Exploring the impact of a high-stakes direct writing assessment in two high school classrooms

Research in the Teaching of English

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 344-390

  Ketter, Jean ^a   Pool, Jonelle ^b  

^a GRINNELL COLLEGE   (United States)

^b GETTYSBURG COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1842678394     PISSN: 0034527X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. ALLOWAY, N., & GILBERT, P. (1997). Boys and literacy: Lessons from Australia. Gender and Education, 9, 49-59.
2. ANYON, J. (1981). Elementary schooling and distinction of social class. Interchange, 12, 118-132.
3. BAKHTIN, M. M. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language. (L. Matejka & I. R. Titunik, Trans.). New York: Seminar.
4. BARTHOLOMAE, D., & PETROSKY, A. (1986). Facts, counterfacts, and artifacts: Theory and method for a reading and writing course. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
5. BERNSTEIN, B. (1971). Theoretical studies towards a sociology of education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
6. BERNSTEIN, B. (1973a). Applied studies towards a sociology of education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
7. BERNSTEIN, B. (1973b). Toward a theory of educational transmission. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
8. BERNSTEIN, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic discourse. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
9. BOND, L., ROEDER, E., & BRASKAMP, D. (1996). Trends in state student assessment. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
10. BRANTLINGER, E. A. (1993). The politics of social class in secondary school. New York: Teachers College Press.
11. BROOKE, R. (1987). The underlife and writing instruction. College Composition and Communication, 38, 141-153.
12. BULLOCK, R., & TRIMBUR, J. (1991). The politics of writing instruction: Post-secondary. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
13. CAYWOOD, C. L., & OVERING, G. (1987). Teaching writing: Pedagogy, gender and equity. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
14. CHARNEY, D. (1984). Validity of using holistic scoring. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 65-79.
15. COOPER, C. R., & ODELL, L. (Eds.). (1977). Evaluating writing: Describing, measuring, judging. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
16. COOPER, M., & HOLZMAN, M. (1989). Writing as social action. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
17. CROOKS, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation on students. Review of Educational Research, 85, 438-181.
18. DELPIT, L. (1992). Acquisition of literate discourse: Bowing before the master? Theory into Practice, 31, 296-302.
19. DEMBO, M. H., & GIBSON, S. (1985). Teachers' sense of efficacy: An important factor in school improvement. The Elementary School Journal, 86, 174-184.
20. DUFFY, G., & ROEHLER, L. (1986). Constraints on teacher change. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 55-58.
21. EDUCATION WEEK. (1996). [On Line]. Available: http://www.edweek.org:80/qc/states/md3.htm
22. EIDMAN-ANDAHL, E. (1989). Cracking through the shell: Classroom inquiry and educational policy. Journal of Teaching Writing, Special Issue, 131-149.
23. FINN, P. (1999). Literacy with an attitude: Educating working-class children in their own self interest. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
24. FREEDMAN, S. W., & CALFEE. R. C. (1983). Holistic assessment of writing: Experimental design and cognitive theory. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamos, & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), Research on writing (pp. 75-98). New York: Longman.
25. GALE, X. L. (1996). Teachers, discourse, and authority in the postmodern composition classroom. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
26. GEE, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis.
27. GERE, A. R. (1995). Statement of philosophy. In R. Straub & R. F. Lunsford (Eds.), Twelve readers reading: Responding to student writing (pp. 400-402). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
28. GOODLAD, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.
29. GORMAN, T. (1998). Paths to success: The meaning of schooling to working-class and middle-class parents. Educational Foundations, 18(3), 35-54.
30. GREENBURG, K. L., WIENER, H. S, &. DONOVAN, R. A. (Eds.). (1986). Writing assessment: Issues and strategies. New York: Longman.
31. GREENE, S. (1990). Toward a dialectical theory of composing. Rhetoric Review, 9, 149-172.
32. GROBE, C. (1981). Syntactic maturity, mechanics and vocabulary as predictors of a quality rating. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 75-88.
33. HAIRSTON, M. (1992). Diversity, ideology, and teaching writing. College Composition and Communication, 43, 179-193.
34. HEATH, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
35. HILL, C. E. (1990). Writing from the margins: Power and struggle for teachers of composition. New York: Oxford University Press.
36. HILLOCKS, G., JR. (1995). Teaching writing as reflective practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
37. HOURIGAN, M. M. (1994). Literacy as social exchange: Intersections of class, gender and culture. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
38. HULL, G. (1995). Seeing with a different lens: Thoughts on the teaching of writing. In R. Straub & R. F. Lunsford, (Eds.), Twelve readers reading: Responding: to student writing (pp. 403-404). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
39. HUOT, B. (1990). Reliability, validity, and holistic scoring: What we know and what we need to know. College Composition and Communication, 41, 201-222.
40. HUOT, B. (1996). Toward a new theory of writing assessment. College Composition and Communication, 47, 549-566.
41. JOURNET, D. (1999). Writing within (and between) disciplinary genres: The adaptive landscape as a case study in interdisciplinary rhetoric. In T. Kent (Ed.), Post-process theory: Beyond the writing-process paradigm (pp.96-115). Carbondale IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
42. KENT, T. (1991). On the very idea of a discourse community. College Composition and Communication, 42, 425-445.
43. KENT, T. (Ed.). (1999). Post-process theory: Beyond the writing-process paradigm. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
44. KNOBLAUCH, C. H., & BRANNON, L. (1984). Rhetorical traditions and the teaching of writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
45. KORETZ, D., MITCHELL, K., BARRON, S., & KEITH, S. (1996). Final report: Perceived effects of the Maryland School Performance Assessment program. CSE Technical Report 409. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Measurement Standards, and Student Testing, UCLA.
46. MABRY, L. (1999). Writing to the rubric. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 673-679.
47. MARINARA, M. (1997). When working class students "do" the academy: How we negotiate with alternative literacies. Journal of Basic Writing, 16, 3-16.
48. MARYLAND SCHOOL PERFORMANCE REPORT. (1997). Baltimore: Maryland State Department of Education.
49. MARTINO, W. (1995, February). Gendered learning practices: Exploring the costs of hegemonic masculinity for girls and boys in school. Proceedings of the Promoting Gender Equity Conference. Canberra, AU: ACT Department of Education.
50. MOSS, P. (1994). Validity and high stakes writing assessment: Problems and possibilities. Assessing Writing, 1, 109-128.
51. OAKES, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
52. PALMER-WOLF, D., LEMAHIEU, P. G., & ERESH, J. (1992). Good measure: Assessment as a tool for educational reform. Educational Leadership, 49(5), 9-14.
53. PORTNER, J. (1997). Six suburban schools in Maryland to be reconstituted. Education Week. [On line]. Available:http://www.edweek.org/ew/1997/37pg.h16.
54. RAMIREZ, A. (1999). Assessment-driven reform: The emperor still has no clothes. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 204-208.
55. RICHARDSON, V. (1990). Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practice. Educational Researcher, 19(7), 10-18.
56. SHEDD, J., & BACHARACH, S. (1991). Tangled heirarchies: Teachers as professionals and the management of schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
57. SHEPARD, L. A., & BLIEM, C. L. (1995). An analysis of parent opinion and changes in opinion regarding standardized tests, teacher's information, and performance assessment. Los Angeles: Regents of the University of California.
58. SMITH, M. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Research, 20, 8-11.
59. SOMMERS, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 148-156.
60. STRAUSS, A., & CORBIN, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61. STIGGINS, R. (1999). Assessments, student confidence, and school success. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 191-198.
62. STREET, J. C., & STREET, B. V. (1991). The schooling of literacy. In D. Barton & R. Ivanic (Eds.), Writing in the community (pp. 143-166). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
63. TAYLOR, D. (1990.) Teaching without testing: Assessing the complexity of children's literacy learning. English Education, 22, 4-74.
64. VYGOTSKY, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
65. WHITE, E. M. (1990). Language and reality in writing assessment. College Composition and Communication, 41, 187-199.
66. WHITE, E. M (1994a). Education standards. Congressional Quarterly, 4(10), 217-240.
67. WHITE, E. M. (1994b). Teaching and assessing writing (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
68. WIGGINS, G. P. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
69. WILLIAMSON, M. (1994). The worship of efficiency: Untangling theoretical and practical considerations in writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 1, 147-173.
70. YEN, W M., & FERRARA, S. (1997). The Maryland school performance assessment program: Performance assessment with psychometric quality suitable for high-stakes usage. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 60-84.