A Way With Words
t was not yet 8 a.m., but the parking lot sizzled under a July sun as Deborah Iwen hurried through the heat ripples and into the Kent School District headquarters. She squeezed in among 85 other teachers packed shoulder-to-shoulder in a stuffy training room. The heat would soon have them unbuttoning collars and fanning with whatever paper was at hand, but Iwen was so excited she hardly noticed.
A published poet, member of an ongoing writing group, and regular supplicant before the blank page, Iwen had struggled for years to convey what she knew about writing to her sixth-grade students at Meadow Ridge Elementary. In the heat-soaked district office, she hoped to finally learn how.
For four days, the teachers lugged swelling notebooks of materials to lectures, small-group sessions, and hands-on activities. They looked through student samples. They worked with partners to learn how to consistently judge writing. They studied sample lessons. They threw themselves into the task and afterward wrote letters of thanks to the district for what they had experienced.
"I am a writer," says Iwen. "I understand the process of writing. I recognize good writing. But I couldn't figure out how to teach it—how to discuss writing in a way that leads to growth and improvement. After the training, everything fell into place."
Like committed teachers everywhere, Iwen yearns to ignite the passion for learning in her students. Increasingly, educators are realizing that alternative assessment—assessment methods that go beyond multiple choice or true/false—can help kindle that flame. Yet nationwide, many attempts to introduce alternative assessment at the classroom, district, or even state level have been rocky and controversial.
The Kent School District is not only succeeding, it has parents at open houses asking their child's teacher when he or she will begin using the alternative model. It has local newspapers writing positive stories. It has teacher buy-in. And, most importantly, it has students excited about learning.
cattered among rolling green hills 20 miles southeast of Seattle, the 36 schools of the Kent School District echo with the voices of 24,000 youngsters. The fifth-largest school district in Washington, Kent employs 1,400 teachers with an average teaching experience of almost 13 years. The district has a long history of teacher training. For years, in-house experts and outside consultants have taught classes and workshops on the latest and greatest educational techniques to come down the pike.
"It used to be everything was a one-year focus," says Dr. Claudia Thompson, the district's Director of Instructional Services. "Collaborative learning, multiple intelligences—we'd done them all. But 10 hours of training doesn't make you an expert. What we see now is that it must be an ongoing focus."
Several forces helped change the district's outlook. A new superintendent launched a communitywide discussion of how the district could best serve its students. And Washington began developing requirements for statewide testing that would be based on alternative assessments.
Four years ago, the district followed up on the community discussion by developing a strategic plan. One goal was to improve student learning as measured by districtwide assessment. A committee of 33 teachers, parents, community members, school staff, and administrators developed a strategy to reach the goal.
The committee looked at all types of student assessment, from achievement testing to classroom assessments to portfolios. Initially, the meetings were simply to bring everyone to a common understanding about what types of assessment are being used successfully. They found that districts were all over the map: Some were developing their own open-ended math assessments, for example, while others were increasing standardized testing. And some were doing nothing at all.
As the committee talked and studied, members began to see the benefits of alternative assessment.
Maureen Curran, a teacher on special assignment, is helping coordinate staff development in alternative assessment. Curran retains the air of no-nonsense compassion that nurtures students. "For teachers," she says, "the kind of standardized testing that has traditionally been used is not useful. We don't know how to use the data to improve our teaching or increase our students' learning. If we can't use the data, the tests ultimately are not useful to the student."
Another key factor in the direction the committee took was Washington's movement toward alternative assessment in statewide testing. Although the state was still developing its plans as the committee moved forward, it became increasingly clear that the state tests would not only feature alternative assessment in writing, but also that all other state assessments, from math to social studies, would involve writing. [For more on Washington's statewide testing initiative, see Voyage of Discovery.]
Early in its research, the committee sent a team to a workshop conducted by the Northwest Evaluation Association based in Tigard, Oregon. How to plan teacher training in alternative assessment was the theme of the workshop, held near the pastoral Oregon town of Silver Falls. The team spent 13-hour days learning from Allan Olson, Executive Director of the association, and from other teams from around the nation in various stages of implementing alternative assessments. "We were sharing information," recalls Curran, "bouncing ideas off each other, borrowing—you might say stealing—from each other. It was a great opportunity to explore possibilities and get feedback." The team returned home with a draft.
"It was crucial for us to go to Silver Falls," says Thompson, who was on the team. "As a district, you can't do this alone. It's too easy to get inbred in your thinking and not get a global perspective. One important point we heard over and over was that if you start with writing assessment, people get excited and understand what the possibilities are for other alternative assessments and for drawing students into the process."
Teacher interest was another reason the district adopted writing as the first area for alternative assessment. Teachers had been asking for training in writing instruction. Also, writing is used in every subject area, from business to music to shop. All teachers could find value for improved assessment methods and support the focus of district resources on writing.
In the fall of 1994, Kent began working extensively with the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory to create a program for training teachers in alternative writing assessment. The Laboratory offers workshops in Six-Trait Analytic Writing Assessment, a method of assessing writing that includes a clear focus on improving instruction. When the district announced the July workshop, so many teachers expressed interest that teachers had to apply for a spot. "We've never," says Thompson, "had to do that before."
Ruth Culham, Research Associate at NWREL, is familiar with the excitement that six-trait writing assessment generates. "I was a teacher for 20 years, and I've seen many techniques come and go," says Culham. "The six-trait model captures teachers' imaginations. It doesn't ask you to discard what works; it gives you a structure to build on those successful techniques."
The six traits—ideas, organization, voice, word choice, sentence fluency, and conventions—provide criteria to assess writing. Teachers learn to evaluate writing accurately, objectively, and consistently based on the six traits. The six-trait model also provides a way to teach writing. This was crucial to Kent because the district's goal was not improved testing; the goal was improved writing.
You would spot Stephanie Knipp among the sophomores in her classroom at Kentridge High School only because of her clothes. While her students wear the uniform of the day—baggy jeans, T-shirts, and sneakers—the youthful Knipp wears a simple flowered dress. Otherwise, you might mistake this third-year teacher for one of her students. Her energy and passion for teaching are as visible as the strand of pearls around her neck.
Last fall, as 22 students settled down for their first day of Knipp's honors composition, literature, and speech class, she asked them a simple question: How would you define good writing? Good writing, they quickly replied, is long-winded, neatly written, and full of big words that are spelled correctly.
Despite giving this disheartening definition, many of Knipp's honors students were good writers. But like many "natural" writers, they didn't know how they did what they did. Moreover, they had little understanding of how to make good writing even better.
Knipp could relate. She, too, had had difficulty in explaining why a student piece was "good" or "needs work." Like many teachers, she knew when writing was captivating, but didn't know how to convey that to students. What she'd found in the six-trait assessment workshop was not new information, she says, but a structure for what she already knew and a common language she could use with her students.
"The six traits taught me specific criteria for writing," says Knipp. "I give those criteria to students beforehand, and it helps improve the quality of their work. The students have a structure for evaluating writing—their writing and the writing of others. They can say a piece is dull because it lacks details. They can give concrete reasons why they think a piece is wonderful."
Those concrete criteria are especially important for teachers who must grade writing but who may not have an English focus or for those who, like most teachers, got little guidance in assessment while in college. Knipp's husband Jon, who teaches second- and third-graders, trained in language arts for elementary ages. But he had no training in how to assess writing before Kent offered the July workshop.
Excitement about the six-trait teaching and assessment model in the Kent district built after that initial July training in 1995. Many of the teachers who had taken the training gave two- to three-hour presentations to their colleagues during August school retreats. Curran gave a presentation to elementary principals. And as news of the new assessment model traveled, in Curran's words, "all heck broke loose."
Many of Kent's schools focused on writing for the year. Teachers who had gone through the July training offered 10-hour classes to colleagues in their buildings. Curran held a make-up class for teachers who missed the first ones. In all, almost two-thirds of the district's schools offered classes in six-trait writing assessment, and 600 teachers took the training. State professional development dollars were available to pay teachers to take the class.
The introductory class wasn't the end of training that first year. Teachers began informally sharing their experiences in using the assessment model. Curran organized a support group for teachers who had taken the July training and needed a place to share ideas and problems teaching the six traits.
In February, the district conducted a voluntary, districtwide pilot project in writing assessment using the six-trait model. Participating students in grades four through 12 worked on a writing sample for three consecutive days. A cadre of 50 volunteer teachers, parents, staff, administrators, and others rated the resulting 2,000 writing samples according to the six-trait model.
Dr. Steve Siera, Kent coordinator of research and assessment, said the experience was valuable in a variety of ways.
"Teachers said the scoring sessions clarified the six-trait assessment and helped them understand the value of the assessment model. Many said it was some of the best staff development on writing they could get."
One thing teachers discovered is that six-trait writing assessment is not necessarily more time-consuming than traditional methods. With any method, teachers must read the paper. But by defining a common language, six-trait assessment actually provides a kind of short-hand for comments: "organization," "voice," and the other traits convey common messages between teacher and student.
Parents and community members who rated the submissions also found the experience valuable. The local newspaper carried three stories on the pilot assessment project, including one by a district resident and parent who had helped with the rating (see Parent Power). Parents and students were very eager to see the results. One teacher said her class of 11th-graders could hardly wait to see their scores. In the past, she typically had gotten a lukewarm response when she offered extra credit to students who took home a graded paper and brought it back with a parent's signature. Yet when she offered extra credit to students who took their assessment samples home for their parents to read and sign, almost every student returned with a signed paper.
The community involvement in rating the papers and the positive publicity encouraged the district to broaden its districtwide assessment for this year. All students in grades three, six, and nine will participate in a six-trait writing assessment. Kent hopes to encourage teachers of math, social studies, and other disciplines to be raters so they can also learn the six-trait system of assessment and teaching.
"Teachers in every discipline, from music to P.E., have kids write," notes Thompson. "Yet they typically don't know how to rate students on more than mechanics. Participating as a rater will give them the chance to learn the six-trait model."
"Some districts do a writing assessment and send out papers (to be scored elsewhere)," says Curran. "But you don't get the same impact on instruction because teachers have no idea what papers are being scored on. By having them do the scoring, they learn the model."
The next school year will see a continued focus on teacher training in six-trait writing assessment. Curran will repeat the class in applying the model for teachers who haven't taken it yet. In addition, a support group to allow teachers to share ideas and concerns with colleagues in other buildings is planned. And based on the success of the program, the district is revising its curriculum to include the six-trait writing model.
The walls in Joyce Minehan's sixth-grade classroom explode with yellows, aquas, purples, and blues. Orange banners across one wall proclaim the six traits of writing. Minehan, a 15-year teaching veteran, handles herself like a compassionate field commander in the war on ignorance. She yanks off the banner proclaiming "voice," strides to the front of the room, and slaps it on the wall directly behind her command post.
Today, she tells her 26 students, they will continue working on letters to the editor of the local newspaper about the positive points of Sunrise Elementary School. They have worked in teams to brainstorm ideas. They have organized lead paragraphs and body material.
Now they will talk about how to give it voice.
Voice, she explains, sounds like the writer who wrote the piece. It makes readers feel an emotion as they read. It brings the topic to life.
Minehan reads example paragraphs from a novel the class has been reading. She asks students to describe how they feel as they hear the words. She asks what specific things make them feel that way. She reads generic paragraphs that students have helped her write to show no voice at all. "Sunrise Elementary has nice teachers," she reads. "They smile at students."
"Now let's hear what this might sound like if it were written with voice," Minehan says. "'Sunrise,'" she reads, "'has teachers who are truly caring. Once when I forgot to eat breakfast, my teacher gave me an apple from her sack lunch.'"
Students begin nodding and turn to their writing. Erin Verlander, 12, her blond bob bent over her carefully moving pencil, says: "It's definitely helped me with my own writing and in reading. I can recognize when an author is using the traits."
"I'd had professional development in portfolio assessments and other alternative assessments," Minehan says later, "but the training we had in the six-trait model was the longest, strongest professional development class I've taken. And having the monthly support group and district support was very important. I had never had a formal way to assess writing. Now my kids can use it themselves to assess their own writing and to understand where they could do better. It's a simple recipe for beginning writers, but it also expands to work for the most advanced writer."
Perhaps the worst myth about writing is that some people are born with a knack, and the rest aren't. Students who feel they aren't cringe when they face a blank page. Yet when writing is demystified and broken into manageable chunks, students see they can tackle it. And every child is able enough in one of the six traits to earn legitimate praise.
"I am seeing remarkable improvement in the work of many of my students," says Iwen, the poet and teacher. "I am not the only teacher enthused about this model, but the more I work with the six traits, the more passionate I feel about the potential this has for helping our children become strong writers. I feel like a disciple."
Most readers, writers and teachers of writing tend to be moved by basic elements that have almost universal appeal. The Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory has defined these traits and developed the Analytical Trait Scoring Guide to provide a uniform, objective way to measure writing in each of the six areas. The basic traits are:
- (1) Ideas. The heart of the message and the details which make that message vivid and engaging. The main theme and the details that enrich and develop that theme.
- (2) Organization. The structure of the piece including a captivating and purposeful lead, strong transitions linking ideas, and a thoughtful conclusion.
- (3) Voice. The personal tone and flavor of the piece; the writer's way of connecting to the audience; the sound of a real person talking.
- (4) Word choice. Rich, colorful, precise language that communicates in a way that moves and enlightens the reader and creates a picture in the reader's mind.
- (5) Sentance fluency. The rhythm and flow of word patterns; how a piece sounds when read aloud.
- (6) Conventions. The mechanical correctness of the piece; the spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
- (2) Organization. The structure of the piece including a captivating and purposeful lead, strong transitions linking ideas, and a thoughtful conclusion.
In the six-trait traing, the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory provides detailed guidelines to rate each trait on a scale of one to five. One means a student is struggling, while five indicates a student can control the writing and knows how to fine-tune it. For example, a "one" in organization means the paper needs direction and is confusing. a "five" means the piece has a clean, compelling direction. The order and structure of the writing guide a reader through the piece and make the reader want to find out what happens next.
RESOURCE NOTES: NWREL has developed a guidebook on teaching and assessing beginning writers using the six-trait model and an annotated bibliography for using picture books for teaching writing. Seeing with New Eyes and Picture Books are available by calling (503) 275-9519 or order online at www.nwrel.org/comm/catalog/.
| 
| 
|
|
This document's URL is: Home | Up & Coming | Programs & Projects: Northwest Education | People | Products & Publications | Topics © 2001 Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
Date of Last Update: 12/16/2002 
|