The Quality of Writing Prompts in Middle-School ELA Classes

In this Teachers College Record article, Chandra Alston (University of Michigan/Ann Arbor) and Michelle Brown (Southeastern Louisiana University) compare the intellectual content of everyday writing tasks given by two tiers of middle-school ELA teachers: those whose students show impressive gains on standardized tests, and those whose students perform less well. Alston and Brown also examine the kinds of support teachers give their students and the quality of writing students produce. 

The conclusion: the first group of teachers consistently gave more-challenging writing assignments, followed up with more support, gave their students opportunities to revise their work, and got much better writing. The second group of teachers often assigned fill-in-the-blanks worksheet writing assignments, provided less follow-up and fewer second-draft opportunities, and got lower-quality writing from their students. 

Here are some of the characteristics of higher-performing teachers’ assignments and support:

• Writing prompts were intellectually challenging, requiring students to analyze and think critically, sometimes comparing two pieces of writing;
• Prompts required extended writing, interpretation, analysis, synthesis, or evaluation of evidence rather than simple recall or statement of facts;
• Teachers provided scaffolding to support students in unpacking the prompt and responding at a higher level – for example, writing five paragraphs of which three were about character, setting, and theme;
• Teachers provided graphic organizers, models, checklists, rubrics, and other supports to help students stay on track and critique their own writing;
• Students were required to edit and revise through multiple drafts;
• Feedback was detailed and specific, focusing on content as well as conventions;
• Teachers pushed their students to do better – for example, “be specific and give examples.” 

“This push toward revision or clarification is rarely documented in the lower-quartile sample,” say Alston and Brown, “and when it is, it is often on the final draft, when students are unlikely to revise.”

The authors conclude with a suggestion on teacher evaluation. Classroom observations, videotaping teachers, and test scores are informative, they say, but supervisors should also look at everyday writing assignments and students’ work in progress, which provide important insights about the level of rigor, intellectual demand, and support teachers are giving their students.

“Differences in Intellectual Challenge of Writing Tasks Among Higher and Lower Value-Added English Language Arts Teachers” by Chandra Alston and Michelle Brown in Teachers College Record, May 2015 (Vol. 117, #5, p. 1-24), http://bit.ly/1K6H5ek; the authors can be reached at clalston@umich.edu and michelle.brown-4@selu.edu.

From the Marshall Memo #592