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'