This analysis of 83 scoring rubrics and grade definitions from writing programs at U.S. public research universities captures the current state of the struggle to define and measure specific writing traits, and it enables an induction of the underlying theoretical construct of “academic writing” present at these writing programs. Findings suggest that writing specialists have managed to permeate U.S. first-year writing assessment with certain progressive assumptions about writing and writing instruction, but they also indicate critical areas for revision, given such documents’ critical gatekeeping role at postsecondary institutions. The study also raises a broader question about the difficulties of rhetorically constructing “writing ability” in a way that is consistent with the contextualist paradigm dominant in contemporary writing studies.
AngouriA.HarwoodN. (2008). This is too formal for us . . . : A case study of variation in the written products of a multinational corporation. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22(1), 38-64.
2.
BalesterV. (2012). How writing rubrics fail: Toward a multicultural model. In PoeM.InoueA. (Eds.), Race and writing assessment (pp. 63-77). New York: Lang.
3.
BawarshiA. (2003). Genre and the invention of the writer. Logan: Utah State University Press.
4.
BeaufortA.(2007). Writing in the professions. In BazermanC. (Ed.), Handbook of research in writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 221-236). New York: Erlbaum.
5.
BehizadehN.EngelhardG. (2011). Historical view of the influences of measurement and writing theories on the practice of writing assessment in the United States. Assessing Writing, 16, 189-211.
6.
BiberD.ConradS.ReppenR. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BourdieuP. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
BraddockR. (1974). The frequency and placement of topic sentences in expository prose. Research in the Teaching of English, 8(3), 287-302.
9.
BrelandH. M.JonesR. J. (1982). Perceptions of writing skill (CEEB Research Report No. 82-4). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
10.
BrindleyG.(1998). Describing language development? Rating scales and SLA. In BachmanL. F.CohenA. D. (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 112-140). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
11.
CanagarajahS. (2002). A geopolitics of academic writing. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
12.
ColumbiniC. B.McBrideM. (2012). “Storming and norming”: Exploring the value of group development models in addressing conflict in communal writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 17(4), 191-207.
13.
ConnorsR. J. (1997). Composition-rhetoric: Backgrounds, theory, and pedagogy. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
14.
CrowleyS. (1998). Composition in the university: Historical and polemical essays. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
15.
DevittA. (1991). Writing genres. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
16.
DiasP.FreedmanA.MedwayP.ParéA. (1999). Worlds apart: Acting and writing in academic and workplace contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17.
DiederichP. E.FrenchJ. W.CarltonS. T. (1961). Factors in judgments of writing ability (CEEB Research Bulletin No. 61-15). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
18.
ElliotN. (2005). On a scale: A social history of writing assessment in America. New York: Lang.
19.
EnglanderK. (2009). Transformation of the identities of nonnative English speaking scientists. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 8, 35-53.
20.
FlowerdewL. (2008). Corpora and context in professional writing. In BhatiaV. KFlowerdewJ.JonesR. H. (Eds.), Advances in discourse studies (pp. 115-127). Oxford, England: Routledge.
21.
FollmanJ.AndersonJ. (1967). An investigation of the reliability of five procedures for grading English themes. Research in the Teaching of English, 1(2), 190-200.
22.
FreedmanA.PringleI. (1980). Writing in the college years: Some indices of growth. College Composition and Communication, 31(3), 311-324.
23.
FreedmanS. W. (1981). Influences on evaluators of expository essays: Beyond the text. Research in the Teaching of English, 15(3), 245-255.
24.
GereA. (2009). Initial report on a survey of CCCC members. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Squire Office of Policy Research.
25.
GillaertsP.Van de VeldeF.(2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 128-139.
26.
HambletonR. K.PitoniakM. J. (2006). Setting performance standards. In BrennanR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 433-470). Westport, CT: American Council on Education.
HaswellR. (1988). Error and change in college students’ writing. Written Communication, 5, 470-499.
29.
HaswellR. (1998). Rubrics, prototypes, and exemplars: Categorization theory and systems of writing placement. Assessing Writing, 5(2), 231-268.
30.
HaswellR. (1991). Gaining ground in college writing: Tales of development and interpretation. Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University Press.
31.
HillegasM. B. (1912). A scale for the measurement of quality in English composition by young people. Teachers College Record, 13(4), 1-55.
32.
HuangJ. C. (2010). Publishing and learning writing for publication in English: Perspectives of NNES PhD students in science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 33-44.
33.
HuotB. (1990). The literature of direct writing assessment: Major concerns and prevailing trends. Review of Educational Research, 60(2), 237-263.
34.
HylandK. (2010). Community and individuality: Performing identity in applied linguistics. Written Communication, 27159-188.
35.
JefferyJ. V. (2009). Constructs of writing proficiency in US state and national writing assessments: Exploring variability. Assessing Writing, 14, 3-24.
36.
KnochU. (2011). Rating scales for diagnostic assessment of writing: What should they look like and where should the criteria come from?Assessing Writing, 16, 81-96.
37.
LeeD. Y. W. (2008). Corpora and discourse analysis: New ways of doing old things. In BhatiaV. K.FlowerdewJ.JonesR. H. (Eds.), Advances in discourse studies (pp. 86-99). Oxford, England: Routledge.
38.
LumleyT. (2002). Assessment criteria in a large-scale writing test: What do they really mean to the raters?Langauge Testing, 19(3), 246-276.
39.
LunsfordA. A.LunsfordK. J. (2008). Mistakes are a fact of life: A national comparative study. College Composition and Communication, 59(4), 781-806.
40.
MartinJ. R.WhiteP. R. R. (2005). The langauge of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
41.
McNamaraD. S.CrossleyS.McCarthyP. M. (2010). Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27(1), 57-86.
42.
MillerC. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.
43.
MillsC. N.JaegerR. M. (1998). Creating descriptions of desired student acheivment when setting performance standards. In HanscheL. (Ed.), Handbook for the development of performance standards: Meeting the requirements of Title I (pp. 73-85). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
44.
NorthS. M. (2011). On the place of writing in higher education (and why it doesn’t include composition). In MasseyL.GebhardtR. C. (Eds.), The changing of knowledge in composition: Contemporary perspectives (pp. 194-210). Logan: Utah State University Press.
45.
ParéA. (1993). Discourse regulations and the production of knowledge. In SpilkaR. (Ed.), Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives (pp. 111-123). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
46.
ParéA.Starke-MeyerringD.McAlpineL. (2009). The dissertation as multi-genre: Many readers, many readings. In BazermanC.BoniniA.FigueiredoD. (Eds.), Genre in a changing world (pp. 179-194). Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse.
47.
PeckhamI. (2010). Going north, thinking west: The intersections of social class, critical thinking, and politicized writing instruction. Logan: Utah State University Press.
PoeM. (2006). Race, representation, and writing assessment: Racial stereotypes and the construction of identity in writing assessments. Unpublished dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
50.
PriorP. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In MacArthurC. A.GrahamS.FitzgeraldJ. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 54-66). New York: Guilford Press.
51.
PriorP.ShipkaJ.(2003). Chronotopic lamination: Tracing the contours of literate activity. In BazermanC.RussellD. R. (Eds.), Writing selves/writing societies: Research from activity perspectives (pp. 180-238). Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse.
52.
RezaeiA. R.LovornM. (2010). Reliability and validity of rubrics for assessment through writing. Assesing Writing, 15(1), 18-39.
53.
RömerU.WulffS. (2010). Applying corpus methods to written academic texts: Explorations of MICUSP. Journal of Writing Research, 2(2), 99-127.
54.
RoozenK. (2009). “Fan-fic-ing” English studies: A case study exploring the interplay of vernacular literacies and disciplinary engagement. Research in the Teaching of English, 44(2), 136-169.
55.
RoozenK. (2010). Tracing trajectories of practice: Repurposing in one student’s developing disciplinary writing processes. Written Communication, 27(3), 318-354.
56.
RothermelB. A. (2006). Automated writing instruction: Computer-assisted or computer-driven pedagogies? In EricssonP. F.HaswellR. (Eds.), Machine scoring of student essays: Truth and consequences (pp. 199-210) Logan: Utah State University Press.
57.
RounsavilleA.GoldbergR.BawarshiA. (2008). From incomes to outcomes: FYW students’ prior genre knowledge, meta-cognition, and the question of transfer. WPA: Writing Program Administration, 32(1-2), 97-112.
58.
RussellD. R.YanezA. (2003). “Big picture people rarely become historians”: Genre systems and the contradictions of general education. In BazermanC.RussellD. R. (Eds.), Writing selves/writing societies: Research from activity perspectives (pp. 331-362). Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse.
59.
SchryerC. (1993). Records as genre. Written Communication, 10(2), 200-234.
60.
ScottT. (2005). Creating the subject of portfolios: Reflective writing and the conveyance of institutional prerogatives. Written Communication, 22(1), 3-35.
61.
SlevinJ. (2001). Engaging intellectual work: The faculty’s role in assessment. College English, 63(3), 288-305.
62.
SmartG. (2000). Reinventing expertise: Experienced writers in the workplace encounter a new genre. In DiasP.ParéA. (Eds.), Transitions: Writing in academic and workplace settings (pp. 223-252). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
63.
SperlingM.FreedmanS. W. (1987). A good girl writes like a good girl: Written response to student writing. Written Communication, 4(4), 343-369.
64.
SpinuzziC. (2010). Secret sauce and snake oil: Writing monthly reports in a highly contingent environment. Written Communication, 27(4), 363-409.
65.
ThorndikeE. L. (1911). A scale for merit in English writing by young people. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2, 361-368.
66.
TurleyE.GallagherC. (2008). On the uses of rubrics: Reframing the great rubric debate. English Journal, 97(4), 87-92.
67.
TurnerS. (2002). Texts and the institutions of municipal government: The power of texts in the public process of land development. Studies in Cultures, Organizations, and Societies, 7, 297-325.
68.
WardleE. (2009). “Mutt genres” and the goal of FYC: Can we help students write the genres of the university?College Composition and Communication, 60(4), 765-789.
69.
WinsorD. (2001). Learning to do knowledge work in systems of distributed cognition. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15(1), 5-28.
70.
YanceyK. B. (2010). Responding forward. In SullivanP.TinbergH.BlauS. (Eds.), What is “college-level” writing? Volume 2: Assignments, readings and student writing samples (pp. 300-11). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
