|
Content
Content is the second factor to consider in the writing product. Content features include the composition's organization, cohesion, accuracy (in expository writing), and originality (in creative writing). General questions the classroom teacher can ask regarding a composition's organization include:
Is there a good beginning sentence?
Is there a clear ending?
Is there a logical sequence of subtopics or events?
Cohesion questions include:
Does the writer stick to the topic?
Is it clear what words like it, that, and they refer to?
Does the writer use key words that cue the reader to the direction of the discourse (First… , Then… , Therefore… , On the other hand… )?
Originality is assessed through questions like:
Did the writer attempt humor?
Did the writer present a unique point of view?
Analytical scales are the best way to lend some objectivity to evaluation of content. One can choose from a general rating scale, appropriate to almost any writing assignment, or one tailored to a specific genre or text structure. Spandel and Culham (1993) developed an analytical trait scoring guide for six aspects of writing, three of which address content: Ideas and content, organization, and voice. (Voice refers to the author's own unique personality, style, and honesty reflected in the writing.) Each of these traits is scored on a five-point scale. For example, organization is scored using the following guidelines:
5 The organization enhances and showcases the central idea or storyline. The order, structure or presentation of information is compelling and moves the reader through the text.
3 The organizational structure is strong enough to move the reader through the text without undue confusion
1 The writing lacks a clear sense of direction. Ideas, details or events seem strung together in a loose or random fashion-or else there is no identifiable internal structure. (Spandel & Culham, 1993)
To promote agreement between raters, each of the guidelines above is further defined by specific criteria (or rubrics). A rating of 3, for example, requires these attributes:
The paper has a recognizable introduction and conclusion. The introduction may not create a strong sense of anticipation; the conclusion may not tie up all loose ends. Sequencing is usually logical, but may sometimes be so predictable that the structure takes attention away from the content.
Pacing is fairly well controlled, though the writer sometimes spurts ahead too quickly or spends too much time on details that do not matter.
Transitions often work well; at other times, connections between ideas are fuzzy.
The organization sometimes supports the main point or storyline; at other times, the reader feels an urge to slip in a transition or move things around. (Spandel & Culham, 1993)
A composition that is somewhat better organized than described by the guidelines for 3 but does not quite fit the descriptors for 5 would receive a rating of 4. Similarly, a rating of 2 falls between the descriptors for 1 and 3.
Analytical scoring guidelines such as these are used in many state writing assessments. There are two limitations to scales such as these. First, teachers must spend many hours learning the rubrics and discussing student compositions in order to establish any degree of integrater reliability. Second, these scales may not be sensitive enough to measure growth in students with emerging literacy skills who are unable to achieve a rating above 1 or-at the most-2.
For many students, writing instruction begins with smaller units of discourse, such as a paragraph. Welch and Link (1992) recommended an informal paragraph assessment that focuses on each of a paragraph's three parts: topic sentence, supporting sentences, and clincher sentence (Figure 3). Each part can receive a point for its existence, its form (grammatical correctness), and its function (relevance to the topic). Both topic sentence and clincher sentence can earn only one point for each of the three criteria, but up to three supporting sentences can be scored for existence, form, and function. This scale could be used to evaluate almost any kind of paragraph.
Writing instruction for students with special needs also may focus on specific text structures. An example of a structure-specific scale is one that Isaacson (1995) devised for evaluating factual paragraphs written by middle school students (Figure 4). Isaacson's scale reflects the conceptual definition of fact paragraphs taught to the students: (a) A fact paragraph has more than one sentence; (b) The first sentence tells the topic; (c) All other sentences are about the topic; (d) Sentences tell facts, not opinions; and (e) The most important information is given first. Judgments of factual accuracy and fact vs. opinion make the scale specific to factual paragraphs.
Harris and Graham (1992) provided another example of a structure-explicit measure for assessing the inclusion and quality of eight story elements in stories written by students with learning disabilities: introduction of the main character, description of the locale, the time in which the story takes place, a precipitating event (or starter event), the goal formulated by the character in response to the starter event, action(s) carried out in an attempt to achieve the goal, the ending result, and the final reaction of the main character to the outcome. Each story element receives a numerical score for its inclusion and quality of development. The validity of the scale was demonstrated by its correlation with Thematic Maturity scores on the Test of Written Language and holistic ratings of story quality (Graham & Harris, 1986).
A resulting IEP objective for content might read: Using a story map, John will plan, write, and revise a story which includes a description of the character, setting, problem or goal, two or more events, and conclusion. (A story map is a planning sheet that prompts students to think about and write down their ideas concerning the character, setting, and other components of a good story before they write.)
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
