Pamela is a middle and high school counselor who works with English language learners and special needs students who have not passed high- stakes tests in reading and writing. When asked to evaluate the merit of a rubric chart I had brought to a meeting, she wasted no time in identify- ing many words that she knew would have little or no meaning for the students she was helping. The words she highlighted included coher- ence, disjointed, monotonous, awkward, rambling, obscured meaning, shortcomings, engaging, expressive.
Pamela respected her students’ learning needs. She realized that to help students learn strategies to succeed on future tests, she needed to first make them feel safe. That meant revising the chart with her students’
help, using words they understood, while at the same time helping them learn the words that confused them so they would ultimately understand how they were being scored.
Her efforts are representative of the learning acquired by all learning community members who ultimately come to appreciate that teachers must take ownership of the assessment tools we use to grade our stu- dents. When we put in the effort to study the intent of rubrics, we realize they are instructional tools that serve as guideposts. Some of us use rubrics because we believe in them. Others use rubrics because states have mandated their use (and in so doing, compromised the integrity of rubrics as instructional tools). Regardless, the guiding language imbed- ded in rubrics ultimately serves to help us help our students learn the strategies to do the work.
Self-evaluation instruments are also integral to the portfolio. They encourage learners to reflect on their growth as writers, connecting the memories of who they were as writers to the writers they have become.
scoring the Work our students do
Writing about assessment and the learning brain, Ronis (2006) defined a rubric as “an established set of criteria used for scoring or rating students’
tests, portfolios, or performances” (p. 80). The two types of rubric scoring that states use to score high-stakes writing tests are holistic and analytic.
Holistic scoring evaluates the overall impression presented by a student’s work. By contrast, analytic scoring provides separate scores for different traits, such as word choice, one of six writing traits in the writing rubric (which appears later in the chapter). Analytic scoring is more detailed than
0 holistic, thereby providing more information to you and your students.
Critics (e.g., Nitko, 2004) rightfully have noted that both analytic and holis- tic scoring can be subjective. This is especially true when teachers are poorly trained, do not receive the ongoing training necessary to ensure inter-rater reliability, or do not believe in rubrics in the first place.
Many writing teachers feel district- and state-mandated writing-rubric systems represent outside interference. Yes, the challenge is formidable, especially when some districts offer participation in intensive training work- shops, whereas others secure volumes of information on rubrics, expecting their teachers to decipher and implement the assessment tools independent of meaningful training. Our brains tend to balk at such coercion and indif- ference. Anger and frustration often follow
our resistance, especially when we don’t understand or necessarily agree with man- dated interventions.
Even though rubrics have become ersatz scorecards of the high-stakes testing machine, they remain an invaluable instruc- tional tool for helping students learn the strategies of effective writing. Although no
system is completely objective, with diligent and ongoing training (or self- directed learning), an assessment system based on rubrics comes close.
scoring Value of rubrics
Table 5.2 illustrates how 6-point scores convert to letter and percent val- ues. It is important to share this information with students, who may assume fractional equivalents. While 4/6 in rubric terms demonstrates proficiency, its fractional equivalent is 66 percent! Help students understand the difference.
You may need to modify the conversions to match your school’s rating sys- tem or to include more subtle increments, for example, 4+ = B+ = 85–89.
helping students learn the strategies to assess
The best way to get students engaged in their own learning is to have them evaluate their work and the work of their peers. Rubrics offer a brain- compatible tool for guiding learners through the self-assessment processes, ultimately helping them to become critical thinkers, realistic self-assessors, and proficient writers.
Everyone benefits from rubrics, especially students who enjoy opportu- nities to play “teacher” whether scoring their own work or that of their peers.
The Learning Pyramid (see Chapter 7) suggests that students retain 70 per- cent of what they learn when they practice as they learn and 90 percent of
Teaching Students Strategies for Doing the Work
•
Elementary teachers often ask their students to reflect on their performance using simpler language.
I put a period at the end of my sentence. J K L
0
•
Brain-Friendly Strategies for Developing Student Writing Skillswhat they learn when they teach others. When students use rubrics to assess the work of their peers, they build neural connections of learning through their very conversations. They not only benefit from being exposed to the language and criteria of rubrics but also benefit from learning how to self- administer feedback through each stage of the writing process. Reaching their instructional goals is so much easier for our students when we help them learn the strategies to do the work!
I always ask students to self-assess major writing assignments before turning in final copies and to score their work using the writing-rubric chart.
For each of the six writing traits, students circle the statement they believe describes their performance. By asking learners to justify their responses, I learn whether they are authentically using the charts or merely going through the motions. For example, a student may circle a 4 for word choice. “I think I earned a 4 because I tried really hard” is not an effective justification and would prompt me to have a conference with the student to check his under- standing of justifying scores as well as his understanding of each rubric.
I have students staple their circled rubric score sheet (which is reduced to a half sheet to conserve paper) to their work. I use a yellow highlighter to denote my scores. As the year progresses, I find myself highlighting over student-drawn circles indicating proficiency more often, suggesting students are not only learning the strategies to write and write well but also becoming more proficient at knowing they are proficient.
setting the stage for Constructive Feedback
Helping students learn the strategies of effective peer conferencing engages students thoroughly. Locate a weak writing sample, such as the
table 5.2 Rubric Score Conversions
Rubric Score Letter Percent
A+ –00
A 0–
B 0–
C 0–
D –
F or less
0 Teaching Students Strategies for Doing the Work
•
one following, and use the sample to teach appropriate conferencing- feedback techniques.
Place a copy of the writing sample on your document camera or over- head (or you can prepare and distribute copies). Explain to the students the sample represents the opening paragraph of a descriptive piece about autumn.
Ask for a volunteer with a thick skin to pretend the piece is hers. Direct the learner to read the piece aloud and ask you: “Will you be my conference partner?” Now the fun begins. Have the volunteer ask you to answer the fol- lowing questions:
What’s the strongest part in my work?
What’s the weakest part in my work?
Does my work have a clear purpose and direction?
Do you have any questions about my work?
Do you have any suggestions about my work?
For the first interaction, be unmerciful: “There is no strong part. . . . The weakest part? How do I choose? It’s totally weak! . . . There is no pur- pose! . . . Why did you write it is the question I have! . . . Dump it is my only suggestion.”
After you are done with your verbal lashing, ask the class: “How’d I do?
Was I an effective conferencing partner?” Trust me. Kids know. They will most assuredly let you know you were very mean and unkind, not at all help- ful to your writing partner.
For the second interaction, be too polite but vague as you respond to the questions: “It was all strong. . . . No weak parts. . . . Sure, it has a clear purpose. . . . I have no questions. . . . I have no suggestions other than writ- ing it neater so the teacher sees a first draft—you know how teachers are.”
Once again, ask the class to comment. Once again, they will let you know you were too nice and you were not being honest.
Ask students what you should have said and how you should have said it. What follows, of course, are responses that demonstrate polite and constructive feedback responses that produce effective revision sugges- tions for a writer to consider.