Petri cwha dbq_prsnt_3-2-14

347 views

Published on

A presentation to the California World History Association about using peer review to increase the number of Common Core writing assignments in high school social studies classrooms.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
347
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Petri cwha dbq_prsnt_3-2-14

  1. 1. The Power of Peer Review in High School World History Classes California World History Association Annual Conference March 2, 2014 Dr. Scott Petri
  2. 2. On 2011 NAEP writing scores, 8th and 12th grade girls out-performed boys by double digits.
  3. 3. This gender gap is larger in writing than in reading and is most pronounced among low achieving students.
  4. 4. On the 2011 NAEP only 27% of 12th grade students scored at or above proficient in writing.
  5. 5. The class of 2012 attained the lowest score (488) since 2006, on the writing portion of the SAT.
  6. 6. Writing arguments has been found to promote greater audience awareness and syntactic complexity in HS students Increase the use of writingfrom-sources tasks which integrate reading and writing i.e., document based questions (DBQs).
  7. 7. • Students at two schools were given a series of complex writing tasks or DBQs. • In order to measure student effort, words produced were analyzed per class. • The mean word production numbers were compared to the averages from the first task to determine how much student effort had improved.
  8. 8. Cohort I DBQ Performance Sample P 2 Non-Violence Essay D C B A
  9. 9. Words produced per hour by Cohort I Students (N=105, Feb. 2012) Low: 014 High: 617 Mean: Median: 186 163
  10. 10. Words produced per hour by Cohort I Students (N=105, May 2012) Low: 076 High: 990 Mean: Median: 342 315
  11. 11. Increase in Word Production Low: 062 High: 373 Mean: Median: 156 152
  12. 12. Cohort II Consequences of the Cold War Essay Low=220 Median=410 High=608 (N=29) 13 missing assignments
  13. 13. Cohort II DBQ Performance Summary Total Student Class Per. Load Low Median Missing/In Didn't complete Compl % High Compl % P1 44 125 350 600 12 27% 73% P2 42 220 410 608 13 31% 69% P3 44 28 271 519 20 45% 55% P5 44 36 250 415 21 48% 52% P7 30 101 345 546 12 40% 60% P8 25 52 203 405 10 40% 60% AVG 38 94 305 516 15 39% 61%
  14. 14. Comparing Cohorts Sample Size (N) Assignment Cmplt. Rate WPH Increase Course Pass Rate Course Fail Rate Cohort 1 105 70% 156 72% 28% Cohort 2 210 71% 193 74% 26% Avg. # of Missing Days Avg. # of Tardies Missing Instrctnl Minutes Ind. Course Overall Grade Mean Stdnt GPA Mean Cohort 1 9.69 7.87 912 2.62 2.04 Cohort 2 7.06 0.84 648 1.74 1.95 # of Failing Students Failing Males Failing Females Cohort 1 33 22 11 Cohort 2 55 40 15
  15. 15. Student & Teacher Perceptions How confident are you coming up with a thesis for a DBQ? (N=106) How confident are you in teaching students how to write a thesis for a writing task/essay? (N=66)
  16. 16. Student & Teacher Perceptions How confident are you that you know how to use a document to support your thesis? (N=106) How confident are you in teaching students how to use evidence to support a thesis? (N=66)
  17. 17. Student & Teacher Perceptions How confident are you that you can adequately explain each document? (N=106) How confident are you in teaching students how to paraphrase/explain primary source documents? ? (N=66)
  18. 18. Peer Review Experiment (N=116)
  19. 19. Results/Data • Low Word Count: 14 • Mean Word Count: 346 • High Word Count: 730 • • • • 14 A’s 40 B’s 38 C’s 24 D’s • 116 graded assignments • 92 proficient students (79%) • 24 non-proficient students (21%)
  20. 20. Peer Review Activity
  21. 21. Contact: scottmpetri@gmail.com 818.319.2581 Call for teachers willing to participate in a larger study on HS student peer review.

×