This is the second iteration of my Formative Assessment Design, introduced in a previous (FAD 1.0) post. Major changes include . . . well, everything: the addition of one state standard (W.8.6), zero-ing in on global revision for this particular assessment, peer evaluation instead of self-evaluation, comments about pre- and post-assessment
instruction, and post-revision reflections to be completed by students. Unchanged elements include the focus on revision and the use of a voice comments plug-in, Kaizena, to give feedback. A rationale behind this design is given at the end of the post, based on sound assessment design research.
Purpose of This Assessment
The purpose of this formative assessment is to provide information to the teacher and the student about individual progress toward learning goals.
In any given writing unit, a grading rubric may be employed as a guide for final evaluation. As imperfect as rubrics may be, they can serve at least two valuable purposes: to lay out the goals of a writing piece and “help students both in evaluating each other’s writing and in assessing their own for revision” (Dean, 2006, p. 151). Instead of using a rubric only to give a final score on a final draft, I will be including it as part of a peer-evaluation, mid-unit formative assessment that will inspire student learning and guide teacher instruction.
The entirety of this essay unit aims for the majority of the Common Core Michigan State Standards for 8th-grade writing, and those goals are addressed in the rubric. This formative assessment, in particular, will touch on those, but its main focus is on two standards for revision and technology:
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.8.5 With some guidance and support from peers and adults, develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach, focusing on how well purpose and audience have been addressed.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.8.6 Use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing and present the relationships between information and ideas efficiently as well as to interact and collaborate with others.
Young writers often resist revision, but it is an essential part of the writing process. One underlying goal of this assessment is to help them practice revision strategies and see that it is a multi-step process. There are global changes a writer must make first (related to ideas, organization, voice, etc.) before local changes (such as word choice and sentence fluency) can be truly fruitful. The assessment I explain below focuses on global revision, but it could easily be adapted to local revision for use after the global issues of a paper are addressed.
Class Instruction Prior to the Assessment
Prior to participating in this formative assessment, the class will have had mini-lessons about each of the topics addressed in the rubric and each student will have written a rough draft of their personal narrative. At this point in the unit, I would help students uncover the what, why, and how of revision. I will model how to peer-evaluation using electronic tools and good feedback techniques as explained below (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).
Plan for Feedback
The main mechanism for feedback here is through peer-evaluation. For a teacher to give helpful, timely feedback on nearly two-hundred essays is unrealistic. Students can learn far more about revision when they review one another’s’ papers. Black and William (1998) affirm that “peers are usually honest and reliable in assessing themselves and others” and it’s “important that they have a clear picture of the standards they are working towards.” This is why I will give them a rubric to reference while they are giving suggestions and comments on others’ papers–to help them focus on the desired outcomes.
To further assist in the process of peer-evaluation, I will teach students the three components of effective feedback as explained by Hattie and Timperley (2007): 1 Feed up, 2 Feed back, and 3 Feed forward. In this way, they will learn that “recognition of the desired goal, evidence about present position, and some understanding of a way to close the gap between the two” (Black & William, 1998) is an effective way to give feedback. Providing guiding questions for their evaluation will help them avoid person-directed praise and instead encourage task, process, or self-regulation-based feedback (p.102-103).
Instructions for Learners
Before I get to the instructions, I must thank Deborah Dean (my writing professor at BYU) for providing excellent guiding questions for peer evaluation and author reflection in a ReadWriteThink lesson plan on revision. For this assessment, I use her reflection questions and adapt her peer evaluation questions.
I will ask each student to review two other essays so that authors have an increased quantity of feedback and as well as varied quality. At the end of the peer evaluation period, authors will report to me through an exit ticket how helpful their peers were in their comments and suggestions. I wouldn’t award points for these, but it will help hold peers accountable for making thoughtful evaluations.
Instructions for the class on the day of peer evaluation:
- Open Google Docs and find your TIB rough draft.
- Share your draft with two other students in the class (I might randomly assign this) and give them permission to edit. Everyone should review two drafts total.
- Reference the TIB rubric as you follow the directions on this Peer Evaluation print out (see below) for two of your peers’ essays. Make comments directly on Kaizena.
- When you’ve finished evaluating others’ essays, review the comments made on your own doc and prepare for the exit ticket.
- In your exit ticket today on Canvas, you will rate your peer evaluators on a scale of 0-5 of how helpful their comments were for your writing. You will also tell me at least three specific, global changes you will make to your TIB during the next class period.
Below is the instruction sheet I would print out for each student.
Peer Evaluation for Global Revision of a This I Believe Essay
Instructions: Remember that global revision focuses on ideas, organization, and conclusions. Read the narratives that have been shared with you. Consider the following questions, making suggestions on Kaizena that will help the author (1) remember the goals on the rubric (2) notice where he or she is succeeding in those goals, and (3) have ideas about how to progress towards the goals.
Main Idea
What is the main idea of this narrative? Can a reader point it out? Is it an interesting, inspiring, or otherwise thoughtful idea?
Details
Which details are engaging and enjoyable to read? Where could the author add details that will help move the story along? Where could the author add description, dialogue, or an event?
Organization
Where are there gaps in the ideas or storyline? What could the author do about those gaps? How satisfying are the beginning and the ending? What could the author do to improve them?
Conclusion
Does the conclusion follow logically from the story told? Which details in the story help build up to that conclusion? What could be added or taken away from the body of the piece to strengthen the conclusion and tie up the entire essay?
Students would answer the following reflection questions after both global and local revisions have been completed on their narratives, but I include it here because it is one way to encourage transfer of learning:
“How is global revision different from editing (local revision)?
How will you apply what you learned about revision with this writing practice to other writing you do?” (Dean, n.d.).
Post-Assessment Instruction
After the peer-assessment is completed, students will revise their rough drafts and share them with me along with a reflection on their revisions. I will be able to view the changes they made on their google doc, and assess their level of understanding when it comes to global revision. If the majority of students met the goals for understanding, we could move to local revision and continue polishing their pieces.
If I see a lack of understanding in some students, I could use Kaizena to give individualized feedback. Or, if the entire class performs lower than expected, I would use one or more of the following strategies to reinforce learning: return to inquiry strategies to strengthen main ideas, fat draft or rewrite the narratives in a different genre to improve descriptive details, or analyze well-revised essays from peers to understand the impact revision can have. These exercises would (hopefully!) lead to improved understanding and I could assess their learning through having them perform and turn in a second globally revised draft.
Rationale
Hopefully, students will learn the underlying concepts of revision through the process surrounding this assessment. As Wiggins and McTighe say, “The learner should come to understand the skill’s underlying concepts, why the skill is important and what it helps accomplish, what strategies and techniques maximize its effectiveness, and when to use them” (p. 133).
In giving formative assessments for writing, I don’t want to revert back to what I did as a student-teacher and give a rubric-based, preliminary score on a rough draft as the only feedback for my students. Research has shown that “if pupils are given only marks or grades, they do not benefit from the feedback” (Black & William, 1998). So, rather than giving teacher-generated scores on individual parts and pieces of writing, as the social efficiency and behaviorist theories would support, I hope this reflective, conversational way of revising approaches Shepard’s (2000) social-constructivist approach toward assessment. It communicates to students that writing is a creative process that requires iteration, feedback, and improvement, and that it can be done in collaboration with others.
References
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. The Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-144, 146-148.
Dean, D. (2006). Strategic writing: The writing process and beyond in the secondary english classroom. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Dean, D. (n.d.). Once upon a fairy tale: Teaching revision as a concept. Retrieved from http://www.readwritethink.org/classroom-resources/lesson-plans/once-upon-fairy-tale-971.html?tab=4#tabs
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
Shepard, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14.
Wiggins, G.P. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved from http://p2047-ezproxy.msu.edu.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/login?url=https://search-ebscohost-com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=133964&scope=site
Still a Teacher 