Assessment Requirements

All three classes were required to write a number of pieces of writing. This included a pre- intervention task, a process task and a post-intervention task. These comprised the writing portfolios. This is presented in more detail in Table 4.2, Chapter Four; Section 4.7 The assignment set for the pre-intervention task required students to write an essay in which they were to argue whether the set literature novel for each class was relevant to the Grade 11 curriculum. The novel was selected by the teacher but also prescribed by the National Department of Basic Education. The process task, which included three drafts, used the same essay topic as students were supposed to use for their pre-intervention task as a means of comparison in developing their academic essay argument skills. It was hoped that the baseline task would serve as a reminder of how far students had come in terms of their academic writing abilities.

The post-intervention task required students to write an argumentative essay on whether the legal drinking age should be raised in South Africa. It is noted that the content requirements for the post-intervention task could be construed as easier in nature, and perhaps less cognitively demanding. But this was done purposively because students would not have had time to research the topic, unlike the topic set for the baseline intervention or process task

145 (the novel would have already been taught extensively in class). The post-intervention topic was also carefully chosen for the English First Additional Language learners who might have struggled with the essay due to limited vocabulary. The wording of the pre-intervention essay question, together with a model of what was expected of students is offered in the Appendices (2, 3 and 4). For the pre-intervention task, no guidance was given to students whatsoever. Their baseline skills were being tested and students were given carte blanche in the construction of their essays. I wanted to get a better idea of what was being taught in students’ respective classes with regards to academic writing.

The assessment of students’ writing was done with a holistic marking rubric presented in case studies to follow. A point to highlight again is that the scores generated via the marking rubric were relative scores. If a student scored 3/3, that is not to say that in conventional classroom practice that the easy was worthy of a score of 100%. The scoring system was used to show a rate of change in students’ writing performance. If a student scored 1/3 for a category, and then scored 2/3 or 3/3 that was indicative of an improvement in control of the category in question. If a student scored 2/3 and then subsequently scored 1/3, it was indicative of a drop in performance regarding the category in question. For example, if a student did not show any evidence of an introduction, body and conclusion, they might plausibly have scored 0/3. If they then started separating their paragraphs into a clear introduction, body and conclusion, they could then score 2/3. If the introduction, body and conclusion demonstrated an understanding of background information, thesis statement, controlling ideas and so forth, they could then score 3/3.

The general finding at the onset of the intervention was that most students did not have a comprehensive idea of what constituted an academic essay argument. Class A did provide some elements of correct schematic structuring, use of appropriate content words related to the subject/topic and a good command of grammatical features, however, this group was still lacking in academic literacy skills with regards to phasing in stages of the academic essay. Arguments were at times, subjective and lacked evidence to back the student’s argument. Class C demonstrated the weakest skills with regards to academic writing and nearly all of Class C’s students did not demonstrate appropriate schematic structuring, content words were not appropriate, essays were not cohesive and arguments were very subjective. In analysing

146 some of these issues in more detail, six students writing portfolios will be discussed in detail in the section to follow. This will be done by firstly offering an overview of students’ mark sheet, followed by a discussion of the writing.

147 5.3.2 Case Studies

Case Study One: Aaron (Student No. 92) Class C Table 5.1: Case Study One: Aaron (Student No. 92) Class C

Assessment criteria

Student no: Description

AO A1 A2 A3 _A4

Co

nte

xt

Purpose Appropriate for genre and writing

assignment? 1/3 3/3 3/3 3/3 3/3

Staging Are there appropriate stages? How

well developed is each stage? 0/3 2/3 3/3 3/3 3/3

Phases How well developed is each phase? 0/3 2/3 2/3 3/3 _3/3

Field Does the writer construct the plot,

settings and characters (narratives); explain the field (factual texts), or describe the issues (argument)?

0/3 2/3 2/3 3/3 _3/3

Tenor How well does the writer engage the

reader (narratives) or persuade the reader (argument)?

0/3 2/3 2/3 2/3 _2/3

Mode How well written is the text for the

school age? Is it spoken or written language? 1/3 2/3 2/3 3/3 _3/3 Dis co urs e

Lexis Content words related to the field. 1/3 2/3 3/3 3/3 _3/3

Appraisal How well is appraisal used to

engage/persuade/evaluate? 1/3 2/3 2/3 2/3 2/3

Conjunctives Is there a clear logical relationship

between sentences? 2/3 3/3 3/3 3/3 3/3

Reference Is it clear who is referred to in each

sentence (pronouns, articles, demonstratives)?

2/3 3/3 3/3 3/3 _3/3

Grammar Have grammatical conventions of

formal English been used accurately? 1/3 2/3 1/3 3/3 2/3

G ra ph ic fea tures

Spelling How accurately are core words and

non-core words spelt? 2/3 3/3 2/3 2/3 2/3

Punctuation Has punctuation been used accurately

and consistently? 3/3 3/3 3/3 2/3 3/3

Presentation Paragraphs? Legible writing? Clear

layout? 3/3 3/3 3/3 3/3 3/3

148 Topic

Aaron struggled to argue within the parameters of the baseline topic and appeared to offer more of a personal recount of whether the novel was interesting or not. This was an inappropriate genre for the assignment task, and off topic. For example, instead of offering an objective argument for whether the novel was appropriate for a Grade 11 study, (its historical relevance might be important given the history of Black South Africans during Apartheid), Aaron’s argument was based on whether he enjoyed the story, and whether it grabbed his attention. Limited reference was made to events within the novel and its subsequent impact on students’ perceptions of Apartheid policy. Further, Aaron tended to rehash the same point of view for the main argument multiple times (“did not grab my attention”), showing little evidence of reading comprehension (also of the set assignment) or reading of the novel at all. This kind of difficulty was encountered in the work of numerous students who indicated that the novel had not been read in its entirety due to a lack of interest in the subject matter, or poor English proficiency, leading to comprehension issues. See Figure 5A.1.

Although early submission of the assignment (earlier drafts before the final task) showed a subjective argument, this did gradually improve over the course of the intervention. For example, Aaron’s pre-intervention essay stated that the novel was not relevant because it was not interesting to him (See Figure 5A.1 in the appendices). But this subjective viewpoint showed elements of transformation as Aaron was scaffolded into how to argue objectively. This was evidenced by his point of argument in his later drafts stating that the novel was now relevant to the Grade 11 curriculum given its historical context (See Figure 5A.2 in the appendices). After feedback and guidance of the kind described in Chapter Seven, Section 7.5, Aaron started showing signs of offering a more objective argument by eliminating subjective, personal preference (did not capture my interest/not interesting) and incorporating more objective arguments based on actual events and characterisation within the novel, and linking them to his personal context. The gradual improvement of his argument across the assessment drafts, when taking into account the topic under discussion, and evidenced by assessment categories ‘purpose’, ‘field’ and ‘’tenor’, was marked. For example, with regards to ‘field’, Aaron was able to describe why the novel was relevant (historical context); and with regards to ‘tenor’ he was able to offer an objective opinion instead of a subjective reason for the novels inclusion in the curriculum (historical relevance to his community).

149 Context

Initial baseline assessment for Aaron’s work showed no evidence of any formal academic essay structure at all, evidenced by the 0/3 scored for both ‘staging’ and ‘phasing’. Further, Aaron offered no indication of prior thought or planning of the essay. Figure 5A.1 in the appendices illustrated this well. For example, Aaron’s baseline essay offered no introduction in which he states the thesis statement. Because he had no thesis statement, he was unable to offer the reader an indication of how he would unpack his argument. Further, Aaron did not offer a conclusion in which to sum up his main points of argument. The required length of the essay also appeared problematic (too short) showing evidence of Aaron being unsure of what to actually write about. This may also be indicative of not having read the novel, or hardly having understood the text. After extensive modelling and assignment draft feedback of appropriate academic essay structure (See Appendix Two for model text), Aaron appeared to make huge gains. This was evidenced by the marked increase in his essay structure - as evidenced in improved scores awarded to categories ‘staging’, ‘phasing’ and ‘presentation’. For example, if one reads Aaron’s introduction and conclusion extracts in Figures 5A.2 and 5A.3 in the appendices, there is clear evidence of an opening controversial statement, followed by background information and a thesis statement. Similarly, the conclusion opens with a discourse marker highlighting the transition to a conclusion, followed a restatement of the thesis statement in past tense and a summing up of the argument. By the time Aaron submitted a final post-intervention essay; good quality essay format was noticeable. Good structuring also concealed, to some degree, flaws in other aspects of his writing. Although the essays presented for the process and post intervention task were not flawless, they did indicate a much better grasp of essay structure.

Discourse

Aaron’s baseline submission showed little evidence of appropriate writing for Aaron’s age group or language group (EAL). The argument appeared to be written in a more oral/conversational style with limited content words related to the essay topic presented in the argument. For example, instead of using content words related to major themes in the novel, such as ‘Land Areas Act’, ‘segregation’, historical relevance’ and so forth, Aaron substituted these for personal descriptors such as ‘interest me’ and ‘catches my interest’. This was evidenced by the weak scoring of categories ‘mode’, ‘lexis’ and ‘appraisal’. See Chapter

150 Three, Section 3.4.3 for a brief discussion of these concepts. However, again, after intensive feedback and text modelling (as described in Chapter Seven, Section 7.5), Aaron showed a marked improvement with categories ‘mode’ and ‘lexis’. With ‘mode’, his writing style moved towards a more academic written style of language. With ‘lexis; his choice of words for the argument were more objective, abstract and relevant to major themes of the novel. However, even after the final essay, evidence indicates that Aaron would still need more assistance in offering a more persuasive argument. This would also entail intensive teaching about the novel because Aaron is unable to write about issues he has not read, or studied. The most substantial improvement for this student was a move away from a conversational style of argument to a more academic form of argument. See Figures 5A.2 and Figures 5A.3 in the appendices.

Grammatical Features

Aaron started with an adequate use of ‘conjunctives’, ‘reference techniques’ in and between sentences, ‘grammar’, ‘spelling’ and ‘punctuation’. It was not perfect but left much less reason for concern than did the features noted as ‘topic parameters’, ‘structure’ and ‘discourse’. There was a light increase in the skills presentation of ‘punctuation’ and in the use of ‘conjunctives’ and ‘referencing’ in and between sentences but it was not marked. This was evidenced by an increased use of demonstrative pronouns such as ‘this’ in referring to concepts in a preceding sentence or paragraph. As a result reading comprehension was not marred by an incoherent style of writing, often a casualty of poor within text referencing and poor use of conjunctives. Improvement in these sub-categories could be better with longer term intervention.

Summary

In summarising the above findings, it appears that Aaron’s structural organisation of the academic essay did improve, as did his ability to employ more appropriate academic ‘register’. Further, Aaron appeared to show a slight improvement in his writing in terms of correct usage of ‘reference techniques’. As a result, Aaron was able to compile a more coherent and cohesive essay, a marked difference from his baseline assessment. By this I mean Aaron’s essay flowed a little easier with ideas following on from one another, either due to improved essay structure, or better use of referencing techniques such as

151 demonstrative pronouns. Aaron was also able to move beyond a more subjective argument to a more objective analysis of the novels relevance with adequate evidence offered. Aaron successfully moved from a performance located within the first quartile (bottom performing set of students within the class) to a final assessment located within the fourth quartile. (See Chapter Six, Table 6.7).

152 Case Study Two: Bryan (Student No. 72) Class C

Table 5.2: Case Study Two: Bryan (Student No. 72) Class C Assessment

criteria

Student no: Description

A0 A1 A2 _A3 A4

Co

nte

xt

Purpose Appropriate for genre and writing

assignment? 1/3 3/3 3/3 3/3 3/3

Staging Are there appropriate stages? How

well developed is each stage? 0/3 3/3 3/3 3/3 3/3

Phases How well developed is each phase? 0/3 2/3 3/3 _3/3 2/3

Field Does the writer construct the plot,

settings and characters (narratives); explain the field (factual texts), or describe the issues (argument)?

13/ 2/3 2/3 _2/3 2/3

Tenor How well does the writer engage the

reader (narratives) or persuade the reader (argument)?

1/3 1/3 3/3 _2/3 2/3

Mode How well written is the text for the

school age? Is it spoken or written language? 2/3 2/3 3/3 _3/3 3/3 Dis co urs e

Lexis Content words related to the field. 1/3 2/3 3/3 _3/3 3/3

Appraisal How well is appraisal used to

engage/persuade/evaluate? 1/3 2/3 2/3 2/3 2/3

Conjunctives Is there a clear logical relationship

between sentences? 2/3 2/3 3/3 3/3 3/3

Reference Is it clear who is referred to in each

sentence (pronouns, articles, demonstratives)?

2/3 3/3 3/3 _3/3 3/3

Grammar Have grammatical conventions of

formal English been used accurately? 2/3 2/3 2/3 3/3 2/3

G ra ph ic fea tures

Spelling How accurately are core words and

non-core words spelt? 2/3 2/3 2/3 3/3 2/3

Punctuation Has punctuation been used accurately

and consistently? 1/3 2/3 3/3 3/3 3/3

Presentation Paragraphs? Legible writing? Clear

layout? 1/3 3/3 3/3 3/3 3/3

153 Topic

Bryan started off discussing the relevance of the novel in an appropriate manner but appeared to veer off topic very quickly and instead, offered a discussion of the relevance of the novel purely from a personal perspective. For example, in Figure 5A.4 (Appendices), Bryan started mentioning the relevance of the novel due to its historical importance but soon thereafter argued from a personal perspective sighting the novel’s level of difficulty with regards to the language. In arguing from an academic perspective I was hoping Bryan would mention significant themes emanating from the novel to highlight its academic and historical importance to the Grade 11 curriculum. This demonstrated a weaker grasp of the novel’s thematic relevance. Thus, Bryan scored very poorly with regards to ‘purpose’, ‘field’ and ‘tenor’ for the pre-intervention baseline score. With regards to ‘field’, Bryan failed to offer an objective reason for the novel’s exclusion within the curriculum besides personal preference. With regards to ‘tenor’, given that Bryan failed to provide an objective reason, with evidence as to why the novel should, or should not be included, his level of persuasion was weak. Consequently, he failed to meet the genre requirements of the academic argument essay (to persuade a point of view), shown by a weaker score for ‘purpose.

With intensive scaffolding via text modelling, purposive classroom interaction and rigorous assessment draft feedback (See Chapter Seven, Section 7.5) Bryan showed evidence of drastic improvement in terms of whether the assignment fitted the ‘purpose’ of the genre (academic essay) and assignment purposes. There was a slight improvement in the category ‘field’ (describing the issue at hand and offering evidence for the argument) but any further development appeared to be hampered by a lack of reading comprehension or completion of the novel. In other-words, Bryan had not read enough of the novel to be able to offer evidence from the novel to back his argument. This was confirmed by his linguistic biography questionnaire whereby Bryan stated that he did not read a lot. However, there was a slight improvement in his ability to persuade the reader through a more well thought out argument which clearly linked back to the essay question. This was important as Bryan not only stated his point of argument and gave the evidence, but he was also able to link these elements back to the essay topic. See Figure 5A.5 (Appendices).

154 Context

Bryan’s pre-intervention baseline assessment score showed little evidence of any knowledge of basic academic essay structure. This was evidenced by the very weak score for the ‘staging’, ‘phasing’ and ‘presentation’ categories. For example, Bryan’s baseline assessment draft did not include any paragraphs. Even in his one long paragraph, there was no evidence of an introduction, body or conclusion See Figure 5A.4 (Appendices). Further, Bryan’s baseline assessment was just a little under half of the required one page essay. Again, this may be indicative of having very little to write about given the fact that Bryan had not completed his reading of the novel yet. It must be noted that this was still the first novel prescribed for this class from the first term and yet, in the third term, Bryan had still not been able to read to completion.

After carefully guiding Bryan through appropriate academic essay argument schematic structuring, via whole class discussions and individual assessment feedback, Bryan did show a marked improvement. His presentation improved drastically as he was able to divide his essay into very clear paragraphs. Further, he showed a better understanding of ‘staging’ and ‘phasing’ of the academic essay. For example, Figures 5A.5 provided evidence of this. Bryan was able to offer appropriate staging (introduction, body and conclusion) as well as phasing (controversial statement, background information, thesis statement, topic sentence, evidence, elaboration and so forth) of the academic essay. This awareness was carried through to the final re-write, evidenced by Figure 5A.6 (Appendices). Even though the final re-write showed less thought for the conclusion, it was still a marked improvement from the baseline. Discourse

Pre-intervention baseline assessment scores for ‘lexis’ (content words related to the topic) and ‘appraisal’ (words used to show attitude, levels of engagement and graduation) showed that Bryan did not make use of appropriate content words related to the essay topic at hand. For example, Bryan made reference to personal attitude in his argument (unfortunately; great) demonstrating a subjective stance. It would be more appropriate if his levels of attitude could be downgraded to offer a more objective argument removed from his personal preference.