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