaks less to their growth than it does to their systemic conformity and survival instincts. Why attempt something new, they rightfully rationalize, when this safe approach has garnered them the grades they desire?

By presenting and reinforcing an initial attempt at a piece of writing as just that: the first, awkward step in a long process, we not only contextualize the role of a writer but emphasize the metacognitive aspects of recursive writing as well. This cannot be done in a grading model that treats first (or any) drafts as final submissions; nor can it be accomplished in a classroom environment that shuttles students from point to point regardless of individual proficiency. Failure is not solely the domain of “weak” students-- it must be destigmatized and presented as a necessary step on the path to any skill development.

In giving students the opportunity to reflect on just how imperfect their first drafts are, and eliminating the negative reinforcement (or conversely, the misleading grade inflation) of first attempts in general, we provide students with a safe environment for candid self-awareness, acknowledgement of skill-deficit, and focused goal-setting for future drafts. This approach also untethers teachers from the inherent guilt in, and avoidance of, grading first submissions for what they actually are instead of what they will do to a student’s average. By supporting “conscious drafting”, we both make our students more aware of the writing process and give ourselves the freedom to assess more authentically.

My Ten Suggestions for Encouraging “Conscious Drafting” in the ELA Classroom
  1. Avoid high-stakes first drafts. While one could reasonably entertain the argument of a few exceptions here, namely timed-writing in AP or standardized test preparation (another post, Matt, another post for another day), presenting first-draft writing as a “high-stakes” assessment is, in both the short- and long-term, a dangerous and philosophically compromising practice. Safe writing is, more often than not, bad writing, as torturous to write as it is to grade. By presenting the concept of drafting as one of many steps along the way to quality writing, we encourage an attitude of risk-taking in an historically risk-averse approach. Tangentially, we reinforce several “soft skills” such as perseverance, pride in craft, and developing a growth mindset.
  2. Push the “90-percenters” to jump into the void. By this, I’m referring to the students who have about 90% of their paper written but refuse to finish and submit it to you. More often than not, this stems from a fear of failure developed throughout their school experience. This is one of the more overt indicators of FDPS, especially in a high-stakes writing environment. Thankfully, this can be mitigated by recognizing these patterns early and reminding students that their first draft is (to paraphrase and (erm...) sanitize the words of the great Anne Lamott in Bird by Bird) going to need significant work no matter what.
  3. Reward “Functional Failure.” Challenge “Fear of Failure.” And not just in a motivational poster, lip-service sort of way. Give substantial credit for attempting a skill. Operating under a skill-based model, I give a full seventy percent of the credit for attempting (and, essentially, failing at) a skill. The student’s worst (read: first) draft is only thirty percent away from full credit. Getting on the board with that “failure credit” can often serve as catalyst for genuine skill development.
  4. Conference on Every Draft. When students are held to this approach, they will read your comments and line edits; however, if your handwriting is anything like mine after a dozen papers, they’ll need to hear it from you. In a broader sense, though, conferencing provides opportunities for genuine differentiation, discussions of craft, and suggestions for next steps. In the fall, I call the conferences; by spring, they must seek me out. This brings to the fore the essential metacognitive aspect of recursive writing: if you aren’t thinking about your writing, you aren’t writing well. How could any well-meaning teacher have the time for this? Well, maybe...
  5. Assign Fewer Papers. If our goal is to improve our students’ writing abilities, it is counterintuitive to have them write ten different papers, one draft apiece. We know that writing instruction must be recursive and reflective, but we often feel beholden to the flipping of the school calendar. If you must assess a different strand of skills (reading comprehension, for example) through writing, try to do so without assessing the writing skills incorporated. The National Writing Project’s Kristen Hawley Turner refers to this as the difference between “tuxedo writing” and “pajama writing.” My sophomores only have three required papers: an argumentative paper, literary criticism, and personal/creative narrative paper; yet they’re doing as much (if not more) writing due to the expectation of multiple revisions than when I assigned a paper at the end of every class novel.
  6. Present Revision as an Essential Step, not a “Bonus Opportunity.” When I had subscribed to the one-and-done, high-stakes first submission approach, I often offered the opportunity of revision for a recovery of some points to those students who received low grades. I don’t do this anymore, for several reasons: it implies revision is a secondary path for poor writers; it assumes that high-scoring submissions cannot be improved; most tragically, it creates an even broader schism between “good” and “bad” students. Revision must be presented (at the very least) as a step as essential to the process as the initial writing itself, and for all students. To paraphrase English education guru Heather Rocco, genuine differentiation means that we meet every student where they are and push them to be a little better.
  7. Allow Students Genuine Choice in Topics. Not every (or, I’d make the argument, any) paper needs to be “superglued” to a course text; all argumentative papers need not focus on the same issue or event. Not to belabor the point, but if our goal is the development of writing skills that are applicable beyond the limits of our class content, it shouldn’t matter what topics students are writing about. From personal experience, grading a hundred papers on the significance of Holden’s red hunting hat wasn’t exactly a sublime experience, and I found myself frequently factoring the validity of their literary interpretations into their writing skills. This generates “fuzzy grades” (which will be discussed in a later post) and is in my opinion the primary cause of evaluative ambiguity in the English classroom. “Genuine choice” does not mean “choose from a list”; it suggests an organic decision framed by the student and potentially reinforced, narrowed, or clarified by the teacher. Providing too much in the way of prompting deprives students of the opportunity to develop their own claim, purpose, or mission for their writing.
  8. Discourage “Marrying” Drafts. As our students are used to submitting only one draft of their writing, there will understandably be some separation anxiety when they are encouraged to edit and revise for the next go-round. Students often “marry” their writing and are unwilling to even consider modifying their work for the greater good; some even get indignant that they did all of that work “for nothing.” Understandably, it can be quite the blow to a student’s ego when they hear that they’ll have to scrap some (or most) of their first draft; this underscores the importance of empathetic writer conferences. If this message is instilled early, however, drafts for future papers will be met with a more positive growth-mindset.
  9. Parallel Failure in Writing with Failure in Everything Else. The all-state high school football player sitting in your class didn’t get to where they are without practice. Neither did the award-winning cellist, the gamer sitting back by the door, nor the artist doodling in her notebook. All of these skills started as repeated, maddeningly frustrating, but ultimately essential bouts of failure. We celebrate the forging of growth through failure in all of those fields; we avoid it in education at all costs. There are many, many reasons for this, but the end result is often the same: students maintain the unconscious belief that some kids are just good at writing (or reading, presenting, etc.) and others are not. We have a responsibility to break down this cognitive barrier, early and often, and this connection between failure in other facets of life and failure in writing can go a long way in reconciling these disparate approaches. A nice entree into this could be sharing how long it took you to feel (somewhat) confident as a teacher, and how you still struggle today. And speaking of sharing...
  10. Share Your Own (Awful) First Drafts. If you think this post is bad, you should have seen it in its original state! By providing authentic glimpses into just how remarkably awful writing is when it falls out of our heads and onto the page, we not only build class trust through vulnerability, but we also demonstrate that all writing, from students, teachers, and published authors both renowned and unknown, starts as a disaster. It is our recognition of that unruly mess, and our willingness to constantly improve, that engenders true growth.

If we truly want our students to view writing as a continual exercise in improvement, we owe them the opportunity to actually demonstrate that skill in an environment that supports their efforts, both philosophically and systemically.

0 Comments

NaNoWriMo and the Crowbar of Extrinsic Motivation

11/1/2016

0 Comments

 
As I write this, over 400,000 people around the world are in their eighth hour of the 2016 National Novel Writing Month contest.

For those unfamiliar, National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo if you’re into the whole brevity thing) is a month-long exercise in near-manic writing: to “win” (a distinction that comes with no prize other than a printable certificate from the official website) a participant must craft a novel of at least 50,000 words during November. Many ideas that started as NaNoWriMo projects have turned into award-winning novels, including Water For Elephants by Sara Gruen, The Night Circus by Erin Morgenstern, and Wool by Hugh Howey. If my onboard Mac calculator is to be believed, this works out to exactly 1,666.66 words per day, an amount that is ominously, and awesomely, metal.

I first found out about this competition seven or eight years ago through that student. You know the one I’m talking about: violently large book in hand at all times, at least one item of Dr. Who-themed clothing, fervent fan-fiction aficionado, Edward Cullen-acolyte, etc. As a relatively new English teacher at the time, I assumed that NaNo’s appeal would forever be limited to a student like her: intrinsically-motivated, recreational readers and writers willing to stay up all night for the warm fuzzies of creating a fictional world in which to dwell, even for a moment.

And so it remained. Over the years, I had a student attempt the competition once in awhile; on a rare occasion, I heard of a student winning (reaching 50k words), but these were rare deviations from the norm.

But then, in 2015, twenty-five students attempted the challenge. Twenty-one students won. They printed their certificates and carried them with pride. They smiled as their picture was taken for the local newspaper. They began revising, revisiting, and reimagining their novels.

This year, sixty of my students are attempting the competition.

How did this happen?

A great deal has been written about the benefits of cultivating intrinsic, or internal, motivation in the classroom. Excellent books such as Drive by Daniel Pink celebrate the merits of pursuing goals not solely due to a compensatory reward but rather because they engender inner purpose. Purpose (along with its contextual brethren “meaning”, “worth”, and “calling”) is one of those words that just feels right. Of course, we’d all love to, at least in theory, follow a course that kindles our inner-selves.

We, as conscious and empathetic educators, attempt to translate this to the school environment. “Don’t read this poem because there’s a grade attached” we suggest, “read it because poetry is the wellspring of the lyrical heart.” (I’m not quite sure what that means, either, but it certainly sounds like something I would have said…) We divorce our texts, discussions, assignments, and curricular units from “arbitrary, artificial” grades to emphasize the timelessness of artistic qualia. We read dramatically, tear up, and sigh audibly over particularly breathtaking metaphors. We do this, and bless our naive hearts, we absolutely mean it.

And then one of two things happens:
  1. We don’t grade it. Many students figure this out early (especially if we lead with this fact) and don’t take the material seriously. Those who find this out after the fact feel betrayed by this disruption of the socio-academic contract and are embittered, or at the very least glean that this unit isn’t essential to the course.
  2. We grade it, despite our earlier proclamations that this material transcends such base notions of assessment. As a result, students feel betrayed and misled, and a neurological bond has been forged between intrinsic (or perhaps “pseudo-intrinsic”) work and misery.

Intrinsic motivation is important—essential, in fact, to any sort of long-term appreciation, pride, growth, and satisfaction—but the way we are encouraging it in the classroom often does more harm than good, because our classrooms (in all but the rarest of exceptions) operate within a transactional, extrinsically-focused system.

We can blissfully wax poetic about following the music of one’s heart all period long; students are still constantly reminded, in both explicit and implicit ways, that they are being externally quantified, ranked, and evaluated.

The good news?

We can use this potentially defeating awareness to tangentially foster internal validation in our students: the extrinsic motivator as a crowbar to crack open the door of genuine, intrinsic appreciation.

My class follows an open-curriculum, skill-based grading model. One set of skills, worth approximately ten percent of the year’s grade, focuses on narrative and creative writing. Last year, I sensed an opening...

I wielded the extrinsic crowbar: after introducing the concept of National Novel Writing Month, I mentioned that any student who attempted, and successfully completed, the competition would automatically receive full credit (“mastery”) on their five narrative writing standards. They were also given the freedom to work on their novels in class every day throughout the month.

“And remember,” I prodded further, “your novel is going to be atrocious; that’s the point! High-speed writing. Smoke coming off the keyboard. Don’t hit delete. Quantity over quality. That sort of stuff.”

“So...we just write a bad novel...and we get the points?” A student cautiously inquired.

“Absolutely! Well, don’t try to write a bad novel. Just don’t dwell on the quality as you’re writing.”

“And it can be about anything?”

These are always dangerous questions. “Yes! Well, no. Not anything. You know the things you can’t write about...I mean…” I could feel the sales-pitch slipping away from me.

Little did I know the wheels were already in motion. Students verbally shared novel ideas all period, gaining enthusiasm as the conversations expanded. The fear of wasted time or compromised grades had been assuaged. Before the end of the day, a dozen students told me they had signed up.

To drive the point home, the next day, I had the aforementioned student who had previously won the competition come into class and guest-lecture on her experience with NaNoWriMo. By greasing the wheels with the extrinsic reward, I sensed that my students were far more receptive to her pitch than they normally would have been; they viewed this student not as an “other” but as someone who they could aspire to emulate, given the structural support and extrinsic compensation.

As Daniel Pink writes in Drive (and in his wildly popular TEDtalk on the same topic) “the best way to use money as a motivator is to take the issue of money off the table.” Students’ “money” is the grade; by taking any grade concerns off the table by fairly compensating them for their efforts, these students were free to challenge themselves in ways they hadn’t imagined possible. They also attempted something they would most likely not have even started had there still been a lingering concern that their involvement would negatively affect their grades. By “crowbarring” extrinsic compensation into an inherently intrinsic challenge, students are given the agency to take an authentic, and rewarding, risk.

Long after the grade has been forgotten, those students will be able to say that once, during one crazy November, they wrote a novel. At the end of this month, I hope sixty more of my students will be able to join them.
0 Comments

    Subscribe to FailSafely

    * indicates required

    Author

    Matt Morone (@MrMorone) is a high school English teacher,  NCTE/CEL  Member-at-Large & NJ state liaison, #CELchat organizer, faculty advisor to Outside/In literary magazine, 2016 Princeton Distinguished Secondary Teacher of the Year, constant reader, novice blogger, avid music fan, and sandwich aficionado. 

    Archives

    January 2019
    May 2017
    November 2016

    Categories

    All
    Philosophy
    Skill Based Grading
    Skill-Based Grading
    Writing

    RSS Feed

    Ed Blog Friends

    • Conference on English Leadership (CEL)
    • ​Brett Conrad
    • Gerard Dawson
    • Chris Bronke
    • ​Christopher Lehman
    ​​
    Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Proudly powered by Weebly