EPSY 485 Context

Course Assignment

Callie Snyder

I taught in a rural middle school (6-8) in central Illinois. There were about twenty students in the class. There are 20 students in this class, including 11 girls and 9 boys. The school is 95.5 percent white, 1.6 percent multicultural, 0.7 percent American Indian, 0.7 percent Asian, 0.9 percent Hispanic, and 0.4 percent black. There is little to no diversity of students in this classroom, where the only apparent difference amongst students is socioeconomic status. This particular class was a lower achieving class that was co-taught with a Special Education teacher, because a majority of the students had 504 plans and IEPs for various learning disabilities. My students were 7th graders that had just turned in a rough draft of a shorter writing assignment. They had practice in 6th grade with writing assignment earlier that year.

Unit of Study The unit that we were working on was a 7th grade literature unit that focused on the novel, The Rag and Bone Shop, by Robert Cormier. The lessons for this unit were done over six weeks and involved in class reading of the novel, vocabulary activities and writing projects. This particular lesson was created in response to the students writing projects rough drafts, which had very simple sentences. Some enduring questions for this unit: How do authors choose words to create meaning? Why do we tell stories? In this lesson particularly, students will be focusing on the sub-question of how do authors create complex and engaging writing styles?

There were two standards from the unit that are associated with this in-class assignment. These standards were derived from the Illinois English Language Arts Common Core Standards (Blooms revised taxonomy in parentheses):

EPSY 485

Course Assignment

Callie Snyder

1. Language (Grade 7) 3A: Choose language that expresses ideas precisely and concisely, recognizing and eliminating wordiness and redundancy. (Creating and Evaluating) 2. Writing (Grade 7) 5: With some guidance and support from peers and adults, develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach, focusing on how well purpose and audience have been addressed. (Creating, Applying, and Evaluating)

EPSY 485 Analysis of Items

Course Assignment

Callie Snyder

Item 1: This item is connected to the first common core standard where the students are required to look at the individual sentences and then figure out a way to combine all of the sentences and eliminate wordiness and redundancy. This item has each group of students create their own version of a new sentence. Also, the discussion at the end of the activity where the students compare their combined sentences to their classmates and the authors version will have the students evaluating the differences and how those differences change the meaning or effectiveness of the narrative. Item 2: This item is the same as item 1 where it is also connected to the first common core standard where the students are required to look at the individual sentences and then figure out a way to combine all of the sentences and eliminate wordiness and redundancy. This item gives the students a second chance to create their own version of a new sentence. The discussion at the end of the activity where the students compare their combined sentences to their classmates and the authors version will have the students evaluating the differences and how those differences change the meaning or effectiveness of the narrative. Item 3: This item addresses both of the common core standards where it has the students evaluate their own writing and sentence structure, recognize wordiness in their own work, and then move to revise their essays with the help of classmates and the teacher. From the evaluation of their work, the students will apply the knowledge from the previous two items about combining sentences effectively to their own work. This item will have the students revise

EPSY 485

Course Assignment

Callie Snyder

their own work by creating new complex sentences for a final draft of their narrative final project. I believe that this activity was a fair assessment because it judges the students understanding of the concept of creating complex sentences in context with topics that they are familiar with and that are meaningful. However, a deep understanding or mastery of these topics is not required in order for students to access the lesson about creating complex sentences. The students were given a lesson about revision and creating complex sentences before the in-class assessment, so every student was given the opportunity to learn the subject matter the activity is assessing. In regards to reliability, I was able to evaluate students work during a discussion after the activity, where the students compared their created sentences to the authors sentences and it was during that discussion I was able to address potential gaps in the students understanding of the concept and its application. In regards to validity, each of the items from the activity addressed the common core standards for the lesson and focused on scaffolding the skill that I wanted my students to master in a low stakes environment so that they could go on to apply this skill to the revision of their writing projects. I used the assessment to make certain that all students were taught the necessary skills to be successful in future lessons which would focus on the revision of their projects. Explanation Conducting Assessment and Grading: I gave these questions to students mid-way through a lesson about sentence complexity and revision. Previously as a class, we covered different ways to combine simple sentences into a single complex sentence and the process of revising work, so this activity would have been small

EPSY 485

Course Assignment

Callie Snyder

group practice for the students to demonstrate their understanding of the subject. I decided not to grade this activity, because this activity was meant to be a way to informally assess the students understanding of the previous lecture and begin to teach them how to do this type of revision on their own. I simply used this activity as a tool to measure the students mastery of the concept and identify which concepts need to be gone over again if needed. It would be unfair to grade the students on this because the students might not get the same sentence as the author of the novel. I wanted this difference, because the comparison of their sentences to the authors would create a great discussion about word choice and how the author uses that to create meaning and to tell a story (which are the two enduring questions of the unit). The only time that I would actually grade this was in the application of the concept to their final drafts of their narratives. I gave this activity in the middle of the lesson, because it did prompt good discussion about word choice and I wanted time to have that discussion. The students were allowed to work in small groups for this activity, because small groups give lower achieving students or more passive students the opportunity to participate and understand the concept. However, the last item in the activity allows the students to demonstrate their individual understanding of the concept when applied to their own writing. Since the school has block scheduling, I was able to give the students a substantial amount of time to work on the activity, where all the groups finish within 20 to 30 minutes. During that time, I was able to walk around the room, keeping students on task and explaining things as needed. Afterwords, we spend the rest of the class period going over each groups sentences and discussing why they made certain choices and comparing them to the authors choices which allowed me to evaluate the students understanding.

EPSY 485

Course Assignment

Callie Snyder

Performance Criteria for Students: In regards to performance criteria, it was difficult to assess an individual students understanding of the material solely based on the completion of the activity since a majority of the work was done as a group. However, I used the following evidence to demonstrate individual student understanding for both of my common core standards: Proficient Understanding: -Student responses for each item will have one or less grammatical mistakes. -Student is able to explain and defend the choices in the creation of their sentence. -Student actively participates in discussion comparing authors choices and students choices with insight to how they influence the way the story is told. -Student effectively revises multiple sentences from rough draft into more complex sentences. Adequate Understanding: -Student responses for each item have few grammatical mistakes but overall sentence still demonstrates a basic understanding of the concept. -Student is able to give a basic explanation of choice but cannot defend or explain why they made that choice. -Student occasionally participates in discussion comparing authors choices and students choices with some insight to how they influence the way the story is told. -Student attempts to revise some sentences into more complex sentences, but are slightly awkward or confusing. Poor Understanding: -Student responses for each item have six or more grammatical mistakes which make the sentence illegible or confusing. -Student is unable or refuses to explain and defend the choices in the creation of their sentence. -Student does not participate in discussion comparing authors choices and students choices or rarely participates without insight to how the choices influence the way the story is told. -Student does not revise sentences in a grammatically correct manner. Considering my class as a whole, a vast majority of the students had an adequate understanding with a few students with a proficient understanding. This allowed me to move on in the unit by providing them with the skills to begin the revisions of their first drafts of their narrative projects

EPSY 485

Course Assignment

Callie Snyder

and complete the unit. Some students did have a poor understanding of the concept, which caused me to institute one-on-one meetings with every student in class during work days. These conferences allowed me to give these students with poor understanding of the concept more individualized help with their revisions without singling them out in front of their peers. I believe that this activity is a great, low stakes assessment to check to make sure that students understood the lesson on sentence complexity and to create discussion about some of the enduring questions of the unit. Since a majority of the students were at the adequate/proficient understanding level, I was able to move forward while still assisting students at the poor understanding level through the one-on-one conferences. I was able to use the one-on-one conferences about the narrative drafts as another assessment, because they allowed me to determine if individual students were able to effectively incorporate their understanding to the revision process and help the student if they were having difficulties.