Once again I am grateful for Carl Anderson's user-friendly style of writing as he unpacks the steps of effective conferencing. Below are some of the things that squared with my thinking (square), pointed me in new directions (triangle), and continue to circle in my mind (circle).
Square:
The idea of going to the students for the conference (rather than have the students come to you) really squared with my thinking. Without realizing the meaning behind the choice, it is something I already do in my classroom. It makes sense to me that if you are positioning students as writers and authors, you should show them the respect of coming to them to discuss their work. It also makes sense that having students come to the teacher's space (like their desks) would make them less comfortable as Anderson points out. He reflects on conferences where students came to his desk, saying, "my students seemed to freeze up the moment they arrived there, a natural response, after all, given that my desk was a symbol of my authority and power as a teacher" (Anderson, 2000, p.156). I appreciate this careful consideration Anderson gives to the psychological implications of conference spaces.
I also strongly agree with Anderson's thoughts on 'fix-up' conferences and the unnecessary neurosis about making student final drafts 'flawless' (p.166). He brings to light many reasons why we sometimes feel pressured to make sure student final drafts are completely perfect, but reminds us that "We have to keep in mind that our goal in conferences is to help students become better writers" (Anderson, 2000, p.166). In other words, our goal is not to make sure every single piece of writing is a work of perfection, but to look for the growth the student is making as a writer.
Triangle:
I love the idea of keeping track of who you are conferring with and when. The anecdote about overlooking quiet and independent students was all too familiar to me, and the idea of keeping a simple record to guide next conference steps seems like a fairly simple solution. Similarly, the qualitative records Anderson keeps make sense and could help me keep organized. Sometimes when I confer with students, I get inspired and make mental notes to revisit something, but I never follow through, or I can't remember if I had already given the present student the advice in mind or if it was with someone else. I appreciate how Anderson includes his very simple forms but also acknowledges alternative ways and reminds us that "each teacher needs to use forms that reflect their own individual needs, tastes, and personalities" (Anderson, 2000, p.162). Personally, I like the one Anderson uses for its simplicity and ease to recreate, and the idea that they could be used across the year to measure growth.
I also really like the idea of using sticky notes to keep students accountable for what they are supposed to try next in their writing (p. 165). I could see myself using this to scaffold greater independence for some of my writers.
Anderson makes some good points about when to schedule conferences and whether they should be initiated by students or by teachers or some combination. At first I thought it would be best to honor the choices of the students, but I changed my mind when Anderson brought up some of the downsides to this method. I could definitely see the same students signing up all the time and the same students not signing up because of shyness or unawareness that they need a conference. It also makes sense that sometimes a conference is a good idea for a writer who does not think he or she is struggling. It seems to be a balancing act between student choice and teacher expertise as guide, and once again, Anderson puts it back on us to decide what works best for our unique classrooms and teaching styles.
I like a lot of the suggestions Anderson has about helping writers become more independent, and the diagnostic questions teachers can ask when things break down. While I had some circling questions about some of the expectations (below in my "circle" section), many of the ideas he share seem very usable to me. While intellectually I know students need to be invested in their work, Anderson actually gives me strategies to make it happen, such as publishing more often. It was an Ah-hah moment for me to understand that "publishing" doesn't have to be some elaborate to-do, and in fact a strategy I have used in the past works just fine as a publishing event: having students circulate a room and read and write comments on peer work (p.179). I also think I could use things like goal-setting and peer conferencing.
Circle:
Many of my students struggle with handwriting. For this reason, we have begun to encourage them to type more often, and I feel like this relieves a lot of the pressure they feel, helps their ideas flow more freely, and enables self-conscious writers to take greater risks. There is also no danger of a student forgetting his or her draft if you know it is on the computer or on the google drive. The downside is it's harder to keep track of progress through drafting. I wonder what Anderson would think about allowing students to type instead of hand write their multiple drafts, as this would completely change his list of what students should have with the for writing conferences (p.165).
I was a bit surprised to learn that Anderson shoots for conference lengths of about 5 minutes apiece (p.169). This seems like no time at all! On the one hand, it points me to a new direction to realize conferences can be short and sweet, but on the other hand I still find it hard to believe 5 minutes would be enough time. I suppose that if the class is in a routine and the conferences happen regularly, they can be short and to the point because everyone knows the procedure. I just wonder how Anderson would respond to a situation where a student needs more time to discuss or more of his one on one attention to guide their next steps.
"For us to be able to confer, it's essential that the students with whom we aren't conferring are able to work independently for sustained periods of time" (Anderson, 2000, p.171). This seems like a no-brainer, but it's easier said than done. I got some good tips from the way Anderson breaks down implementing this, but I'm unsure if Anderson has put any thought into how these strategies would be adapted for students with disabilities in an inclusive classroom such as mine. I agree that predictable routines can smooth transitions, and Anderson asserts that "When our students know exactly what to do during the workshop, they will be able to work on their writing independently, and we will be able to give our full attention to conferring" (Anderson, 2000, p.172). Perhaps, for typical students, but what about students with attentive challenges? When discussing how to teach independence, Anderson shares an all too familiar scene that I recognize from my own classroom, and assets that "students must be able to work on their writing independently for a sustained period of time-- half an hour or more-- if we're going to be able to confer effectively" (Anderson, 2000, p.176). Despite the useful tips on supporting students to find writing ideas and get un-stuck in their writing, 30 minutes can be quite a long time for a student with ADHD, and I'm not sure these tips would be helpful for a student with limited abstract imagination like a student on the spectrum for autism. I'm open to trying the techniques Anderson outlines in his "Diagnostic Questions" and really appreciate the democratic aspect of having students weigh in on solving a persisting problem. I would just want to make sure I am not neglecting some students by letting them slip through the cracks of writing workshop because they failed to be independent and I was otherwise occupied. Thank goodness in my situation I have a co-teacher, but I can't help but wonder how a single teacher in a similar setting to mine would ensure equitable writing instruction for a cognitively diverse population.
