Helping preservice teachers learn to assess writing: Practice and feedback in a Web-based environment

Writing is a highly valued skill that is often neglected in the classroom; one reason is that teachers often do not receive adequate training in writing assessment and instruction. Teachers, particularly preservice teachers, need practice making detailed assessments of student writing and to build their confidence for assessing student writing, but practical issues of time and resources often constrain the frequency and quality of training they receive. This mixed method study focused on the design and evaluation of an online tool for building preservice teachers’ writing assessment skills and self-efficacy for writing assessment. In the study, teacher education students interacted with actual 4th-graders’ writing samples via a Web-based critical thinking tool. They received scaffolded practice in assessing multiple student papers and justified their assessments using analytic criteria. After each paper, they received feedback that included access to expert assessments and those of their peers, along with both teacher and peer rationales for their ratings. Participants significantly improved in ability to accurately assess student writing using an analytic approach and in knowledge of the writing traits. They also showed significantly greater self-efficacy for assessing student writing and high levels of satisfaction with the Web-based tool and their overall learning experience.     

360‐degree feedback: Going around in circles?

Multisource feedback (often called 360‐degree feedback) is, in itself, an excellent idea. In practice, though, multisource feedback is often implemented in a way that can do more harm than good. Many commercially available 360‐degree feedback programs seem to be poorly designed. They may provide reasonably accurate assessments but are inadequate in their delivery of those assessments. The problem lies primarily in the way they deliver the feedback. In this article, we discuss the problems and offer some remedies.     

The creatine content of Creatine Serum and the change in the plasma concentration with ingestion of a single dose

Three samples of Creatine Serum ATP Advantage from Muscle Marketing USA, Inc. were assayed for creatine by two different techniques by four independent laboratories, and for creatinine by two different techniques by two laboratories. A further sample was assayed for phosphorylcreatine. Dry weight and total nitrogen were also analysed. Six male volunteers ingested in random order, over 3 weeks: (A) water; (B) 2.5 g creatine monohydrate (Cr.H2O) in solution; and (C) 5 ml Creatine Serum (reportedly containing an equivalent amount of Cr.H2O). Blood samples were collected before and up to 8 h after each treatment and plasma was analysed for creatine and creatinine. Eight-hour urine samples were analysed for creatine. Ingestion of 2.5 g creatine monohydrate in solution resulted in a significant increase in plasma creatine (from 59.1+/-11.8 micromol.l(-1) to 245.3+/-74.6 microM micromol.l(-1); mean+/-s) and urinary creatine excretion. No increase in plasma or urinary creatine or creatinine was found on ingestion of Creatine Serum or water. Analysis showed 5 ml of Creatine Serum to contain <10 mg Cr.H2O and approximately 90 mg creatinine. Phosphorylcreatine was not detectable and only a trace amount of phosphorous was present. Total nitrogen analysis ruled out significant amounts of other forms of creatine. We conclude that the trace amounts of creatine in the product would be too little to affect the muscle content even with multiple dosing.     

Recent Articles in the Field of Public Opinion Research

In this section the International Journal of Public OpinionResearch reviews articles that have recently been publishedin peer-refereed journals and which broadly relate to the fieldof public opinion. The intention is not to give an exhaustiveoverview of a given study but rather to alert our readers tointeresting ideas and research in our field. For this issuethanks are due to Ken’ichi Ikeda (University of Tokyo)for help in compiling the reviews. Arai, Kiichiro (2006). A mechanism of political participation:Experience and evaluation. Review of Electoral Studies, 6, 5–24. This paper examines how citizens are engaged in political activities,with a focus on their experience of political participationand their evaluation of the experience. Using data from theJapanese Election and Democracy Study 2000 survey, an empiricalanalysis shows that people who positively evaluate their experienceof participating in political activity (such as helping election