Improving Student Writing Across the Curriculum Marisa Silver—Winter 2012 University of Oregon, EDLD 655 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT GOAL GOAL : To promote improved writing achievement by implementing a writing across the curriculum and assessment program in Science, Social Studies, Math and ELA at North Glen Middle School. Expanding the emphasis on writing will create 10% increase in the passing rate of the Statewide Assessment in ELA, from 75% to 85%. WHY? Writing is an increasingly important 21 st century skill. Students today must be able to express themselves clearly and cohesively in a technology-driven world. Writing is a key component of college readiness. Yet many schools do not focus on writing instruction, leading to remediation both in higher education and in the workforce. College instructors estimate that 50% of college students are not prepared for the writing demands of higher education (Achieve, Inc. 2005). Employers spend $3.1 billion per year in writing remediation (National Commission on Writing, 2004). EVIDENCE OF SCHOOL NEED: School is the 3 rd highest need school in the district based on the district’s need scale, with a score of 42. This scale is based on factors such as low SES, high mobility, ELL population and historically low student achievement. Sixty- seven percent of students are on free and reduced lunch, 6% of students are Limited English Proficient, and 15% are classified with disabilities (Oregon Department of Education, 2012). Results from on the state language arts assessment indicate a significant area of improvement, particularly among economically disadvantaged students, ELL students, and students with disabilities (ODE, 2012). Writing across the curriculum Hire part- time or full- time writing coach Implement new school schedule that prioritizes collaboration Research new ELA curriculum Adopt new district-wide curriculum Training & professional development POTENTIAL PATHWAYS TO GOAL Prior to 2011 Computer Literacy Programs District-Wide Literacy Curriculum Writing Across the Curriculum pilot Writing Workshop in ELA Rollout INPUTS: COST AND NO-COST TIMELINE OF WRITING IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVES AT NORTH GLEN MIDDLE SCHOOL JUSTIFICATION & RATIONALE WRITING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM RESEARCH: Writing in the content areas is a proven means to increased learning of content knowledge. Bangert-Drowns, et al (2004) meta-analysis of 48 writing-to-learn intervention studies suggested the importance of writing as a process for learning, as students engage in ongoing reflection of what they comprehend when writing. Engaging in writing in the content areas allows students to extend and deepen subject matter knowledge (Sperling & Freedman, 2001, and Shanahan, 2004). Writing in the content areas was selected as one of the eleven key elements of adolescent writing instruction based on current research on effective writing instruction (Graham & Perin, 2007). Writing Next, a meta-analysis of current adolescent writing research, examined 26 writing to learn studies, and found that 75% of the studies reported positive effects on student learning (Graham & Perin, 2007). LOCAL CONTEXT RELEVANT TO THIS INITIATIVE: Staffing was cut from 24 teachers to 16 teachers between SY and Class sizes have increased, and there is a need for implementing the most effective instructional strategies with limited staff resources. A new system for rating need among schools in the district was just released in Spring This improvement plan will serve the highest need middle school in the district, and feeds into the highest needs high school in the area. Writing Workshop in ELA with Goal-Based Intervention WRITING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM PROGRAM COMPONENTS ComponentDescription 1. Portfolio pieces from all content areas Students will compile a portfolio of polished writing pieces that demonstrate mastery of writing objectives. Three pieces per subject area (Science, Math, Social Studies, and ELA) will be required for all students. 2. Pre-, midyear, and post- formative assessments Administration of a holistic writing assessment will occur three times during the school year in their ELA class. 3. Data team meetingsGrade-level teams will examine data from the holistic assessments and portfolio pieces every trimester. 4. Professional DevelopmentProfessional development sessions will occur every trimester on topics based on student needs and faculty interests. 5. Summative assessmentPerformance on the statewide ELA assessment will be analyzed with the goal of 85% passage rate. ALREADY AVAILABLE NO-COST RESOURCES: Extensive computer equipment: two labs and one mobile lab Freeware word processing programs Volunteer from University of Oregon with expertise and teaching experience for training, support, and curriculum materials (4 hours/week) RESOURCES THAT COST: Professional development for core staff ($1,000 per year) Staff time on assessments ($2,000 per year) Staff time in data team meetings ($2,000 per year) Portfolio materials ($10 in supplies per student x 400 students= $4,000) Total program cost: $9,000 OUTCOMES AND SUCCESS CRITERIA Fall Curriculum begins in core subject areas -Formative assessment begins -Data team meetings begin -Students do more writing in class -Polished pieces are collected for curriculum wide portfolios Winter 2012 to Spring 2013 Spring Portfolios are completed -Final formative assessment is completed, with growth calculated -Statewide assessment is administered -Curriculum is fully implemented across subject areas -Data teams continue to meet -Formative assessment continues -Portfolio collection continues OUTCOMES: Implementation of writing across the curriculum program in math, science, social studies, and ELA. Increased amount of writing across curriculum areas. Students will product three pieces per subject area for a total of at least 12 pieces per school year. Students will be better prepared for high school level coursework both in ELA and other content areas. tools for crucial conversations and language for dealing with discrimination. Academic gains as measured on the formative assessment will address one component of the achievement gap. Staff focus on data from the formative assessment will allow for greater attention on high needs students, particularly among Limited English Proficient students, Economically Disadvantaged students, and students with disabilities. Staff time to discuss student growth in writing will lead to collaborative planning and teaching in this area, including sharing of expertise, curriculum resources, and approaches. Staff focus on formative data will lead to better preparation for the statewide assessment in the spring, with the desired growth of ELA passage rate from 75% to 85%. SUCCESS CRITERIA Implementation will be measured by staff’s commitment to embedding writing into current unit structures on a regular basis. The ELA teacher at each grade level will encourage fellow staff members in other areas to make this an instructional priority. Data team meetings will measure ongoing student achievement. Portfolios will measure the quantity of student writing from their various classes, as well as quality. Formative assessments will measure the quality and growth of student writing throughout the year. Summative assessment results and growth will measure student achievement in this area, as well as indicate the “big picture” success of this initiative. Achieve, Inc. (2005). Rising to the challenge: Are high school graduates prepared for college and work? Washington, DC: Author. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based Writing- to-Learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74, 29–58. Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007). Writing Next: Effective Strategies to Improve Writing of Adolescents in Middle and High Schools. New York: Carnegie Corporation. Oregon Department of Education. (2012) Final AYP Report, XXXX School District, XXXX Middle School. National Commission on Writing. (2004, September). Writing: A ticket to work... or a ticket out: A survey of business leaders. Palmer, S. (February 23, 2012). Neediest schools get a boost. The Register-Guard, Eugene: OR. Shanahan,T. (2004). Overcoming the dominance of communication: Writing to think and to learn. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.). Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 59–73). New York: Guilford. Sperling, M., & Freedman, S.W. (2001). Review of writing research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 370–389).Washington, DC:American Educational Research Association. REFERENCES Writing Across the Curriculum with portfolio and data systems WRITING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM TIMELINE