Writing to the Common Core

AAAL/ACLA 2015 March 22, 2015 Toronto, Canada

Writing to the Common Core: Teachers’ Responses to Changes in Standards and Assessments for Writing in Elementary and Middle Schools Kristen Campbell Wilcox- University at Albany

Project Purpose 

The primary purpose for this study is to identify the school practices and policies found in elementary and middle schools whose students exceeded performance expectations on the 2012-2013 New York State assessments in ELA and

mathematics, which were the first to be aligned with Common Core State Standards (CCSS).

Research Design: Multiple Case Study District-Level Interviews

School-Level Interviews and Focus Groups

Other Data Sources



Superintendent Interview



Principal Interview



Interpretive Memo



Asst. Super for Curriculum & Instruction Interview



Building Leadership Team Focus Group



Classroom observation protocol ELA Part 1



Mainstream Content Teacher Focus Group



Classroom observation protocol Math Part 1



Support Staff Focus Group (School Psychologist, Social Worker, Nurse)



Classroom observation Part 2



Documents



ESL Teacher Interview (or Focus Group upon request)



Surveys:



(1) Of all Staff



(2) Of teachers of math and English Language Arts



Director of Special Education



Community Outreach Coordinator



Director of Assessment



Director of Professional Development



Director of ESL/Bilingual Ed



Director of Student Services



Special Education Interview (or Focus Group upon request)



Instructional Coach/Master Teacher Interview



Individual Mainstream Teacher Debrief Interview

Elementary School Sample

Middle School Sample

6 Odds beating* schools

6 Odds beating schools

3 Typically-performing** schools 3 Typically-performing schools

Elementary Schools Middle Schools

*Odds beating = significantly higher-than-predicted outcomes on CCSS ELA assessments ** Typically-performing= predicted outcomes on CCSS ELA assessments

Timeline for Project Analysis of 2012-2013 data to identify schools exceeding expectations conducted, instruments completed, and IRB approved (late in the fall of 2013). School recruitment and site visit arrangements made (early winter – spring 2014)

Site visits conducted (February – December 2014)

Coding of case study data and writing of individual school case studies (June 2014 – March 2015)

Cross-case analyses (August 2014– June 2015)

Related Literature 

The CCSS propose six instructional shifts to increase rigor in teaching and learning. They include: (1) reading a balance of narrative and informational texts, (2) building knowledge through texts,

(3) reading grade-appropriate texts, (4) engaging in evidence-based discussions around texts, (5) writing using evidence from sources to enhance argumentative and informative writing, and (6) building academic vocabulary

(Engage NY, 2015)

Related Literature When translated into classroom practice and assessment, the CCSS hold both “promises” and potential “perils” for writing instruction (Applebee, 2013, p. 26). The promises include: 

raised expectations for writing across disciplines, particularly argumentative and informative writing.

The perils include: 

An overemphasis on foundational skills that take shape in drilling exercises on grammar, spelling, vocabulary, etc.



A related disregard for a developmental model to guide instruction that would emphasize the use of a “flexible array of strategies” rather than a formulaic “use concrete details” approach;



Teaching to the test by narrowing instruction to only those types of tasks required on the assessment and using only test rubrics to assess writing quality.

Related Literature In their analysis of the CCSS, Troia and Olinghouse (2013) noted several standards across K-5 have a strong research base:

12 evidence-based practices are absent from the K-5 CCSS:

pre-writing/planning/drafting, text structure instruction, word processing, handwriting/typing skills, sentence combining, decreasing spelling errors, decreasing grammar errors, writing responses to text, and collaborating with peers.

free writing, process writing, comprehensive writing instruction, strategy instruction, assistive technology, summarizing, writing to learn, selfregulation/meta-cognition, goal setting, using rubrics, evaluations, and presentation (legibilty/mechanical correctness).



This analysis suggests that learners will have gaps in writing knowledge and competencies if teachers only follow the CCSS.

Research Questions Our overarching question for this embedded study was: 

How do teachers in elementary schools with above-predicted and predicted outcomes on Common Core ELA assessments approach writing instruction?

Sub-questions: 1.

How often do teachers report assigning writing tasks?

2.

What kinds of writing tasks do teachers report assigning?

3.

How are teachers teaching writing as they attempt to align to the CCSS for writing?

4.

What perspectives do teachers hold regarding aligning their instruction to the CCSS for writing?

Data Sources (elementary only) Interviews

69

Focus Groups

45

Observations

49

Documents

205

Instructional Survey

117

Findings 1.

Q1:How often do teachers report assigning writing tasks?

1.

Around 56% of teachers reported having students write informative pieces (e.g., reports and summaries) at least once a week, with just under a third also indicating having students write narratives and/or persuasive pieces at least once a week.

2.

Around 30% of teachers did not report having students respond to any writing tasks at least once a week.

Findings 1.

Q2:What kinds of writing tasks do teachers report assigning?

1.

Teachers were most likely to report assigning spelling or grammar exercises (42%) every day than any other activity in English language arts class.

2.

Approximately 61% of teachers reported having students discuss others’ work at least once a week.

3.

In contrast, the activities that teachers were most likely to report using less than once a week were using sources to craft a text (71%), making a formal outline (69%), defining the purpose of an essay (63%), and revising a report they had written (59%).

In general, teachers who reported a greater frequency of informative writing tended to also report more frequent use of other types of writing activities* * there were statistically significant correlation coefficients between r = .369 to .565

Teachers were observed engaging students in a variety of writing tasks that included integrating academic vocabulary, comparing and contrasting texts, writing for different audiences (e.g. scientists, politicians), and writing based on research.

Findings 1.

Q3:How are teachers teaching writing as they attempt to align to the CCSS for writing?

Oftentimes these writing activities were taken directly from the CCSS instructional modules made available by the state. https://www.engageny.org/resource/grade-3-ela-module-2a

Teachers reported providing students with writing samples scored at different levels on the state’s rubric to guide students’ writing.

“The students are given a writing sample at the beginning of the year, and then we assess it. At the end of the year, we give them another one, and we assess it. Of course, we’re looking for growth”.

Findings 1.

Q3:How are teachers teaching writing as they attempt to align to the CCSS for writing?

(teacher)

Grade 3 rubric example: Content and analysis; command and evidence; Coherence, organization, and style; Control of conventions

Teachers also crafted a variety of rubrics for different kinds of writing assignments and provided these to students.

Findings 1.

Q3:How are teachers teaching writing as they attempt to align to the CCSS for writing?

“We have writing rubrics that are done by some of our coaching staff and so even if the kids are doing journal writing and things like that we are using the rubric and trying to find and develop small groups like these kids may need to work more on main idea or this group might really need some work with lead sentences and there are rubrics that we have that can we can use in all areas.” (teacher)

Teachers generally expressed a view of the Common Core “instructional modules” as a way to ensure that they are translating the standards into CCSS-aligned instructional practices and they see the intent behind them as justified.

“What I really like about the modules is that by doing the modules you’re covering the standards”.

Findings 1.

Q4:What perspectives do teachers hold regarding aligning their instruction to the CCSS for writing?

(teacher)

Teachers expressed raising their expectations for writing – in amount, frequency, and quality as they align their instructional practices to the CCSS.

Findings 1.

Q4:What perspectives do teachers hold regarding aligning their instruction to the CCSS for writing?

“I feel like we’re doing a lot more writing. I am and I don’t know about you. You have always done a lot. I feel like we’re doing a lot more writing. Less creative writing, more essay writing, opinion writing, research, note taking, reading texts for evidence, using more of a close reading model so that kids are thinking much more critically as opposed to just ‘Ok read this and answer this question’. They have to really be thinking about what they’re reading and make more inferences. It’s not just there in the text. They really have to be thinking a lot more deeply”. (teacher)

Teachers expressed an understanding that they are now more actively seeking improvement in the details students provide in their writing.

“Usually I have to explain what it means to use details. Putting details in their writing is very difficult for them. They are learning to put it in their own words with main idea and details”.

Findings 1.

Q4:What perspectives do teachers hold regarding aligning their instruction to the CCSS for writing?

(teacher)

Some teachers reported that their students are having more difficulty with creative writing since the focus of the Common Core is on reading nonfiction texts and argumentative and informative writing.

Findings 1.

Q4:What perspectives do teachers hold regarding aligning their instruction to the CCSS for writing?

“You can’t give them [students] a task. They’re like, ‘But what do I have to do?’ Sometimes I give them a like a topic to write about and it’s you know creative writing— to draw some analogies. Some of them are like, ‘I can’t.’ And then they can’t go beyond because we’re teaching them how to do it exactly. Everything’s got to have a topic sentence. There’s a certain way to do it. It’s like a formula. They’re afraid of doing it wrong”. (teacher)

Some teachers reported that their students are having more difficulty with creative writing since the focus of the Common Core is on reading nonfiction texts and argumentative and informative writing.

Findings 1.

Q4:What perspectives do teachers hold regarding aligning their instruction to the CCSS for writing?

“You can’t give them [students] a task. They’re like, ‘But what do I have to do?’ Sometimes I give them a like a topic to write about and it’s you know creative writing— to draw some analogies. Some of them are like, ‘I can’t.’ And then they can’t go beyond because we’re teaching them how to do it exactly. Everything’s got to have a topic sentence. There’s a certain way to do it. It’s like a formula. They’re afraid of doing it wrong”. (teacher)

The potential promises revisited Promise

Findings

 More than half of teachers reported having students write informative Raised expectations for pieces (e.g. reports and summaries) at least once a week. writing across disciplines, particularly  Teachers were observed engaging students in a variety of writing tasks argumentative and that included integrating academic vocabulary, comparing and informative writing. contrasting texts, writing for different audiences (e.g. scientists, politicians), and research writing.

 Teachers reported raising their expectations for writing – in amount, frequency, and quality.

The potential perils revisited Peril 1 An overemphasis on foundational skills that take shape in drilling exercises on grammar, spelling, vocabulary, etc.

Findings

 Teachers were most likely to report assigning spelling or grammar exercises (42%) every day than any other activity.  Teachers were observed using templates for writing that mimicked fill-in-the-blank exercises.

The potential perils revisited Peril 2 Findings Disregarding a developmental model to  Some teachers reported that their guide instruction that would emphasize students are having more difficulty with the use of a “flexible array of strategies” creative writing since the focus of the rather than a formulaic “use concrete Common Core is on reading non-fiction details” approach texts and crafting informative and argumentative writing where the emphasis is on providing details to support claims.

The potential perils revisited Peril 3 Teaching to the test by narrowing instruction to only those types of tasks required on the assessment and using test rubrics to assess writing quality.

Findings  Teachers reported providing students with writing samples scored at different levels on the state’s rubric to guide students’ writing and explicitly teaching students how to write a level 4 (highest score) piece following formulas.

Potential highlights and absences In their analysis of the CCSS, Troia and Olinghouse (2013) noted several standards across K-5 have a strong research base:

12 evidence-based practices are absent from the K-5 CCSS:

pre-writing/planning/drafting, text structure instruction, word processing, handwriting/typing skills, sentence combining, decreasing spelling errors, decreasing grammar errors, writing responses to text, and collaborating with peers.

free writing, process writing, comprehensive writing instruction, strategy instruction, assistive technology, summarizing, writing to learn, selfregulation/meta-cognition, goal setting, using rubrics, evaluations, and presentation (legibilty/mechanical correctness).



This analysis suggests that learners will have gaps in writing knowledge and competencies if teachers only follow the CCSS.

Absences

Highlights

The potential highlights and absences revisited pre-writing/planning/drafting, text structure instruction, word processing, handwriting/typing skills, sentence combining, decreasing spelling errors, decreasing grammar errors, writing responses to text, and collaborating with peers.

free writing, process writing, comprehensive writing instruction, strategy instruction, assistive technology, summarizing, writing to learn, selfregulation/meta-cognition, goal setting, using rubrics, self-evaluation, and presentation (legibilty/mechanical correctness).

Odds beating schools

Selected References 

Applebee, A. N. (2013). Common Core State Standards: The promise and the peril in a national palimpsest. English Journal, 103(1), 25-13.



Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2013). Common Core State Standards, writing, and students with LD. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28, 28-37. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12004



Stecher, B. M. (2002). Consequences of large‐scale, high‐stakes testing on school and classroom practice. In L. Hamilton, B. M. Stecher, & S. P. Klein (Eds.), Making sense of test‐based accountability (pp. 79‐100). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.



Troia, G. A., & Olinghouse, N. G. (2013). The Common Core State Standards and evidencebased educational practices: The case of writing. School Psychology Review, 42, 343-357.



Wilcox, K. C., & Jeffery, J. (2014). Adolescents’ writing in the content areas: National study results. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(2).

Thank you! Kristen Campbell Wilcox [email protected] This presentation will be available at:

http://www.wilcoxkristen.com/

Thank you to my coauthors: Kathryn Schiller, Colleen Van Cura, Andrea Gardner-Bixler

Thank you also to the New York State Education Department for funding this study.