Students in Grades 5 and 8 completed a 30-minute writing performance assessment and a writing performance assessment completed over 3 days. Assessments were evaluated on four traits (ideas, organization, conventions, and sentence fluency). A significant interaction was found at Grade 5 between length of time allotted for the assessment and students' educational classification (general or special education). Grade 5 students performed significantly better on the 3-day writing assessment, with students in special education benefiting the most. At Grade 8, there were no differences between scores on the 30-minute and the 3-day assessments. No significant differences were found in students' writing performance across various types of discourse (narrative, imaginative, persuasive, and expository); significant differences were reported across certain writing traits. We shared three hypotheses for reported differences: (a) students' proficiency with the writing process, (b) scoring scale bias, and (c) differences in the revision behaviors of developing and mature writers. Educational implications related to statewide test programs are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Applebee, A.N. (1984). Writing and reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54, 577—596.
2.
Barenbaum, E., Newcomer, P., & Nodine, B. (1987). Children's ability to write stories as a function of variation in task, age, and developmental level. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 175—188.
3.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum .
4.
Bridwell, L.S. (1980). Revising strategies in twelfth-grade students' transactional writing. Research in the Teaching of English , 14, 197—222.
5.
Elliot, S.N. (1998). Performance assessment of students' achievement: Research and practice. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 233—241.
6.
Engelhard, G., Gordon, B., & Gabrielson, S. (1991). The influences of mode of discourse, experiential demand, and gender on the quality of student writing . Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 315—335.
7.
Englert, C.S., Raphael, T.E., Anderson, L.M., Anthony, H.M., & Stevens, D.D. (1991). Making writing strategies and self-talk visible: Cognitive strategy instruction in regular and special education classrooms . American Educational Research Journal, 28, 337—372.
8.
Ewing, S.C. (1992). The effects of time and instruction on writing performance of eighth-grade students in writing assessment situations (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1992). (UMI No. 9301289)
9.
Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400—414.
10.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J.A. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365—387.
11.
Goldberg, G.L., Roswell, B.S., & Michaels, H. (1996). Can assessment mirror instruction? A look at peer response and revision in a large-scale writing test. Educational Assessment, 3, 287—314.
12.
Graham, S. (1997). Executive control in the revising of students with learning and writing difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 223—234.
13.
Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (1997). It can be taught, but it does not develop naturally: Myths and realities in writing instruction. School Psychology Review, 26, 414—424.
14.
Graham, S., MacArthur, C., & Schwartz, S. (1995). Effects of goal setting and procedural facilitation on the revising behavior and writing performance of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 230—240.
15.
Hayes, J.R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1—27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16.
Hollenbeck, K., & Tindal, G. (1999). Accommodating students on large-scale writing tests: Consideration of less time in the writing process. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon at Eugene.
17.
Hollenbeck, K., Tindal, G., & Almond, P. (1999). Reliability and decision consistency: An analysis of writing mode at two times on a statewide test. Educational Assessment, 6, 23—40.
18.
Huot, B. (1990). The literature of direct writing assessment: Major concerns and prevailing trends. Review of Educational Research , 60, 237—263.
19.
Johnstone, K.M., Ashbaugh, H., & War-field, T.D. (2002). Effects of repeated practice and contextual-writing experiences on college students' writing skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 305— 315.
20.
Linn, R.L., & Baker, E.L. (1996). Can performance-based student assessments be psychometrically sound? In J. B. Baron & D. P. Wolf (Eds.), Performance-based student assessment: Challenges and possibilities (pp. 84—103). Chicago : University of Chiago Press.
21.
MacArthur, C., & Graham, S. (1987). LD students composing under three methods of text production: Handwriting, word processing, and dictation. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 22—42.
22.
MacArthur, C.A., Graham, S., & Schwartz, S. (1991). Knowledge of revision and revising behavior among students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly , 14, 61—73.
23.
Matsumura, L.C., Patthey-Chavez, G.G., Valdés, R., & Garnier, H. (2002). Teacher feedback, writing assignment quality, and third-grade students' revision in lower- and higher-achieving urban schools . The Elementary School Journal, 103, 1—25.
24.
McCutchen, D. (1988). “Functional automaticity” in children's writing: A problem of metacognitive control. Written Communication, 5, 306—324.
25.
McGrew, K.S., Thurlow, M.L., Shriner, J.G., & Spiegel, A.N. (1992). Inclusion of students with disabilities in national and state data collection programs (Tech. Rep. 2). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
26.
Mountford, R. (1999). Let them experiment: Accommodating diverse discourse practices in large-scale writing assessment. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing (pp. 363—396). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
27.
National Assessment of Educational Progress, & Educational Testing Service. (1986). The writing report card: Writing achievement in American schools. Princeton, NJ: National Assessment of Educational Progress.
28.
Nodine, B.F., Barenbaum, E., & Newcomer, P. (1985). Story composition by learning disabled, reading disabled, and normal children. Learning Disability Quarterly , 8, 167—179.
29.
O'Brien, C.W. (1991). A comparison of an impromptu and a process task on a large-scale direct writing assessment of eighth-graders. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 06A, 2011.
30.
Powers, D.E., & Fowles, M.E. (1999). Testtakers' judgments of essay prompts: Perceptions and performance. Educational Assessment, 6, 3—22.
31.
Purves, A.C. (1992). Reflections on research and assessment in written composition. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 108— 122.
32.
Purves, A.C., Söter, A., Takala, S., & Vähäpassi, A. (1984). Towards a domain-referenced system for classifying composition assignments. Research in the Teaching of English , 18, 385—416.
33.
Quellmalz, E. (1981). Construct validity in writing assessment: Practicing what we preach. In E. Quellmalz (Ed.), Studies in test design: Annual report (pp. 184—227). ( ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 212650).
34.
Robinson, M.E. (1986). The writing performance and revision behavior of fifth-grade process and non-process writing students during one-day and two-day writing sessions. Dissertation Abstracts International , 49, 09A, 2536.
35.
Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231—244). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
36.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1983). The development of evaluative, diagnostic, and remedial capabilities in children's composing. In M. Marlew (Ed.), Psychology of written language: A developmental and educational perspective (pp. 67—96). New York: Wiley.
37.
Stoddard, B., & MacArthur, C.A. (1993). A peer editor strategy: Guiding learning-disabled students in response and revision. Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 76—103.
38.
Thomas, C.C., Englert, C.S., & Gregg, S. (1987). An analysis of errors and strategies in the expository writing of learning disabled students. Remedial and Special Education, 8(1), 21—30.
39.
Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M.L. (2001). 2001state special education outcomes: A report on state activities at the beginning of a new decade. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved November 16, 2002, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/2001StateReport.html
40.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Testing Service and the National Center for Education Statistics. (1994). NAEP 1992 trends in academic progress (Report No. 23-TR01). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
41.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. ( 1999). The NAEP 1996 technical report (NCES 1999-452). Washington DC: Author.
42.
Vallecorsa, A.L., & Garriss, E. (1990). Story composition skills of middle-grade students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 57, 48—54.
