Using a writing analysis tool to monitor student progress and focus teaching decisions.
Mackenzie, Noella M. ; Scull, Janet
Introduction
The complexity of writing means that the process can be difficult
for young students while teachers are often challenged to provide
explicit focused teaching that responds to integrated aspects of early
writing. Indeed, effective teaching needs to focus on the content and
process of writing, developing students' control over both the
authorial (text structure, sentence structure and vocabulary) and
editorial dimensions (spelling, punctuation and handwriting) of writing.
The Writing Analysis Tool, discussed in this article, was based on
research carried out by the authors in Australian schools and designed
with the support of many teachers working with young writers. The tool
allows for the assessment of writing. It can be used to map
students' achievements at particular points in time, identify focus
areas for teaching and appropriate learning goals, and to monitor
progress. Some teachers have likened the tool to a running record for
writing, providing immediate multi-factor data to inform teaching. The
tool can also be used to profile and record students' progress,
providing information that is helpful when preparing for parent teacher
interviews and report writing. The Writing Analysis Tool is electronic
and free to all teachers (see below for the link).
The Writing Analysis Tool
While the tool was developed using samples of work from Year 1
classrooms, a review of the tool will demonstrate that the range of
samples crosses from those in the very early stages of writing more
often associated with the Foundation Year to those who may be in Year 2
or 3 classrooms. To open the Analysis Tool copy the following URL into
your browser (either Mozilla Firefox or Google Chrome):
https://doms.csu.edu.au/csu/file/832c364a-855c-4e39-aac5-1dc9a96fa8cf/1/Writing%20Analysis%20 Tool.zip/Writing%20Analysis%20Tool/index.html The
tool has six columns, three of which specifically pertain to the
authorial dimensions of writing (text structure, sentence
structure/grammar, vocabulary) and three of which relate to the
editorial or secretarial dimensions (spelling, punctuation and
handwriting). The level of attainment is displayed on a continuum with
six specific descriptors for each dimension. These descriptors were
created based on an analysis of the writing samples collected for the
study, thus children's own writing rather than any pre-determined
expectation, continuum or curriculum guided the development of the
attainment levels. The tool is not connected to the Australian
Curriculum or any other syllabus or curriculum (see Mackenzie, Scull,
& Munsie, 2013 for explanation of the tool development process).
That said, the tool could be used in parallel with school, state and
national curriculum frameworks.
By keeping the tool non-curriculum specific, we hope that it will
be useful to a wide range of teachers who work across different systems
with different curricula. For each descriptor in the electronic tool we
have provided a writing sample that is illustrative of the dimension and
attainment level.
How to use the tool
There are a number of different ways that teachers can use the
tool. We have identified four:
* The first pertains to the analysis of writing of a specific
student. These data can be used to map a student's growth across an
identified period of time (for example, a term, semester or a year).
Teachers can decide how frequently to analyse the samples of individual
students but this will most probably be determined by the needs of
particular students. For example, it is likely that the progress of
students who are experiencing difficulties with writing will need to be
monitored more closely than those who are making good progress.
* The second way to use the tool is to look across samples from a
number of students with a focus on a particular dimension (for example,
vocabulary) to consider progress in one area of writing. By mapping the
attainment levels of students, and then looking ahead at the descriptors
that follow, decisions regarding grouping and teaching can be supported.
* The third way to use the tool is to check that a dimension (or
skill within a dimension) you have been teaching has been understood by
the class, group or individual.
* Finally, the tool can help teachers prepare for parent teacher
discussions, discussions with specialists who may be assessing a student
for extra assistance, or for report writing.
To analyse a sample
We suggest teachers start with the skill areas they find easiest to
identify. Teachers tell us that the editorial skills--spelling,
punctuation and handwriting--are those they are most confident examining
in the first instance. Consider the descriptors that are closest to
describing the sample. Analysis is easiest if you work with a colleague,
discussing the range of descriptors and those that might be considered
the best fit, working towards consensus. This process is never going to
be black and white; learning to write is too complex for that. Teachers
often report that samples cross over descriptions with students'
writing 'sort of in one descriptor and sort of in the next
one'. This is expected as students rarely fit neatly into all
categories (see sample 1 below for Vocabulary). Print copies of the tool
can be marked or highlighted to map the profile of students across the
six dimensions, using a range of colours to indicate progress over time.
The PDF copy of the tool for this purpose is on the same site as the
Electronic Tool. To locate this version, click on the
'Research' tab.
It is important to note the numbers on the tool are for labelling
convenience only; don't be tempted to add them up.
Below are the descriptors for a sample analysed using the Tool. In
this sample, the student has been rated lower on the spelling and
punctuation continua than for handwriting. This may reflect the
individual child's interests or capacity or it may reflect the
emphasis of the class program and current or past teaching. Students
will try to please the teacher, so their writing skills may also reflect
what the teacher has explicitly praised in the past.
Once the closest descriptors in regard to the editorial skills have
been identified, you can move on to the authorial skills (see example
above). Attainment levels for text structure will be impacted greatly by
the prior teaching of different text types. If the text type is
familiar, and the student has experienced lots of modelling and
co-construction, we usually see that students are further along this
skill continuum than when working with a text type that is new. Sentence
structure is also strongly linked to teaching therefore it is a way to
monitor what individual students have taken on board and are able to
apply when writing independently.
1. Mapping an individual student's writing journey
One way to map what an individual has already learnt and is able to
demonstrate when writing independently is to collect samples of
independent writing within a time limit (for example, 20 minutes) at
regular intervals (for example, the start of each term). Ensuring that
the writing samples produced are unassisted is important, so that this a
reliable indicator of what students know and can do independently,
otherwise details of the support provided need to be documented. Think
of the process as similar to the way running records of a child's
reading are recorded, with teaching occurring straight after the
writing, if there is something that needs urgent attention. A small
number of analysed samples collected at intervals are far more useful
than a folder full of unanalysed artefacts. In sample 1, the skills
demonstrated place the student in the middle of the continua. The
challenge will be to see if future samples demonstrate change over time.
Change over time in an individual student's learning
In the samples below (see Figures 2 and 3), the student has shown
shifts in all of the six dimensions. The first sample collected at the
middle of Year 1, was analysed and rated against the continuum as: Text
Structure: 3, Sentence Structure: 2, Vocabulary: 3, Spelling: 1,
Punctuation: 1, and Handwriting: 1.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
The second sample from the same student collected at the end of the
year (see Figure 3), was rated as: Text Structure: 5, Sentence
Structure: 4, Vocabulary: 5, Spelling: 2, Punctuation: 2, and
Handwriting: 2. The two samples demonstrate the considerable growth the
student has made in all dimensions, however they are still in need of
explicit teaching in terms of the editorial skills. If the Year 2
teacher were provided with this analysed sample at the start of the
year, they would have a clear starting point for this student: knowing
what strengths they have demonstrated in the authorial skills and their
needs in terms of editorial skills.
2. Making decisions about a group teaching focus
When samples from a small group or the whole class are analysed,
patterns across the teaching group may become evident. The patterns we
found across a large sample of Year 1 students and the shifts we
observed from the middle to the end of the school year are reported in
Mackenzie, Scull, and Bowles (2015). The paper also details the
attainment levels for males and females, English Additional Language
students, and students from a range of socioeconomic status backgrounds.
This will enable comparisons with a large cohort of Year 1 students.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
We identified shifts in control over text structure, sentence
structure and vocabulary although there was a continued reliance on
everyday language and high frequency words in many of the samples. While
there were improvements in spelling this was not an area where it was
easy to identify strong patterns across our large group. In our samples,
punctuation changed very little across the second half of Year 1, with
many students confident in their use of capital letters and full stops
and showing little experimentation with other forms of punctuation.
There were however, some students who were quite sophisticated in their
use of punctuation. The Writing Analysis Tool also provides text
examples illustrative of the range of attainment in this area. When it
came to handwriting we observed improvement in the consistency of
placement of letters, spacing between words and regularity of letter
size by the end of the year. We also noted a:
... relationship between the quality and quantity of the
composition and the appearance of the handwriting. While this may be
linked to a student's ability to construct ideas, it may also be
linked to their ability to transcribe letters and words easily and
fluently and therefore attend to the authorial requisites of the task.
(Mackenzie et al., 2015, p. 583)
Different trends will be evident in writing and across class
groupings as these are strongly linked to teaching.
3. Responsive teaching
Although there are well-documented links between teaching and
learning, if students are not demonstrating control over what has been a
focus of teaching then there has been a break down somewhere. The
analysis of a random sample of students' work across a class cohort
may provide a quick indication of the take up of a new skill, while
individual samples will help identify those students who need more
explicit teaching offered in a different way. The tool will help you
group students for focused writing lessons and utilise scaffolding
approaches and support.
4. Reporting Progress
The tool has been helpful in documenting and explaining the
progress students have made in specific rather than general ways.
Although samples on their own can be helpful to show change over time,
analysed annotated texts allow for a more explicit description of
learning. Teachers have indicated that the descriptors are useful when
helping them describe a student's progress to parents and when
writing reports.
Conclusion
The Writing Analysis Tool discussed here enables teachers to
monitor progress and identify areas for teaching at individual, group
and class levels. Use of the Tool supports teaching decisions based on
students' levels of attainment and informed by an integrated
understanding of the dimensions of early writing. In all, this draws
together discrete areas of learning, that when combined within
instructional practice, assists young writers to create a range of texts
of increasing complexity and interest.
References
Mackenzie, N.M., Scull J., & Bowles, T. (2015). Change over
time: An analysis of texts created by Year One students. Australian
Educational Researcher, 42 (5), 567-593.
Mackenzie, N.M., Scull, J., & Munsie, L. (2013). Analysing
writing: The development of a tool for use in the early years of
schooling. Issues in Educational Research, 23 (3), 375-391.
Oxford University Press. (2008). Oxford Wordlist. Retrieved from:
http://au.oup.com/downloads/Education/
Primary/Successful_Teacher/Oxford_Wordlist.pdf
Noella Mackenzie is a Senior Lecturer in literacy studies at
Charles Sturt University, Albury. Noella's research focuses on:
writing development in the early years; the relationship between
drawing, talking and writing; and the transition experiences of early
writers. Her research is informed by her ongoing work with classroom
teachers. Email: nmackenzie@csu.edu.au
Janet Scull is an Associate Professor at Monash University. Her
research interests focus on the areas of language and literacy
acquisition, literacy teaching and assessment, and teaching practices
that support the continuity of children's literacy learning across
early childhood settings and the early years of schooling. Email:
janet.scull@monash.edu
Figure 1. Sample 1
Spelling (2): Semi-phonetic, consonant
framework, alongside representation of dominant
vowel sounds; correct spelling of some two and
three letter high frequency words (for example,
'my', 'to')
Punctuation (2): Some use of capital letters and
full stops
Handwriting (4): Letters correctly formed, mostly
well-spaced and positioned
Text Structure (4): Four or more sequenced
ideas/events; clearly connected
Sentence Structure (4): Uses simple and
compound sentences with appropriate
conjunctions (for example, 'and', 'but', 'because',
'then') and adverbial phrases to indicate when,
where, how, why, what
Vocabulary (3/4): Everyday vocabulary as per the
Oxford Wordlist (Oxford University Press, 2008),
plus specific use of 'Once upon a time', 'monster',
and 'happily ever after'