published_or_final_version / English Studies / Master / Master of Arts

published_or_final_version / English Studies and Comparative Literature / Master / Master of Philosophy

Not available / text

This descriptive case study examined how highly experienced raters do writing assessment, with a focus on how raters defined the task under two conditions: (1) as external raters and (2) as 'teacher as rater'. Three raters followed a think-aloud procedure as they evaluated student writing. The semantic structure of the think-aloud protocols was analyzed via the Task Independent Coding method. This analysis yielded a detailed representation of the objects and operations used by raters. The sequence which raters followed as they used these objects and operations was represented schematically by problem behavior graphs for each scoring decision made (N = 360). Analyses of the problem behavior graphs showed that raters defined the task in three very different ways: (1) by searching the rubric to make a match between their response to the text and the language of the scoring rubric (search task definition), (2) by assigning a score directly based on a quick general impression (simple recognition task definition), or (3) by analyzing the criteria prior to score assignment without considering alternative scores (complex recognition task definition). Raters differed in their use of task definitions when they evaluated the same texts. These results challenged current Writing assessment procedures which assume that raters Internalize a scoring rubric during training and make a direct match between the scoring rubric and text characteristics. In addition, these results indicated that task definition is related to individual characteristics of the rater rather than status as a rater (i.e., external rater or 'teacher as rater'). These findings are discussed in terms of the effect of different task definitions on the validity of writing assessment.

Photocopy of typescript. / Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1980. / Bibliography: leaves 232-241. / Microfiche. / ix, 241 leaves, bound 28 cm

Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Wisconsin - Madison, 2005. / (UnM)AAI3200126. Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 66-12, Section: A, page: 4396. Supervisor: Eric Rothstein.

No description available.

No description available.

published_or_final_version / abstract / English Studies / Master / Master of Arts

Imitation, modeling, emulation: these are terms frequently appearing in reference to the teaching of writing. Their history includes the model teacher, the materials used as models, and the modeling method. Two-thirds of this work focuses on imitation's applications in the teaching of composition in America 1636-1988 (an overview of the "petty" or grammar schools, the private academies, and the early colleges). The remaining third traces imitation's use from pre-Greco-Roman times through the Renaissance. Imitation methods date back to the beginnings of rhetoric; they were the teaching paradigm until at least the Middle Ages. The ideal model teacher had a close relationship with few students at a time, was a moral model, and was a practicing professional. Models were at first current speeches, but expanded to include poetry, sermons, letters, and finally all types of prose. Problems in application occurred when models became dated or removed from their purpose. The imitation method included imitation of the teacher, practice, prelection (criticism and analysis), and emulation, the point at which the student takes off to write original work. In America imitation was clearly the inherited paradigm, but it was weighed down by its legacy from the Middle Ages and Renaissance: over emphasis on style and grammar. Today imitation methods are surfacing as ways of teaching composition. Research is in the embryonic stages. The use of models and of classical imitation methods in today's classrooms seems to be increasing. A study of what imitation was and how it was used may help in avoiding its possible problems and applying its many merits.