My thoughts on Reif and Smagorinsky...

Going into the Reif chapters, I first noticed that the topic he would be covering was quick writes.  I'm not going to lie, I was a little disappointed to see this, because I feel that we have covered this method several times now.  Any more would seem repetitive.  However, I was pleasantly surprised to see that Reif is now explaining to us the role of a teacher in the quick writes assignment.

Obviously, we should write for ourselves in our own writer's notebook whatever we have our students write, but in these sections Reif goes on to explain the discretion a teacher must use in determining which quick writes to encourage a student to further develop and which quick writes to allow to remain unchanged.  More than this, Reif explains the importance in student choice about which quick writes to revisit, and I feel that this is very important because it ensures that the young writers will be passionate about what they are writing and editing, at least to some extent.  

Reif's conferences, along with specific, thoughtful feedback about a few, specific areas for improvement, make his approach to student work optimistic and encouraging, and most importantly not overwhelming. Reif also explains how it is most important to tailor the conference to the specific student's needs, and allow them to take the dominant role in this very brief, yet informative, meeting.  

This, combined with modeling, not only raises the students' confidence levels, but also trains them to be well-reasoned and well-spoken members of the writing community. 

My questions for Reif are these:

How would you then address the student who views none of his quick writes as being worthy of expansion?

While letting students edit your model writing, how do you teach them discrimination in what they consider to be an appropriate edit?

While discussing the distinctly different topic of Unit planning, Smagorinsky suggests starting from a broad, general idea of how you would like it to look when it is finished, and then working backwards to determine the components and steps necessary to make this happen.

He makes an excellent point in chapter five, explaining first that the typical QWERTY keyboard that we are all so comfortable with nowadays is actually not the most efficient arrangement of keys.  This keyboard design was actually made to slow down fast typers, but now it is just accepted that this must be the most efficient, best way simply because this is how we have always done it.  The same can be said, Smagorinsky mentions, for the way we run schools.  We are often resistant to change in the way schools operate or in the ways certain things are taught simply because we are used to the norm, and assume that this must be correct because it has endured for so long.

Smagorinsky caters to all of his students differentiated strengths by allowing them to complete some of their assessments by using a medium of their own choosing.  

Like Reif, both authors vary their instruction by what their students needs are, therefor creating the ideal learning environment for each student.  This also causes students to leave their classes with a body of well-edited work that they can use in later portfolios of progress or even as future writing prompts.

How does one have time to tailor assignments to so many preferences and still have time to provide appropriate feedback for each different medium?