This study concerns two related issues pertaining to the evaluation of students' written compositions: the relative effects of content versus mechanics on judgments of quality, and the extent to which raters are able to follow instructions directing them to attend more to one aspect of writing than to another. A college-level expository essay was made weaker in content (by reducing the number of underlying propositions) and in mechanics. The original and altered versions were rated analytically and holistically according to different sets of rating instructions. Analysis of variance indicated that mechanics had a greater influence on raters' judgments than either content or rating instructions. Thus the results suggest that evaluators may not be able to focus on individual criteria of writing quality.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Chase, C. I.
(1983). Essay test scores and reading difficulty. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 293-297.
2.
Crowhurst, M.
(1980). Syntactic complexity and teachers' quality ratings of narrations and arguments. Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 223-232.
3.
Diederich, P.
(1974). Measuring growth in English. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
4.
Diederich, P. P.
, French, S. W., & Carlton, S. T. (1961). Factors in judgments of writing ability (Research Bulletin RB-61-15). Princeton: Educational Testing Service. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED002 172.)
5.
Emig, J.
(1977). Writing as a model of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122-228.
6.
Freedman, S. W.
(1979). How characteristics of student essays influence teachers' evaluations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 328-338.
7.
Fry, E.
(1977). Fry's Readability Graph: Clarifications, validity, and extension to level 17. Journal of Reading, 21, 249.
8.
Grobe, C.
(1981). Syntactic maturity, mechanics, and vocabulary as predictors of quality ratings. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 75-85.
9.
Harris, W.
(1977). Teacher response to student writing: A study of the response patterns of high school English teachers to determine the basis for teacher judgment of student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 11, 175-185.
10.
Hoetker, J.
(1982). Essay examination topics and student writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 377-392.
11.
Kintsch, W.
(1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence J. Erlbaum.
12.
Kintsch, W.
, Kozminsky, E., Streby, W. J., McKoon, G., & Keenan, J. M. (1975). Comprehension and recall of text as a function of content variables. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 196-214.
13.
Kirby, D.
, & Liner, T. (1981). Inside out. Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
14.
Kirschner, S. A.
, & Poteet, G. H. (1973). Nonstandard English usage in the writing of black, white and Hispanic remedial English students in an urban community college. Research in the Teaching of English, 7, 351-355.
15.
Myers, M.
(1980). A procedure for writing assessment and holistic scoring. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
16.
Neilsen, L.
& Piché, G. L. (1981). The influence of headed nominal complexity and lexical choice on teachers' evaluation of writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 65-73.
17.
Nold, E. W.
, & Freedman, S. W. (1977). An analysis of readers' responses to essays. Research in the Teaching of English, 11, 164-174.
18.
Page, E.
(1968). Analyzing student essays by computer. International Review of Education, 14, 210-225.
19.
Piché, G. L.
, Rubin, D. L., Turner, L. J., & Michlin, M. L. (1978). Effects of non-standard dialect features in written compositions on teachers' subjective evaluations of students and composition quality. Research in the Teaching of English, 12, 107-118.
20.
Quirk, R.
, & Greenbaum, S. A. (1973). A concise grammar of contemporary English. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
21.
Rafoth, B. A.
, & Combs, W. (1983). Syntax and persuasion: Does syntactic complexity affect the impact of persuasive writing?Research in the Teaching of English, 17, 165-169.
22.
Rosen, H. (1969). An investigation of the effects of differentiated writing assignments on the performance in English composition of a selected group of 15/16-year-old pupils. Doctoral dissertation, University of London.
23.
Scannell, D. P.
, & Marshall, J. C. (1966). The effect of selected composition errors on grades assigned to essay examination. American Educational Research Journal, 3, 125-130.
24.
Stewart, M.
, & Grobe, C. H. (1979). Syntactic maturity, mechanics of writing and teachers' quality ratings. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 207-215.
25.
Turner, A.
, & Greene, E. (1977). The construction and use of a propositional text base (Tech. Rep. No. 63). Boulder: University of Colorado, Institute for the Study of Intellectual Behavior.
26.
Williams, J. M.
(1982). The phenomenology of error. College Composition and Communication, 32, 152-168.
27.
Witte, S. P.
, & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. College Composition and Communication, 32, 189-204.
