Across the Pond

I've been meaning to share a few things which stood out during my visit to Overlake this winter.

Thing One: Like Northwest students, students at Overlake keep portfolios of written work. These are stored in the classroom and periodically, time is made for students to review the feedback they've received on written work: how do thesis statements from September compare with those written later in the year? What kinds of mechanical errors are no longer showing up in papers?

Thing Two: Standard Operating Procedure is to return written work with comments but no grades. Students have a chance to respond to teacher feedback in writing; only then does the student receive a grade. The English Department Head emphasized the value of this opportunity for students to process feedback separately from grades. Students can defend their choices, make adjustments or make adjustments and explain the thinking behind their original choices. As at Northwest, students are free to fully revise written work. In our department, conferences create an opportunity for students to process feedback with their teachers, but it was interesting to see that Overlake has also built in this kind of intentional dialogue.

Thing Three: I was impressed by the systematic use Overlake makes of Diane Hacker's Pocket Manual for Writers. Many Overlake teachers grade papers using a rubric which references page numbers in the Hacker text. The teacher checks "Run-On" on the rubric; the rubric refers students to the run-on section of Hacker's text. If additional work is needed, Hacker's web-site offers an extensive menu of supplementary explanations and exercises. How efficient is that? Do we still use Hacker? Are we missing an opportunity to tap into some free stuff?

Student Evaluation

Having completed Teacher Evaluations, my thoughts have turned to student evaluation. Turns out, "student assessment" is a huge topic but a few general principles seem to show up in education journals and websites with some regularity. These include:

1) Grades with no explanatory feedback are of little value, but explicit corrective comments are powerful teaching tools.
2) Feedback is optimized when students are given opportunities to try again and get it right.
3) Feedback delivers the most value when it is prompt. The longer students have to wait, the less they get out of whatever comments we provide.
4) Rubrics help students focus their efforts and gauge their own success.
5) Involving students in the evaluation process increases its value.

I have to say, I think we're doing a lot of things right at Northwest. We've got principles # 1 and 2 covered and we're working on #3.

In terms of #4, I know I don't use formal rubrics very often. Heather and Suzanne developed one for analytic essays, which I sometimes use to show my students what distinguishes an "A" from a "B" paper. Grade 11 uses a kind of rubric with the research paper. Benji has developed an invaluable "Illustrated Guide" to essay writing and Daren just created an excellent primer on text analysis. None of these are exactly rubrics, but they all offer explicit criteria and some models for students to follow. And of course, there is the Essay Checklist! (All these can be downloaded from my Teacher Page, thanks to our colleagues who agreed to share them.)

I guess I am least sure of #5. Of course, conference offers a prime opportunity for informal self-assessment. Once in a while, I have my students submit a narrative self-evaluation on the back of their essay checklist: they assess the strengths and weaknesses of their papers and share any challenges that came up in writing them. This is a valuable exercise, but I think it might be the only opportunity for formal self-assessment that I offer my students. I am thinking about turning over part of my Quint II evaluations to the students' own comments, but I find myself hesitating--which is interesting. Why am I so reluctant to share this responsibility with the people it most concerns? Am I afraid they'll do a bad job?

Teacher Evaluation

Even though I should be used to it, I still feel apprehensive when Teacher Evaluation rolls around. At times, I have even entertained rebellious thoughts about this process: why should we entrust so serious a task to students who don't take it seriously? Why should evaluations be anonymous? Why should we have to submit these to our supervisors?

And these were just the internal rebellions...at times my rebelliousness has affected my behavior as well: last year, Peter and Amy's Peer Mentors created an updated Teacher Evaluation form. Several of my colleagues tried it out with their students but I didn't get around to making the switch. I suspect that on some level, I realized this more focused form might generate more focused feedback.

This week, I am experiencing the usual apprehension, but I have decided to embrace Being Evaluated this year--not so much because I am suddenly hungry for more focused feedback, but because I think there is a danger if someone in the position of evaluating others tunes out the experience of being evaluated.

Today one of my students complained about 3 points she'd lost on a recent test--a test on which her overall grade was a 92%. I have to admit, I was irked. 3 points? A 92? For this, I have to negotiate and defend?

Then I thought about how much criticism sticks in my craw: who is that? what are they talking about? It is tough to receive "negative" feedback when you have done your best--and yet this is the position students find themselves in all the time. So this quint, I am breaking out the Peer Mentor evaluation form. I am not expecting to receive more praise this way, but I am open to remembering what it's like to be vulnerable to assessment-- and to finding ways to make the experience of assessment as empowering as possible.