Accumulative Item Specific Analysis:

A Coach/Judge Method of Simultaneous

Positive Evaluation and Grading Designed To Empower Beginner Writers

by Mary Lula Welch

The grading of papers is an area where the teacher may do things in a personalized way. However, student expectations challenge the design of the teaching and grading structure. While beginning writers feel that they have to know everything immediately, the teacher is all too aware that the student must practice writing to gain the knowledge piece by piece. The problem is one of deciding when and how to start the teaching and grading processes. Accumulative Item Specific Analysis is a method which allows the teaching and grading to begin simultaneously as the first piece of writing is produced.

The teaching and grading processes become a compatibility between motivating the student to produce a systematic flow of writing that can be evaluated and meeting the expectations of the students by producing valued outcome. Student motivation, then, becomes the prime consideration.

Research on strategies for motivating students to learn (Brophy 1987) reveals that "Students do not invest effort on tasks that do not lead to valued outcomes even if they know they can perform the tasks successfully, and they do not invest effort one even highly valued outcomes if they are convinced that they cannot succeed no matter how hard they try." Human nature expects a paycheck for hours worked on the job even if the job is not completed, and, likewise, to lose interest in finishing the job if the paycheck is not compensatory for the time invested.

When we consider the motivation of the student to produce writing, we really are considering two things: Learning and Performing. Learning deals with the way a student processes information of individual skills, often called mastery level. Performing deals with the ability to demonstrate the use of the knowledge after it has been processed. Studying a foreign language offers a glaring example of the distinction. One can achieve language learning (processed knowledge of individual skills about the language even to the extent that one can read or translate) without achieving language acquisition (the ability to speak fluently). The reverse is also possible. One can have language acquisition (the ability to speak) without language learning (the ability to read or write the language). Neither is it a prerequisite for a beautiful voice to be able to read music in order to perform a song. However, beginning writers expectations seldom encompass anything but the combination of learning and performing as a satisfactory valued outcome.

Beginning writing student expectations are the same as the EXPECTANCY X VALUE theory (Feather 1982), which suggests that the effort the student will make toward a task is a product of 1) the degree to which the student EXPECTS to be able to perform, and 2) the degree to which the student VALUES the performance. The teacher, then, is committed to program the student for success. No student will value repetitive failure performance. ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION (Dweck and Elliott 1983) declares that these two attributes are greater for those concentrating on achieving success rather than avoiding failure. Research on EFFICACY PERCEPTIONS (Bandura and Schunk 1981) declare that these two attributes are greater for those who believe they have efficacy (competence). Research on CASUAL ATTRIBUTIONS (Weiner 1984) declares that these two attributes are greater in individuals who relate success to a combination of ability and effort and relate failure to insufficient effort or confusion in strategies. Brophy's studies state, "The simplest way to ensure that students expect success is to make sure they achieve it." Since the beginner writer's expectations are to succeed in order for persistence to be worth the effort, the vision of success is in the total performance without consideration of what it takes to acquire the purposeful use of individual skills. Any show of dissatisfaction with individual skills is interpreted by a new writer as a failure outcome. Briefly restated, the total paper is interpreted as of no value if there are numerous internal errors marked--the bloody paper.

While viewing this overwhelming research, the teacher might wonder if grading has become an assigned scale of "Compositions" or "Compromizations." Is it possible that one can act as coach encouraging students through positive evaluation for total product without compromising writing excellence demands when obligated to serve the dual role of judge in determining grade? I submit a method which I call Accumulative Item Specific Analysis as a keen possibility.

Item Specific Analysis is really a very simple and time tested idea. The new component part of Accumulative Item Specific Analysis is a grid placed on the left of the composition. This grid consists of four columns marked accordingly: SP for spelling, P for punctuation, ST for structure, and V for Vocabulary. The instructor then underlines the error in the writing and checks the appropriate column on that line signaling the type of error present in the paper.

EXAMPLE:

The instructor presents the gird to the student as a "Courtesy to the reader." The teacher makes the distinction between the writer's schema "whose ideas are virgin, significant, and powerful," and the reader's schema "who could easily miss the author's message if distracted by mechanical error." The empowerment of the student occurs in the explanation that the "reader" is at fault when the message is construed. Therefore, it behooves the writer to consider the inadequacy of the reader by attending to the marks placed on the grid by the instructor. It is a convenience to the reader to have these marked errors put into the universal code which readers understand, and thus insure that the writer's meaning is understood.

Reinforcement to this mental construct can be given by having students read their own writing orally. Assimualted Television News Report provides a quick, effective, and fun warm up activity for the writer to deliver orally. This activity provides visibility to the fact that if no one but the writer reads the writing, the coding would not be essential. Therefore, it becomes obvious that if the reader misunderstands, it must be his problem. Since the writer wants his ideas to be understood correctly, he must help the reader by applying the code in terms of the rules the reader has learned to utilize.

The writer then accepts the idea that as the teacher designates error for the "reader courtesies," the correction of such has no bearing the value of the composition itself, but only the reading of it to insure the author's meaning.

Students are expected to correct these marked grid errors (as a courtesy to the reader) before the submission of the final paper. The instructor may help with the corrections in the earliest paper but should be withdrawn gradually so the student develops the ability to self- monitor mechanical error corrections. Usually, students choose to write subsequent drafts if the errors are numerous. Some students resort to mechanical aids, and some students develop their own network of peer critiquing. Leaving this responsibility for "reader courtesy" in the control of the student not only empowers, but eliminates the necessity for the teacher to compromise writing excellence standards or fault the writer's ideas.

As this role of judge is isolated and shared by the student, the instructor can give full attention to what is being said in the composition and act as the coach to develop skills that will deliver the writer's meaning better. The instructor can totally concentrate on the job of coach, to analyze the students natural style and teach methods that will help this style develop and grow. This coaching is applied in the right margin as feedback.

Feedback is a dialogue with the student about his composition. Notes such as "Interesting!", "Well done!", "I'd like to know more about . . . ," or "You lost me here. Can you add a sentence to clarify?" are examples of appropriate feedback. Feedback determines the growth of the student. The abundance of positive interaction from the teacher on the earliest papers correspond directly to students growth in writing confidence. Student writing will increase in length and quality when strengths are cited. Paul B. Diederich, senior research associate for the Educational Testing Service, concluded from his research in evaluation that "Noticing and praising whatever a student does well improves writing more than any kind or amount of correction of what he does badly, and that it is especially important for the less able writers who need all the encouragement they can get . . . " (Daiker 1989). Working with 139 eleventh graders, Thomas C. Gee found " . . . that students whose compositions received either criticism alone or no commentary at all developed significantly more negative attitudes toward writing than students whose compositions received only praise. Moreover, after just four weeks, students who received only negative comments or none at all were writing papers substantially shorter than those of students who were praised" (Gee 1972).

If feedback is limited, student growth is limited. If quantity of feedback is mandatory, quantity of assignments must also be mandatory. A student learns to write by writing. The new writer cannot visualize all the virtues of proper composition at once. Feedback must be a step by step process. Therefore, the teacher must assemble a carefully selected sequence of steps or "items" which can be clearly achieved if focused upon by prewriting instruction. Two hundred and fifty words minimum composition allows a five-paragraph form to be used as the model. Completing twenty 250 word compositions produces 5,000 words, and handling each paper twice equates to 10,000 words--the length of a small paperback book. It is a real attention getting strategy to announce that the requirement of the class is to literally write a book.

The teacher will begin the instruction for the first specified item to be graded (Item Specified Analysis) before the composition is assigned. As the words suggest, only one specific item is selected for the first analysis.

Instruction towards the second specified items begins as soon as the first composition has been assigned. The grading of the second composition will focus on a new item, but will include the first item as well, thus accumulating the items specified in the analysis. The teacher helps the student to connect the information from the first item to the second. Each additional assignment follows in the same fashion, with a snowball effect. The result is a meaningful way to accumulate knowledge. Each new assignment requires the specified item, of new information, to be related to the past focus, or existing information. Restated, the meaning that a student internalizes is a combination of prior knowledge and new learning.

Great care should attend the sequence choice. When two items are sequential and similar, learning is relatively easy. If they are dissimilar, new learning is likely to be rejected and existing understanding likely to remain unchanged. (Anderson and others 1977).

As teachers direct attention to the specified item, relationships between items (networks)

help the student integrate new information into a whole. Beginner writers, inexperienced or low basic skills, are usually students who have difficulty synthesizing pieces of information into a logical whole. Holistic learners are those who do not learn well with isolated pieces of information because they cannot network independently. These students tend to have low basic skills and are sometimes funneled toward special compensatory education classes as students with learning disabilities (Perfetti 1985). The technique of networking seems to be successful with both traditional or holistic learners (Davidson 1982). The Accumulative Item Specific Analysis design provides such a network for either learning style writer.

The Accumulative Item Specific Analysis design can be applied to writers of any level by adjusting the selected items to more difficult writing skills. However, this paper is concerned with beginning students who need a cornerstone of confidence generated by early success. These students need to understand the grade of the paper by reducing the grading criteria to one simple stated sentence which can be check listed as the items accumulate. The following recommended sequence begins at the rudimentary level and contains a simply stated question for each item.

EXAMPLE:

Any of these twenty specific items can be marked on the students paper from the very first composition. Here are some examples. "This is a good parallel sentence. We will be studying this later in the course." "This preposition dangles. Check the book on page 62 if you should like to learn about danglers before the rest of the class." "These sentences can be easily subordinated. Why don't you stop after class, and I will show you how this works since we will not be getting it in class discussion for some time." "I love the development here. We will be talking about development next week." "This is a good example of shift in tense. May I use it when we get to that section? I will explain it to you first so that you can help with comments as the lesson is presented."

Indicating to students that they have strengths which they have already mastered or that they can learn before they are graded on it is called FUTURE PACING. A successful coach will help

the student visualize where he will be in the future at every possible opportunity. Students should be given copies of the specified items so they can look ahead as the teacher suggests. Page numbers should be included in the future pacing comments. Every composition should have at least one future pace comment from the very first writing attempt.

There are other hidden virtues in the Accumulated Item Specific Analysis method. When the teacher's suggestions are separated from the mechanical errors, it is a simple matter to look at the first and final submission together so that the entire paper does not need to be recorrected. Some comparisons of the rewrite sections are easily focused and need little more than a brief review. This saves hours of correction time. Students learn the type of error that they are making, and this helps them monitor their own rewrite. It is common to hear "Hey, I only made two structural errors this time," or "Most of my errors are spelling. I'll clean that up on the computer." Being able to read groups on the grid helps the students see his own control developing. As they accept the idea of rewrite, the student begins to appreciate that writing is a process.

Grades can be over inflated with this method in complete honesty. An instructor should never praise falsely. With the mechanical errors separated out and only one specific item being studied at a time, the teacher can honestly say, "I like what you have said. Check the grid to make sure other readers understand your meaning." If the final paper is perfect, the teacher can assign a high grade with clear conscience. The inflation gives encouragement to the writer and can be counterbalanced with periodic normed tests or other writing tasks. The student will retain the feeling of valued outcome even when his total grade average comes down, if he visually sees and understands successful marks on his compositions.

Accumulative Item Specific Analysis works well if the specified item is stamped on the top of the paper and papers accumulate in a portfolio. The compositions can be used as texts for later class discussion. It is very rewarding to pull out an early assignment and look for an item that is being discussed later in the course. It empowers students to be able to recognize good writing principles from their own text and provides examples to share with the class.

In conclusion, the Accumulative Item Specific Analysis is a method of separating grammatical error from thought contend through use of a grid in the left-hand margin which mentally attaches mechanical error as a code of courtesy between the reader and writer, rather than an inadequacy in the writers ability. The right-hand margin is reserved for teacher coaching which is presented on any of the items specified in the entire course but graded only on the one which is in focus for the present assignment or accumulated items in subsequent assignments. Specified items must move in small related intervals so that students can network with the help of the teacher to relate prior knowledge to new knowledge. Ample feedback is given in the right margins as constant interaction to build student confidence. Multiple short word compositions accumulate in a portfolio which is used as student text, shows the student progress, and provides a medium for sharing within the classroom. An example of twenty topics was presented with pre-instructional suggestions moving from rudimentary skills to high intermediate level. Research was cited to support the fact that "writing is an act of confidence" (Shaunassy ), so success must be built into the writing program to assure students exert effort and persistence to obtain valued outcome. Teachers can then be free to act as coach encouraging students through positive evaluation without compromising writing excellence demanded by the instructor's dual role to act as judge in determining grade. The teacher will truly be grading "Compositions," not "Compromizations."

Bibliography

Ames, C. , and R Ames, eds. Research on Motivation in Education, Vol. II: The Classroom Milieu. Orlando: Academic Press, 1985.

Ames, R, and C. Ames, eds, Research on Motivation in Education, Vol. I: Student Motivation. New York: Academic Press, 1984.

Anderson, R.C. 1977 "The Nation of Schemata and the Educational Enterprise. "In R.C. Anderson, R.J. Spiro, and W.E. Montague (eds.) Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge (pp. 415-432) New York: Erlbaum.

Bandura, A. and D Schunk. "Cultivating Competence, Self-efficacy, and Intrinsic Interest Through Proximal Self-Motivation." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41 (1981) 586-598.

Brophy, J. "Conceptualizing Student Motivation." Educational Psychologist I8 (1993): 200-215.

Brophy, J. "Socializing Student Motivation to Learn." In Advances in motivation and agreement, Vol. 5, edited by M.L. Maehr and D.A. Kleiber, Ggeenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1986b.

Brophy, Jere "Synthesis of Research on Strategies for Motivating Students to Learn," Educational Leadership, October 1987, pp. 40-47.

Davidson, J. L. 1982, "The Group Mapping Activity for Instruction in Reading and Thinking." Journal of Reading 26, 52-56.

Daiker, Donald A. "Learning to Praise." writing and response, Ed. Chris M. Anson. Urban: MCTE, 1989. 103-113.

Dweck, C., and E. Elliot, "Achievement Motivation." In Handbook of Child Psychology, Edited by P. Mussen, New York: Wiley, 1983.

Feather, N., ed Expectations and Actions. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum 1982.

Gee, T.C. 1972 Students' responses to teacher comments. Research in the Teaching of English 6: 212-21.

Good, T., and J. Brophy, Looking in Classroom. 4th ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1987.

Kolesnik, W. Motivation Understanding and Influencing Human Behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1978.

Maehr, M. "Meaning and Motivation: toward a Theory of Personal Investment." In Research on Motivation in Education, Vol I: Student Motivation, edited by R. Ames and C. Ames, Orlando: Academic Press, 1984.

Nicholls, J. "Conceptions of Ability and Achievement Motivation." In Research on Motivation in Education, Vol I: Student Motivation, edited by R. Ames and C. Ames, Orlando: Academic Press, 1984.

Perfetti, C. A. 1985 Reading Ability. New York: Oxford University Press.

Weiner, B. "Principles for a Theory of Student Motivation and Their Application Within an Attributional Framework." Research on Motivation in Education, Vol I: Student Motivation Orlando: Academic Press, 1984.

Wlodkowki, R.J. motivation and teaching: a Practical guide. Washington, D.C. National Education Association, 1978.

Presented at:

The First Annual Eastern Idaho Conference on English Language and Literature 1991/"Courage to Question"

Return to Top

© Mary Lula Welch