5 points: The topic is narrow (what is narrow?). 5 points: The writer seems to be writing from experience (at what point do we consider someone "experienced?"). 5 points: An inviting introduction draws the reader in (all introductions need to be warm, fuzzy and pleasant?). 5 points: Striking words and phrases (is there a list of striking and not-so-striking words somewhere?).
There is no doubt that we can identify quality writing, whether it's in the form of a Faulknerian novel or a critical essay, a New York Times headline story or an experimental short story. We take classes, we study, we write. And somewhere in between all that good writing emerges. Writing that we can look at and say "yeah." But I think it's dangerous for us to try to quantify the standards of good literature. In number-crunching American, where research is god, anything backed up with quantitative assessment must be true. Right? Maybe so when determining wind patterns, consumer habits, or any other scientific stuff, but we're treading on thin ice when we do it with an art form. You wouldn't go to an art museum and give Whistler's Mother a D- because it doesn't adhere to some research-based rubric. You have to judge something on it's own standards. You wouldn't say the Beatles are bad because their songs are too short. Or that Beethoven is bad because his pieces are too long. You judge them on different standards. Though they are both music they both are trying to achieve different things. A rubric like the one in chapter 7 may be appropriate for argumentative essays (big emphasis on may be) but I would be wary of using these standards anything less formal. Take into consideration who the research is based on, "Paul Diederich, John French and Sydell Carlton asked (in 1974) 60 professionals, including 30 college professors, 10 writers and editors, 10 lawyers, and 10 businessmen to read 300 papers . . . "(pg. 122) i.e. old fat white guys. I'm willing to bet that that group would've scored a book like Mango Street poorly. Don't get me wrong. I think it's necessary to distinguish good literature from crap. The fact that Kite Runner sits on the same shelf as Paris Hilton's "autobiography" makes me want to puke. But I still think we need to rely on ourselves to determine what is good literature rather than some arbitrary list of numbers.
This doesn't solve any problems when considering how to establish consistent grading standards when addressing student papers. I'm just playing devil's advocate. The devil of a non-numbered world. I just don't want my assessment of students to be as white-upper-class biased as standardized testing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think Matt makes a really good point. Just like with the grammar discussion we had earlier, I think every piece of writing will need to be considered in light of the genre and characteristics that form it. For example, it likely won't be possible to use the 6-Trait model to grade a poem, just as poems need not come close to using "proper" grammar. I hope that all of us are able to recognize good writing to the point that we will realize that our students can "break the rules" and still come up with great writing. When this happens there will be no need to compare it directly to a strict rubric that will stifle their creativity.
Matt, you rock! I had a good chuckle at the Kite Runner/Paris Hilton sentence. However, keep in mind that YOU make the rubric; you don't have to use the rubrics already made. That's the great thing about using rubrics (or in public schools, we call them "scoring guides" because several people in good ole Missouri didn't like the catholic undertones of "rubric"): you can make them to fit what you've been teaching kids, weighing some things more heavily than others or leaving certain elements off entirely. Even better is to give students a voice in what should be on the rubric. Often excellent discussions of quality writing can be spurred by trying to compromise on rubric elements.
Post a Comment