A Comparison of Writing Criteria: Any Differences?

Autor/in	Russikoff, Karen A.
Titel	A Comparison of Writing Criteria: Any Differences?
Quelle	(1995), (9 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Comparative Analysis; English (Second Language); Graduate Students; Higher Education; Holistic Evaluation; Scoring; Second Language Instruction; Second Language Learning; Statistical Analysis; Student Evaluation; Writing Instruction + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? English as second language; English; Second Language; Englisch als Zweitsprache; Graduate Study; Student; Students; Aufbaustudium; Graduiertenstudium; Hauptstudium; Studentin; Hochschulbildung; Hochschulsystem; Hochschulwesen; Holistische Methode; Bewertung; Fremdsprachenunterricht; Zweitsprachenerwerb; Statistische Analyse; Schulnote; Studentische Bewertung; Schreibunterricht
Abstract	This paper offers an examination of the holistic assessment used for the Graduation Writing Test (GWT) at California State Polytechnic University at Pomona for nonnative speakers of English. Holistic assessment is a widely accepted method of evaluating student writing at the university level for administration, placement, proficiency, and certification of competency, although the validity of interpretation and application of scoring criteria have been unconfirmed for nonnative-speaking students. Similarities and differences between coursework and the writing test were examined. The constructs for comparison were operationalized for the curriculum through the criteria that faculty used for assessing English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) writing in academic coursework, gathered by a faculty survey, and for the GWT, using holistic criteria that raters use for the high-stakes evaluation that permits, delays, or denies university graduation. Using the GWT cut-off score of 6 and below as a failing score and 7 and above as a passing score on a cumulative 12-point scale with two raters, approximately the same proportions for pass/fail were maintained. The revised scoring version, or analytic rubric, is appended. (Contains 32 references.) (NAV)
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC