Trude

=** Reflections to the student text assessment **=
 * By Trude Vigeland Jørgensen **

The text I chose to look at for this text analysis was a text written by a student in year 9. The text was written at school on one of the school computers and handed in on [|Fronter], the school’s learning and teaching platform (similar to It’s Learning). On Fronter I had set up a hand-in file, which is only open for the student and the teacher. And it closes at a specific pre-set time, which also ensures the students handing in their papers on time, something which also promotes punctuality.

One of the functions that can be chosen as a presetting for the hand-in file is to automatically send all the handed in texts to a program which will detect any form of plagiarism, which may be defined as; to steal or passed off as your own, or used without crediting the source (Harboe 2008:117). The program I use is called [|ephorus]. The program uses a database of all texts on the Internet and all previously handed-in texts, and it runs the new text through the database, and I will receive a mail if plagiarism has occurred (from 3%-100%). This is not only a program designed to catch the students in the act of cheating, but rather at an early stage in their “writing lives” give them tools to be aware of how to use sources and references accurately.

In the book Assessing Writing by Sara C. Weigle, under the paragraph of //Test usefulness//, the author stresses the importance of understanding as precisely as possible what ability the test attempts to be measuring, in order for the test results to be fair. And to make sure the test is actually measuring that ability and not some other ability (Weigle 2002: 49). To ensure this the pre-writing procedure is essential. The way I approached the stage of pre-writing was to show them how I think when I assess their texts, I showed them how I divide their texts into three different knowledges: //content, language and structure knowledge//. I then started off by repeating the various topics we had gone through during the last semester. The topics were: School ways and systems in Norway, Britain and in the USA, Indigenous peoples and people on the move. Referring to our school's local plan for English and to the K06 competence aims (culture, society and literature) which this test was aimed to measure:
 * Pre-writing **

“Discuss the way young people live, how they socialise, their views on life and values in Great Britain, the USA, other English- speaking countries and Norway. Explain features of history and geography in Great Britain and the USA. And describe the situation for some indigenous peoples in English-speaking countries.” [|(Competence aims K06)]

The Competence aims are formed like a check –list or //can-dos,// which promotes the students to take responsibility for their own learning, freely translated from Langseth (Smith et al. 2009: 264). The students had been working hard on these topics and aims through their periodical //work-plans// throughout the semester. The //work-plan// contains various methods and ways of processing the topics, from writing about them, discussing them, acting them and presenting them. In that context this test’s intention would be for them to show how they have been working and what they have been working on, how they have comprehended the topics, how they see themselves in that context and how they want to communicate what they have understood.

My intention is for the learning process to seem logical; that there is a purpose to what we are learning, not only because it says so in the K06, but because these are important issues to address if we want to learn and understand how and why different countries and cultures see things differently. The pre work to this test would therefore, in this case, not be to read a lot of background text in advance, but instead go through their own notes and presentations on the various topics. In other words, being aware of their own perceptions and interpretations. As Weigle (2002: 68) states there is not much research on the area of how sufficient background reading is to improve a student’s text. However, she refers to Lewkowicz who investigated EFL learners in Hong Kong. Lewkowicz studies the differences in the quality of the essays whether the students were given background reading material or not. The background reading gave the students ideas but did not improve the quality of the writing. Futhermore, that the students who were given text material depended too much on these texts to develop their own independent ideas. (This is a point in the book Assessing writing, which I found particularly interesting, also since Anita raised the question in her reflections about the book Assessing writing: “Noen utdrag, kommentarer og refleksjoner,fra Anita” **//). //**

Further, I did the same process with the competence aims of language and structural knowledge, making sure that all the criteria are well known, according to what they had been working on in their //work-plans// concerning language and structure (referring to//language learning// and //communication skills// in the school’s local plan for English and to the K06).

When I first receive the text in the hand-in folder, I make sure all the information is there, I use a check list system, which the students also get in advance. That way they know what I am looking for when I assess their texts. I use number codes for the check list sheet when I refer to something in their texts. I may do this in their portfolio or I may do it manually, by printing the text out and commenting by hand. This all depends on the arrangement the student and I have. Some of my pupils do not have computer access from home or they find it easier for any other reason to work with or correct on paper rather than on screen; and may therefore want the text printed out. Anyhow, I comment on their text using only codes when I comment on content, language and structure. And I also add a comment by the end of the text, where I usually add a mark. However, I have recently become more reluctant to adding the mark on the paper since some students, unfortunately, only look at the mark with no intention of learning anything from the process. The students I refer to are those students who Smith (Smith et al. 2009: 27) describes as a challenge because they seem to lack any form of motivation for learning at all. A least not in the way I conduct my teaching (this is a point I would like to discuss with my fellow students; how do we deal with those who do not see any purpose at all in what we are doing? How can these be motivated?).
 * Assessing the text **

When the students get their text back they also get an attachment, which is the check-list, where I have highlighted or circled around the numbers which I have commented in their text. They can then start with their post-writing work, which means correcting, looking up and understanding the comments given by the teacher. Here there are several types of students with various types of motivation. Some of the students line up to talk to me instantly, to clarify or confirm something in their texts, others sit back; either jumping straight into the post-work on their own or ignoring the whole situation. The students’ motivation for acting so differently may vary, from 1) being driven by inner motivation – a genuine interest for the subject, 2) students with external motivation- those who work hard to achieve good results, which later may lead to some kind of reward of future possibilities. Or 3) those students who do what is asked of them, and they do it because of their strong sense of duty. Whatever reason, motivation is the ultimate driving power behind all types of activities; it is the price we are willing to pay to achieve something. Freely translated from Smith (Smith et al. 2009: 26-27).
 * Post-writing **

The final stage in this assessing process is the mini-talk (small conversation between the student and the teacher) after the student has done his or her post-work with the text. This stage is essential to complete the process; in that way the teacher can clarify any misunderstandings in the written comments and the student can give his or her view on the assessment. Either the student has done the post work or not must conversation take place to ensure progress and to raise an awareness of the level he or she is at, and where they want to go (Smith et al. 2009:30-31). The student and the teacher then have to make a contract formulated by both the teacher and the student equally. This contract lays the foundations for the student’s further work, and will be renegotiated after the next time such a writing event takes place. To ensure this process the relations between the teacher and the student must be good and built upon trust (Smith et al. 2009: 15) if not the student may feel that the teacher is out to get him or her and not to guide and help along.

These conversations take time, especially when I have 55 students to talk to. However, the time consumption is all worth it when I evaluate the result. The way I carry out these talks is while the students are working on their //work-plans.// I use a small room in connection, with windows, to the classroom. In that way I can carry out the mini-talks while I still have an overview over the rest of the group. This is not an ideal situation, the ideal situation, in my view, would be to have time outside the framework of 2 hours per week, to carry out these conversations.



The text I have assessed is only one part or stage of a whole process of three procedures. Weigle refers to Bachman and Palmer in how the test takers can be affected by the three testing procedures: 1) the experience of preparing for and taking the test, 2) the feedback that they receive about their performance and level of achievement concerning the aims, and finally, 3) what they are going to do with the knowledge they have learnt on basis of their performance (Weigle 2002:55). The process is an ongoing one which aims to improve the individual in its writing skills by gradually raising an awareness of which level he or she is at; which of the competence aims he or she already master; which of the aims and objectives he or she not (yet) manage and finally, how and what the focus should be in the future. In that way the student have to show that he or she have to be working towards specific aims drawn up by the student him or herself and the teacher, until the next time a similar assessment situation takes place.
 * Conclusion: **

Dobson, S; Eggen, A.B; Smith, K (red.) (2009) //Vurdering, prinsipper og praksis.// Gyldendal Akademisk.
 * Refercences: **

Harboe, Leif (2008) //norskboka.no.// Oslo Universitetsforlaget//.//

Weigle, Sara C (2002/2008). //Assessing Writing//. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Internet sites: [] [] [] [|http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fronter]