Response to Probst & Beach

The flexibility that Beach proposes (p. 130) is necessary to have to perform self-assessment falls into the abysms of his own writing: a series of fixed steps to conferencing with students and to scaffold them. This is opposed to the idea of dialogue that the teacher-student conference, in my opinion, should have.
In addition, I thought the way of representing the assessing techniques that the author proposes is not too “happy”. He claims that “assessing is, furthermore, a recursive process” (p. 131). And I cannot see this recursive feature in the figure he presents. I guess that all the “I”es that I found in the text made it hard for me to believe that this guy would let a student talk more than 2 minutes in a conference. Hahaha!!!! And he “diagnoses” them! (p. 137).
On the other hand, I have to accept that I finished reading this text late tonight and according to transactional theory maybe my transaction is not the best ever.
And talking about Probst text: when I read Jensen and DiTiberio’s characterization of personality traits, I could not avoid thinking about my writing process and Liz’s writing process. When doing the transcription, I realized how different our processes were. And I guess I do not need to name who is in which dimension especially when referring to the extraversion-introversion one. I also related this text with my last blog, especially page 75, when he proposes that teachers should “abandon the illusory goal of objectivity”.
One last thing that I would like to add: any of you ever felt that “sense of completeness that successful writing yields? (p. 78)… not me… :(