Purpose
of this Study |
The
national monitoring task frameworks developed by the National
Education Monitoring Project (NEMP) have two key purposes. They
provide a guideline structure for the development and selection
of tasks which are then used as the basis for the analyses of
students’ knowledge,
understandings and skills.
Constructing
and communicating meaning in written forms for various purposes
and audiences is the central organising theme of the NEMP writing
framework. The understanding aspect of the framework summarises
important ideas about writing; the purposes aspect identifies
why we write – to inform, to entertain
and to persuade; the skills aspect lists necessary planning, composing,
editing and presenting skills required to write; and the motivation
aspect highlights the importance of motivation and attitude to writing.
The Writing
Framework identifies several understandings relevant to the 1998 “My Place” task analysed, and the subsequent Trend
tasks in 2002 and 2006:
|
| • |
Writing is a process of thinking, drafting and reworking |
| • |
Conventions of writing are required for effective communication |
| • |
Writing is enriched by personal experience, knowledge and insights |
| |
|
|
|
|
| The Framework also identifies the specific skills required
by the task : |
| • |
Planning |
| • |
Composing |
| • |
Editing |
| |
The
purpose of this probe study was to re-analyse a sample of the
1998 NEMP ‘My Place’ Writing Assessment data to examine
students’ ability to plan, compose and edit their writing. What evidence
was there of student ability to implement these specific writing
skills? How did the results differ between year 4 students and year
8 students? Was there evidence of gender differences in the use of
these skills? Were different skills used by different ability groupings
at each level?
The 1998 NEMP
analysis was on the content of work – the
vividness of language, relevance to the topic, clarity and detail,
and personal feeling. Editing was considered only to the extension,
insertion, re-ordering and exclusion of content. Proofreading was
limited to punctuation and the use of paragraphs.
The ‘English in
the New Zealand Curriculum’ highlights the importance of developing
explicit knowledge of planning and editing steps involved in writing:
|
| |
| |
In writing, they (the students) should develop an explicit
knowledge of the steps in the writing process, such as forming intentions
(planning), composing, drafting, correcting and publishing. They
should learn to understand and use accurately the conventions of
written language, especially in formal contexts, and to write confidently,
clearly and appropriately, in a range of styles and for a variety
of purposes. (Ministry of Education, 1994, p.33) |
| |
| The author
of this report believed that the data available from the 1998 Writing
Assessment offered the opportunity to further analyse children’s
writing, particularly their ability to plan, write, and edit their
work. |
| |
| Background: Writing Assessment Results 1998 |
| Flockton and Crooks (1999) summarised the following
main findings from the writing assessment: |
| |
The
spelling and punctuation results revealed considerable scope for
improvement at both age levels: few students made the most of the
changes required, and some made very few correct changes along
with several inappropriate ones. (Flockton & Crooks, 1999, p 5) |
| |
|
| |
Most
students managed a relevant piece of writing, with about 25%
more year 8 students than year 4 students gaining high scores
for vividness, detail and communication of personal feeling.
With no teacher feedback, comparatively little editing was done,
except for punctuation. Spelling was not marked for this task,
but attention to spelling paralleled attention to punctuation.
(Flockton & Crooks,
1999, p 15) |
| |
|
|
|
|
The
Forum Comment is published annually after the release
of assessment results. A national forum of curriculum and assessment
specialists, principals, teachers, advisors and representatives of
national educational organisations reviewed the three reports on
the 1998 assessment results. Their comments highlight what students
are generally doing well, and those areas where improvements are
desirable.
The following
points were made in Forum Comment (1999).
Many
students were able to engage quickly in a writing task without
preliminary motivation and guidance from a class teacher. Their
independent writing under these conditions was considered impressive.
There was evidence of considerable improvement in functional
writing and spelling between year 4 and year 8. A fresh personal
voice was apparent in numerous examples of children’s writing.
Tasks
that were clearly prescriptive of what children were to write
were handled well. Where students saw a clear purpose or structure
for their writing, they achieved better than in more open-ended
writing tasks.
The
Forum Comment (1999) also expressed a number of concerns. When
students were provided with the opportunity to edit, there was
a low frequency of self-correction in both meaning (sense) and
surface features (punctuation and spelling). Boys were not achieving
as well as girls in the majority of writing tasks, and there
was a very wide range of writing ability. There were still concerns
for the level of spelling ability at both levels, but more particularly
at year 4.
The Forum Comment (1999) identified the following
priorities for progress: |
| • |
Editing: Schools need to further develop teaching
practices on such matters as error identification, self-correction
of errors, vocabulary enrichment, development of a spelling conscience
from an early age, and engaging in shared writing to provide good
models.
|
| • |
Developing
a Sense of Audience: Students need more practice at sharing their
writing with others in order to develop a sense of audience and
clarity of communication.
|
| • |
Gender
Gap: We need to continue to encourage boys to take a more positive
attitude towards writing. This could be done by investigating and
choosing types of writing tasks boys find most engaging, inviting
male writers to visit schools, and considering the kind of reading
materials available to boys.
|
| • |
Frequency
of Writing: Students need more frequent practice at all forms of
writing. The benefits of shared and guided writing should be recognised. |
| |
|
| The ‘My
Place’ Task |
The
task, ‘My Place’, required the students to produce
a piece of personal writing. They were asked to plan and write a
true story about a place that was special to them. Following the
planning time on Day One and the spontaneous writing session on Day
Two, the children were asked to check and correct their work on Day
3. It was at this stage that an understanding of the conventions
of writing, such as spelling, punctuation, sentence structure and
overall sense, would be used to proof and edit their work. It is
their use of writing conventions that is the focus of this study.
(See Appendix 2 for a detailed description of the ‘My Place’ task.)
The ‘My Place’ task focused on expressive writing in which the children
were encouraged to write inventively within clear task guidelines. |
| |
Characteristics
sought included the ability to write coherently, to communicate
personal feeling, to communicate stories or ideas vividly, and
to follow conventions associated with particular forms of writing.
(Flockton & Crooks, 1999, p 14). |
|
