Revising an Email to a Host Family
A French 3 teacher has 25 students write a 150-word email to a host family in Nantes. The analytic rubric weights grammar 50%, task completion 30%, and vocabulary 20%. Students submit two drafts. On the first draft, 19 of 25 include all required details, but many write short, choppy sentences and avoid relative pronouns. On the second draft, grammar accuracy improves, but 10 students drop the required question about meals, and several use 'il y a' repeatedly instead of more precise verbs. The teacher has one 50-minute class before the final draft and wants students to revise for discourse coherence without turning the lesson into a grammar drill. The department requires a common writing rubric across French 3 sections and emphasizes interpersonal writing.
1. What does the pattern of results reveal about the rubric's alignment with the task? What should the teacher change?
Read the worked answer
The rubric is misaligned. Grammar at 50% rewards short, safe sentences because students can avoid relative pronouns and complex verbs. The first draft shows that 19 of 25 could include all details, so task completion was not the main problem; the second draft shows that 10 students dropped the meal question when they revised for grammar. That is a washback effect: students optimize for the highest-weighted category. The rubric also lacks a coherence category, so 'il y a' repetition and choppy sentences are not captured except as vocabulary or grammar. Revise to an analytic rubric with task completion, coherence, vocabulary, and language control; reduce grammar to no more than 30% and define what counts. Add a task-specific checklist for the required question and formulaic email register.
2. Design a 50-minute revision lesson that targets the observed weaknesses while preserving the email's communicative purpose.
Read the worked answer
Use a 50-minute revision lesson with four moves. First, analyze a short mentor email: students underline the greeting, the required question, and two linking devices. Second, do sentence combining on three pairs from their drafts, modeling 'qui,' 'dont,' and 'où' only where they improve clarity. Third, replace 'il y a' with precise verbs in two examples. Fourth, peer review with a checklist: one missing detail, one vague verb, one place to add a connector. The teacher circulates and gives focused feedback. End with a five-minute exit ticket in which each student writes one revised sentence and one question they still need to ask. This targets discourse coherence without turning the class into a grammar drill.
3. How should the teacher score the final drafts reliably across sections?
Read the worked answer
Reliability comes from shared anchors and task-specific descriptors. Before scoring, the French 3 teachers should score three anchor scripts together: one strong, one developing, one with a missing required element. The rubric should separate task completion, coherence, vocabulary, and language control, and each dimension should have a one-sentence descriptor for this email. Do not let grammar halo affect task completion. Use a checklist for the required meal question and the register. If possible, double-score a 20% sample and discuss discrepancies. The final draft should be scored against the same rubric used for feedback, and students should receive the descriptors in advance. This is fairer than a single holistic score and more informative for the next unit.