Teacher Evaluation of the Program
School: Balboa High School
Teacher: Darrick Broudy
School Year: 2001–2002
Overview
Participation in the CAPI program has definitely served to improve my pedagogical methods in terms of teaching and writing. Thank you for allowing me to be a part of the program. I hope that it continues to receive funding in order to continue to bridge the gap between writing experiences and expectations at the high school and collegiate levels.
I initially learned about the CAPI program through one of my colleagues who participated during the 2000–2001 school year. As this particular colleague and I taught within the same small learning community, I did ascertain some positive benefits in terms of the students’ writing as well as organizational skills. Towards the beginning of the 2001–2002 school year, I was approached concerning my prospective participation in the program.
While I am undoubtedly dedicated to improving student writing skills, I immediately began to think of the other overwhelming commitments which would envelop a significant portion of my time and resources. I would be teaching four different classes as well as sponsoring the senior class. Moreover, as nearly all of the educational workshops I’ve attended have been non-productive, the prospect of attending workshops did not exactly solidify my participation in the program.
Nonetheless, although initially apprehensive about accepting the responsibility of participating in the CAPI program, I ultimately made the prudent decision to commit in order to improve the writing performance of my students and thus better prepare them for college.
The San Francisco State University professor assigned to my classroom was Kevin Conway. Based upon prior scheduling arrangements, we decided to work with my Senior American Democracy/Economics class. In terms of writing assignments, such a decision definitely proved to be a challenge as I lacked experience in teaching the subjects of Government and Economics. The first essay upon which we collaborated involved a comparison/contrast essay between totalitarianism and democracy.
Several days following the assignment of the essay, the first CAPI workshop was held. The high school teachers participating in the program were instructed to bring sample writing assignments for discussion. I thus brought the instructions for the aforementioned compare/contrast essay. The suggestion was given that I employ the use of a compare/contrast chart focusing upon specified criteria to be compared and contrasted.
For instance, in terms of democracy and totalitarianism, one might examine the relationship of education or safety and protection to each of the forms of governance and thus begin to list similarities and differences.
Do you think your students have benefited from your collaborations in the CAPI project?
Yes. While the [compare/contrast chart] concept appeared rather simple, its implementation upon my return to the classroom proved to be most productive. Students who were initially having a difficult time generating criteria upon which to compare and contrast totalitarianism and democracy were now able to begin making progress in their writing. The first CAPI workshop thus proved to be seminal in terms of improving student performance on compare/contrast essays.
Following the compare/contrast essay concerning totalitarianism and democracy, Kevin and I began to prepare for the next and final essay for American Democracy which would in fact serve a term paper for the course. The paper was to be a four to five page document discussing Supreme Court cases concerning civil rights/civil liberties. Students were instructed to research one particular Supreme Court case relating to civil rights/civil liberties in order to better understand the effect of Supreme Court decisions upon social and political equity in U.S. society.
They were to provide a clear overview of the decision including a detailed discussion of the background of the case; evaluate the immediate effects of the decision and ascertain the manner in which it refined or reformed or society in general; and consider the effects of the decision over the long term. The latter directive was to include addressing questions such as the following:
- Have further appeals been made in the name of the original decision?
- In what ways, if any, has the decision created the basis for further appeals?
Such instructions, however, would have been insignificant had not Kevin Conway provided the structure around which to organize the essay.
Prior to assigning the Supreme Court research paper, Kevin established a list of steps that would be integral towards its completion. The steps included the following:
- Submit a proposal that covers in five or six sentences your plan for the research.
- Locate three sources and identify two passages from each along with an explanation of each passage’s importance to your research.
- Draft an introduction in which you state your overview for your essay. This should include a clearly stated thesis, a statement of that which you plan to address in your paper.
- Draft two body paragraphs to follow the thesis in which you discuss the background of the decision.
- Continue developing the body paragraphs.
- Peer edit the complete draft.
- Review and finalize the draft.
- Submit a final draft of the research paper.
Although a number of factors ranging from time constraints to the limited resources of the school library prevented completion of each of the aforementioned steps, they were nevertheless essential in guiding the students through the completion of their research papers. Moreover, each of the eight steps served as an introduction to what the students will be expected to do automatically and independently when assigned research papers in college.
While this project cannot be considered a success in terms of the completion of the steps, it is relevant to mention that all of the students with an exception of one completed the research paper.
As I had intended to assign a similarly structured research paper for Economics in the Spring, my admitted inexperience with the subject matter limited writing to only one essay for the semester. Once again, Kevin was integral in directing the steps of completion for the essay, which involved analyzing advertisement as well as the fifteen psychological appeals typically employed by corporations through ads.
Kevin’s instruction during the period following the assignment of the essay involved having the students analyze sample paragraphs in order to determine which of the paragraphs more closely adhered to the TEA (topic, example, analysis) paragraph structure outline. Moreover, he provided an in depth review of subordinating conjunctions. Following the completion of the assignment, the students were not only better equipped to critically analyze the motives of advertisers, but they also appeared to have a better grasp of using appropriate detail to describe their topics as well as of analyzing the manner in which the examples relate to the topic. Each of the aforementioned skills, including general critical analysis, are essential to writing success in the collegiate environment.
Which, if any, of your teaching practices have changed or been influenced by working with your SFSU collaborator? What was the most useful/valuable practice you implemented in your classroom?
In addition to the success of the writing projects within my classroom via participation in the CAPI program, one workshop in particular stood out as significantly influential in terms of my development as a more effective instructor of writing. One of the workshops dealt with response and revision to student writing.
One of the handouts provided during that workshop was a humorous excerpt taken from Jenkinson and Seybold’s Writing as a Process of Discovery. It read, “confused and angry, he stared at the red marks on his paper. He had awked again. And he had fragged. He always awked and fragged. On every theme, a couple of awks and a frag or two. And the inevitable puncs and sp’s. The cw’s didn’t bother him anymore…” I began to realize that I often am guilty of frequently inserting corrections such as the aforementioned into student papers. The truly disconcerting aspect of that practice is that student writing is not improved through such practices. They either become immune to the red ink or become intimidated and thus less willing to produce writing.
I learned through that one workshop that is it more important to first focus upon meaning and content before surface level concerns such as paragraphing, grammar, spelling, and presentation. Thus, an instructor might have the students write a first draft in which only meaning and content are evaluated and commented upon. In fact, this process is more logical than a primary focus upon the surface level concerns. If grammar and spelling are given precedence in an initial draft, the student will therefore have spent valuable time correcting grammar mistakes for content for which he/she may have to radically revise.
While I have not yet had a chance to employ the meaning and content-before-surface-level-concerns method in my classroom, I am assured that it will increase as well as improve writing from students. My only concern is that if such practices are employed in the high schools yet ignored by a majority of college professors, then what will the ultimate consequences be in terms of student writing?
What can you suggest as further methods of improving student proficiency for entering the CSU campuses?
No answer given.
Did the Diagnostic Writing Service (DWS) help you or your students? Why or why not?
No answer given.
What other assistance or involvement would you like to have from San Francisco State University?
No answer given.
|
