Exploring Current State Writing Evaluation Rubrics for Early Grades

IF 2.3 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Sherron Killingsworth Roberts, Earlisha Whitfield
{"title":"Exploring Current State Writing Evaluation Rubrics for Early Grades","authors":"Sherron Killingsworth Roberts, Earlisha Whitfield","doi":"10.1007/s10643-024-01823-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This content analysis examined the evaluative components of elementary, high-stakes, state standardized writing sample rubrics. We explored the ten most populated states in the United States, and thus most influential states, to yield salient trends in writing evaluation for early grades. Using Spandel’s analytical traits as our conceptual framework and thus, our a priori sieve for this content analysis, this manuscript explored possible commonalities and intersections among the six traits within each state’s writing sample rubric. First, we found that North Carolina no longer requires an elementary writing sample. Further, this content analysis found four of Spandel’s six categories of <i>Ideas</i>,<i> Organization</i>,<i> Sentence Fluency</i>, and <i>Conventions</i> were clearly prominent in each of the other nine most populated state evaluation rubrics. <i>Word Choice</i> and <i>Voice</i> proved to be less obvious, yet embedded within subcomponents or indicators in eight of the nine remaining state rubrics. By bringing these states’ writing rubrics into clarity, related trends across states offer insights for teachers in early grades to streamline and improve elementary writing evaluation and instruction by focusing on these foundational six traits. Findings point to leveraging Spandel’s six analytical categories as a starting point and a foundational anchor, so that teachers can be in compliance with their state’s current and changing high-stakes testing while simultaneously supporting children to become confident, joyful, and capable writers.</p>","PeriodicalId":47818,"journal":{"name":"Early Childhood Education Journal","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Early Childhood Education Journal","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-024-01823-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This content analysis examined the evaluative components of elementary, high-stakes, state standardized writing sample rubrics. We explored the ten most populated states in the United States, and thus most influential states, to yield salient trends in writing evaluation for early grades. Using Spandel’s analytical traits as our conceptual framework and thus, our a priori sieve for this content analysis, this manuscript explored possible commonalities and intersections among the six traits within each state’s writing sample rubric. First, we found that North Carolina no longer requires an elementary writing sample. Further, this content analysis found four of Spandel’s six categories of Ideas, Organization, Sentence Fluency, and Conventions were clearly prominent in each of the other nine most populated state evaluation rubrics. Word Choice and Voice proved to be less obvious, yet embedded within subcomponents or indicators in eight of the nine remaining state rubrics. By bringing these states’ writing rubrics into clarity, related trends across states offer insights for teachers in early grades to streamline and improve elementary writing evaluation and instruction by focusing on these foundational six traits. Findings point to leveraging Spandel’s six analytical categories as a starting point and a foundational anchor, so that teachers can be in compliance with their state’s current and changing high-stakes testing while simultaneously supporting children to become confident, joyful, and capable writers.

探索当前国家早期写作评价标准
本内容分析研究了小学、高考、州标准化写作样本评分标准的评价内容。我们研究了美国人口最多的十个州,因此也是最有影响力的州,从而得出低年级写作评价的显著趋势。本手稿以斯潘德尔的分析特质为概念框架,并以此作为内容分析的先验筛子,探讨了各州写作样本评分标准中六种特质之间可能存在的共同点和交叉点。首先,我们发现北卡罗来纳州不再要求小学写作样本。此外,通过内容分析,我们发现斯潘德尔六大特征中的四项,即立意、组织、句子流畅性和约定俗成,在其他九个人口最多的州的评价标准中都明显突出。事实证明,在其余九个州的评分标准中,有八个州的选词和语音不那么明显,但却包含在子部分或指标中。通过澄清这些州的写作评分标准,各州的相关趋势为低年级教师提供了启示,使他们能够通过关注这六种基本特质来简化和改进小学写作评价和教学。研究结果表明,利用斯潘德尔的六个分析类别作为起点和基础锚,教师就可以在支持孩子们成为自信、快乐和有能力的写作者的同时,符合本州当前和不断变化的高考要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Early Childhood Education Journal
Early Childhood Education Journal EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
14.80%
发文量
124
期刊介绍: Early Childhood Education Journal is a professional publication of original peer-reviewed articles that reflect exemplary practices in the field of contemporary early childhood education. Articles cover the social, physical, emotional, and intellectual development of children age birth through 8, analyzing issues, trends, and practices from an educational perspective. The journal publishes feature-length articles that skillfully blend 1) theory, research, and practice, 2) descriptions of outstanding early childhood programs worldwide, and 3) quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research. Early Childhood Education Journal is of interest not only to classroom teachers, child care providers, college and university faculty, and administrators, but also to other professionals in psychology, health care, family relations, and social services dedicated to the care of young children. Areas of Emphasis: International studies; Educational programs in diverse settings; Early learning across multiple domains; Projects demonstrating inter-professional collaboration; Qualitative and quantitative research and case studies; Best practices in early childhood teacher education; Theory, research, and practice relating to professional development; Family, school, and community relationships; Investigations related to curriculum and instruction; Articles that link theory and best practices; Reviews of research with well-articulated connections to the field
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信