Writing Assessment: A Six Traits Approach - Research Paper Example

? Writing Assessment: A Six Traits Approach Introduction The National Commission on Writing in America's School and Colleges stated that "writing extends far beyond grammar and punctuation" (p. 13). Writing is a highly complex process, and there is much more to a solid piece of writing than the traditional expectations of grammar and mechanics (Culham 12). Many educators are in search of the most meaningful and authentic methods of critiquing students' written work. The 6+ 1 Trait® Writing model is a specific approach to writing instruction and evaluation based upon "a vocabulary teachers use to describe their vision of what good writing looks like" (Culham 7). This model offers an understandable language teachers and students can use for describing quality writing (Perchemlides & Coutant 54-55). The 6+ 1 Trait® Writing Model Frustrated by standardized, multiple-choice assessment instruments, teachers in the northwestern region of the United States searched for a more valid and user-friendly format for teaching and assessing student writing (Culham 10). After careful study of research on writing assessment and close examination of endless forms of writing, teachers and along with researchers from the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory concluded that several characteristics were necessary to create exemplary writing. From this realization, the 6+ 1 Trait® Writing model scoring criteria were established (Culham 10). The 6+ 1 Traits® represent characteristics deemed crucial for making all types of written communication effective. They include ideas, organization, voice, word choice, sentence fluency, conventions, and presentation (Culham 214). A well-developed, focused idea provides a clear message to readers. The "ideas" trait basically deals with the content of a composition. A paper containing a solid point with good supporting evidence demonstrates exemplary application of ideas. A writer must stay focused on the topic and only utilize the details that matter. This trait is sometimes difficult for young writers who struggle with finding a topic (Culham, 35-38). Organization involves the arrangement of the ideas. It is about the internal structure of writing. Logical sequencing and proper use of transitions are important to this particular trait. The "organization" trait should also work to enhance the main ideas within a piece of writing. Students of all ages may find this particular trait challenging as there is not often one perfect structure that works for all types of writing (Culham 70-72). Feeling and personal style make up the "voice" trait. Often referred to as "the soul of the piece" (Culham 12), voice is that special ingredient which truly makes a writer's piece his or her own creation. It is the tone of the message. While it is not always easy to see and therefore, evaluate, voice is a powerful trait that can deeply engage readers and cause them to respond and think in emotional ways. When voice is effective, there should be strong interaction between the writer and his or her readers (Culham, 16). Word choice involves the precise use of words in writing. Rich and vivid language can add so much to writing. Quality descriptive text often displays a wonderful selection of words, greatly enhancing the topic. A writer who is an expert in the "word choice" trait will take extra care to use just the right words for his or her story (Culham 142-144). The fifth trait in the 6+ 1 Trait® Writing model is "sentence fluency." This is the attribute of writing that creates the music of the piece. Sentences of varying length allow for rhythm and flow, which make the writing pleasant to the ear. Because of that quality, sentence fluency is sometimes referred to as the audible trait (Culham 180-181). The sixth trait is often viewed as tremendously important to first-rate writing, although it is just one of the qualities that lend themselves to great work. Conventions are referred to as the table manners of exemplary writing, including capitalization, punctuation, grammar, and spelling. Writers edit their pieces to see that the conventions are used to properly guide the readers through the composition. When conventions are lacking, the writing is usually difficult to understand (Culham 214-217). While some of the traits seem similar, each is actually distinct enough so that it might be observed through assessment. However, a combination of certain traits can be a powerful contribution to good writing, and excellence in one trait may positively showcase another. For example, effective word choice is often necessary to establish a particular mood, or voice, within a piece (Jarmer, Kozol, Nelson, & Salsberry, 29). Presentation is the final element of the 6+ 1 Trait® Writing model. This trait pertains to the visual layout of the writing. Given the label of "+ 1", presentation is not viewed in the same light as the other six traits. This trait is concerned with how the writing is displayed. Handwriting legibility and font choice are examples of presentation. It is more about the appearance of the assignment, rather than what the writing actually contains. Nonetheless, effective writers know the importance of good presentation. In many situations, the first impression makes a big impression (Culham, 248-249). "Assessment should match what we value" (Ray 272). When teaching writing, whether to children, adolescents, or adults, it is important to consider how writing performance is judged. The 6+ 1 Trait® Writing model promotes a strong connection between assessment and instruction. Teachers use these traits when measuring the quality of students' written assignments. Appropriate, focused instruction is then planned and implemented to address the areas of most need. This approach helps to provide more purpose and validity to writing practice and the measurement of students' growth (Culham 21). The National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges (p. 7) cautions that writing assessments be fair and go beyond multiple-choice measures. Writing is often open to interpretation, making assessment challenging for educators. The 6+ 1 Trait® Writing model allows for meaningful, reliable assessment (Dunn, 37-39). With this particular approach, teachers (and students) can examine particular traits of writing. For example, on one occasion, a teacher may decide to focus only on the trait of voice, whereas in another instance he or she might assess word choice. Included in 6+ 1 Traits of Writing is a scoring rubric for each trait (Culham, 75). These rubrics outline criteria and expectations for different levels of performance, ranging from 5 (highest) to 1 (lowest). This analytic method of scoring allows for checking particular aspects of writing and judging the writing based on those qualities alone (Culham 75). Also, by scoring the traits individually and using the rubrics to provide helpful feedback throughout the writing process, students are more likely to see writing success in a form other than traditional holistic scores like grades (Perchemlides & Coutant 56). There are some advantages to using the traits to assess and teach writing. In addition to providing a method of analytic assessment, the traits have given many teachers a means of communicating effectively about writing with their students and other teachers (Culham 12; Isernhagen & Kozisek 3-6). The traits have become a shared vocabulary about writing, and the qualities of good writing are no longer a mystery. Also, when teachers talk about the traits with their students and use the scoring guides for assessments, the students learn so much more about their writing than if they were to simply receive one holistic score or letter grade. One can better see which elements of his or her writing are positive, and which areas need some improvement (Culham 12). The 6+ I Trait® Writing model has gradually been integrated into many state educational assessments and content standards, and its popularity is seen in classrooms all over the world. Expert trainers and teachers highly experienced in using the traits travel around to provide helpful guidance to those learning the model and to see that those who are integrating it into writing instruction are doing so appropriately and consistently (Boss, 2-5). Kozlow and Bellamy conducted a study that examined the effectiveness of professional development with the 6+ 1 Trait® Writing model on teachers' classroom practices and students' writing performance (p. 7). This experimental design study included third through sixth grade teachers and their students. Subjects were randomly assigned to either a treatment or a control group. Teachers in the treatment group had participated in a two-day workshop on the 6+ 1 Trait® Writing model (Kozlow and Bellamy 8). Data collection consisted of a teacher survey and submission of two samples of writing from the elementary students in both groups. Experienced raters were employed to evaluate pre- and post-writing samples based on the 6+ 1 Trait® Writing rubrics and also another six-point holistic scale scoring guide (Kozlow & Bellamy, 23-25). Results of the teacher survey included teachers reporting substantial focus on direct instruction of many of the traits, with 90% of teachers spending either a "great" or "moderate amount" of time explicitly teaching ideas, organization, and conventions (Kozlow & Bellamy, 27). Teachers also provided favorable responses regarding the perceived effects of the training on their instruction, with over 80% of teachers saying that the training allowed them to enhance their writing instruction and also their knowledge of quality writing (Kozlow & Bellamy, 27-29). Although the participating teachers expressed favorable perceptions of the 6+ 1 Trait® Writing model, analysis of the students' writing samples showed no significant differences between both groups' post-writing scores. In addition, only minimal improvements were evident in the writing scores of the students in the treatment group. The researchers mentioned that the short duration of the teacher workshop (only two days) and the omission of any follow-up sessions, in addition to the length of time for classroom implementation of the model, were important limitations to consider (Kozlow & Bellamy 29). An article by James, Abbott, and Greenwood, described one school's positive experience using the 6+ 1 Trait® Writing model. Children of various abilities improved their writing skills through active participation in a special literacy improvement program, of which the 6+1 Trait® Writing model was a part. In this collaborative program, elementary students were exposed to process-writing model in a writer's workshop setting, and were taught various lessons based on certain traits deemed in need of most improvement according to assessment with the 6+ 1 Trait® Writing model rubrics (James, Abbott, and Greenwood 2). In general, the elementary students' writing scores improved after nine weeks of instruction. In particular, those students of lower ability demonstrated greater improvement than their peers (James et al., 6). Students from the high- and low-ability groups improved at least one score in all of the six traits evaluated. The low-ability group saw significant gains of 2.4 points for the trait of organization, and 1.9 points for ideas, whereas the students in the high-ability group gained 1.2 points for organization and 1.3 points for ideas. The lower-ability group also demonstrated improvement of at least two points in the trait of conventions (James et al., 6). Jennie Wilson Elementary School in western Kansas examined the impact of the 6+ 1 Trait® Writing model on its students. After three years, the school reported growth with each year that the model was applied. Improvements of 54% to 92% were seen at all levels, from kindergarten to fifth grade. Anecdotal data showed that some teachers experienced enthusiasm and excitement with implementation of the model (Jarmer et al. 32). According to the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory website, other school districts in the United States have experienced success with the 6+ 1 Trait® Writing model. A study completed at Kent School District in Washington measured the writing achievement of elementary students over three years. In the second year, teachers participated in a 6+1 Trait® Writing workshop. Increases of 8.6% to 32.2% of students meeting specific benchmarks were demonstrated (Bellamy 3). In a one-year study involving fourth graders, writing ability improved by 12% after using the 6+ 1 Trait® Writing model (Bellamy 3). Another study by Isernhagen and Kozisek looked specifically at the self perceptions of writing held by fifth grade students and their teachers using the 6+ 1 Trait® Writing model, as well as a control group of those not using the model. Data were also collected from teacher education students who were present in the elementary classrooms at the time of the study. It was discovered that writing attitudes and skills improved with implementation of the model (Isernhagen and Kozisek, 6). Using the Writer Self-Perception Scale (Bottomley & Henk 286), elementary students in the experimental group indicated an increased comfort level with writing and that they were more focused and developed writers. The classroom teachers using the 6+ 1 Trait® Writing model also reported seeing more positive and enthusiastic behaviors among their students when it came to writing, and the prospective teachers were appreciative of the opportunity to see this particular writing model in action (Bottomley & Henk 297). One prospective teacher commented that because of the model, "I have a better understanding of what to do to improve my own writing, and I can help students improve their writing" (Isemhagen & Kozisek, 3). Conclusion If students are to become competent and confident writers, then teachers must be courageous and effective in their pedagogical practices. The 6+ 1 Trait® Writing model is meant to do more than help students to improve writing skills in elementary, middle, and high school. By incorporating the 6+ 1 Traits®, teachers are giving students the tools and healthy encouragement necessary for becoming life-long writers, something to benefit them in a variety of situations long after they leave the school buildings. Writing is not simply for academics. "It is about students becoming strong and confident writers in any context for any purpose" (Spandel 11). Work Cited Bellamy C.P. “Research on writing with the 6+ 1 traits.” Retrieved, from Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory Web site http://educationnorthwest.org/webfm_send/143 Boss, S. “On the Same Page; Writing Assessment Vanguards Maintain Consistency from Coast to Coast.” NW Education, 8, (2002): 2-5. Bottomley, D.M., & Henk, W.A. “Assessing Children's Views about Themselves as Writers Using the Writer Self-Perception Scale.” Reading Teacher, 51, (1998): 286-297. Culham, R. 6+1 traits of writing. New York, NY: Scholastic, 2003. Dunn, S.E. “Assessing students' writing: A six traits approach.” Montessori Life, 12, (2000): 37-39. Isernhagen, J., & Kozisek, J. “Improving Students' Self-Perceptions as Writers. Journal of School Improvement, 1, (2000): 3-6. James, L.A, Abbott, M., & Greenwood, R. “How Adam Became a Writer: Winning Writing Strategies for Low-Achieving Students.” Teaching Exceptional Children, 33, (2001): 30-37. Jarmer, D., Kozol, M., Nelson, S., & Salsberry, T. “Six-Trait Writing Model Improves Scores at Jennie Wilson Elementary.” Journal of School Improvement, 1, (2000): 29-32. Kozlow, M., & Bellamy, P. (2004). Experimental study on the impact of the 6 + 1 Trait; Writing model on student achievement in writing. Retrieved, from Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory Web site: http:// http://educationnorthwest.org/webfm_send/134 Perchemlides, N., & Coutant, C. “Growing beyond grades.” Educational Leadership, (2004): 53-56. Ray, K.W. Wondrous words. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1999. Spandel, V. Creating Writers through 6-Trait Writing Assessment and Instruction. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2005. The National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges. The neglected "r": The need for a writing revolution (CS 511 952). New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board, 2003. Read More