petri cwha dbq_prsnt_3-2-14
DESCRIPTION
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.TRANSCRIPT
The Power of Peer Review in High School World History Classes
California World History Association Annual Conference
March 2, 2014 Dr. Scott Petri
On 2011 NAEP writing scores, 8th and 12th grade girls out-performed boys by double digits.
This gender gap is larger in writing than in reading and is most pronounced among low achieving students.
On the 2011 NAEP only 27% of 12th grade students scored at or above proficient in writing.
The class of 2012 attained the lowest score (488) since 2006, on the writing portion of the SAT.
Writing arguments has been found to promote greater audience awareness and syntactic complexity in HS students
Increase the use of writing-from-sources tasks which integrate reading and writing i.e., document based questions (DBQs).
• 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.
P 2 Non-Violence Essay
AB
CD
Cohort I DBQ Performance Sample
Words produced per hour by Cohort I Students (N=105, Feb. 2012)
Mean: 186Median: 163
Low: 014High: 617
Words produced per hour by Cohort I Students (N=105, May 2012)
Mean: 342Median: 315
Low: 076High: 990
Increase in Word ProductionMean: 156Median: 152
Low: 062High: 373
Cohort IIConsequences of the Cold War Essay
(N=29) 13 missing assignmentsLow=220Median=410High=608
Cohort II DBQ Performance Summary
Class Per.
Total Student Load Low Median High
Missing/Incomplete
Didn't Compl % 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%
Comparing CohortsSample 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 Grade Mean
Overall 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
Student & Teacher PerceptionsHow 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)
Student & Teacher PerceptionsHow 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)
Student & Teacher PerceptionsHow 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)
Peer Review Experiment(N=116)
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%)
Peer Review Activity
Contact: [email protected] for teachers willing to participate in a larger study on HS student peer review.