DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 429 319 CS 216 689

TITLE Resource Packet for New Michigan Educational AssessmentProgram (MEAP) : Writing Assessments at Grade 5 & 8.

INSTITUTION Michigan State Dept. of Education, Lansing. MichiganEducational Assessment Program.

PUB DATE 1995-05-00NOTE 66p.

PUB TYPE Guides Classroom Teacher (052)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Annotated Bibliographies; Grade 5; Grade 8; Middle Schools;

Student Writing Models; *Test Coaching; *WritingAchievement; *Writing Evaluation; Writing Tests

IDENTIFIERS Michigan Educational Assessment Program

ABSTRACTThis packet assists teachers and students in preparing for

the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) Grade 5 and 8 WritingAssessments. Sections of the packet are: Map of the Regional Network forCommunications Arts (including local contacts) ; Calendar of ProfessionalDevelopment Events; Annotated Bibliography of Recommended Resources; Modelsof the Assessments (including sample papers and scoring guide) ; and

Similarities and Differences between Assessments. (RS)

********************************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

********************************************************************************

P.

Resource Packet forNewMichigan Educational

Assessment Program (MEAP)

Writing Assessments atGrade 5 &

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)'<This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organization

originating it.

0 Minor changes have beenmade to

improve reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated inthisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy. 1

Michigan EducatiOn Assessment Program

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND

DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY .

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

BESTCOPYAVAILABLE

ROBERT E. SCHILLERSuperintendent

of Public Instruction

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONP.O. Box 30008

Lansing, Michigan 48909

June, 1995

MEMORANDUM

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

Clark Durant

Marilyn F. Luncbsr, Perioden:

Dorothy BeardmoreSecretary

Barbara Roberts MasonTrfalairtI

Kathleen N. StrausNASBE

Ruth A. BraunSharon A. Wtse

Gary L. Wolfram

GOVERNOR JOHN ENGLERE.e Officio

TO: Interest Parties

FROM: Michigan Educational Assessment Program

SUBJECT: Resource Packet for New Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP)Writing Assessments at Grades 5 and 8

Enclosed are materials we hope you will fmd helpful as you prepare teachers and students for thenew MEAP Grade 5 and 8 Writing Assessments to be given the last week of February and the firsttwo weeks of March, 1996.

These materials were prepared by the Communication Arts Assessment Professional DevelopmentPlanning Committee (made up of representatives from the Michigan Council of Teachers ofEnglish, the Michigan Reading Association, and the Curriculum Development and MEAP officesof the Michigan Department of Education) as well as educators central to the development of theassessments.

Included are the following items:

Map of the Regional Network for Communications Arts (including local contacts)Calendar of Professional Development EventsAnnotated Bibliography of Recommended ResourcesModels of the Assessments (including sample papers and scoring guide)Similarities and Differences Between Assessments

The Models of the Assessments are comprised of test items which come from discarded tryoutforms. These items were rejected for various reasons during the extensive review process. Whilethey are very similar to what students will see on the assessments in the fall, they are droppeditems and, as such, may be of lesser quality than those that make it to the fall operationaladministration.

To assist you in sharing these Models and other support materials with teachers, students, andparents, over 170 people representing every school improvement region of the state have beentrained to present professional development workshops on the new assessments. Please feel freeto call upon the contact people listed on the Regional Network map.

In addition, please do not hesitate to call Anne Bendixen, MEAP Writing Consultant at517/373-8393, if you have questions about the enclosed materials.

Thank you for your leadership in this professional development effort.

Enclosures

COMMUNICATION ARTS

ELEMENTARY

INFORMATION PACKET

Section 1Communication Arts Network Map

Calendar of Events

Writing and Reading Recommended Resources

4

COMMUNICATION ARTS ASSESSMENTRegional Network

Regional ISD Contacts:

Calhoun ISDRuth Snyder [6161781-5141]

2 Ingham ISDSara Shubel [517/676-1051)

3 Genesee ISDAnn Trovillion-Timrn [8101768-4400)Barbara Reed [810/768-4400]

4 Huron ISDMary Ellen Bluern [517/269-6406)

5 Kent ISDLinda Nordstrand [616/365-2285)

6 UP Center for Educational DevelopmentKirk Nigro [906/227-2017)

7 Macomb ISDBob Williams [810/228-3468)Gene Yax [8101228-3473]

8 Oakland SchoolsCharles Peters [810/858-2121)Barbara Rebbeck [8101858-1989)

9 Muskegon ISDLa Don Gustafson [616599-6940]

10 Saginaw ISDBan Jenniches [517/799-4733)Sue May [517/631-5890]

i 1 NLM-LTLCMichelle Johnston [616/922-1731)Dennis Rosen [616/796-3543]

12 Washtenaw ISDKathy Cambria [313/994-8100]

Wayne RESAOlga Moir [313/467-1564]Karen Urbschat [313/467-1300]

14 DetroitRonald Kar 1313/494-16033

BESTCOPYAVAILABLE

5

Date

March3-4

9

High School Proficiency Test in Communication ArtsProfessional Development Planning Committee

1995 Calendar of EventsActivity

MDE/MRA/MCTE Communication ArtsAssessment Training of Trainers Conference,East Lansing

Detroit Public Schools' March Write-in,University of Detroit Mercy's campus,Detroit

11-14 39th Annual Michigan Reading AssociationConference. Amway Grand Plaza/GrandCenter, Grand Rapids

16-18 National Council of Teachers of EnglishSpring Language Arts Conference.Minneapolis, Minnesota

23-24 Upper Peninsula Communications ArtsAssessment Training of TrainersConference, Marquette

April1

8

30-May 5

June26-July 14 -

26-July 21

Michigan State University's Spring Conference onthe English Language Arts (Bright Ideas).Co-Sponsored by the Michigan Council of Teachersof English, East Lansing, MSU Union Building.

Saginaw Valley's Spring Conference.Co-Sponsored by the Michigan Council ofTeachers of English

International Reading AssociationConvention, Anaheim, California

Oakland Writing Project'sInvitational Summer Institute,Oakland Schools, Pontiac

Third Coast Writing Project'sInvitational Summer Institute,Western Michigan UniversityKalamazoo

6

Contact

Sheila Potter(517) 373-1342

Mary C. Cox(313) 824-4778

Ann Laurimore(616) 946-8595

(800) 369-NCTE

Kirk Nigro(906) 227-2017

Marilyn Wilson(517) 372-1772

Mary Harmon(517) 723-7815

(800) 336-READ

Barbara Rebbeck(810) 858-1989

Ellen Brinkley(616) 387-2581

26-July 21 National Writing Project: Metro-Detroit'sInvitational Summer Institute, at theUniversity of Detroit Mercy (OpenSessions: June 26-30, July 10-14),Detroit

Eastern Michigan Writing Project'sInvitational Summer Institute (OpenSessionmorningsJune 26-July 14),Ypsilanti

Saginaw Valley Writing Project'sInvitational Summer Institute

Red Cedar Writing Project'sInvitational Summer Institute,Michigan State University, East Lansing

Flint Area Writing Project

Ronald Kar(313) 527-1186

Cathy Fleischer(313) 487-4220

Kay Harley(517) 790-4354

Janet Swenson(517) 336-3610

Lois Rosen(810) 762-3285

July27-30 Whole Language Umbrella Conference, Windsor, Judy Kelly

Ontario. Conference Theme: "Celebrating (313) 676-7693Communities." Opening KeynoteRobert Munsch.

AiugustW.4 Michigan Reading Association's Marlene Smith

Summer Literature Conference. Grand Hotel, (616) 983-7932Mackinac Island, Michign

15-16 Upper Peninsula Summer English Languge Arts Kirk NigroInstituteCurriculum Instruction, and (906) 227-2017Assessment, Marquette

24-25 Detroit Public Schools' Second English Language Barbara CoulterArts Conference, K-12. University of Detroit/ (313) 494-1601Mercy (Ward) Conference Center, Detroit

September18-20

October1 3

Annual Conference ofMichigan Association of Supervisionand Curriculum Development (MASCD),Ypsilanti

Engfest at Western Michigan UniversityCo-Sponsored by the Michigan Council ofTeachers of English, Kalamazoo.Conference Theme: "Making Connections."Featured Speaker: Maryann Smith, AssociateExecutive Director of NCTE.

Ben Hamilton(517) 373-4003

C. Weaver(616) 387-2599or M. Haines(616) 387-2627

13 Upper Peninsula Reading AssociationConference, Marquette

27-28 Michigan Council of Teachers of EnglishAnnual Fall Conference, Lansing

31 Michigan Secondary ReadingInterest Council (MRIC), Fall ResearchConference, Kellogg Center, East Lansing

November16-21

ci

National Council of Teachers of EnglishEnglish Annual Convention, San Diego,California

Jean Hetrick(906) 228-7405

Marilyn Wilson(517) 372-1772

Anne Greashaber(313) 663-5351

(800) 369-NCTE

Writing and Reading: Recommended ResourcesNote: An asterisk (I') indicates our short list; if you plan to acquire only one ortwo resources to address a whole range of issues, we recommend these mosthighly.

Programs, Writing Across the CurriculumFarrell-Childers, Pamela; Anne Gere and Art Young, eds. Programs and

Practices: Writing Across the Secondary School Curriculum. Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann, 1994. An invaluable text for those wanting to establish

writing across theCurriculum programs, this collection includes classroomstories from many different contexts and content areas. Each author describeshow writing is used to learn in a particular setting.

Krater, Joan; Jane Zeni, Nancy Develin Cason, and other members of theWebster Groves Writing Project. Mirror Images: Teaching Writing inBlack and White. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1994. This book

chronicles the journey of a Missouri action research team, made up of middleschool and high school teachers, as it refuses to accept underachievement byAfrican American student writers. An example of the sort of research-based,ethical practice we should be moving toward if we are serious about schoolreform.

*Lester, Nancy B., and Cynthia S. Onore. Learning Change: One School DistrictMeets Language Across the Curriculum. Portsmouth, NH:Boynton/Cook, 1990. Lester and Onore describe a four-year program of

substantive professional development in a New York state school district. Thisbook would be helpful for districts attempting to encourage classroom-basedreform, yet dissatisfied with short term in-service programs.

Tchudi, Stephen, ed. The Astonishing Curriculum: Integrating Science andHumanities Through Language. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1993. This collection

includes a variety of classroom stories and ideas for developing an integratedcurriculum.

ElementarvAtwell, Nancie, ed. Coming to Know: Writing to Learn in the Intermediate

Grades. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1990. This text, written byclassroom teachers grades 3-6, presents many ways to use writing in content areastudy, including learning logs and research projects in every subject. Anappendix features learning log prompts for a whole host of topics.

*Calkins, Lucy. The Art of Teaching Writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann,1994. This revised and expanded version of Calkins' classic text is worth

its weight in gold for teachers in elementary grades, and quite useful forsecondary teachers, too. Calkins has modified and clarified her perspective onthe teaching of writing as a result of 10 more years of work in classrooms. Thebook includes chapters on assessment, thematic instruction, non-fiction writing,home-school connections, and curriculum:

Calkins, Lucy. Living Between the Lines. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1990.This passionately-written book describes classrooms where the walls

between school and wider community have "come tumbling down."Discussions of writers' notebooks, conferring strategies, genre studies, mini-lessons, and organizational structures for workshops are lucid and helpful.Upper elementary and middle school teachers will find it especially pertinent.

Graves, Donald. A Fresh Look at Writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann,1994. Graves, who has led hundreds of thousands of teachers to rethink

their teaching of writing through his books and workshops, synthesizes hiscurrent understandings in this practical, understandable book.

Harwayne, Shelley. Lasting Impressions: Weaving Literature into the WritingWorkshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1992. In this book, Harwayne

examines the various roles literature can play in an elementary or middle schoolclassroom. She also describes how careful, strategic use of literature can helpstudents grow as writers. She discusses how to build a classroom communityusing notebooks, book talks, genre studies, etc.

Lane, Barry. After 'The End': Teaching and Learning Creative Revision.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1993. Teachers often talk about the

difficulty of introducing revision to young writers. This books is filled withpractical, almost painless revision strategies that have proven effective in theclassroom.

Manning, Maryann; Gary Manning, and Roberta Long. Theme Immersion:Inquiry-Based Curriculum in Elementary and Middle Schools.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1994.- This book describes what it means to

foreground inquiryon the part of teachers and learnersand to move awayfrom traditional theme studies and units. Detailed examples in all elementaryand middle school grades, complete with photographs.

*Routman, Regie. Invitations: Changing as Teachers and Learners K-12.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1994. This book is exhaustive in its scope,

which ranges from conducting guided reading activities to keeping anecdotalrecords to establishing teacher support groups. It also includes "blue pages,"carefully annotated resource lists for the whole language teacher.

SecondaryAndrasick, Kathleen. Opening Texts: Using Writing to Teach Literature.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1990. This book, written by a high schoolteacher in a college preparatory setting, describes a flexible, theory-based approachthat promotes student engagement in literary text and development of criticalstance through writing and discussion. Features examples of student work andlessons.

*Atwell, Nancie. In the Middle: Writing, Reading, and Learning withAdolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1987. This award-winning

text has inspired countless English language arts teachers to reconceptualize theirteaching of writing and reading. It includes a wealth of practical classroom ideas.

Christenbury, Leila. Making the Journey: Being and Becoming a Teacher ofEnglish Language Arts. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1993. This

recent text situates writing within an integrated English language arts classroomand addresses issues of current interest, e.g., technology, multiculturalism, etc.

Kirby, Dan, and Tom Liner, with Ruth Vinz. Inside Out: DevelopmentalStrategies for Teaching Writing. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1988.Two advocates for process writing approaches, along with an exemplary

high school teacher, collaborate to outline sensible, classroom-tested ways toteach writing in middle and high schools. Engaging and useful.

*Rief,. Linda. Seeking Diversity: Language Arts with Adolescents. Portsmouth,NH: Heinernann, 1991. Written by an eighth grade teacher who teaches

125 students a day, this book is a practical guide to developing an integratedEnglish language arts classroom cornmunity. Rief includes ten portfolios ofstudent work, featuring reading lists, reading response, and writing in variousgenre.

Romano, Tom. Clearing the Way: Working with Teenage Writers.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1987. Drawing on long experience as a

high school teacher, this author has written one of the very best books aboutteaching and learning writing.

Willis, Meredith Sue. Deep Revision: A Guide for Teachers, Students and OtherWriters. New York: Teachers and Writers Collaborative, 1993. The

author provides an abundance of practical but writerly "experiments" withrevision. This book is appropriate for the k-12 teacher who writes, as well as forher students. Secondary teachers in particular will appreciate the warm, sensibletone of this book.

Zemelman, Steven, and Harvey Daniels. A Community of Writers: TeachingWriting in Junior and Senior High School. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann, 1988. This text provides broad theoretical and practical

background in understanding how the teaching of writing has changed over thepast 25 years. It is lively, easy reading, but comprehensive enough to become afrequently consulted reference text.

AssessmentAnthony, Robert; Terry Johnson, Norma Mickelson, and Allison Preece.

Evaluating Literacy: A Perspective for Change. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann, 1991. This book talks about assessment within a

philosophical framework, spotlighting the importance of gathering authenticwork samples that demonstrate growth to various audiences, including parentsand community members. Appropriate reading for those seeking to put variousnew forms of assessment in perspective. Practically useful as well.

Graves, Donald H., and Bonnie S. Sunstein, eds. Portfolio Portraits. Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann, 1992. Written by practitioners at all levels, this book

explores the possibilities for learning and teaching inherent in student-ownedportfolios. A chapter by Graves on helping students learn to read their ownwork critically is a highlight.

Spandel, Vicki, and Richard J. Stiggins. Creating Writers: Linking Assessmentand Writing Instruction. New York: Longman, 1990. This book provides

helpful background in understanding how holistic scoring of writing works. Theauthors also describe a range of other scoring procedures and describe howscoring rubrics can be used to help students become able to assess their ownwriting independently.

'Tierney, Robert J.; Carter, Mark A., and Desai, Laura E. Portfolio Assessment inthe Reading/Writing Classroom. Norwood, MA: Christopher-GordonPublishers, 1991. The book begins with an overview of the causes behind

the push for authentic assessment, then moves into practical discussion ofliteracy portfolios K-12.

Yancey, Kathleen Blake. Portfolios in the Writing Classroom. Urbana, IL:NCTE, 1992. This collection introduces readers to a range of portfolio

possibilities that have revolutioMzed the teaching and assessing of writing.

GeneralAu, Kathryn H. Literacy Instruction in Multicultural Settings. New York:

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1992. This book, a thorough, readablediscussion of the implications of literacy research for ESL and at-risk populations,was written by a literacy expert who has spent years developing successfulprograms for Hawaiian children poorly served by traditional schooling.

Cambourne, Brian. The Whole Story. New York: Scholastic, 1992. Cambournedescribes how, language and literacy are acquired. He explore the

implications of his studies for teaching and learning in schools. Cambourne'swork serves as a key theoretical underpinning for whole language teachers.

Fletcher, Ralph. What A Writer Needs. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1993.This book has helped many teachers move beyond a relatively superficial

understanding of process approaches to writing. Well-written and deeplyengaging.

Mayher, John. Uncommon Sense: Theoretical Practice in Language Education.Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1990. Why move away from

comfortable, traditional language arts practices? Why integrate reading, writing,listening and speaking in our classrooms? John Mayher explains how studies oflanguage acquisition have caused English educators to question "common sense"methods.

Murray, Donald. Expecting the Unexpected: Teaching Myselfand OtherstoRead and Write. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1989. Written by a

Pulitzer Prize-winning author who has inspired much of the recent deep interestin writing, this text gets to the heart of how effective reading and writinghappens.

Wells, Gordon, and Gen Ling Chang-Wells. Constructing Knowledge Together:Classrooms as Centers of Literacy and Inquiry. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann, 1992. This book, based on collaborative research with

teachers in multi-lingual urban communities and schools, grounds theoreticaldiscussions of sociocultural view of language and literacy with concrete,innovative classroom examples.

Some Relevant Professional Journals:

National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE)--Primary Voices, From theMiddle, English JournalInternational Reading Association (IRA)--The Reading TeacherMichigan Council of Teachers of English (MCTE)Language Arts Journal of

M ich iga nMichigan Reading Association (MRA)Michigan Reading JournalThe Writing TeacherThe Writer's NotebookThe New Advocate

13-

Professional materials listed can be ordered either from Cornucopia Books, aMichigan distributor which carries Heinemann, Boynton/Cook, Richard C.Owen, Christopher Gordon, Scholastic, and assorted other publishers, or bycontacting publishers directly.

Ray SpauldfttgCornucopia BooksGreat Lakes DivisionP.O. Box 331Comstock Park, Michigan 49321(616) 247-05731-800-778-2665 (Mon, Wed, Fri, 10 a.m.-3 p.m.)

Teachers &Writers Collaborative5 Union Square WestNew York, NY 10003-3306(212) 691-6590 (Mon-Fri, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., EST)

Heinemann361 Hanover StreetPortsmouth, NH 03801-39121-800-541-2086 (9 a.m.-6 p.m., EST)

Harcourt Brace & Company6277 Sea Harbor DriveOrlando, FL 328871-800-782-4479

National Council of Teachers ofEnglish (NM'E)1111 W. Kenyon RoadUrbana, IL 61801-1096(217) 328-3870

compiled by Dr. Ellen Brinkley, Western Michigan University, andLaura Roop, Oakland Schools

14.

COMMUNICATION ARTS

ELEMENTARY

INFORMATION PACKET

Section 2Grades 5 and 8 MEAP Writing Model of the Assessment

I

15

t-,

Michigan High School Proficiency Test

Communication Arts: Writing

Model of the Assessment

May 1995Michigan Educational Assessment Program

Grade 5 Writing Assessment Plan

DAY 1 (45 minutes + 5 minutes preparation): Prewriting and Drafting

- Getting Started (5 minutes)Students are given time to think about a provided topic.

- Peer Discussion (10 minutes)In small groups, students discuss questions that help them explore andclarify ideas about the topic.

- Listening to and Sharing Responses (10 minutes)Students share ideas from peer discussion with large group.

- Prewriting and Drafting (20 minutes)Students begin drafting a response to the writing prompt.

DAY 2 (45 minutes + 5 minutes preparation): Drafting and Revising

- Review of Writing (3 minutes)

- Drafting and Revising (25 minutes)Students work on the development, focus, and organization oftheir pieces.

- Peer Response (17 minutes)Students confer with peer partners from Day 1.

DAY 3 (45 minutes + 5 minutes preparation): Revising and Polishing

- Review of Writing (5 minutes)Teacher reads aloud checklist of items to consider in revising andpolishing piece.

- Final Revision and Polishing (40 minutes)

SCORING

The revised and polished piece of writing will be scored using 1) a 4-point holistic scale, 2)a scoring guide written by Michigan educators, and 3) sample scored student papersselected by Michigan educators.

I 7

TOPIC:

Change

THINKING ABOUT THE TOPIC:

What kind of changes have you faced?

Have you faced changes like having a new baby brother or sister, or getting a newpet?

When have you made changes lilce going to a new school, making a new friend, orbecoming part of a team?

How did you handle these experiences?

What changes do you look forward to in the future?

WRITING ABOUT THE TOPIC:

Things changes in our lives. It might be someone's looks that change, how you change asyou get older, or how people change their minds. Write about a change.

You might, for example, do one of the following:

tell about a time when you changed classes or teachersOR

describe how you have changed from when you were youngerOR

show how someone can change his or her mindOR

explain how changes in the weather can make you feel differentOR

write about the topic of change in another way.

You may use examples from real life, from what you read or watch, or from yourimagination. Keep in mind that your writing will be read by adults.

1 8 Form 02A

DAY 2 DAY 2 DAY 2DRAFTING AND REVISING

PEER RESPONSE

DIRECTIONS:

Talk about this question with your group, making sure everyone receives comments on his or herwriting.

QUESTION FOR PARTNERS:

Which parts of my writing do you want to know more about? What do you want to know?

1 902A

DAY 3 DAY 3 DAY 3REVISING AND POLISHING

REVIEW OF WRITING

DIRECTIONS:

Use the following checklists as you revise and polish the piece you have written.

CHECKLIST FOR REVISION:

1. Do I have enough ideas and details?

2. Does one idea lead to the next?

3. Does my writing show a beginning and an ending?

CHECKLIST FOR POLISHING:

1. Are my sentences complete?

2. Have I checked the spelling and capitalization of any words I'm unsure of?

3. Are my paragraphs indented?

4. Are there any words missing?

5. Have I checked my punctuation?

2002A

TRYOUT DRAFT

Holistic Scorepoint DescriptionsGrade 5

(These are designed to be used in conjunction with illustrative anchor papers and other range-finder papers and areintended to describe characteristics of most papers at a particular scorepoint. The aim is to determine best fit; apaper at any given scorepoint may not include all characteristics.)

4 Mature Central ideas are clearly developed. The writing may have a natural flowand a clear sense of wholeness (beginning, middle, end); the organizationhelps move the reader through the text. There is likely to be a clear voicethat is precise and interesting. The text demonstrates standard writingconventions.

3 Capable A recognizable central idea is evident throughout. The writing has a senseof wholeness (beginning, middle, end) although it may have extraneousdetails. Word choices and sentence structure are likely to be interesting.There may be surface feature errors, but they don't interfere withunderstanding.

2 Developing The writing shows a recognizable central idea, yet may not be sustained ordeveloped. There is an attempt at organization although ideas may not bewell connected or developed. Vocabulary may be limited or inappropriateto the task; sentence structure may be somewhat simple. Surface featureerrors my make understanding difficult.

1 Emerging The writing shows little or no development of a central idea. There maybe little direction or organization but, nevertheless, an ability to getimportant words on paper is demonstrated. Vocabulary and sentencestructure may be simple. Minimal control of surface features, such asspelling and usage, may severely interfere with understanding.

6 Not ratable because completely off topic

7 Not ratable because completely illegible

8 Not ratable because written in a language other than English

9 Not ratable because completely blank

21

Grade 8 Writing Assessment Plan

DAY 1 (45 minutes + 5 minutes preparation): Prewriting and Drafting

- Getting Started (5 minutes)Students are given time to think about a provided topic.

- Reading/Viewing Materials (5 minutes)Students read and view materials related to the topic.

- Peer Discussion (10 minutes)In small groups, students discuss questions that help them explore andclarify ideas about the topic.

- Listening to and Sharing Responses (5 minutes)Students share ideas from peer discussion with large group.

- Prewriting and Drafting (20 minutes)Students begin drafting a response to the writing prompt.

DAY 2 (45 minutes + 5 minutes preparation): Drafting and Revising

- Review of Writing (3 minutes)

- Drafting and Revising (25 minutes)Students work on the development, focus, and organization oftheir pieces.

- Peer Response (17 minutes)Students confer with peer partners from Day I.

DAY 3 (45 minutes + 5 minutes preparation): Revising and Polishing

- Review of Writing (5 minutes)Teacher reads aloud checklist of items to consider in revising andpolishing piece;

- Final Revision and Polishing (40 minutes)

SCORING

The revised and polished piece of writing will be scored using 1) a 4-point holistic scale, 2)a scoring guide written by Michigan educators, and 3) sample scored student papersselected by Michigan educators.

2 2 5/17/95

DAY 1 DAY 1 DAY 1PREWRITING AND DRAFTING

TOPIC:

Ecology

THINKING ABOUT THE TOPIC:

"We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land asa community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect."

Aldo Leopold

"And see this ring right here. Jimmy? ... That's anothertime when the old fellow miraculously survived some big

forest fire."

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 2 3

06B

CAN BELIEVE.11.HS?SOME IDIOT TOSSEDGARBAGE VIERS. %NM

WAITalt. SSW.

lLt. BET RITURE CIVILIZAIIONSFIND O U T M O R E ABOUT USINAN

WED LIKE 11.IEV1 TO KNOW .

_

LCOK MOWER CAS NONON INF. GRQIUND! BM, WIS

MAKES titE MAD!

SA

;04. r-= -ide

1 - 12.:(M.46

BY GOLLY, IF PECPLEAREN'T (MING 101K.WAVES O. nsvir*NUCLEAR WEAPONS,METRE WOWINGWASH EVERYWHERE!

.ey

.:

2 4 BESTCOPYAVAILABLE

06B

DAY 1 DAY 1 DAY 1

DIRECTIONS:

Continue to think about the topic and the materials you looked at.

With your partners, go through the questions below. you may go through them in any order youwish as long as everyone has an opportunity to respond. You may wish to spend more time onthe questions that most interest you and your partners. You will have 10 minutes to discussthese.

TALKING ABOUT THE TOPIC:

Many people believe that environmental issues need to be addressed if we are going to havethe quality of life we hope to have in the future. Think about some of those issues.

What are some of the things people can do to improve our environment?

Can you predict what the earth might be like if we contaminate or use up all our naturalresources (water, oil, lumber, soil, etc.)?

2506B

DAY 1 DAY 1 DAY 1

WRITING ABOUT THE TOPIC:

People often say that "our children are our future." Therefore, if we want our environment tobe healthy, we need to educate even our youngest children. Write a letter to a younger person,telling him or her why we need to take good care of our Earth and all of its livingcreatures.

As you write, you might want to consider:

something that happened to you or to someone you knowOR something you read about in a book or newspaperOR something you heard about from someone elseOR something you, saw in a movie or on TVOR something else you can think of.

Keep in mind that your writing will be read by adults.

(You may use this area and the following pages 'for freewriting, clustering, outlining, webbing,listing, etc. When you are ready, you may begin your draft.)

2606B

DAY 2 DAY 2 DAY 2DRAFTING AND REVISING

PEER RESPONSE

DIRECTIONS:

Respond to the following question. Be sure each person receives responses from the group. Youwill have 17 minutes for this activity.

QUESTION FOR PARTNERS:

Which parts of my writing do you want to know more about? What do you want to know?

27 06B

DAY 3 DAY 3 DAY 3REVISING AND POLISHING

REVIEW OF WRITING

DIRECTIONS:

Use the following checklist as you 'revise and polish the piece you have written.

CHECKLIST FOR REVISION:

1. Do I have enough ideas and details?

2. Does one idea lead to the next?

3. Does my writing show a beginning and an end?

CHECKLIST FOR POLISHING:

1. Are my sentences complete?

2. Have I checked the spelling and capitalization of any words I'm unsure of?

3. Are my paragraphs indented?

4. Are there any words missing?

5. Have I checked my punctuation?

28-

06B

TRYOUT DRAFT

Holistic Scorepoint DescriptionsGrade 8

(These are designed to be used in conjunction with illustrative anchor papers and other range-finder papers and areintended to describe characteristics of most papers at a particular scorepoint. The aim is to determine best fit; apaper at any given scorepoint may not include all characteristics.)

4 Mature Writing is clear, focused, and interesting. The organization helps movethe reader through the text in an orderly manner. The voice of the writercomes through in the rich and precise word choice and varied sentencestructure. Errors in standard writing conventions do not interfere withunderstanding.

3 Capable Writing is clear and focused but may not be interesting. Organization isapparent but may be too-obviously structured or have extraneous detail.While some of the writer's voice may come through, the word choice isordinary, and sentence structure may be mechanical. There may bedistracting surface feature errors, but they don't interfere withunderstanding.

2 Developing Writing may include basic detail without much development. There maybe an attempt at organization although ideas may lack a sense ofwholeness. Vocabulary may be limited or inappropriate to the task;sentence structure may be simple. Surface feature errors may makeunderstanding difficult.

Emerging Writing may lack a central idea of purpose. Organization may bearbitrary. Vocabulary is limited; sentences may be choppy, incomplete, orrambling. Numerous surface feature errors may severely interfere withunderstanding.

6 Not ratable because completely off topic

7 Not ratable because completely illegible

8 Not ratable because written in a language other than English

9 Not ratable because completely blank

29

MEAP Writing Assessment in Grade 5

Sample Student Papers

Note: To protect the identity of students whose writing samples are provided here, written responses havebeen re-copied in another's handwriting and any identifying information has been removed.

Grade 5Paper A

ig-49/I. L.:1154:4/-(ys you.

V-A) ari fida.."-tu

_pgcfui/z4z/-

1?.d_ dae

BEST COPY AVAIL BLE3 1

Grade 5Paper 13

Lirktd_

kg±/

cepeor2A-/.14 Aae..e

_ciAZd

tad": L/t

_

u_24/

414-

651d-

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 3 2

t t

11

Grade 5Paper C

e.fiu()

(7fli111AL_ &

/Leotein

.e574.11 ae O.)-7-- ihd

3 deef.lAd. 0Azytd Y-O____IZZ__ile74 ,tfiLa-- 4'

1;f7L te16o7Z t ea, ,aet J 0(07Vad 4(ifct_otfz2.

=Lkte 74 0//vizi-ize

Ln694) Zdd aaio k0:20

/ Lit Cor7Or>17lit-4 e(41.

004 tote aa 4914.6D-04 dib oribn.4444 &ed. J1,4/0 742 od. Aze

BEST COPY MLA LE 3 3

3-20-7qM

aiernm Ad03 iS

-

iv? r\ OAP

rp 194 7T°--r

L-"7-421/ D4,1 71 'Y 2 /12$ ,r-Y) ?101 71777 cArr 97vr 1

pr-73F-1-4y-F4--f) lutPlf) rVp I

(Vir ffe /1/ff-) (F7)1 --4-14117-7,1P2 W--17) p

rter--4-rrn

' 111")

a Jaded s apeio

IV"

,

o% 17- 7I/

/ °-1,

T, 2

.;trr

,"17,

7107"

k

Wf

iPr'

I/I

r-,,

/pip. r

I/

0,

/1.1

//10 ",7

,lr"i7

0 /..

-/

i i/

,'

, 41

--7--- I'" P" w

"/

./

:or-0 I,

1/

.I

, ,,

,.--r --,----7--

, Api,

,p-v-,

-r ,

-e

-

,,0,1-

r#

r'

. -r-,-

//

de /.

r,

,,

, / /I"

_.-,..- - -

,I

el,,

-,

,

ma, ,

............-;

..., ,....-,,

,,

..r/

. ,Ilrr",

-r-17,' 1r/rr

le'I 07

'.1

1f

,

,ig

,

,

,--, r

% /

,''"

//

,, //

/,'

/r-,

,-w

-,ir ,r

1, v,

/,s pr

,/

e/

'Ill

//

r-

,-,,

-IP1r

0,

.i

If ,/ ,

' .,/

/Al

' //

/W

1- 1

-r

/,./

, ,II

/,1

1'

/IO

r% ir

/,

e1

Ol'

,..-

i,

--

I '",'

77(' /I

11/

-I' ,

f'

1.

/I

At

r/

/-I

1/A

,/

,'''-IP

.....1

-IP ,

f.

/ 0"67-.." IV

/Jr'/

//

//

/I

14

/,

/V

ig/to

rrL

11--

Iget

wat / g

a41

aha

44k/

' LL

4JitI

44&

_11p

'(-

144i

0,4

gte/

le4

4,19

._0

(14e

Ygi

ff

da44

-2a

3,1

,sei

b W

d'ac

am)

- -

- -3

9

44-Z

"Ot

aiA

AA

, I

BE

ST C

OPY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

-

31E

IRV

AV

Ad0

0.13

38V

rm

ot*

.pc7

.1"1

°IP

_

tv

7/1 37

v/te

WIr

e,-1

774-

7°`

1,41

1-70

9-47

70.

7''`-

--tT

fttvr

irrO

-at

-N'w

rettr

a

elcr

ivir

aY

th-

qvri

g19

-

!--

EXPLANATIONS OF SCORESGrade 5

02A Change

A

This paper does not develop the prompt. After beginning with a topic sentence that is ontask, the response continues with a rambling sentence that can only be vaguely connected tothe topic sentence.

Score: I

The response begins to summarize the plot of a recent movie, only to lose its way. It doesnot make the connection between the movie's plot and the prompt for this task, nor does itdisplay any logical structure or purpose.

Score: 1

The response's simplistic style is more typical of a younger student. When the responseaddresses thc prompt, it is with poor mechanical skills and limited vocabulary. When thcresponse moves from a discussion of change to details about the baby ("Cody is verylong...."), the reader can sense the writer saw that the original piece was too short anddecided to add on the last two paragraphs.

Score: 2

While this is a strongerpaper than # 07160. the response presents a confusing situation.Does the narrator live with his/her father or not? Change, the topic of the prompt, is onlysuggested. Again, thc writer, perhaps sensing that there is not enough writing on the page,tacks on a tibute to his/hcr father. The paper lacks structure and has weak development.

Score: 2

4 3

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

This response gets right to work on the prompt with a steady introduction. It sustains themomentum with well-developed paragraphs and ends the piece with a summary statement.While it shows control of writing conventions such as transitions, it repeats many of thepoints and has a problem with run-on sentences.

Score: 3

This paper tells a good tale, although lapses in logic cause confusion (e.g., they did not goto the movies because the mother was getting fat; the writer was six when she thought hermother was eating too much. but "lated that night" the mother tells her about the baby).Some sentences are run-ons: others are repetitive ("Then....", "Then....", "Then....").

Score: 3

This nicely sustained piece stays on target throughout while exhibiting the writer's attitudetoward the subject in a voice that is appropriate to the task. The response not only tells usabout the new pet but also adds details of how life has changed because of cat ownership.With its clear sense of beginning, middle, and end, the paper achieves a sense ofwholeness while exhibiting control over language through sentence variety and precisediction.

Score: 4

The response shares vivid memories of a bike accident that has the reader visualizing thcscene as she/he "ramped it" and "wcnt sailing through the air." Not a strong 4 paper, thispiece nevertheless has a clear central idea that is richly developed with details. It uses avaricty of sentence beginnings and makes few errors in grammar and usage.

Score: 4-

BESTCOPY AVAILABLE

4 4

MEAP Writing Assessment in Grade 8

Sample Student Papers

Note: To protect the identity of students whose writing samples are provided here, written responses havebeen re-copied in another's handwriting and any identifying information has been removed.

G rade 8Paper A

CAW Gue

CD-2-7

6e ltaz to-/L.0 ext.-4z Utezz

1 tI

czAtsi.

L. plaCt.

C?hertm

BEST CON AVAILABLE,

4 6

Grade 8Paper B

.e2z2L4alekxh___OLL.L,t,4,1A,/La_ _ _.

ete2i_iu _dilrn 11_1(121___Gkzul Af._2.41:ee

1,0A--) e -071

61/11-d

eLLe

C2/)-LcZ 41a/7d_ .4Metz_e"61.W 6411) .

LI

47BESTCOPYAVAILABLE

Grade 8Paper C

CA:c.1.6Le4J

ix, -M.'

triv.4ziut

_42,nt _a_ 44

__CULL Jat/Lria__O-?rL._ rZt__&(4,?...1c1Le_44144 cat-

14jazt_.1.0 /01,a42

J/7t-Z_ LLde arht/.400.

.

WEST COPY PALA LE

4 8

Grade 8Paper D

_L tka 4J __Z/)telLL.072:._ LI1 _4A1?,L6Z /z4,7_

:1M,e41,&_aie___4/3.er2,LZ der27.4e4.2-2

cor)LtaefrIt,t,_103, tL.i &.)22eaLe.,

diArdzyni:/,aeZZZr). 411_ZZ4.)_ 122Z

Lee, ..11Ca,44a

CLIW4,4__&_t14__Z/Z-Z,0 LOLLL_e_lia,t_A9-LefU

MZI/x_-) /YLEr_7- t4Az2tiv;vditcLiAx,) .412,67-_ArZ (/_EA_IX_ZZ,tzzA92.____tela_tth_Piela IDA>.

lb ta14._e_ Mw A-0_1(Z .4e7-Lte-ix)

eARei /2t ci _64e.y... JAI "el

yJizi/v2eyrimz.461 .oft.e..4

BESICOPY AVAILABLE 4 9

/,

A0,

444I

Apr,

I r' 11

// /

I 4 rI if p

//

r,

., /

,,

/ I:

.e'or

/f

,I

-lf NI

#7,0

,,,r

. fI

r, te

.-

/,

- .7.: f-

1-'-Irri-

,- --i-t

-1-1

Yr ''

-1

Ir--r, I

.t

//

i- P

r1, P

I,lip

/II',

1,- Y

rl IS

iif

(71

'r

/ I' /

- (1

/I

'irr"I

-1,

;F. rr' F

/,

.1'p

OP

-'

yrr

If

//

-....1 -

-4

/, J

r I/. - ",

1,7--

ri,

rtf/

-r,r-1

,.

,/

r, .II1/ /

y-,

Pr/

-r

p ./ ,

, rrr - Pr ;,-

,.6.- -

/r,- r

" r1

Y '-

,/,rare A

AP r r

yr,,

i/ I

''

I-/

Ifi

riirr1--

:f

/II/70

/ r.--T,

1

Tirp jp

/T

Or- T

', 'Pr ri

Fr rPI I

v.'w

ar- 7a,

-17u

/r

//

//

,Ir -

/- /

-r

r47

-r I/

/f

., -

- vr ,1

- li Fr

/r

/../

//

/,

,.0

Or,

-?

/ tll-',

P-7"

'4% /I

/r

//

Iii,

e,------ir

0 ,,-y' .1

// Fir1

-1/ -IP

r-

AirlD

i. irr-

,/ :r '- ?

i,

'I

o

I/

//

/ '-7

Fr,

i,

a6, r

7 Yr,

/ ' VP

--v.

..0

- -,

,re

rlip

//

,/

lr I - I4

I, II" -rli.

/-73/ - p.--p

,r

7Yr 1

y/

/,

Fr f. ' 8 ,

1 ,r

PIO

I,/

/'4'

I--r

,i

-r-r-7

- - rp.4

; v pI,

/Pi,.

,r , r -

v--.r 7 - ,-

/r

/.

//

. r-r--/4

/--T

/,rrY

'- P

Iri

-r -

,;--r^--- re;

r,

- - l /-

,/

-- ir

7'rR

V-

/'/ I

sr1, rr 1

// l or

"i-

wr

l,

,/

/f /

Ill eff

.- /rip-.

I/

rr

I/

Yr

1/

v' , la/ ,

WI I'

If / rir

if,

?I

- rr

. I/

/f

'-,1

r nr,

I'/0

' II

.

I I4

71

eI

1 e

//

/r

I f'

-,I/

I -., ,

-,la,

r II/

- -r

Ii'

'C

B.

r,

--1/

_/

//

/r

v-ax- p rrit r

01

,- I/-

1I

1a/ r- -

,II

I/I

-I

1I

I/

9,.

fje ler

,...

or1

I dpirf-if

-t

" "r,

/re yr

/.

//

,,

Pr

,,

r- r

,I/ ,

PlIj

Ir'

r,P /

//

/ 4I

IJ.

.0.1

.

J,,

IL/

4I

I jog

4,1

/-

.1

a.C

...°

aI.,

II...'

14

,

,4

Ix

./

"

t ,i

I

/1 ._

_,/

I

, .,-I

II

,LA

MP

1-...

.-,

/1

-44

-19

I

,1 4

oll

id./.

.A...

4,

A

I1

/'

- 14

I1

.-.'

:A

.#0-

1 4

A _

,.

,

x 44

. /4

/,

I/

/'

1.4.

:A_

I :A

g'i A

l1 .

.4

. a. /

,a4.

0,I

,1%

_ff ,

,,,,

A ..

.As.

.01

/44

0.

/-. -

/1

I II .

4I .

0°

.,

111

4'

/-1

tl..

_1--

/14

a:

04 ,

_i A

.0

' . L

./..

4 '

4 /

-1

1A

Ill .4

/4 I

/1

1/I

Iiii

, /

''.

A._

....

..Z/ _

I0

i 14

_ A

II

14L

- 40

4 I_

Ia

-/

14 I

se/1

--'

I 44

4 -e

P/

/

lkw

_A

t,'

..1

41

I ,..i..A

/

_1

á4I

II

44.

,A

LA

_ ..

4 A

il._A

_ex

4lit

..1_

I44

...

14

Id.1

0...4

4, /

1..

44

I,

I1 I

S.

I/4

.1/

/r

/1

/'

AA

1.1

1,

el

/,

%/

I /

/P

//

e1

AA

,,-

141

II

I.'1

1,0

I/

4.da

'-

04

4,

I..

444

. I4

I4

1a

ol I

IL..1

Ar

/J4

.4/

/I.

a; II

j/ 1

4:J

agI '

.''

-3 ..

&, a

op

Alk

f

0 2

_',

1_l

_...

/1

4 id

..._.

/.,

1A

A. _

,IA

1 4

_lag

I°

,S.0

I1

ai

1 -

._

04/

.4 ,

,...4

4/.

.0 _

-IA

A/

p_

',I i

Ai

,Ip,

A.A

.1-

"'4

j ..'

I°

1-

/I

44.

j/

111.

:'

-.1

1.1

_ .1

0_.

..1

i _/

I'

ir7-7,/vT-L

VI

rVpu-P

f-

_°2-zt-Y

P "'rig

TIS

TW

M A

d031539

or792 (v-7-7-rtur711/12?-ym

t4/1.-wp---

WO

-07TM

:c;Pric76

C7irrr -T

TT

S4-7-411(4rII

Te??C

q71,Wr.4777,10--

g-117?ruA/rtra

71442,727,'W

ot-712W-ifrv

-(riTurittr-

WIP

P'r / ,

r I/ 'II' 0

',

Gerarzi276

-Yr

/7nC

/6-7-1,44n7FTX

TW

--

71v77-,

(7722,7v-f

TV

,

r/

If 'ar:rr

WrcireiL

ci

,

714)

/ 2ar7-47C

171/177M-7.

7.7-67r?712177.1W71

(:.

'1

ID..fr7'4r1V

-

r

I.I

7r 4PV

'IP'07 .?4/7-177-777177;71777-7777777T

171717.---.------7t-P

Vg--W

FM

7-Vr137-717737-7717T

Iel77 '

f' I

,,II /el f

7 ,I / / /

f4./ /

I' I7I,

,,/,

I,

-rjr," I

,/

' "7 /V

//II/

/r

I IOr

riTiT

712F-7-7

,-

; Far-er

I

v

/,or

7117/2g272r7Y1/711?-4?afrr

f#,

Fr/

-7-7102

olorr/77n7 7311/121I r/

/

Yr?

/ .41!

iffr7

*Ccirz71712/

vmr-----17-77-*-7717r/

irr/mq

1 /rT / riff

1/P;

r'r493719771;R)

;oap4, F

r/

/171. F:p-

CfroV

"

/111

ofirrov-onv7PFn7)---07--/I/ -

If I II/

I

-76f11T7It

71777071r

0',

/p

r/.7

5 6

io ta

m,

teuz

iti.

__IA

Lf1

14-?

Y:r

4rea

_ 11

4t92

-141

-4/

f jl

i.

I#

1I -/ -

4 '

d/

ell-

1114

1a 1

-ill&

d-66

01--

(A/2

_,tr

iv-A

_242

L.L

140:

kkai

i_a_

___

!vat

2-./a

.the.

leai

yaR

Ai#

7±4V

ate,

d_D

21/0

.1th

ilio

_u_h

rtL

iwie

_Aiz

titau

cki:g

--6)

.J.O

.la

lun7

44.L

_A

lum

azif

_dak

_di3

4DL

,I

ezv/

vytk

_ili_

ii ai

rt_L

ItiL

viat

t-ee

&jjf

ilL,

6e--

-II

BE

ST C

OPY

MA

ILA

BL

E

p_14,47 ,21.1-73<17_72vtillob

Li-L

tr7-1777-p-4/77(477PrivrnW-;771

rteiz...7.77/27-rzur----currKi

'IPly

r7r.11441871(

77-7-Kr-

I IT

x/.1M

TkfN

iPorgjrV

I '

EXPLANTIONS OF SCORESGrade 8

06B Ecology

Either lack of effort, lack of skills, or both has produced this example of insufficientdevelopment of the topic. Proficiency in control of conventions or style is notdemonstrated.

0 Score: 1

No connections are made here either with the prompt or with the various elements of thispiece. The response wanders from one idea to another, accomplishing no sense of order orcoherence.

Scorc: 1

Along with misspellings of fairly common words, the response exhibits numerous sentenceproblems. The few ideas that are related are not sufficient to raise the score of this piece.

Scorc: 2

The response sensibly tries to convince the reader to take action in only one areaalthoughrecycling oil may not be appealing to a younger child. While the response stays on course,it displays a repetitious style with little engaging vocabulary.

Score: 2

BEST COPY MAILABLE

This lively piece displays a tone that should speak to its young audience. For example, inthe next to last paragraph, the response says: " I know you have a while for this one butwhen'you turn 16 you will be wanting to drive everywhere and show off you car...."Throughout, word choices and phrases are appropriate for the task. The responsedemonstrates good control of conventions and a clearly developed plan.

Score: 3

This piece offers many bits of advice but not in a voice that would appeal to young people.The unexciting prose would not impress a young reader nor would the fatherlyadmonishment to "Respect the planet you live on--someday it could be ruined and then youwould relize how precious life is for you and your planet."

Score: 3

Adding to this writer's extensive knowledge about environmental issues is the ability toexpress ideas with clarity and precise vocabulary. The varied and complex sentencestructures enhance a voice that engages the audience-with its apparent commitment to thetopic. This is one of the few writers to use a literary device such as personification: "Theair, too, is feeling the pain of our global destruction."

Score: 4

Fl

This paper illustrates that one does not have to know big words or have vast knowledgeabout the subject to achieve a scorc-of 4. The writer writes simply but not childishly,deVeloping thc topic with appropriate details and sincerity of purpose. With the variedsentence patterns and direct voice, the response communicates the position clearly.

Score: 4

BEST COPY MAILABLE 6 1

The Michigan High School Proficiency TestCommunication Arts: Writing

andMEAP Writing Assessments in Grades 5 and 8

A Guide to How Writing Is Scored:A Supplement to the

Models of the Assessments

March 1995 Draft

Ron Sudol. Oakland UniversityNancy Harper. Grand Rapids Schools

Anne Bendixen..MEAP/Michigan Department of Education

62

The Michigan High School Proficiency TestCommunication Arts: Writing

andMEAP Writing Assessments in Grades 5 and 8

A Guide to How Writing Is Scored:A Supplement to the Models of the Assessments

This information was designed to help Michigan English/language arts teachers understandthe scorepoint descriptions and the scoring process used in evaluating the student writingproduced in response to the assessments. We believe the close study of how studentwriting is assessed is a potent means of staff development in preparation for the firstadministrations df the assessments.

The Scoring Process

As the writing samples are gathered by the contractor, a random sample of several hundredresponses are drawn in such a way as to represent the work of students throughout thestate. These pieces of writing are read carefully by a team of experienced readers in a"rangefinding" session. The readers include teachers from Michigan public schools,professors from.Michigan universities, representatives from the Michigan Department ofEducation, and personnel representing the test contractor. These individuals separatelyread and score the sampleof studenrwriting. Afterwards, the participants gather in acentral location to discuss scores on papers and to reach consensus on those scores. Thesescored writing samples are then used as training material by the contractor.Readers/scorers are trained in the discipline of holistic scoring, and after an intensive andthorough training and qualifying process, readers begin scoring.

The work of readers/scorers is monitored for accuracy. Every writing sample is read by atleast two readers, with second readers never knowing first readers' scores. Discrepanciesof more than one point are resolved by a third, more experienced reader. Readers areperiodically retested and retrained during the scoring session.

Holistic Scoring

The most basic assumption in holistic scoring is that readers process and assess allelements of written products simultaneously. When we function as normal readers, that iswhen we are not reading student papers, we don't consider questions like "How well isthis organized?" or "Is the diction appropriate?" or "Are there too many misspelled words?"Normal readers consume text as a whole while they discover and construct meaning. Thisdoes not mean that discreet elements of writing are not important, only that these elementsare part of a whole. In assessing that whole, we want to consider its overall impact. Thecentral question becomes: "How well does the writer connect with me, the reader?"

All of the identifiable elements of written products contribute to the quality andeffectiveness of the writer's connection with the reader, and as teachers we are accustomed

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 63

to helping students achieve this goal by working on such separate elements as organization,diction, and mechanics. But when people read, they read in order to be communicatedwith. All those discrete elements of writing must function together for both writers andreaders engaged in the basic human enterprise of communication. One of the challenges ofholistic scoring is to duplicate the normality of the reading process in the artificial world ofstudent writing and its assessment by teachers. We do this by forming consensus on howthe separate elements of written products function as part of the larger communicativeprocess.

A large body of scholarship and extensive professional practice over many years hasrefined and validated the procedures of holistic scoring. These procedures are the mostwidely used method of large-scale writing assessment and have been used by EducationalTesting Service, American College Testing, CTB-McGraw Hill, and many others. Holisticscoring is also used in many school districts in Michigan, so its procedures are alreadyfamiliar to many teachers and administrators.

Some of the elements of holistic scoring include the following:- Scoring is a controlled event, occurring at the same time and place.- Scorepoint descriptions are refined and given definition by actual samples of

student writing.- Readers are trained to score each assessment by studying the scoring guides(scorepoint descriptions and accompanying rangefinding-scored studentresponses) and by coming to consensus on what is valued in writing.

- Readers become qualified by experience with holistic scoring and by being heldaccountable for their accuracy and their fidelity to the scoring guides.

- Readers form an impression of an entire piece of writing, taking all elements intoconsideration simultaneously.

- Writing samples are read by at least two readers with a third, more experiencedreader adjudicating discrepancies.

The Scorepoint Descriptions

The first four scores (1 to 4) are the only ones that count numerically. The others (5 to 9)are administrative designations for student writing that is unratable under holisticmethodology.

These scorepOint descriptions identify the kind of writing that typifies each of the fourscore levels. Obviously, writing proficiency is a continuous variable rather than a discretevariable. We see a continuum of increasing writing proficiency; the four scorepoints arecuts established to help us describe the differing levels of ability. Within each level therewill be a wide range of variation. The purpose of the scorepoint descriptions is to illustratethe most typical papers at a given level and to help readers come to a commonunderstanding of the four levels. The scorepoint descriptions are not a checklist, nor arethey reducible to a numerical formula, in that each component is not worth, say, twenty- ortwenty-five percent of the holistic score. Teachers may use more detailed analytical gridsas diagnostic instruments in their classrooms. However, holistic scoring provides a ratingrather than diagnostic feedback.

The general directive to readers doing holistic scoring is to credit what the writer has donewell. The approach is positive. This is not a hunt for errors, lapses, and inadequacies.When a piece of writing gets a low score. it is because the writing exhibits fewer positivefeatures than another piece of writing. In other words, there is no "taking points off" for

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 6 4

this or that deficiency. Similarly, holistic scoring does not attempt to assess the writer,only the writing:

HSPT Part 1: Reporting and Reflecting

Students bring to the assessment two pieces of writing from their own portfolios.Currently, these pieces are not scored. However, we are looking forward to futureiterations of this assessment that look more like portfolio evaluations.

The first part of the actual assessment then asks students to reflect and comment upon theirwriting as typified by their two portfolio pieces. Students are expected to refer to one orboth of these pieces in their responses.

What we are looking for here is the ability of students to look at themselves as writers andto write convincingly in this self-reflexive mode. The ability to stand back and observe ourown performance of a complex task is an important step in developing mastery of that task.This is certainly true of writing. In addition, a collateral purpose of Part I is to encourageand validate writing across the whole curriculum. It serves no good purpose if studentsassociate writing only with English classes. So, whether they are writing literary analysisor lab reports or something related to vocational training, they are writers, and we wantthem to be able to define themselves that way.

Part 1 Prompts

The prompts for Part I invite students to comment on their own writing in a specific way.Thirty minutes is allotted to this task.

Notice that the prompt does not invite generalities about the writing process nor about thewnting process. The directive is very specific. Ample allowance in the scoring is made forthe time limitation; this is scored as first-draft writing.

Scoring Part 1

As you look at the sample student responses, you will see that holistic scoring rewardsstudents for what they do well. The underlying spirit of holistic scoring is positive: "Howfull is the glass?" rather than "How empty is the glass?" As you read the papers in order ofincreasing proficiency, you will probably see that responses have more positive featuresthan the previous responses and that the scores reflect the accumulation of those positivevalues. This is not the same as saying the score is a gauge of a response's length.Certainly a long piece of writing can be incoherent, and a relatively short one can besophisticated. Before going on, you might find it useful to review the papers again, thistime in tandem with the scorepoint descriptions.

Different configurations of strengths and weaknesses can still get the same score. Anotherpoint to be emphasized here is that holistic reading isn't simply reading for style andmechanics. We are reading holistically, and that whole that we read includes the quality ofthe response to the task.. It is important to remember that each of the score levelsencompasses a range of abilities and that responses scored as a 4 do not have to be perfect,especially in Parts I and II where we arc evaluating first drafts written under severe timeconstraints.

BEST COPY ANALABLE 65

Michigan Writing Assessments:Similarities and Differences

MEAP Grade 5 & 8 Assessments New High School Proficiency Test

based on Michigan State Board of Education approveddocuments: Essential Goals and Objectives for Writing

(1985) and Model Core Curriculum Outcomes (1991)

based on Michigan State Board of Education approveddocuments: Essential Goals and Objectives for Writing(1985) and Model Core Curriculum Outcomes (1991)

1 writing task 3 writing tasks

3 testing sessions (approx 45 min each) 3 testing sessions (approx 40 min, 45 min. 115 min)

2 portfolio pieces required

reflective writing task (Part 1)

topic is provided topic is provided

reading/viewing materials (gr 8 only) reading/viewing materials

exploratory writing task (Part 2)

small group discussion small group discussion

large group sharing large group sharing

prewriting and drafting

review of writing review of writing

drafting and revising extended writing task (Part 3): drafting and revising

peer response

review of writing

final revision and proofreading fmal revision and proofreading

4-point holistic scoring 4-point holistic scoring of each of the 3 pieces

BEST COPY AVAILABLE3/16/95

IA

LI

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

National Library of Education (NLE)Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

®

IC

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket) form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-fimded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form(either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

EFF-089 (9/97)