Current research and development in direct writing assessment has proceeded along two separate lines of inquiry, with little interaction between them. Large scale program evaluations have become increasingly more prominent in the past 10 years. Concurrently, interest in writing instruction and assessment in general education has taken hold also in special education. The problem is that the data from each of these lines of inquiry have not been inter-related. This paper describes a system developed around program evaluation in general education and the research base in special education ; it is designed to move assessment beyond simple summative statements, into a procedure for planning and evaluating instruction for all students, particularly those with learning disabilities. A series of case studies are presented, in which writing samples from both general and special education students are analyzed, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Assessments are oriented toward the emerging literature in written expression instruction for three specific dimensions: story-idea, organization-cohesion, and conventions-mechanics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ApplebeeA. N.LangerJ. A. & MullisI. V. S. (1989). Crossroads in American Education.Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
2.
BaldwinV. (1987). A potpourri of prewriting ideas for the elementary teacher. In OlsonC. B. (Ed.), Practical Ideas for Teaching Writing as a Process (pp. 26–30). Sacramento, CA: California State Department of Education.
3.
BambergB. (1983). What makes a text coherent?College Composition and Communication, 34, 417–429.
4.
BambergB. (1984). Assessing coherence: A reanalysis of essays written for the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1969- 1979. Research in the Teaching of English. 18, 305–317.
5.
BosC. S. (1988). Process-oriented writing: Instructional implications for mildly handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 54, 521 — 527.
6.
CooperA. (1988). Given-New; Enhancing coherence through cohesiveness. Written Communication, 5, 352–367.
7.
CoxB. E.ShanahanT., & SulzbyE. (1990). Good and poor elementary readers’ use of cohesion in writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 47–65.
8.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
9.
DenoS. L.MarstonD., & MirkinP. K. (1982). Valid measurement procedures for continuous evaluation of written expression,Exceptional Children, 48, 368–371.
10.
Educational Testing Service (1987). Writing objectives: 1988 assessment. National Assessment of Educational Progress.Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
11.
EnglertC. S., & RaphaelT. E. (1988). Constructing well-formed prose: Process, structure, and metacognitive knowledge. Exceptional Children, 54, 513–520.
12.
FahnestockJ. (1983). Semantic and lexical coherence. College Composition and Communication, 34, 400–416.
13.
FitzgeraldJ., & SpiegelD. L. (1986). Textual cohesion and coherence in children's writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 263–280.
GrahamS., & HarrisK. (1988). Instructional recommendations for teaching writing to exceptional students. Exceptional Children, 54, 506–512.
16.
GrahamS., & HarrisK. R. (1989a). Improving learning disabled students’ skills at composing essays: Self-instructional strategy training. Exceptional Children, 56, 201–214.
17.
GrahamS., & HarrisK. R. (1989b). Components analysis of cognitive strategy instruction: Effects on learning disabled students’ compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 353–361.
18.
GrahamS., Harris, K., & Sawyer, R. (1987). Composition instruction with learning disabled students: Self-instructional strategy training. Focus on Exceptional Children, 20, 1–11.
19.
GrobeC. (1981). Syntactic maturity, mechanics, and vocabulary as predictors of quality ratings. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 75–85.
20.
HalidayM.A.K., & HasanR. (1976). Cohesion in English.London: Longman Group Limited.
HillocksG. (1984). What works in teaching composition: A metaanalysis of experimental treatment studies. American Journal of Education, 93, 133–170.
23.
HumesA. (1983). Putting writing research into practice. The Elementary School Journal, 84, 3–17.
24.
HuntK. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels.Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
25.
IsaacsonS. (1985). Assessing written language skills. In SimonC. S. (Ed.), Communication skills and classroom success: Assessment methodologies for language-learning disabled students (pp. 403424). San Diego: College-Hill Press.
26.
IsaacsonS. (1988). Assessing the writing product: Qualitative and quantitative measures. Exceptional Children, 54, 528–534.
27.
IsaacsonS., & MattoonC. B. (1990). The effect of goal constraints on the writing performance of urban learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Research, 5, 94–99.
28.
LawlorJ. (1983). Sentence combining: A sequence for instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 84, 53–62. .
29.
MacArtherC. A. (1988). The impact of computers on the writing process. Exceptional Children, 54, 536–542.
30.
McCutchenD., & PerfettiC. A. (1983). Local coherence: Helping young writers manage a complex task. The Elementary School Journal, 84,11–15.
31.
MoranM. R. (1988). Rationale and procedures for increasing the productivity of inexperienced writers. Exceptional Children, 54, 552–558.
32.
MosenthalP. (1983). Defining classroom writing competence: A paradigmatic perspective. Review of Educational Research, 53, 217251.
33.
NoyceR. M., & Christie, J. F. (1983). Effects of an integrated approach to grammar instruction on third graders’ reading and writing. The Elementary School Journal, 84, 63–69.
34.
OlsonC. B. (1987). Practical ideas for leaching writing as a process.Sacramento, CA: California State Department of Education.
35.
OpfellL. (1987). Creative practice with sentence patterns. In OlsonC. B. (Ed.), Practical Ideas for Teaching Writing as a Process (pp. 174–175). Sacramento, CA: California State Department of Education.
36.
OpfellL.WillettS. R., & SimsonJ. (1987). Snap, crackle, think. In OlsonC. B. (Ed.), Practical Ideas for Teaching Writing as a Process (pp. 31–32). Sacramento, CA: California State Department of Education.
37.
PappasC. (1985). The cohesive harmony and cohesive density of children's oral and written stories. In BensonJ. D. & GreavesW. S. (Eds.), Systematic perspectives on discourse - Volume 2: Selected Papers (pp. 169–186).
38.
RaforthB. A., & RubinD. L. (1984). The impact of content and mechanics of judgments of writing quality. Written Communication, 1, 446–457.
39.
ShinnM. S. (1988). Curriculum-Based Measurement: Assessing Special Children, New York: Guilford Press.
40.
SloanG. (1983). Transitions: Relationships among T-units. College Composition and Communication, 34, 447–453.
41.
SteinN. L., & GlennC. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In FreedleR. O. (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing.Norwood, NJ: Albex Publishing Corporation.
42.
StewartM. F., & GrobeC. H. (1979). Syntactic maturity, mechanics in writing, and teachers quality ratings. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 207–215.
43.
StotskyS. (1975). Sentence combining as a curricular activity: Its effect on written language development and reading comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 9, 30–71.
44.
ThomasI. (1987). Some basics that really do lead to correctness. In OlsonC. B. (Ed.), Practical Ideas for Teaching Writing as a Process (pp. 166–170). Sacramento, CA: California State Department of Education.
45.
TindalG., & ParkerR. (1991). Identifying measures for evaluating written expression. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 211–218.
46.
VaccN. N. (1987). Word processor versus handwriting: A comparative study of writing samples produced by mildly mentally handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 54, 156–165.
47.
VideenJ.DenoS. L. & MarstonD. (1982). Correct word sequences: A valid indicator of proficiency in written expression. (Research Report No. 84). Mpls., MN: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
48.
Walmsley (1983). Writing disability. In MosenthalP.TamorL. & WalmsleyW.S. (Eds.), Research on writing: Principles and methods (pp. 267–286). New York: Longman.
49.
Wcissbcrg (1984). Given and new: Paragraph development models from scientific English. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 485–500.
