ASSessments

ELL-103/ENG-111--Connecting Cultures--Taught by Jennifer Valdez and Ashley Paul

While we consider the type of assignment to be extremely important in valuing the cultural wealth of students, we consider the way we assess those assignments to be of equal importance in maintaining equitable grading. In traditional educational spheres, “Deficit discourse is closely tied to standardized testing, as test scores are assumed to be objective indicators of language and literacy skills, despite substantive research showing that they may not be the best measure of what ELLs know and can do” (Shapiro, 2014, p. 387). Therefore, we avoid standardized testing or high-stakes final exams when assessing the students. Instead, we use a holistic approach to grading through portfolio assessment. Throughout the semester, the students engage in the writing process through a series of drafts. There is an emphasis on scaffolding through a multi-draft process using peer review, professor review, and tutor review as means of feedback to use in the revision process. After each draft, the students receive feedback from one of the aforementioned sources, and they use that feedback to move onto the next draft. The three rough drafts are graded on completeness and not on structure, organization, editing, etc. Therefore, there is no pressure toward perfection. The students work at their own pace within their own parameters to get the work done. For some, this may mean only writing the three rough drafts required of them; for others, this may mean writing six or seven drafts with additional feedback from us during office hours or from a tutor. Furthermore, at no time during this process does language usage become the focus of the feedback we provide students. We are looking at their essays from a perspective of structure, organization, and complexity of ideas, and not whether or not they misplace a comma. The ideas are the most important part--the punctuation and grammatical errors will become fewer and fewer the more the student writes. 

At the end of the semester, the students compile all of their working drafts as well as their final drafts into an ePortfolio. This portfolio is then assessed holistically--meaning they get one grade for all the work, which takes into consideration the process of writing and the product they produce. This grade includes the amount of effort and improvement displayed in the writing in addition to adherence to the assignments. The portfolio system also gives them the opportunity to work on their essays throughout the entire semester--they are never asked to turn in an essay and move on and forget about it. As Feldman (2019) points out, “thirty years of research has found that giving students a grade as formative feedback--that is, in the midst of the learning process-- demotivates students to learn” (208). Anything we learn at any point in the semester can be applied to the first essay because it will not have been graded. Our goal is to shift the “emphasis in the classroom from meeting dates and earning points to learning” (Feldman, 2019, p. xxv). Therefore, none of the essays are graded individually; we are not interested in how perfect one essay may be, but rather, how has the student developed as a writer over the semester--what have they learned and how have they demonstrated that learning?

In addition to the portfolio, the students also engage in low stakes writing like journals and group discussions on our Moodle LMS page to develop their writing and communication skills, but these assignments do not hinder their grade or add pressure to the student to be linguistically perfect. In fact, these writings are all considered informal, and they are not evaluated for language inconsistencies at all. While we may point out patterns of errors to students on an individual basis, their language acquisition does not become the basis of their grade. Instead, their grade is determined by the effort and progress they make holistically.

ASSESSMENTS

ELL-103/ENG-111--Coming of Age and Identity--taught by Naoko Akai-Dennis and Jennifer Burke Grehan

In this class, we use a similar approach to assessment that Professors Valdez and Paul use.  Having moved away from isolated ELL courses and ENG, we are able to assess our students’ work holistically in very layered assessments. While in the two ELL courses and ENG-111, students turn out five final essays and a presentation with a graphic accompaniment like the slideshow or collage. These works are placed in an Eportfolio that students can share in other courses, with peers and family, and serve as artifacts from their accomplishments in these courses. The Eportfolio is not only one way to assess students’ work and development throughout the course but also a way for students to look back and see how much they have grown as readers, writers, and students in one semester.

These works are assessed and graded individually throughout the course. They also receive a grade for the final culminating project of Eportfolio.  We assess our students constantly in low stakes, smaller assignments that build up to this final work. These assessments keep students moving toward their goals and allow them to adjust their sails as necessary. Students are still responsible for the grammar, reading, writing, conversation, and presenting that they were in isolated ELL courses. However, we teach these skills holistically as opposed to individually to allow students to develop their skills in an authentic college course. The design of these assignments and assessments also creates meaningful processes and strategies for students to use and incorporate in future academic and career scenarios.

Low-stake assignments are formative assessments that provide us the opportunity to monitor students’ learning that leads them to draft essays.  For instance, when they wrote journals about stories, movies, and articles, we did not specifically assess if they comprehend the texts.  These were not the comprehension quizzes per se, although some prompts for the journals indirectly enable us to see if they totally misconstrue those texts.  These journals all direct them to write about given topics and so were not tools for us to assess the reading skills.  Rather, by allowing them to relate to the texts, these journal assignments could have them overcome the fear that they needed to get them “right.”  Literary circles particularly provide them different approaches to texts through the four assigned roles: discussion director, illustrator, connector, and wordsmith.  The discussion director enables them to do “reading for ideas” and “critical reading” (Sprouse, 2018, p.41), while the connector encourages them to do “aesthetic reading” by relating to texts.  The illustrator helps them to get a gist of texts, while the wordsmith initiates a dive into texts.  This assignment also allows us to see their absorbing and branching texts, integrating ideas into their thoughts, and developing their thoughts.

We designed the cover sheet for feedback very similarly to the sheet Rodway (2017) uses. However, we broke down the rubric that we have used for all course essays. We felt that this was important as students are aware that these are the benchmarks set for them to successfully produce college-level writing. Our cover sheet includes the categories: focus, organization development, use of reading, language ease, and audience. The cover sheet serves multiple purposes. It offers a chance for self-assessment for the students. The cover sheet also lets us know where to focus feedback and gives something specific to discuss in our one-on-one meeting that will benefit the student. Finally, students can bring this completed sheet with them to the Language Lab or Writing Place to let the tutor know exactly what areas they need to focus on in their final revision. 

The final project is an opportunity for students to showcase their independence and power as authors as well as their development throughout the semester. Students hand in the final draft of their essay on Tuesday at the beginning of class. Students staple their final draft to the top of all of their accumulated paperwork (rough draft, cover sheet, response to feedback, and notes from their visit to either the Language Lab or the Writing Place). In the first two units, students have the opportunity to revise their final draft and resubmit for a higher grade. However, time does not allow for further revision in the final unit. This serves as an opportunity to experience how writing may be handled in some future content courses. The goal is that through repetitive revising and editing students will create a version of the writing process that works for them. They will show mastery in this skill in this final paper.

The final assignment of the semester is a course reflection. Students reflect on how they learned more than what they learned. Students talk about strategies and resources that they have used during this course and how they will use them in the future. Reflections are low-stakes writing assignments and in this case it takes place in class. As a whole group we brainstorm the strategies and resources we have used and learned throughout the semester. Students create a list of resources such as the library, Language Lab, Writing Place, Innovation Lab, Life Map, etc and a list of strategies such as annotation, mind-mapping, reflecting, free-writes, two-sided notes. When we have exhausted our lists, we post the steps of the writing process on the board. We then post the reflection question on the board: What does your writing process look like now that you have completed these courses? Students discuss the question in pairs for about ten minutes. We then reconvene and have a whole group discussion. Following the whole group discussion, students answer the reflection question. They have about thirty minutes to write.

This is usually our favorite assignment of the entire course. Students are often very proud of what they’ve learned and how they’ve grown as students. The students who sat staring blankly at us from their chairs on the first night of class and may have never considered writing as a process, have developed their own version that works for them. Students incorporate campus resources, strategies they learned and practiced in class, and successes as well as failures as learning tools for their future. They know what works for them, what doesn’t, and how to tackle future challenges. We have scaffolded our curriculum with low-stakes reflections. This final reflection combines all that they’ve learned: content, strategies, campus resources, and community. Sometimes looking back opens up the path to the future.

CONCLUSION

As we reflect on these courses, we unanimously agreed that the greatest benefit of these clusters is the community that our students build. The community of learners within our classes create an informal cohort with whom they travel toward their goals. These classes also give students the confidence and independence to navigate within the college system. These classes give them the agency to navigate this community where they have traditionally been marginalized.

Supporting the students as English language learners, we consider the lessons and activities that will help our students not only accomplish the immediate goal of writing and structuring strong essays, but also develop the higher order thinking skills and study strategies to carry them through their academic and professional careers. We start by acknowledging their stories: what they’ve already accomplished, the work ahead of them in our courses, and how they can apply our coursework to their future goals. We explain that the study strategies, building of a support system, and composition taught in these courses will not only help them throughout these courses but also in meeting future academic and career goals.

Our students create strong bonds with their success coaches from the Life Map Advising Center. They navigate resources like the Language Lab, Writing Place, and Smarthinking for tutoring and conversation. They incorporate the support of the Innovation Lab in creating e-portfolios to showcase the products of their hard work. Often, they arrive unsure of their potential and leave published authors in Tell Magazine. Our goal is to empower, inform, and launch these students into the next steps of their journeys. We work to instill both independence and membership in the college community. We are the products of not only what we teach but what we learn from our students. This particular cluster of courses has provided us with an opportunity to facilitate learning that extends far beyond the classroom for us, as professors and humans, and our students.

About the authors

Naoko Akai-Dennis is Professor of English and Facilitator of the One Book Program at Bunker Hill Community College.  She holds an M.A. in American Literature from Kobe College in Japan, an Ed.M. in Teaching of English from Teachers College, Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in English and Education from Columbia University Graduate School of Arts and Science.  Her research interests are translanguaging, intersubjectivity in classroom, and teaching reading and writing.  In her spare time, she enjoys watching anime and reading manga.  She has wanted to learn Tango and she is determined to do so sometime soon.  

Jennifer Burke Grehan is adjunct professor of English and English Language Learning at Bunker Hill Community College. She also teaches at Urban College of Boston, where she serves as the English Language Learning Specialist, and works as Enrollment Coordinator at The Immigrant Learning Center in the City of Malden. The only thing that Jennifer loves more than bacon and beach days are her children, Lucy and William.

Ashley Paul has been teaching in the English Department at Bunker Hill Community College since 2014, when she moved from Florida to Boston with her family. Ashley holds a B.A. in English from the University of Alabama and an M.F.A. in Fiction from Florida State University. In addition to teaching, she enjoys spending time with her family, baking sweet treats, writing creatively, and decorating for Halloween.

Jennifer Valdez is a professor and the current chairperson of the English Language Learning Department at Bunker Hill Community College. She holds a B.A. in English from Fordham University, an M.A. in English from Boston College, and an M.A. in TESOL from SIT Graduate Institute. She has worked in education for twenty years in various schools, colleges and universities, and community-based organizations. She lives in the Merrimack Valley with her family and reads and runs whenever possible.

References  

• Bunn, M. (2013). Motivation and connection: Teaching reading (and writing) in the composition classroom. College Composition and Communication, 64 (3): 496-516. https://cltcc.instructure.com/courses/25402/files/965985/download?verifier=RhEW 0XAodZC9PSBlNJl3C2dtiROzpq8LYWt1DC47&wrap=1.

• Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989 (1), 139-167.

• Feldman, J. (2019). Grading for equity: What it is, why it matters, and how it can transform schools and classrooms. Corwin.

• Kwon, T. (2017).  You sound so white: How code-switching is symptomatic of racial prejudice in America.  HS Insider: Los Angeles Times.  https://highschool.latimes.com/granada-hills-charter-high-school/you-sound-so-white-how-code-switching-is-symptomatic-of-racial-prejudice-in-america/

• Kubota, R. & Lin, A. (2006). Race and TESOL: Introduction to concepts and theories. TESOL Quarterly, 40 (3), 471-493.

• Liggett, T. (2013). The mapping of a framework: Critical race theory and TESOL. The Urban Review, 46 (1), 112-124. DOI 10.1007/s11256-013-0254-5.

• Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. New York, NY: Routledge.

• Martinez, A.Y. (2020). Counterstory: The rhetoric and writing of critical race theory. Conference on College Composition and Communication of the National Council of Teachers of English.

• Matsuda, P.K. (1999).  Composition studies and ESL writing: A disciplinary division of labor. College Composition and Communication, 50 (4), 699-721.

• Rodway, C.L. (2017). Encouraging active participation in dialogic feedback through assessment as learning. Journal of Response to Writing, 3(2): 74-92. http://www.journalrw.org/index.php/jrw/article/view/80/57/

• Shapiro, S. (2014). ‘Words that you said got bigger’: English language learners’ lived experience of deficit discourse.” Research in Teaching of English, 48 (4), 389-406.

• Solórzano, D.G. & Yosso, T.J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8 (1), 23-44.

• Sprouse, M. L.  (2018, May).  Social annotation and layered readings in composition.  Presented at the Computers and Writing Conference, Fairfax, VA.  https://kairos.technorhetoric.net/stasis/cw2018/CW2018Program.pdf

• Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In J.T. Josh & J. Sidanius (Eds), Political Psychology: Key Readings (276–293). Psychology Press. doi:10.4324/9780203505984-16,https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-13697-016.

• Uscinski, I. (2017). L2 Learners’ Engagement With Direct Written Corrective Feedback in First-Year Composition Courses. Journal of Response to Writing, 3(2), https://journalrw.org/index.php/jrw/article/view/68.

• Yosso, T.J. (2005). Whose culture has capital?: A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education., 8 (1), 69-91.

• Young, V.A. (2014).  “Introduction: Are you a part of the conversation?” In V.A. Young, et al (Eds),  Other People’s English: Code-Meshing, Code-Switching, an African American Literacy (1-14). Teachers College Press.