Assessment of writing skills must focus on the writing product in order to satisfy four educational functions: identifying unsuccessful writers, planning instruction, monitoring student progress, and giving feedback. Within the last 25 years, various researchers have tested the validity of simple direct measures that correspond to five important aspects of the writing product: fluency, content, conventions, syntax, and vocabulary. Measures for each of these components, both qualitative and quantitative, are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonP. L. (1982). A preliminary study of syntax in the written expression of learning disabled childrsen. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 359–362.
2.
BereiterC., & ScardamaliaM. (1982). From conversation to composition: The role of instruction in a developmental process. In GlaserR. (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
ClayM. M. (1979). The early detection of reading difficulties: A diagnostic survey with recovery procedures (2nd ed.). Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.
4.
CooperC. R. (1977). Holistic evaluation of writing. In CooperC. R. & OdellL. (Eds.), Evaluating writing: Describing, measuring, judging (pp. 3–31). Buffalo, NY: National Council of Teachers of English.
5.
DaiuteC. (1986). Physical and cognitive factors in revising: Insights for studies with computers. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 141–159.
6.
DenoS. L.MarstonD., & MirkinP. (1982). Valid measurement procedures for continuous evaluation of written expression. Exceptional Children, 48, 368–371.
7.
DenoS. L.MirkinP. K., & WessonC. (1984). How to write effective data-based IEPs. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 16, 99–104.
8.
FitzgeraldJ., & SpiegelD. L. (1986). Textual cohesion and coherence in children's writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 263–280.
9.
FontaineS. I. (1984). Writing for an audience: How writers at three age levels demonstrate an awareness of the audience and respond with two contrasting audiences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
10.
GrahamS. (1982). Composition research and practice: A unified approach. Focus on Exceptional Children, 14(8), 1–16.
11.
GrahamS., & HarrisK. (April, 1986). Improving learning disabled students' compositions via story grammar training: A component analysis of self-control strategy training. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
12.
GrobeC. (1981). Syntactic maturity, mechanics, and vocabulary as predictors of quality ratings. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 75–85.
13.
HammillD. D., & LarsenS. C. (1983). Test of written language (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
14.
HowellK. W., & MoreheadM. K. (1987). Curriculum-based evaluation for special and remedial education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
15.
HuntK. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. NCTE Research Report No. 3. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 113 735).
16.
IsaacsonS. (1984). Evaluating written expression: Issues of reliability, validity, and instructional utility. Diagnostique, 9, 96–116.
17.
IsaacsonS. (1987). Effective instruction in written language. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19(6), 1–12.
18.
MacArthurC., & GrahamS. (1987). Learning disabled students' composing under three methods of text production: Handwriting, word processing, and dictation. Journal of Special Education, 21, 22–42.
19.
MoranM. (1987). Options for written language assessment. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19(5), 1–10.
20.
MorrisN. T., & CrumpD. T. (1982). Syntactic and vocabulary development in the written language of learning disabled and non-learning disabled students at four age levels. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 163–172.
21.
NodineB. F.BarenbaumE., & NewcomerP. (1985). Story composition by learning disabled, reading disabled, and normal children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 167–179.
22.
O'HareF. (1973). Sentence combining (Research Report No. 15). Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
23.
OliverE. I. (1984). Effects of assignment on writing quality and lexical cohesion at four grade levels. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
24.
PaulisC. (1985). Holistic scoring: A revision strategy. The Clearing House, 59, 57–60.
25.
PowersA. R., & WilgusS. (1983). Linguistic complexity in the written language of hearing-impaired children. The Volta Review, 85, 201–210.
26.
ScardamaliaM., & BereiterC. (1986). Research on written composition. In WittrockM. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 778–803). New York: Macmillan.
27.
ThomasC. C.EnglertC. S., & GreggS. (1987). An analysis of errors and strategies in the expository writing of learning disabled students. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 21–30.
28.
VideenJ.DenoS., & MarstonD. (1982). Correct word sequences: A valid indicator of proficiency in written expression (Research Report No. 84). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.
29.
YsseldykeJ. E.ThurlowM.GardenJ.WessonC.AlgozzineE., & DenoS. (1983). Generalizations from five years of research on assessment and decision making: The University of Minnesota Institute. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 4, 75–93.
