Ramon Gonzalez,
MS 223-The Laboratory School of Finance and Technology
360 East 145 Street
Bronx, New York 10454
How can a standardized writing curriculum affect
student achievement?


During the 2007-2008 school year we began focusing on the improvement of writing.
We noticed that on the state writing exam, students essays were devoid of voice and
rich language. We conducted learning walks of our classrooms focusing on academic
rigor, differentiation, and student engagement to collect information about the quality
of writing across the content areas. The instruction and measurement of writing was
as diverse as the number of teachers in the school. Individual teachers assessed what
they felt was important without a more standardized examination of the writing
pieces. Lack of a standardized writing continuum made it difficult to isolate
individual student needs and to identify what was the teacher “value-added”.
We decided to standardize our writing assessment tool, and make sure that data
collected from the writing assessment would be utilized in daily instruction.
Experiment Design


We decided to meet as a group, once a week to collect initial student writing
samples to create a baseline of research. The group consisted of the literacy
coach, both house-leaders (teacher leaders of a grade), the Special Education
Coordinator, two English Language Arts teachers on the 6th grade level and the
Principal. The group would analyze student samples and discuss findings, create
the standardized assessment tool, implement the assessment tool, collect data, and
further analyze the findings.
We collected data based on “on-demand” non narrative essays written prior,
during, and post implementation of the assessment tool. We analyzed the writing
of 50 students from two English classes led by teachers in the inquiry group.
First steps

Collecting data. In October, we collected a pre essay unit on-demand piece and a
post essay unit on demand piece. An on-demand essay is created with a writing
prompt that simply asks students to write about an idea that they have, reminding
them that an essay is a genre of writing that includes an idea with supports.
Students had about forty-five minutes to compose their original essay. The inquiry
group used the Teachers College Readers and Writers Personal Narrative
continuum as a model for creating our non-narrative continuum.
o This process helped teachers better articulate for themselves what the
standards and levels of expected achievement should be for our students.
76





o They also realized that they were not challenging their best writers by not
imagining ways in which they could exceed the standards of their original
teaching.
We decided on four sub-areas of writing to be measured: meaning, structure,
elaboration, and craft. There was much discussion about how to define these
major writing areas. (See continuum.) We then used the continuum to grade
student writing, allowing all participants to ensure that they were clear about their
reasoning behind each grade. After rating the essays we placed their scores in an
excel spreadsheet to use as initial data.
We made an analogy between the human body and this instrument as a way to
more easily articulate it to our students.
o The sub-area of meaning/significance = the heart. Without having
meaning and essay was difficult to focus on and connect with. If a writing
piece was weak in this area it would be very difficult to score high,
however, the continuum would show strengths in other categories.
o Structure = the skeleton of the essay. It holds the ideas together, but
doesn’t bring life to it.
o Elaboration = the muscle of the piece since this aspect focused on ways
to explain and fine-tune an argument.
o Craft = the soul. The craft of an essay is how the essay may connect us
to the meaning in more literary ways such as metaphor and simile.
The analogy of the human body and the writing continuum helped the team
more clearly understand the role of each sub-area. It helped us develop a
common language and understanding for future discussions.
We evaluated student writing using the continuum. At this point, the teachers
did not use the continuum to teach; they only used it to assess student writing.In
March teachers used this continuum to plan their next essay unit, using mentor
texts to clearly and specifically demonstrate the components of each area to their
students. Pre on-demand essays were again written by students and evaluated by
the inquiry group. We noticed that these scores were significantly higher than the
on-demand scores from the fall. We also noted the sub-category levels for each
student.
Teachers taught the unit utilizing the continuum and mentor texts in their
lessons, one on one conferences, and as resources for students to use as they set
goals to improve their levels based on the pre on-demand score they received. In
focus groups with about seven of the students we found that students were able to
articulate their goals and had theories about their weaknesses and how they could
improve their writing. They cited that having model texts improved their writing.
Evaluating once again. After this second essay writing unit, we gave the students
a post on-demand essay. This essay was collected at the end of the unit and the
inquiry group rated the essays that were collected. These scores were added to
the spreadsheet and evaluated.
77
Findings and Analysis
Analyzing the data showed a consistent trend. According to Table 1- the comparison
between pre and post fall “on-demand” essay show that students grew about 1 level.
The pre “on-demand was without using the assessment to instruct. According to the
graph there is a shift in scores after the teacher shares the assessment with the students.
Since the assessment (Writing Continuum) is specific, students were able to improve
their previous levels.
78
According to Table 2 titled “Spring Personal Essay On-Demand with Continuum”
students were given the writing continuum prior to the on-demand essay and after the pre
on-demand essay were given model texts. Thus students received assessment and
instruction about crafting their essays. This focus on improving writing based on specific
areas with examples gave students multiple supports evidenced by their growth from the
Spring pre “on-demand” to the Spring post-ondemand”.
79
Table 3 shows the comparison between fall pre on-demand, fall pos on- demand, and
spring pre on demand.
According to the chart we noticed that as students and teachers became more proficient
with the instruction and assessments, students’ achievement levels measured by the
assessment grew.
More importantly it shows that students retained previously taught writing skills from
Fall to Spring as noted by the higher levels of writing from fall pre on-demand to spring
pre on demand. The highest average class scores were achieved with instruction from the
writing continuum and using model texts created from the writing continuum as noted in
the scores received from the Spring Post On-demand.
80
Outcomes
 Students grew significantly once teachers were able to target instruction based on
the specific comments from the continuum and model texts.
 Looking at student work as a staff builds a consistent understanding of student
writing that is transferable.
 Looking at student work informs teacher instruction and thus is a great tool for
professional development
 Mentor texts are essential to writing development and instruction for students and
staff.
 The use of a writing continuum with four sub-areas provides more specific
feedback that can be used to compare student to student and class to class.
 When teachers focus on specific writing sub-areas, they can affect writing
development more than with a general rubric.
 When teachers focus on specific writing areas to teach in lessons or through
conferences with students, they can affect writing more than without targeted
teaching.
 Writing development in sub-areas can inform writing instruction throughout the
year.
Next Steps




I learned that as a principal I must create opportunities for teachers to look at
student work in a structured way.
Study groups are a great way to support and develop teachers around critical
topics that can improve student achievement. Presenting the findings of these
groups also allows teachers to develop as leaders and facilitators of knowledge.
The power of data is not in the collect or displaying but in its application to
understanding a problem. By using a standardized instrument we were able to
obtain data that was useful and targeted to our questions.
In order to affect student learning, instruction must be targeted to students
individual needs and informed by data
81
Bibliography
Baldwin, D. (2004). A guide to standardized writing assessment. Educational
Leadership, 62(2), 72–75.
Bangert-Drowns, R.L., Hurley, M.M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of schoolbased writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review
of Educational Research, 74(1), 29–58.
Egawa, K. (1998). Writing in the middle grades, 6–8. Urbana, IL: National Council of
Teachers of English. Retrieved Jan,05 2007, from
www.ncte.org/prog/writing/research/113177.htm
Hyslop, Nancy (1990) Evaluating Student Writing: Methods and Measurement
Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Digest #50
National Writing Project. (2002). Improving student writing through effective classroom
practices [Topical brief]. Berkeley, CA: Author. Retrieved Jan 15, 2007, from
www.writingproject.org/downloads/nwpinbrief.pdf
Reeves, Douglas (2000) Accoutability in Action: A Blueprint for Learning Organizations
Sanders, W,L, (1998, December) Value-Added Assessment. AASA school
Administrator, 55(11).
Slavin, Robert , Fashola, Olatokunbo S. Fashola (1998) Show Me the Evidence!: Proven
and Promising Programs for America's Schools Corwin Press
82