home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!paladin.american.edu!auvm!UMICHUM.BITNET!USERLCBK
- Message-ID: <18525789@UMICHUM.BITNET>
- Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
- Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:26:38 EST
- Sender: "Megabyte University (Computers & Writing)" <MBU-L@TTUVM1.BITNET>
- From: Bill Condon <USERLCBK@UMICHUM.BITNET>
- Subject: Standardizing sections of composition
- Lines: 28
-
- MLB14, whoever you are:
-
- I've ridden this hobbyhorse before on this list, but here goes again.
- Standardizing a syllabus does nothing except force a lot of people to
- teach in the way a small group of people, usually a Comp. Committee,
- would have them to. In standardizing a syllabus, you actually cripple
- a lot of teachers, since they must use someone else's materials and
- methods, rather than teaching to their own strengths and/or being able
- to dianose what THEIR section needs (and sections vary widely, no matter
- what).
-
- Instead of the lockstep syllabus, why not find out what your curricular
- goals are, both within the comp program and in the university at large;
- then decide what sorts of written products would indicate achievement
- of those goals. That done, you can establish a portfolio-based exit
- assessment from your course. One sure way to assure that an A in
- one teacher's section is the same as an A in another's is to have
- the teachers read and score portfolios from EACH OTHERS' sections.
- This method leaves teachers free to use the methods that suit them
- best, but it also assures the kind of "quality control" that your
- institution seems to want.
-
- Bill Condon
- English Composition Board
- 1025 Angell Hall
- University of Michigan
- Ann Arbor, MI 48109
- userlcbk@umichum.bitnet
-