Section 4: Collaborative feedback and assessment

BHCC Research Findings on Best Practices for Teaching ESL

Characteristics of asset-based/accelerated vs. deficit-based/remedial approaches to teaching ESL

Before I read about Sociological Imagination, I was thinking that I just married a man who was living in US. And it was mostly according to wish my family. But after reading about sociological imagination, I think the journey to USA in more social context. The reason my dad wanted me to marry a permanent resident of USA was more than a family matter. He wanted me to be here because he wanted me to see in the place where I can be a self-made woman. He thought even a nurse, my future will be better in USA than in Nepal. Coming here, I will not die untimely because of fear of society. I had heard before coming here that there are nice health care plans in US so that you need not to die not getting proper treatment. Perhaps, a dream of making more money and getting better health facilities may have further encouraged me to accept the offer by my father and relative to marry him and come to USA. Therefore, my journey to USA was largely shaped by my history and biography. 

— Concluding paragraph to the essay by Sabita profiled at the beginning of this article

The research is clear that effective ELL curriculum emphasizes meaning over form and fluency over accuracy (Shapiro, 2011; Raufman et al, 2019; Mlynarczyk &  Babbitt, 2002)  In other words, instead of requiring students to demonstrate mastery of the English language, we should require our ELL students to use the language to engage with critical thinking and deeper learning, such as Sabita does above in finding a connection between her story and the sociological imagination in her concluding paragraph.  Though it contains errors and unconventional language use (that will be addressed as she continues with her content courses), Sabita’s essay and concluding paragraph concretely demonstrate her ability to apply the sociological imagination by setting her personal and family choices within a larger social context.  These are the critical thinking and deeper learning skills she will need to draw on and further develop as she progresses into college credit classes.

In the preceding section we discussed how the analysis assignments helped scaffold the essay assignments.   In this section, we discuss the roles of multiple drafts in scaffolding the assignments as well as our collaborative method of providing feedback and assessing the essays. 

Jeff

Because we prioritized content over form, Aurora and I have developed a system of providing feedback on student essays that focuses on content alone at the initial stages and then focuses on content as well as structure and language at the later stages.  The students write three drafts for each of their essays, with the first draft getting feedback from Aurora and the second draft getting feedback from me, and both of us evaluating the final draft. The rationale for Aurora addressing the first draft is that Aurora is the content expert and the initial focus is on content.

Aurora

Co-grading drafts and providing feedback in three stages was another way to scaffold and deepen student learning and help them develop their knowledge and skills.  In my case, I expect the first draft to demonstrate emerging or minimal knowledge and ability to apply concepts and lessons.  I interrogate the ideas they are presenting and assess whether these ideas reflect the lessons and concepts we have covered.  Through my feedback I then push students to concretely demonstrate the knowledge of the sociological concept or clarify how they are applying this knowledge.  It is Jeff who evaluates the second draft to assess whether students have responded to my recommendations and then push them in ways that further improve the essay according to his ELL learning outcomes.  In evaluating the final draft, I continue to assess whether students are demonstrating knowledge of the sociological concepts and applying them.  However, what is visibly apparent is that as a result of the feedback and recommendations from Jeff, the essays have become more clearly written, coherent and structurally sound.

It is important to note that we independently grade the final essay.  I grade it using a rubric based on my sociology outcomes while Jeff uses one based on his ELL outcomes.  We then share our grades with each other and average them to determine the final grade for the essay.  The test then is how close our individual grades come to each other.  Because we each focus on different outcomes, we accept that our individual grades will differ, but also have agreed that the difference should not exceed an acceptable range.  If our two grades do not fall within that range, then we meet to review the essay together to discuss and reassess our evaluation until one or both of us have agreed on revising our grade so that the difference falls within that range.   Over the past few semesters that we have tried this system of co-grading, it is evident that the number of students whose initial grades are beyond the acceptable range of difference has gone down.  We see that we are becoming more and more in sync with assessing.  Maybe this reflects an internalizing of each other’s outcomes while still keeping at the forefront our own disciplinal learning outcomes.  There is a mutual trust and respect that each of our academic lenses is essential and valued equally. 

Jeff

Our collaborative approach to giving feedback not only benefits the students but has benefited me.  I’ve always prided myself on being a student-centered teacher.  But Aurora has pushed me to expand my understanding of student-centered teaching through the discussions we have had about evaluating student essays.  My training in language learning has biased me in focusing on the language and form at the expense of content and meaning.  I also suspect that Aurora’s multilingual background leaves her less bound to language orthodoxy and better able to interpret meaning across linguistic differences.  When discussing early drafts, she would often refer to ideas in the student essays that I had overlooked in determining my own assessment and response to the essay.  This attention to the students manifested itself in the comments she wrote on student drafts, often framed as questions, that demonstrated a real desire for the students to express themselves and to push them to deepen their analysis.  Her comments reflected a real engagement with students’ ideas, whereas my comments were usually more directive and general in nature.  It was from working with Aurora that I stopped writing comments like, “Develop this paragraph more” and started providing more specific and engaged comments like, “Explain how your family influenced you in coming to the US.”  Co-teaching with Aurora has helped me move from a more deficit-based approach to providing feedback – giving general directives – to a more asset-based approach to providing feedback that values student ideas and encourages deeper engagement. 

Below is an example of our collaborative process of giving feedback on a student essay.

Aurora’s comments on 1st draft

• Background of your family being refugees from political turmoil in Congo and living as refugees in Tanzania was a good start to your story. Provide more details; how did your family survive within the refugee camps? How did people get skills or find ways to be relocated? How did your family manage?

• Tell more of a story of how you landed in the US? How did your family manage this? Connect this to the refugee story you have begun. You need to provide clearer explanation as well on why your family originally moved - and if it has something to do with your father working for Belgians?

• Growing up in the refugee camp, what were the key values your parents taught you? Why were these values uniquely Congolese? Would growing up resilient - constantly wanting a better life be also reflective of some of the values listed as American values? Highlight these areas.            

Jeff’s comments on 2nd draft

Vicky, This is a good 2nd draft. You have improved your explanation of your social location and your reasons for coming to the US. Well-done!  But you could better focus your discussion on values as assets.  And in your conclusion you need to introduce the sociological imagination and use it to analyze your story.

To do

• You discuss many values that your family taught you, but you should focus and elaborate on only those that have become assets to you in the US.  How are they assets?  Review Professor Bautista’s comments.

• Review the meaning of sociological imagination in the textbook.  Then revise your conclusion by introducing and explaining the concept. Then connect this concept to your story.  How has your social location helped make you who you are today?

• And finally, make revisions based on the comments I have posted in the margins and language errors I have marked.