Spies of the Revolution Memoir Writing Student Work Analysis Unit Goals: My student work samples were pulled

from a two-week mini unit called Spies of the Revolution. In order to execute this unit, classes were blocked. By this, I mean that all of my English students worked with the same History teacher. This way, student work done in English was directly dependent upon student work done in History. During our staff meeting, we brainstormed ways to incorporate cross-curricular assessments, standards, expectations, methods, and foci. In both the English and History courses, common core state standards repeat the importance of evidence. In Spies of the Revolution, students could not write a simulated memoir without using their Historical research. As educators, we had room to invite creativity back into the classroom. History Unit Goal: Students will produce a spy trading card through research. English Unit Goals: 1. Students will produce a simulated memoir from the point of view of their assigned spy. 2. Students will use historically accurate spy methods to create and unveil clues within their memoirs. Lesson Objectives: 1. SWBAT draft and finalize simulated memoirs through the use of point of view, historical research, creative writing, and academic language. 2. SWBAT use historical spy methods to decipher and reveal clues within their memoirs. Activities: Since this was an interdisciplinary unit, the first half was completed in History and the second half was executed in English. History: 1. Students are introduced to the American Revolution and the role of spies 2. Students learn about different spying methods, i.e. cipher, mask letter, invisible ink, etc. 3. Students are assigned a spy: rebel or loyalist 4. Students conduct research on her/his spy 5. Students create a playing card for their spy English: 1. Students get a mini lesson on memoir writing/introduced to point of view 2. Students draft a simulated memoir from the point of view of her/his assigned spy 3. Students complete their memoirs using the rubric 4. Students buy a gift for an assigned classmate 5. Students write clues about the gift in invisible ink (lemon juice) in between the lines of their memoir 6. Students decipher the clues by placing the memoir above a candle; the heat reveals the message This is done in the science lab (destroy the evidence). Explanation/Design of Assessment: This assessment was designed with the end goal in mind: get students to blend creative thought with academic and historically accurate language. The assessments design required a partnership with the history teachers. Based on the History objectives: conduct research, the

English teachers were able to create a common core based rubric, which required students to turn that research into a spy memoir. In light of these goals, the assessment was quite clear in its expectations and the rubric used exact wording from the common core standards. Referring back to my initial literacy inquiry, I know that my students require hands-onlearning. Implementing a cross-curricular unit so early in the year allowed us to endorse studentled assessment, distinguish a relationship between subject areas (which gave students more resources, individualized assistance, and relativity attached to the assignment), and provided students more time for in-depth analyses, research, creative thinking, and the evaluation of evidence. This assessment fit in the context of the unit because it was a summative assessment that put research into practice. Since Larson is working to generalize Claim, Evidence, Reasoning so that argumentative writing is taught in each and every class, this assessment was particularly beneficial to the application of this method. Students were required to use at least five historically accurate sources within their simulated memoir, thus paying close attention to citing evidence when writing, even when the writing leaned to the creative side. This assessment let us see the students abilities to comprehend and execute common core language, while simultaneously taking advantage of their historical research and own creative abilities. Sadly, we could not see whether or not the students truly enjoyed memoir writing. We believe that because the spy research did not pertain directly to the students lives, they were not fully committed to writing from the perspective of their spies. Student interpretations and patterns across the students responses The three students I chose each wrote her/his memoir in a different format, which is why I chose their memoirs as samples. Since each of these students interpreted the assignment in slightly different ways, yet managed to adhere to the rubric, I am able to see that as educators, we left enough room for student voice and vision. Although the rubric was common core specific, i.e. you should use narrative techniques, such as dialogue, pacing, description, and reflection, to develop experiences, events, and characters (W.8 3b), students still had the freedom to craft their memoir in a format of their choosing. To protect the privacy of my students, pseudonyms will be used in this reflection. The first student, Josephine, wrote in the form of multiple journal entries. The second student, Kiambre, wrote in the format of one diary entry, and the third student, Oliver, wrote in the form of a letter. The diary and journal entries aligned with what I expected and hoped to see. The letter however, surprised and delighted me; very few students chose to write in letter form. Regardless of the differing formats, the three samples compare to one another in the realm of content and voice. Although Oliver received a lower score than Josephine and Kiambre, Oliver was able to get into the mind of his spy just as well as Josephine and Kiambre did. The use of detail and higher-level diction was a recurring pattern among all three samples. Each sample provided the reader with context, but because Oliver and Kiambres memoirs were written as a single entity, they were unable to use as many transitional phrases/time shifts as Josephine used. Individual student performance/responses Prior to this assessment, I already knew the strength of Josephines writing. Based off of her personal narrative write, in which she also received a 100%, I predicted that her memoir would be as equally strong. I was correct. This is because she excels at first person point of view writing. Within this POV, she writes with a strong voice and an excellent command of

sensory description. Her memoir highlights these strengths. Although she received a 20/20 on the memoir, Josephine still struggles in a few places with clarity. Sometimes, her expansive diction sounds awkward and needs to be reworded. Based on this assessment, I am confident in Josephines ability to blend creative writing with academic language. She was one of the few students to incorporate a quote that her spy actually used. I am curious to see if she will also excel in argumentative/persuasive writing. As for Kiambre, I knew that he excelled at individualized learning. Since the memoir was written entirely on ones own, I predicted that his score would reflect this strength, and it did: 19/20. Kiambre has a habit of staying fairly quiet in class, while also producing beautifully written and well-detailed work. Knowing how reserved he is in class, I was a bit surprised, but incredibly ecstatic, to find that his writing possessed humor and personal pizzazz. The expectations of the assessment encouraged him to harness the voice of his spy through pacing, dialogue, and description, which is exactly what Kiambre did. His memoir also shows that he can improve upon his use of transitional phrases and gain confidence in implementing paragraph breaks. Based on this assessment, I learned that Kiambre is extremely witty. I look forward to seeing this personality shine via class discussion. I may have to challenge him to speak his mind, but I am confident that he will begin to bring his humor into the classroom. In terms of Oliver, I knew that he took instruction very literally. He asked many clarifying questions in class and required direct instruction. Knowing this, I was curious to see how he would interpret the format itself. After making sure a letter was a valid format, he set off to work. Olivers tendency to take instruction literally serves as both a strength and a weakness. His memoir establishes a clear context, which the rubric explicitly requires. In certain places, his memoir illustrates his use of run-on sentences. Oliver may have narrowed in on the rubrics emphasis on detail. Because of this, his sentences were highly informational, but too wordy. Based on this assessment, I learned that Oliver needs to be challenged with more freedom. Since he prefers specific guidelines rather than choices, I would like to see Oliver gain confidence as a decision maker in his own writing. Response to my students I responded to each student in a similar manner. My comments were a two-step process. First, I made a few comments in the margins. Since these three students in particular provided strong context, diction, and narrative techniques, they received minimal comments on their actual piece of writing. I did however, correct minor grammatical errors and shifts in verb tense. My intent with marginalia was to highlight current strengths, while also underlining or circling areas that need improvement. Since I am a firm believer in reasoning, I provided a brief note on each students rubric. By using their names, it ensured individualized attention, which I believe is particularly effective when acknowledging that writing is a process that varies from student to student. I believe that comments in the margins are effective in the overall student growth process, but I am not entirely sure that all of my students actually read them. The personalized note however, was highly effective because it commended them on something they did particularly well, while also pointing out something that could be improved. My three student samples did quite well on the assignment, but I do not think I offered them enough feedback. I want to teach in a way that encourages process over product and in order to do so, I must create a space for growth for all students, not just the ones who received low marks.

My next step with each of these three students will focus on a common theme: growth. How I execute that growth though, will be different for each student. My mentor teacher and I agreed to push Josephine into Advanced English, but she declined the offer because she liked her current class schedule. It is my job to challenge her within her writing. In order to do this, I may have to modify some of her rubrics so that they are more closely aligned with the expectations of an honors English class. For Kiambre, I will challenge him to bring his writers voice into the classroom. I will focus more on peer editing in their next pieces of writing. During this time, I will make sure that Kiambre gains confidence when working with a peer and using his wit. As for Oliver, I need to focus on his interpretation of assignments. Since he asks so many clarifying topics on the assignments, I am curious to see what he will do with a less structured rubric. I think he will benefit from a creative writing assignment. Response to my practice Since I did not come up with this unit, or this rubric, I was able to see how detailed the planning process was. I commend my MTs on their well thought out planning. If I were to use this unit in my future classes, I would change very little. I think it is an excellent blend of academic skill, which includes enough creative and kinesthetic options to fuel student participation and excitement. I would revise only minor details. Since many students were unable to conduct research without heavy scaffolding, I would include a research lesson: what makes a source accurate, how to find sources, how to avoid plagiarism in nonfiction articles, etc. Moreover, I would include a peer review workday for student memoir writing. I am a firm believer in the drafting process and I do not think students had enough time to devote to their writing. I would keep the same goals and the use the same rubric, but I would make sure students were given the rubric ahead of time. Often times, students do not understand how to read rubrics, or why they are important; I would leave room for fully explaining the expectations of the rubric. As for my own methods of responding to student work, I will definitely make a few adaptations. In moving forward, I will continue to comment using this two-step process; most students react quite positively to it. I will however, be sure to include areas of improvement for the students who receive 100%s as well. I am disappointed in myself for not including enough marginal comments for the students who aced this assessment. Despite this, I am confident that I am providing students with the support they need to blossom into strong and independent thinkers, and will continue to look for ways to improve upon student feedback.