effects of digital storytelling on third grade student...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
Effects of Digital Storytelling on Third Grade Student Writing
Jean K. Martin
University of West Georgia
2
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
Introduction
Learning to write has long been considered a cornerstone of U.S. primary and secondary
education (National Commission of Writing, 2003). Writing is also acknowledged to be a skill
that requires years of practice (National Commission of Writing, 2006). It is a non-linear
process that requires the writer to rethink, review, and revise throughout the writing experience
(Dyson, 1992). When learning to write sentences, paragraphs, and various genres, elementary
students are learning to develop their ideas and express these ideas through writing. The new
writers require time and guidance through the process (National Commission of Writing, 2006).
Writing test scores show that there is a need for student performance improvement across
the nation. In 2007, twelfth grade students evaluated throughout the U.S. in writing showed only
25% were writing at a proficient or higher level (The Nation’s Report Card, 2007). Many
students continuing their studies at the university level require remedial writing instruction in
their first years of study (Gregory, Steelman, & Caverly, 2009). During the elementary and
secondary school day, however, writing instruction is competing for instructional time with the
subject areas of reading and math. Across the nation, student progress in these grades is
evaluated in annual high stakes reading and math tests. The results are reviewed for Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) as defined in the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. There are
significant federal penalties for individual schools and districts that fail to demonstrate AYP.
For this reason these two subject areas receive a high priority in scheduling and resources often
at the expense of other subjects such as writing.
Today’s educators also understand that students are part of the digital age. Instant
messages, emails, telephone texts messages, abbreviating phrases, incorporating sound and
3
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
images into messages are all now the norm (Robin, 2008; Sylvester & Greenidge, 2009).
Writing using pencil and paper can seem to be unrelated to students' interests and methods of
communication. However, the development of written language must be viewed within the
context of the social and artistic lives of the children (Dyson, 1992). Communication technology
therefore needs to be considered when developing writing instruction. Digital storytelling may
be an effective instructional intervention to provide students with both an authentic use of 21st
Century technology in the school setting and strengthen student writing skills.
Literature Review
Teaching students to use a defined writing process began to be wide-spread in the U.S. in
the 1980’s (Gillespie, 2001). This process includes idea collection, drafting, revising, editing,
and publishing. The foundation of this instruction was to honor the individual writer and support
the development of quality independent writing (Cullam, 2003). Writing workshop (Calkins,
1986) then extended the process instruction to included mini-lessons, self-selection of writing
topics, individual student-teacher conferences, whole class sharing, and publishing opportunities.
Writer’s workshop instruction has been found to be effective in developing independent and
confident first grade student writers. (Jasmine & Weiher, 2007). In this study, writing was a
daily classroom event. There continues to be interest in understanding the nature of process of
writing. A case study was undertaken to reveal the narrative writing process of an individual
second grader (Ranker, 2007). By recording student group conversations, asking questions, and
reading the student’s writing, Ranker discovered that rather than copying a combination of
personal experiences, popular culture, and children’s literature, the student was actually
remaking those experiences to be uniquely his own.
4
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
Once students have a writing product, the evaluation process begins. Evaluating student
writing has moved from a letter grade with minimal written teacher commentary to a scoring
rubric based on the grade-level writing standards and characteristics (Burke, 2006). The State of
Georgia, for example, evaluates student writing in the fifth, eighth and twelfth grade levels using
the State of Georgia’s Writing Rubric (Georgia Department of Education, 2011). To guide the
student writing process towards producing higher quality writing product, the traits of good
writing have been defined by student performance standards that are then translated into a rubric.
The desired writing traits have also been incorporated into writing instruction. The Six + 1
Traits of Writing books by Ruth Culham have the stated goals that students and teachers: 1)
speak a common language based on the traits 2) nurture process learning 3) use criteria to set the
standard (Culham, 2003, p. 7). These traits are identified as Ideas, Organization, Voice, Word
Choice, Sentence Fluency, Conventions, and Presentation (Culham, 2003).
Although definition and clarity have come to the instruction of the writing process and
the traits of quality writing, writers continue to struggle. The impact of self-regulated strategy
development on struggling writers was studied Tracy, Reid, and Graham (2009). The
instruction’s goal was to increase student’s independent use of the strategies while improving the
quality of student writing. Explicit instruction and the use of graphic organizers and mnemonic
devices were taught to students with the goal of students including seven defined story elements
in their writings independently. While student writing showed improvement with this
instructional method, the control groups in this study did not have consistent writing process or
traits of writing instruction with regular student-teacher writing conferences.
5
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
A concentration of struggling writers are often identified as students of urban high-
poverty and high-diversity schools. Walker-Dalhouse and Risko studied best practices to
increase student literacy in this context and writing performance was addressed. Instruction that
supports student learning was identified to be both connected to the lives of the students and
involved more than one content area. Successful teachers highlight the differences of students’
culture and language and incorporated those differences into content and skills instruction.
(Walker-Dalhouse & Risko, 2008).
Instruction that meets the needs of a diverse student population is growing in importance.
For example, as of 2008, 21 percent of school-age children spoke a language other than English
at home ( U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Developing academic writing instruction for
this group of students has created additional challenges. Camhi and Eisenstein-Ebsworth have
piloted writing instruction that addresses both the sentence level structure and the rhetorical
structure of academic English writing (Camhi & Eisenstein-Ebsworth, 2008). The GAINS
approach (Grammar Awareness through Isolation, Integration, and Scaffolding) was developed
to support non-native college ELLs' writing development through the addition of a metacognitive
component in a process-writing classroom. These instructional strategies may have application
to English Language Learners in the primary and secondary grades to reach grade-level writing
performance.
To achieve relevance for students, educators must strive to connect the students’ social
reading and writing with the context of academic literacy at school (Consididine, Horton, &
Moreman, 2009). Technologies such as digital storytelling may provide that bridge. “However,
it is clear to many that content integration, supported by powerful computer technologies, is
6
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
needed, and the impact that computer technology can have on students is much more meaningful
when it involves an impact on higher order thinking skills …. (Robin, 2008, p 227)”. Recent
qualitative research conducted by showed examples of students overcoming specific difficulties
in writing through their experiences with digital storytelling (Sylvester & Greenidge, 2009). In
this research, students recorded their writing and added images that were either selected by or
created by the student to illustrate their narrative writing. The results included examples of how
this initial digital storytelling project had started the students on the path to improve their
writing. Other researchers have observed that students using digital storytelling have
demonstrated increased confidence (Gregory, Steelman, & Caverly, 2009). Bringing images and
sound into the classroom through digital storytelling has the potential to provide in-school
instruction in literacy that is both vibrant and unified (Walsh, 2008). Questions remain as to
what impact digital storytelling instruction will have on student learning.
Problem Statement
Further research is needed to determine if there are quantifiable improvements in student
writing performance once student-created digital storytelling has been used as an instructional
strategy. By studying the effects of digital storytelling instruction on third grade students,
student writing will be evaluated at the earliest stage of comparative scoring of student writing.
The State of Georgia conducts a mandatory evaluation of student writing using the Georgia
Writing Assessment Scoring Rubric in grades three, five, eight, and twelve (Georgia Department
of Education, 2011). The six traits of writing in this rubric are: ideas/content, organization,
voice, word choice, sentence fluency, and conventions.
7
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
If an increase in student writing performance were measured in third grade students, educator
interest in implementing digital storytelling as an instructional approach could grow.
Data will be collected and analyzed to answer the following research question: How does
digital storytelling impact student performance on the six traits of writing?
Research Methodology
This will be a quantitative research study. The research method for this project will use
the multiple-case design (Johnson & Christensen, p. 408). There will be three different
instructional interventions 1) writers workshop, 2) traits-based writing instruction, and 3) writing
instruction through a student-created digital storytelling project. Three third grade classes will
participate in the study from three separate elementary schools, for a total of nine classes of
students participating in the study. Each school will administer each of the three instructional
interventions. The scoring results from the writing rubric will be quantified and analyzed. Each
of the four domain categories in the writing rubric (Appendix D) will be included in the analysis.
Each student’s base line writing sample will be compared to their post-instruction writing sample
to determine what effect, if any, the instruction had on student writing performance (Appendix
E).
Research Participants
There will be a total of nine classes of students in the study with an estimated student
population of 240. The study will use convenience sampling (Johnson & Christian, 2008, p.
238) a nonrandom sampling technique. Three schools in the same district have been
encouraging their staff to improve the quality of their writing instruction through participating in
8
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
the National Writing Project’s Summer Institute. Each of the nine teachers delivering instruction
in this study has completed a Summer Institute and is committed to daily writing instruction in
their classrooms.
Each class will contain students who are classified as general education and also students
who are receiving services in educational programs. There will be students identified as “gifted”
through standardized testing. There will also be students in Georgia’s Early Intervention
Program (EIP). EIP students have been identified to be at risk in math, reading or both by their
second grade CRCT scores or other screening methods if CRCT scores are unavailable. A few
classes will have a number of students in the English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)
program. The ESOL students have been identified through testing as being English Language
Learners through ACCESS test used by the State of Georgia for all students with a language
other than English in their backgrounds.
Design
Each school will provide each of the instructional interventions by classroom. The
combined population of student participants will be analyzed before deciding which class will
receive which instruction. The objective will be to have a balance of all student academic
profiles participating in each instructional method. Three classes will receive the grammar mini-
lesson and process writing instruction, three classes will receive 6 Plus 1 Traits writing
instruction with written feedback, and three classes will receive instruction on both process and
traits through the digital storytelling project (Appendices A, B, & C) By completing the data
collection within a 9 week period, some of the threats to internal validity that are inherent in
9
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
qualitative research such as history, maturation, and testing will be minimized (Johnson &
Christenson, p. 258).
Instruments
There will be two data collection instruments used in this study 1) pre and post student
writing samples and 2) a spreadsheet to analyze the data obtained from scoring the writing
samples using the writing rubric. The writing rubric will be the evaluating instrument.
Procedure
Students will produce their initial writing sample. Once the student writing is scored and
the student academic profiles are analyzed, each class will be assigned their writing instruction
intervention. The objective will be that a cross-section of students is receiving each instructional
intervention. Once instruction is complete, the students will produce final writing samples. All
writing samples – pre and post – will be analyzed withholding the identities of each student. The
analysis tool will be the state writing rubric and it will be conducted by a team of three teachers,
two who are participating in the instruction and one who is not. The rubric results will then be
analyzed to determine whether or not student writing has improved. Using three teachers should
increase the inter-rater reliability of the data by attempting to neutralize potential evaluator bias
(Johnson & Christenson, p. 253).
10
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
Phase Action Instrument(s)
Planning Arrange 9 classes of third graders
- three classes at three schools -
each school providing classes
with similar student-body
makeups (ie. EIP reduced class
size, general education, etc.)
9 teachers establish method
of communication during
project (ie. GoogleDocs
document) for weekly
communication throughout
the project for updates and
to address any issues that
arise
each of the three
instructional intervention
having its own GoogleDoc
for communication.
shared scheduled writing
instruction time so that each teacher
of the 3 teachers at each school will
be able to take one of the 3 groups
of students for instruction.
Baseline data &
Instructional Group
Assignments
Students create baseline writing
sample
writing prompt for genre identified
for instruction in this 9 week period
(recommend 2nd 9 weeks to reduce
pressure on Spring CRCT
preparation and give students the
opportunity to settle into school)
collaboratively score the writing
samples using rubric (minimum
of 3 teachers blind scoring each
3rd grade writing rubric
from local school system
instructions for
collaborative scoring
11
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
writing sample and then
collaboratively arriving at
scores.)
Select which class will receive
each of the 3 instructional
strategies.
scored writing samples, DRA2
Reading Levels, identification of
any special program such as EIP,
ESOL, Target, and SPED
Instructional start 3 different writing
instruction interventions
1) writer's workshop
2)writing instruction using mini-
lessons on 6 Traits of writing
3) digital storytelling (DS)
instruction
Unit Overview Plan
(media center specialist is prepared
to support the digital storytelling
instruction by providing additional
instructional support and by
blocking additional computer lab
time for these classes to work on
their projects)
Post Data Collection
and Analysis
Each class completes the final
assessment writing prompt.
Provide enough time so that each
student has adequate time to
complete the assignment
applying the writing process.
12
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
Compile student results by
instructional method
change in writing
performance
Writing Rubric
data spreadsheets
Data Analysis
The rubric scoring data from each student’s pre and post writing samples will be entered into its
own spreadsheet for comparison to detect any change in student writing performance. The total
population will be analyzed for change in writing performance by instructional intervention.
Each subpopulation within the student sample will be analyzed separately by instructional
intervention as well.
Concluding Summary
This study is designed to compare the effectiveness of three writing strategies on a
diverse third grade student population. Two of the instructional strategies, Writer’s Workshop
and Traits Writing, are research-based and known to improve student writing when properly
implemented (National Commission on Writing, 2006). Each teacher in the study have been
selected for the training they have completed in writing instruction and their on-going
commitment to quality writing instruction in their classroom. At the time of this study, the effect
of writing instruction using digital storytelling is unknown. The three classes that will receive
13
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
the digital storytelling intervention will be lead by teachers with a proven commitment to writing
instruction. This study should provide data that will further the discussion of digital storytelling
technology and writing instruction.
14
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
References
Burke, K. (2006). From standards to rubrics in six steps: Tools for assessing student learning,
K-8. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Camhi, P., & Einstein-Ebsworth, M. (2008). Merging a metalinquistic grammar spproach with
L2 academic process writing: ELLS in community college. Teaching English as a
Second or Foreign Language, Vol 12 No. 2, Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ898151.pdf
Culham, R. (2003). 6+1 traits of writing: The complete guide grades 3 and up. Portland,
Oregon: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Culham, R. (2005). 6+1 traits of writing: The complete guide for the primary grades. Portland,
Oregon: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Considine, D., Horton, J., & Moorman, G. (2009). Teaching and reading the millennial
generation through media literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,52.6: 471-481.
Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 11.
Dalhouse, D., & Risko, V. (2008). Learning from literacy successes in high-achieving urban
schools. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 422-424. Retrieved from ProQuest Education
Journals. (Document ID: 1427782881)
Dyson, A. (1992). From prop to mediator: The changing role of written language in children’s
symbolic repertoires. Occasional paper No. 32, Washington D.C.: Office of Educational
15
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED354521.pdf
Eckhoff, A., & Urbach, J. (2008). Understanding imaginative thinking during childhood:
sociocultural conceptions of creativity and imaginative thought. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 36(2), 179-185. Retrieved August 25, 2010, from Research Library.
(Document ID: 1897318401).
Foulger, T., & Jimenez-Silva, M. (2007). Enhancing the writing development of English
language learners: Teacher perceptions of common technology in project-based learning.
Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 22(2), 109-124. Retrieved October 17,
2010, from ProQuest Education Journals. (Document ID: 1411756371).
Georgia Department of Education
http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/ci_testing.aspx?PageReq=CITestingWA3
Gillispie, M. (2001). Research in writing: implications for adult literacy education. Review of
adult learning in literacy, 2 (3), Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED508714.pdf
Graham, S., MacARthur, C. A., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.). (2007). Best practices in writing
instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
Gregory, K., Steelman, J., & Caverly, D. (2009). Techtalk: Digital storytelling and
developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education, 33(2), 42-43. Retrieved
from Academic Search Complete database.
16
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
Hairston, M. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the teaching of
writing," CCC 33, pp. 76-88, rpt. in The Norton Book of Composition Studies, ed. Susan
Miller. New York: Norton.
Iverson, K. (2009). The write-brain: How to educate and entertain with learner-centered writing.
Performance Improvement, 48(7), 20-25. Retrieved October 15, 2010, from ProQuest
Education Journals. (Document ID. 1893304341).
Jasmine, J., & Weiner, W. (2007). The effects of writing workshop on abilities of first grade
students to become confident and independent writers. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 35(2), 131-139. Retrieved October 17, 2010, from ProQuest Education Journals.
(Document ID: 2142196101).
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Marcus, S. (2009). New basics for new literacies. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science & Technology, 60(9), 1933-1938. doi:10.1002/asi.21135.
Merchant, G. (2007). Writing the future in the digital age. Literacy, 41(3), 118-128.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9345.2007.00469.x.
Murry, D. (1972). Teach writing as a process not a product. Reprinted from The Leaflet
http://www.paulmuhlhauser.org/CourseArchive/English630/PDF/Murray.pdf
17
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
National Commission on Writing, The neglected "R": The need for a writing revolution, (2003).
Retrieved from
http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/writingcom/neglectedr.pdf)
National Commission on Writing, Writing and school reform ( 2006). Retrieved from
http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/writingcom/writing-school-reform-natl-
comm-writing.pdf
Nation’s Report Card. (2007). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
Nelson, M. (2008). Multimodal literacies: Linking theory, research, and practice [review of the
books Gaming Lives in the Twenty-First Century, Literate Connections, Multimodal
Pedagogies in Diverse Classrooms: Representation, Rights, and Resources, and Visual
Approaches to Teaching Writing: Multimodal Literacy 5-11]. Language Arts, 86(2), 142-
145. Retrieved September 2, 2010, from ProQuest Education Journals. (Document ID:
1607951441).
No Child Left Behind Act, (2001). Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
Parry, B. (2010). Moving stories: Exploring children’s use of media in their story telling and the
implications for teaching about narrative in schools. English Teaching: Practices and
Critique, 9(1), 58-72. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ890514.pdf
18
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
Ranker, J. (2007). Designing meaning with multiple media sources: A case study of an eight-
year-old student's writing processes. Research in the Teaching of English, 41(4), 402-
434. Retrieved October 17, 2010, from ProQuest Education Journals. (Document ID:
1284720721).
Robin, B. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st century
classroom. Theory into practice, 47(3), 220-228. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Salahu-Din, D., Persky, H., and Miller, J. (2008). The nation’s report card: Writing 2007 (NCES
2008–468). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education, Washington, D.C. (retrieved from
http://nationsreportcard.gov/writing_2007/)
Santangelo, T. & Olinghouse, N. (2009). Effective writing instruction for students who have
writing difficulties. Focus on Exceptional Children. Dec 2009; 42, 4; ProQuest Education
Journals
Sylvester, R. & Greenidge, W. (2009). Digital storytelling: Extending the potential for struggling
writers. The Reading Teacher, 63(4),284-295. doi: 10.1598/RT.63.4.3
Tracy, B., Reid, R., & Graham, S. (2009). Teaching young students strategies for planning and
drafting stories: The impact of self-regulated strategy development. Journal of
Educational Research, 102(5), 323-331. Retrieved from ERIC database.
19
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). The condition of
education 2010 (NCES 2010-028), Indicator 5. (retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=96)
Walker-Dalhouse, D. & Risko, V. (2008). Learning from literacy successes in high-achieving
urban schools. The Reading Teacher, 61 (5), 422-424. Retrieved September 2, 2010, from
ProQuest Education Journals. (Document ID: 1427782881).
Walsh, M. (2008). Worlds have collided and modes have merged: classroom evidence of
changed literacy practices. Literacy, 42(2), 101-108. doi:10.1111/j.1741-
4369.2008.00495.x.
20
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
Appendix A
Class: Third Grade
Subject: English Language Arts - Writing
Content: Response to Literature – Using Digital Storytelling
Standards: ELA
ELA3C1.e Conventions ELA3C1.g Conventions ELA3C1.k Conventions ELA3W1 Writing Process ELA3W1.a Writing Process ELA3W1.b Writing Process ELA3W1.c Writing Process ELA3W1.d Writing Process ELA3W1.k Writing Process ELA3W1.m Writing Process ELA3W1.n Writing Process
ELA3W2d Response to Literature ELA3W2e Response to Literature
Technology
T3.a T4.a
Supplies needed:
Folktale to read
Windows MovieMaker
Storyboard format
GPS in student friendly language:
Know: How to write a response to literature using the writing process.
Understand: The elements of the response to literature and the writing process.
Do: Write a response to literature including the required elements and conventions.
Assessment of Prior Knowledge:
Baseline writing sample.
21
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
Instruction:
Heterogeneous grouping
Tiers of Differentiation:
H.O.T.S.:
Applying, Comprehending/Understanding, Remembering
Assessment Strategies:
Formative: a minimum of 3 individual writing conferences during the 9 week period
A student-friendly conference rubric
Summative: Final writing sample completed at the end of the 9 week period, evaluated using the 3rd
grade writing rubric
22
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
Appendix B
Class: Third Grade
Subject: English Language Arts - Writing
Content: Response to Literature – Using Writers Workshop
Standards: ELA
ELA3C1.e Conventions ELA3C1.g Conventions ELA3C1.k Conventions ELA3W1 Writing Process ELA3W1.a Writing Process ELA3W1.b Writing Process ELA3W1.c Writing Process ELA3W1.d Writing Process ELA3W1.k Writing Process ELA3W1.m Writing Process ELA3W1.n Writing Process ELA3W2d Response to Literature ELA3W2e Response to Literature
Supplies needed:
Folktale to read
Student friendly rubric
Student conferencing forms
GPS in student friendly language:
Know: How to write a response to literature using the writing process.
Understand: The elements of the response to literature and the writing process.
Do: Write a response to literature including the required elements and conventions.
Assessment of Prior Knowledge:
Baseline writing sample.
23
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
Instruction:
Heterogeneous grouping
Tiers of Differentiation:
H.O.T.S.:
Applying, Comprehending/Understanding, Remembering
Assessment Strategies:
Formative: a minimum of 3 individual writing conferences during the 9 week period
A student-friendly conference rubric
Summative: Final writing sample completed at the end of the 9 week period, evaluated using the 3rd
grade writing rubric
24
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
Appendix C
Class: Third Grade
Subject: English Language Arts - Writing
Content: Response to Literature – Using Traits based Writing
Standards: ELA
ELA3C1.e Conventions ELA3C1.g Conventions ELA3C1.k Conventions ELA3W1 Writing Process ELA3W1.a Writing Process ELA3W1.b Writing Process ELA3W1.c Writing Process ELA3W1.d Writing Process ELA3W1.k Writing Process ELA3W1.m Writing Process ELA3W1.n Writing Process ELA3W2d Response to Literature ELA3W2e Response to Literature
Supplies needed:
Folktale to read
GPS in student friendly language:
Know: How to write a response to literature using the writing process.
Understand: The elements of the response to literature and the writing process.
Do: Write a response to literature including the required elements and conventions.
Assessment of Prior Knowledge:
Baseline writing sample.
Instruction:
Heterogeneous grouping
25
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
Tiers of Differentiation:
H.O.T.S.:
Applying, Comprehending/Understanding, Remembering
Assessment Strategies:
Formative: a minimum of 3 individual writing conferences during the 9 week period
A student-friendly conference rubric
Summative: Final writing sample completed at the end of the 9 week period, evaluated using the 3rd grade writing rubric
26
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
Appendix D (1 of 5)
27
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
Appendix D (2 of 5)
28
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
Appendix D (3 of 5)
29
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
Appendix D (4 of 5)
30
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
Appendix D (5 of 5)
31
Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING
Appendix E