The Six Trait Model is a rubric developed by teachers in Beaverton, Oregon because of the fact they realized that all writings have certain things in common whether it is fiction, non-fiction or somewhere in between. This rubric is both for writers and teachers of writing. The latest trademarked version of this model is referred to as Six Plus One. The original six traits were 1) Ideas and Content (Development), 2) Organization, 3) Voice, 4) Word Choice, 5) Sentence Fluency, 6) Conventions, and 7) Presentation (optional). This rubric is presented as something that is simple and universal. I find it a little complicated and more qualitative than quantitative, which to me leads to a subjective analysis system that leaves room for opinions as apposed to facts. If I was a sixth grader and was given this rubric, I would most likely shut down after about 30 seconds of reading it. It would seem beneficial to maybe focus on one or two of these traits, depending on the overall class comprehension and the specific writing type. In Burke's The English Teacher's Companion, he seems to present the rubric, but does not really explain it in a practical manner, so I will attempt to explain what these concepts mean to me and in which type of writing it is most important for.
1) Ideas and Content- It seems to me the most important part of this is having accurate details. I a person is writing about The Titanic and claims it is an airplane, this is clearly inaccurate and makes for very bad writing. It seems that clarity and focus is also important. Having a very narrow and focused writing seems important, but sometimes makes writing difficult. If a person was writing a 5 paragraph essay on an extremely focused topic, there are not always enough minor details to make an essay in the classic and formulaic manner that needs to be taught sometimes. I have troubles with the idea of fresh and original writing, especially for adolescents. It would seem that some topics have been written about so many times that it would be near impossible to truly create ideas that are truly fresh and original, as there is theoretically nothing that is actually original, merely a minor variant on old ideas. I find the components of this rubric to be relevant, but I still question if every piece of writing actually needs to display these properties.
2) Organization- Overall the list of things under organization seems reasonable, but again are very subjective. Pacing for example seems very subjective, especially in regards to fictional writing. For example, some people say that they really enjoy Steven King novels because he goes into great detail about many things. I find the length of his book to be excessive and engaging. Another example would be if I was describing the (actual) eagles I saw the other day. If a person never saw a bald eagle flying they may need extra description of the eagle to understand how it is different from or similar to other birds. For, me this might be boring and may want someone to give me the main ideas such as: "I saw 4 separate eagles riding the thermals at the same time when I was crossing the Mendota Bridge the other day". For some people they may require the description that I noticed the patterns of white and the birds' size, indicating that it was an eagle or even a description of what a bird "riding the thermals" looks like. For people who have seen this sight and know the bridge from the walking path the can envision seeing both the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers at the same time. I think this rubric is a good start, but it will not always apply or be completely clear, as different readers have completely different expectations.
3) Voice- Here is something that some people really enjoy and some people find distracting. A wikipedia article for example cannot have any voice at at all, which I suppose would be a type of voice in its self. An example of why this rubric might be difficult to use is that it asks that the writing be appropriate for purpose and audience, yet it asks the writing to give the reader a strong interaction. If as a teacher, the writing is not addressed to me, how can I possibly assess if I do not feel a strong interaction. Another example is that under "3a" it states that if the writer goes for "obvious generalities" versus "personal insights: it is not as strong. Sometimes personal insights are needed as much as simply stating facts. I personally favor voice in writing over basic generalities, but sometimes voice can be distracting and cause room for people to discount what you are saying as merely opinion.
4) Word Choice- I think overall this part of the rubric seems reasonable as word choice can make a major difference if the writer is being vague. Unless of course the writing is meant to be vague so that each individual reader can make their own connection to their own life. It seems to me that philosophy for example is very effective when it is vague. I was recently watching the second and third Matrix films and I was enjoying how The Oracle often speaks in ways that allow each viewer to interpret what they need from the words. Sometimes the best advice I have ever received has been in a very vague and abstract way. Other times I have received very vague advice that has been confusing at best. Also in the rubric it talks about using lively verbs/adverbs/etc. This can sometimes be a distraction when we start to use too many of these words. For example if an assignment states that the word count should be say 500 words and I really do not have much to say, I will purposely fill the page with extra adverbs that are not really needed. An example in the previous sentence, did I need to say "not really needed" or would "not needed" have served the same purpose. Choosing the right words is important, but this can turn into a sort of literary "glitter points". Again, like the other rubrics, I feel this is a start and not everything is a definite need for everything.
5) Sentence Fluency- This can mean many things to many people. In very high level academic writing, it is assumed that you use very long and complicated sentences. But, this can be difficult for a normal reader. I think that using "purposeful and varied sentence beginnings" is important, but for some writers, they are not ready to achieve this. For our beginning writers using "first of all", "second of all", etc is good to develop the use of transitions. But these transitions can be quite inaccurate if it is not an actual ordered list of things such as "first of all add the flour to the mixing bowl". Overall it seems important that a writing is easy to understand to first time (5e), but I also wonder what about texts that are complex and may require more than one reading. Maybe the solution is that if it is complex, we should easily be able get something from it the first time, but it builds more and more depth each time. A good example for me is Franz Kafka's The Trial, because I found it a very simple story the first time through, but every year I understand it on a deeper level. This is also a great example, because the very log German style sentences confuse many people, but I seem to love them, showing that to many people, fluency can mean a lot of things, because I find the very long sentences to flow, but other people find it confusing because they start to wonder what the main idea of a sentence actually is, such as the very long sentence I am currently writing, that will make sense to others, but seem like a run-on sentence to to other people, but to me it is a long sentence that is basically about long sentences, which in reality is one simple idea, but explained in detail.
6) Conventions- The things listed in this rubric seem sensible enough, but are still presented in a qualitative manner. The only question I have is how do assess whether something is manipulating conventions or is simply being lazy. In my previous paragraph, my long sentence clearly manipulates what is normally considered to be a proper sentence, because of its self-awareness. I understand the rules of Spanish and German enough to incorporate grammatics from outside of normal English conventions. But, can we assume a student who uses a very long sentence is trying to make a point. In the school of stream of consciousness writing, such as The Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner, there is an apparent lack of punctuation towards the end, which is sharply criticized by people such as the author of this website http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoPunctuationPeriod. This sorts of opinions cause a rubric such as this one to flawed, even through Burke's The English Teacher's Companion claims that the teachers from Beaverton "realized that there were common aspects to different levels and types of writing".
7) Presentation (optional)- I will not go on describing this rubric, other than stating that these elements do not always apply to all writing. I hope I have not missed the entire point of this rubric. I feel that this rubric is a start to create your own rubric that applies to the individual community in which you are teaching. For me, these "canned" examples of curriculum and curriculum tools do not speak to me, as I prefer to create my own, so that I will "own it". I do not know if I feel jealous for teachers who are able to take these artifacts and apply them easily to the students or whether I feel bad for teachers who find pre-written lessons/worksheets/rubrics/etc time and brain saving tools that will be useful in their classroom. I might use this rubric to help me make a rubric, but would never give it to a student or use it myself to assess a writing assignment.
No comments:
Post a Comment