Writing Assessment Rubric

Writing Assessment Rubric An Instructional Approach with Struggling Writers B a r b a r a R. S c h i r m e r Jill Bailey

Will all children develop as writers if

English as a s e c o n d language, children

a u d i e n c e . In this type o f a p p r o a c h , rela­

they are i m m e r s e d in a learning envi­

w h o are deaf, and s o m e children with

tively Utile instructional time is devoted

ronment

language

rich

with

opportunities

to

write? W h a t if they are allowed to select

must

to t e a c h i n g children the rules, c o n v e n ­

learn to write at the s a m e time they are

learning

disabilities

tions, and qualities o f writing. I n s t e a d ,

their o w n topics, granted time to e n g a g e

learning to b e c o m e proficient users o f

children

in all the stages of the writing process,

t h e English language. T h e s e children

increasingly sophisticated n o t i o n s a b o u t

expected

to

develop

and given the freedom to m o v e b a c k

m a y not b e a b l e to s u c c e e d in a writing

writing through

and

program that a s s u m e s they c a n apply

with others. Children w h o are struggling

forth

between

the

stages?

How

sharing

their

writing

about if they are encouraged to discuss

their k n o w l e d g e o f the spoken language

writers

direct

instruction

and share their writing with others? For

to learning the written language. T h e y

than t h e s e p r o c e s s writing

approaches

many

have traditionally i n c o r p o r a t e d .

need

more

yes

m a y n e e d explicit instruction in the fea­

b e c a u s e these features o f a c l a s s r o o m

tures o f good writing and precise and

writing program are m o r e than

differential feedback about their writ­

return to the instructional

ing.

that are often c h a r a c t e r i z e d as product

children,

the

answer

is

suffi­

cient. For s o m e children, however, the a n s w e r is no b e c a u s e while these fea­

ο ζ

are

Product vs. Protess Writing?

cient. Children need differing a m o u n t s ,

S i n c e the eariy

1980s, when

children are taught

process

degrees, and kinds o f instruction about

writing a p p r o a c h e s emerged at the out­

writing; and they benefit from differing

set o f the w h o l e language

types and frequencies o f feedback about

(Graves, 1 9 8 3 ; Tompkins, 2 0 0 0 ) , teach­

their writing.

ers h a v e taught writing by focusing on

because English.

they

are

Children

struggling who

are

with

learning

movement

the child's thinking, from inception o f idea to c o m p l e t e d c o m p o s i t i o n . With instructional Writing

approaches

Workshop

such

(Atwell,

as

1998;

Calkins, 1 9 9 4 ) , children are e n c o u r a g e d

a 6

to e n g a g e in all stages of the writing process (i.e., planning, drafting, revis­ RUBRICS WITH

ΡΚΟΜΠΙ: 1 BRIDGi:

nii:

ΊΊ.ΛΠΙΙ.Κ Β!Ί]\Π:\

ing, editing), to write about self-selected topics at their o w n p a c e , and to deter­ m i n e w h e t h e r any given c o m p o s i t i o n

issTRiicrm

52

•

wn

ASSI.SSMIM:

approaches

a p p r o a c h e s ? In a product a p p r o a c h , the

tures m a y b e necessary, they are insuffi­

M a n y children struggle with writing

S h o u l d t e a c h e r s o f struggling writers

will b e c o m p l e t e d and shared with an

a writing skill o r

rule, given practice in recognizing and applying it, and a s k e d to carry out a writing a s s i g n m e n t that requires

they

u s e it. T h e t e a c h e r grades the final c o m ­ position b a s e d on u s e o f the skill o r rule, the degree to w h i c h the c o m p o s i ­ tion is free o f m e c h a n i c a l or g r a m m a t i ­ cal errors, and h o w well it reflects o t h e r skills and

rules that

were

previously

taught. For struggling writers, n e i t h e r "prod­ u c t " nor " p r o c e s s " writing a p p r o a c h e s , in and o f t h e m s e l v e s , provide the kind of support that s o m e students n e e d to develop

as

approach

assumes

T H E COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Downloaded from tcx.sagepub.com at COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN (CEC) on July 20, 2015

writers. that

The

product

students

can

struggling with English. W i t h this possi­

A BALANCED APPROACH TO WRITING INSTRUCTION WOULD

writing took a variety o f forms. S o m e

bility in m i n d , w e used a writing a s s e s s ­

involved self-selected topics and could

m e n t rubric with two c l a s s e s o f children

be characterized as creative and imagi­

w h o are deaf.

native; others involved assigned reports

SEEM TO COMBINE THE BEST

that took the form o f expository writing. U s i n g the S t r a t e g y w i t h Children W h o Are Deaf

FEATURES OF THE PROCESS AND PRODUCT APPROACHES.

Most were c o m p l e t e d within a w e e k , although m a n y took several w e e k s . Jill

Jill w a s the middle s c h o o l language arts

evaluated e a c h c o m p o s i t i o n using the

t e a c h e r at the Oregon S c h o o l for the

rubric and returned her ratings to the

D e a f w h e n s h e i m p l e m e n t e d the strate­

students. During writing, the

gy. Classes at s c h o o l s for the deaf are

had frequent

typically small w h e n c o m p a r e d to gen­

traits and criteria.

students

conversations about

the

apply the rules and skills o f the English

eral education c l a s s e s . Jill's

fifth-grade

We c o m p a r e d a set o f c o m p o s i t i o n s

language.

approach

class had four students, and her sev­

from the fall, w h e n the students w e r e just learning to use the rubric, with a set

The

process

a s s u m e s that they c a n internalize the

enth-grade c l a s s had six students. All o f

rules and skills through a m p l e opportu­

the children e x c e p t o n e w e r e severely or

from the next spring. W e found that use

nities to write and discuss writing. As

profoundly deaf, and they c o m m u n i c a t ­

of the rubric as a teaching strategy sig­

either-or

approaches,

ed in either A m e r i c a n Sign L a n g u a g e

nificantly

daunting

task

(ASL)

writing for both the fifth and seventh

for

both

present

children

who

learning and

possibly struggling

the

language.

spoken

A

a are

o r a c o n t a c t language o f A S L —

with

approaches.

One

strategy that reflects this b a l a n c e is the writing

assessment

The

MANY CHILDREN STRUGGLE WITH

STRUGGLING WITH ENGLISH.

dimensions,

assessed based

along

on

per­

several

predetermined

criteria. During the 1 9 9 0 s , m a n y s c h o o l districts—and analytical

a

few

states—adopted

scoring procedures

for

systematic a s s e s s m e n t o f student

the writ­

ing. T h e s e analytical s c o r i n g procedures are

essentially rubrics.

In

a

writing

a s s e s s m e n t rubric, several traits o f writ­ ing are identified as representing impor­ tant qualities, and a s c a l e is developed for

e a c h trait. W h e n a c o m p o s i t i o n is

evaluated, it receives a separate s c o r e for e a c h trait. For e x a m p l e , o n e o f the best k n o w n rubrics for writing is the Six-Trait Analytical S c a l e developed by Spandel

and

Stiggins

(1997),

which

identifies s i x writing traits: ideas, organ­ ization, voice, word

choice,

sentence

fluency, and c o n v e n t i o n s . Given

that

descrip­

tures that were logical and b a l a n c e d .

demonstrating of audience,

their

choosing

m a n u a l l y c o d e d English. (A c o n t a c t lan­

words

correct s e n t e n c e structures, and avoid­

guage, c o m b i n e s features o f two lan­

ing errors in m e c h a n i c s .

carefully,

using

grammatically

guages. B y using features o f A S L and features

o f E n g l i s h , individuals

communicate,

or m a k e

contact

can with

Modifications of the Strategy Our study led us to c o n c l u d e that the

e a c h other, through a simplified version

writing a s s e s s m e n t rubric could

of b o t h languages.) O n e student had a

students w h o are struggling writers to

moderate-severe hearing loss and c o m ­

r e c o g n i z e s o m e qualities o f writing and

municated

orally

(i.e.,

speech,

incorporate

these qualities into

help

their

s p e e c h r e a d i n g , amplification o f sound

o w n c o m p o s i t i o n s . On the other hand,

through hearing a i d s ) .

the rubric that Jill used, w h i c h w a s a

Jill used a writing a s s e s s m e n t rubric

static tool, could not address individual

adapted from the G l e n c o e English Series

student

( 1 9 8 4 ) ; (see Table 1 ) . S h e spent approx­

tional goals. It clearly had to b e modi-

n e e d s and c l a s s r o o m instruc­

imately two c l a s s periods teaching e a c h of the traits. Jill explained the trait, dis­ c u s s e d the criteria, and gave n u m e r o u s e x a m p l e s . S h e then divided the students into t e a m s and gave e a c h t e a m a s a m p l e

rubrics b o t h identify a few specific qual­

port their scores with e x a m p l e s from the

ities o f writing and provide a descrip­

c o m p o s i t i o n . O n c e Jill had taught all

tion

seven traits in Table 1, s h e told the stu­

would

relevant

guage, s o m e t i m e s called a pidgin lan­

of writing to evaluate. Team m e m b e r s

they

clear and

understanding

had to agree on the evaluation and sup­

qualities,

providing

following the s a m e text structure within

assessment

of these

writing

in

tions, and using organizational struc­

compositions,

Rubrics h a v e b e c o m e popular as a s s e s s ­ is

improved

T h e y did not improve in consistently

A s s e s s m e n t Tool o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l Strategy?

formance

students

clear topics and c o n t e n t , developing sto­ ries with

WRITING BECAUSE THEY ARE

rubric.

m e n t tools. In a rubric, student

traits o f

(Schirmer, Bailey, & Fitzgerald, 1 9 9 9 ) .

would

s e e m to c o m b i n e the best features o f the p r o c e s s and product

several

graders but did not improve o t h e r traits

balanced

a p p r o a c h to writing instruction

improved

appear to h a v e potential v a l u e as an

dents

instructional tool with children w h o are

compositions

that

she

would

with

the

evaluate

their

rubric.

Their

TEACHERS

CAS MODIFY

TO BECOME DVSAMIC

CAS ACCOMMODATE IS

STUDESTS,

ASSICSMESTS,

T E A C H I N G EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN •

Downloaded from tcx.sagepub.com at COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN (CEC) on July 20, 2015

ASD

RUBRICS

TOOLS

THAT

imTERESCFS COSIEST, CURRICULUM.

SEPT/OCT 2000 •

S3

Tabl* 1 . U n i v « r M l - T y p « Rubric

Score Writing QuaUties

R e s p o n s e to Prompt/Sequences

Attempt to respond to the prompt; unclear sequence o f events.

Adequate r e s p o n s e to the prompt; sequence may be u n c l e a r in m a n y places.

G o o d r e s p o n s e to the prompt; s e q u e n c e m a y not b e entirely c l e a r throughout c o m p o ­ sition.

Good r e s p o n s e to the prompt, intro­ duced at b e g i n n i n g of c o m p o s i t i o n ; clear sequence of events.

Story Development

Unclear or c o m ­ pletely lacking.

Adequate but includes irrelevant or not e n o u g h descriptions o r explanations.

G o o d but m a y include a n irrele­ vant description o r explanation.

Clear with no irrel­ evant descriptions or e x p l a n a t i o n s .

Organization

Not discernible.

Not c o m p l e t e l y clear

Good but m a y include too m u c h emphasis on one part o f the c o m p o ­ sition.

G o o d ; c l e a r begin­ ning, middle, a n d end.

Word Choice

Nonspecific and immature.

Adequate.

G o o d b u t not par­ ticularly fresh o r vivid.

Fresh a n d vigorous.

Details

Lack of details.

Few details.

Sufficient details.

Variety of interest­ ing details.

S e n t e n c e Structures

Incorrect and inap­ propriate through­ out c o m p o s i t i o n .

M a n y incorrect and inappropriate.

M o s t l y correct and appropriate.

Almost completely correct and appro­ priate.

M e c h a n i c s (punc­ tuation, capitaliza­ tion, a n d spelling)

M a n y serious errors.

Serious errors.

Some errors.

Very few or no errors.

Note: Adapted from Glencoe

English

Series,

Teacher's

resource

book.

fied to b e c o m e a m o r e d y n a m i c tool that

expressive l a n g u a g e

could a c c o m m o d a t e differences in stu­

benefit from a rubric that focuses on

tion, o u r study led us to b e l i e v e that

dents, c o n t e n t , a s s i g n m e n t s , and

organization o f ideas.

t e a c h e r s o f students w h o are struggling

riculum.

cur­

For example, a child with lim­

ited English proficiency might from a rubric that

The

rubric w e used

in the

might

using o n e universal rubric for instruc­

study

writers should

develop grade-level

i n c o φ o r a t e d key qualities o f good writ­

individualized

rubrics.

As

or

students

word

ing and the attributes o f the m a n y kinds

b e c o m e skilled at incorporating general

c h o i c e as a m e t h o d for expanding the

of writing that students are e x p e c t e d to

qualities o f writing, the t e a c h e r c a n cre­

child's knowledge and use o f v o c a b u ­

do,

expository,

ate rubrics b a s e d on the genre that t h e

lary. On the other h a n d , a child with

descriptive, and persuasive. Instead o f

students are writing o r a s p e c t s o f a writ-

54

•

focuses o n

benefit

difficulties

including

narrative,

T H E COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Downloaded from tcx.sagepub.com at COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN (CEC) on July 20, 2015

ing a s s i g n m e n t . In the next s e c t i o n , w e present rubrics w e developed as e x a m ­

table

a . ModHiod UnlverMil-Typo Rubric

ples o f o n e s that t e a c h e r s c a n u s e in their instruction.

•nrait

Definition

Rubrics for Instruction

Topic

Clear and introduced at beginning o f c o m p o s i t i o n .

Content

Good b a l a n c e b e t w e e n central ideas a n d details; a n e c d o t e s a n d details enrich the central t h e m e or story line; details a n d e x a m p l e s fit in well; ideas are clear, c o m p l e t e , and welldeveloped.

Story

Clear d e v e l o p m e n t ; no irrelevant descriptions or e x p l a n a t i o n s , but sufficient description and explanation.

W h e n developing a writing a s s e s s m e n t rubric for instruction, the t e a c h e r n e e d s to • Identify the qualities o f writing. • C r e a t e a scale. • Define e a c h

quality

by

listing

the

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that d e s c r i b e perform­

Development

a n c e at e a c h point o n the scale. T e a c h e r s c a n u s e th e rubric in Table

Organization

Presentation o f ideas is logical; clear beginning, middle, a n d end; c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n ideas are drawn; transitions are smooth.

Text Structure

Clearly identifiable; consistently used throughout c o m p o s i ­ tion.

Voice/Audience

D e m o n s t r a t e s g e n u i n e interest and e n t h u s i a s m in topic; e x p r e s s e s ideas in original ways rather than predictable w a y s ; d e m o n s t r a t e s c o n c e r n that the reader responds to the writing.

Word C h o i c e

C h o s e n carefully; fresh a n d vivid; conveys just the right m e a n i n g ; imagery is strong; little or no use o f c l i c h e s or jar­ gon; appropriate use o f colorful or technical language.

Sentence Structure

S m o o t h , e a s y to read and understand; correct a n d appropriate; variety o f structures are used.

Mechanics

Errors in capitalization, punctuation, spelling, a n d para­ graphing are so few and so m i n o r that the reader barely n o t i c e s t h e m ; they do not interfere with the reading flow, a n d they do not draw the reader's attention away from the ideas being presented.

1 as a t e m p l a t e for creating new rubrics. For e x a m p l e , w e created a n e w rubric in Table 2 , w h i c h includes several o f the traits from the rubric in Table 1. " T o p i c " and

"Content"

replace

"Response

to

P r o m p t / S e q u e n c e " and "Details"; and we

added

"Text

Structure"

and

" V o i c e / A u d i e n c e . " W e retained

"Story

Development," "Organization,"

"Word

Choice,"

"Sentence

"Mechanics."

The

Structure," Table

and

1

rubric

includes a four-point s c a l e a n d a sepa­ rate definition for e a c h trait. T h e rubric in Table 2 includes a five-point s c a l e , o n e definition for e a c h trait, a n d the cri­ teria o f " M a n y strengths—few w e a k n e s s e s " to " M a n y

or

no

weaknesses-

few or no s t r e n g t h s , " for e a c h o f the traits.

Creating a n d Using Rubrics T h e t e a c h e r c a n c r e a t e individualized or grade-level shifting

rubrics

by

changing

the traits. In addition

to

the

traits in the first two rubrics, " I d e a s , " "Sentence Fluency," "Purpose," "Com­ plexity," a n d " F o r m " are just a few traits that

can

be

added

w h i l e others

Scale

and

are

1 = M a n y w e a k n e s s e s , few or no strengths 2 = M o r e w e a k n e s s e s than strengths 3 = B a l a n c e o f strengths a n d w e a k n e s s e s 4 = M o r e strengths than w e a k n e s s e s 5 = M a n y strengths, few or n o w e a k n e s s e s

r e m o v e d . For e x a m p l e , using the format o f the T a b l e 2 rubric, t h e s e traits c a n b e • CompZexiiy—Several

defined in the following way: • W e a s — M a i n ideas are e a s y to distin­ guish tion;

from

less important

they are

informa­

well supported

and

clearly;

author

information;

provides difficult

are

presented sufficient ideas

are

explained correctly a n d clearly.

fully e x p l a i n e d . • Sentence

ideas

brought together well a n d

F/uency—Sentences have a

• F o r m - F o r m o f the writing

matches

good flow a n d rhythm; they are e a s y

the purpose; a u t h o r w e a v e s several

to u n d e r s t a n d ; they follow logically

forms together effectively.

THE STAGES / \ THE W'RinNC PROCESS: PEAsmc,

W e developed the rubric in Table 3 to

from o n e to the next. • Purpos^Author's

SOME WRrnsc RUBRICS IKCEUDE

p u r p o s e is clear;

show

o n e that and

teachers c a n u s e

ideas a n d information relate clearly to

teaching

reinforcing

the

the purpose.

process. T h e traits o f writing in

for

writing

REVISING, Eimm;,

nRAEim:, ASD

PUBEISHISG.

this

T E A C H I N G EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN •

Downloaded from tcx.sagepub.com at COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN (CEC) on July 20, 2015

SEPT/OCT 2000 •

55

Table 3 . WriHng Process Rubric S