Remarkable Revisions

The readings from Dunn, Gallagher, and Christenson and their focus on responding to student work from a growth ideology are greatly insightful. Dunn’s simile between writing students and driving students is effective, and I can tell from the way that I respond to feedback on writing pieces of my own. Naturally, as learners, it feels more natural for us to try and replicate good habits than destroy bad ones. Dunn makes the point that writers will often have to face unabashed criticism elsewhere, but I do not believe that serves as justification for purposely damaging a developing writer’s sense of self-efficacy.

I found the specific examples from Gallagher and Christenson helpful, mainly due to the situations that I did not even consider the need for nuanced assessment. Christenson brings up the issue of denouncing home language in student work, which I personally never considered being mindful of. However, I see how what can appear as a grammatical error in standard academic English can still make grammatical sense in the context of their home language or vernacular. I desire to be an educator who values student identity, and a student can very easily feel devalued or “wrong” because of ignorant corrections. Christenson uses the example of African American Vernacular English, but I can see this being relevant to emerging English learners as well.

I personally agree with Christenson’s approach to grading papers and revisions. However, I feel like there is a deep philosophical difference between her approach and what current American society wants out of the educational system. Yet again, the apparent conflict between learner-centered ideology and social efficiency ideology comes into play. Social efficiency ideology seems to be pushed for politically nowadays, without much thought being given to what is truly socially efficient in the first place.