Analytical tools to facilitate transitions into new writing contexts: A communicative perspective

Journal of Business Communication

Volumn 38, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 112-152

  Rogers, Priscilla S ^a,c   Rymer, Jone ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Analytical Writing Assessment (AWA); GMAT; MBA writing; Writing across disciplines; Writing assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 2342574303     PISSN: 00219436     EISSN: 15524582     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/002194360103800201     Document Type: Review

References (141)

1. Ackerman, J. (1991). Reading, writing, and knowing: The role of disciplinary knowledge in comprehension and composing. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 133-178.
2. Ackerman, J. (1993). The promise of writing to learn. Written Communication, 10, 334-370.
3. Anson, C. M. (Ed.). (1989). Writing and response: Theory, practice, and, research. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
4. Anson, C. M., & Forsberg, L. L. (1990). Moving beyond the academic community: Transitional stages in professional writing. Written Communication, 7, 200-31.
5. Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. (V. W. McGee, Trans.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds.). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published in 1952-53)
6. Bamberg, B. (1983). What makes a text coherent? College Composition and Communication, 34, 417-429.
7. Barton, E. L. (1993). Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance. College English, 55, 745-769.
8. Barton, E. L. (1995). Contrastive and non-contrastive connectives. Written Communication, 12, 219-239.
9. Barton, E. L, Halter, E., McGee, N., & McNeilley, L. (1998). The awkward problem of awkward sentences. Written Communication, 15, 69-98.
10. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
11. Beach, R. (1989). Showing students how to assess: Demonstrating techniques for response in the writing conference. In C. M. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 127-148). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
12. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, 1-14.
14. Bracewell, R. J. (1998). Commentary on "validation of a scheme for assessing argumentative writing of middle school students." Assessing Writing, 5, 151-157.
15. Bridgeman, B., & Carlson, S. B. (1984). Survey of academic writing tasks. Written Communication, 1, 247-80.
16. Broad, B. (1997). Reciprocal authorities in communal writing assessment: Constructing textual values within a "new politics of inquiry." Assessing Writing, 4, 133-167.
17. Chambliss, M. J. (1995). Text cues and strategies successful readers use to construct the gist of lengthy written arguments. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 778-807.
18. Chambliss, M. J., & Garner, R. (1996). Do adults change their minds after reading persuasive text? Written Communication, 13, 291-313.
19. Cheng, X., & Steffensen, M. S. (1996). Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 30, 149-181.
20. Cherry, R. D., & Meyer, P. R. (1993). Reliability issues in holistic assessment. In M. Williamson and B. Huot (Eds.), Validating holistic scoring for writing assessment: Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 109-141). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
21. Cherry, R. D., & Witte, S. P. (1998). Direct assessments of writing: Substance and romance. Assessing Writing, 5, 71-87.
22. Chin, E. (1994). Ethnographic interviews and writing research: A critical examination of the methodology. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology. Sage Series in Written Communication, Vol. 8 (pp. 247-272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23. Clark, H. H., & Haviland, S. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
24. Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 67-87.
25. Connor, U., & Johns. A. (1990). Coherence in writing. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
26. Connor, U., & Lauer, J. (1985). Understanding persuasive essay writing: Linguistic/rhetorical approach. Text, 5, 309-326.
27. Connors, R., & Lunsford, A. (1988). Frequency of formal errors in current college writing. College Composition and Communication, 39, 395-409.
28. Couture, B., & Rymer, J. (1993). Situational exigence: Composing processes on the job by writer's role and task value. In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives (pp. 4-20). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
29. Crammond, J. G. (1998). The uses and complexity of argument structures in expert and student persuasive writing. Written Communication, 15, 230-68.
30. Cross, G. A. (1994). Ethnographic research in business and technical writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 8, 118-134.
31. DeRemer, M. L. (1998). Writing assessment: Raters' elaboration of the rating task. Assessing Writing, 5, 7-29.
32. Diederich, P., French, J., & Carlton, S. (1961). Schools of thought in judging excellence in English themes. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
33. Diederich, P. B. (1974). Measuring growth in English. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
34. DiPardo, A. (1994). Stimulated recall in research on writing. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology. Sage Series in Written Communication, Vol. 8 (pp. 163-181). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
35. Doheny-Farina, S. (1993). Research as rhetoric. In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives (pp. 253-267). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
36. Driskill, L. (1989). Understanding the writing context in organizations. In M. Kogen (Ed.), Writing in the business professions. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
37. Durst, R. K. (1987). Cognitive and linguistic demands of analytic writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 347-376.
38. Durst, R., Laine, C., Schultz, L. M., & Vilter, W. (1990). Appealing texts: The persuasive writing of high school students. Written Communication, 7, 232-255.
39. Elbow, P. (1993). Ranking, evaluating, and liking: Sorting out three forms of judgment College English 55, 187-206.
40. Faigley, L., Cherry, R. D., Jolliffe, D. A., & Skinner. A. M. (1985). Assessing writers' knowledge and processes of composing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
41. Fairclough, N. (1993) Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
42. Farr, M. (1993). Essayist literacy and other verbal performances. Written Communication, 10, 4-38.
43. Farr, M., & Nardini, G. (1996). Essayist literacy and sociolinguistic difference. In E. M. White, W. M. Lutz, & S. Kamusikiri (Eds.) Assessment of writing: Politics, policies, practices. New York: The Modern Language Association.
44. Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley.
45. Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21-32.
46. Forman, J., & Rymer, J. (1999a). Defining the genre of the case write-up. The Journal of Business Communication, 36, 103-33.
47. Forman, J., & Rymer, J. (1999b). The genre system of the Harvard case method. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 13, 373-400.
48. Freedman, A., Adam, C., & Smart, G. (1994). Wearing suits to class: Simulating genres and simulations as genre. Written Communication, 11, 193-226.
49. Fulkerson, R. (1996a). Teaching the argument in writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
50. Fulkerson, R. (1996b). The Toulmin model of argument and the teaching of composition. In B. Emmel, P. Resch, & D. Tenney (Eds.). Argument revisited; Argument redefined, (pp. 45-72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51. Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
52. GMAC (Graduate Management Admission Council) (n.d., distributed 1994, May). The GMAT analytical writing assessment: An introduction. Santa Monica, CA: Author.
53. GMAT Scoring Guides (2001). Available: http://www.ets.org/textonly/ gmatguid.html
54. Green, S., & Higgins, L. (1994). Once upon a time: The use of retrospective ccounts in building theory in composition. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology. Sage Series in Written Communication, Vol. 8 (pp. 115-140). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
55. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
56. Hairston, M. (1981). Not all errors are created equal: Nonacademic readers in the professions respond to lapses in usage. College English, 43, 794-806.
57. Hairston, M. (1992). Successful writing (3rd Ed.) New York: Norton.
58. Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
59. Harris, M. (1995). Talking in the middle: Why writers need writing tutors. College English, 57, 27-42.
60. Harris, M., & Silva, T. (1993). Tutoring ESL students: Issues and options. College Composition and Communication, 44, 525-537.
61. Haswell, R. (1989). Textual research and coherence: Findings, intuition, and application. College English, 51, 305-319.
62. Haswell, R. H. (1998). Rubrics, prototypes, and exemplars: Categorization theory and systems of writing placement. Assessing Writing, 5, 231-268.
63. Hayes, J. R., Hatch, J. A., & Silk, C. M. (2000). Does holistic assessment predict writing performance? Written Communication, 17, 3-26.
64. Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). Research on written composition. Urbana, IL: National Conference on Research in English.
65. Hoetker, J. (1982). Essay examination topics and students' writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 377-92.
66. Horning, A. S. (1987). Teaching writing as a second language. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
67. Huckin, T. N. (1992). Context-sensitive text analysis. In G. Kirsch & P. A. Sullivan (Eds.), Methods and methodology in composition research (pp. 84-104). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
68. Huot, B. A. (1996). Toward a new theory of writing assessment. College Composition and Communication, 47, 549-566.
69. Hynds, S., & Rubin, D. (Eds). (1990). Perspectives on talk and learning. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.
70. Kent, T. L. (1984). Paragraph production and the given-new contract. The Journal of Business Communication, 2(4), 45-66.
71. Kent, T. L. (1993). Paralogic rhetoric: A theory of communicative interaction. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell.
72. Knight, M. (1999). Management communication in US MBA programs: The state of the art. Business Communication Quarterly, 62(1), 9-32.
73. Kolln, M. (1996). Rhetorical grammar: Grammatical choices, rhetorical effects (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
74. Kuriloff, P. C. (1996). What discourses have in common: Teaching the transaction between writer and reader. College Composition and Communication, 47, 485-501.
75. Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
76. Leonard, D. J., & Gilsdorf, J. W. (1990). Language in change: Academics' and executives' perceptions of usage errors. The Journal of Business Communication, 27, 137-158.
77. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
78. Locker, K. O., & Keene, M. L. (1983). Using Toulmin logic in business and technical writing classes. In W. K. Sparrow & N. A. Pickett (Eds.), Technical and business communication in two-year programs (pp. 103-110). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
79. Lorch, R. F., Jr., & O'Brien, E. J. (1995). Sources of coherence in reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
80. Lloyd-Jones, R. (1977). Primary trait scoring. In C. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing: Describing, measuring judging (pp. 33-69). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
81. Markels, R. B. (1984). A new perspective on cohesion in expository paragraphs. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
82. Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.
83. Moss, P. (1994). Can there be validity without reliability? Educational Researcher, 23, 5-12.
84. Noll, C. L., & Stowers, R. H. (1998). How MBA programs are using the GMAT's Analytical Writing Assessment. Business Communication Quarterly, 62(4), 66-71.
85. Northey, M. (1990). The need for writing skill in accounting firms. Management Communication Quarterly, 3, 474-495.
86. Nystrand, M. (1989). A social-interactive model of writing. Written Communication, 6, 66-85.
87. Ochsner, R. S. (1990). Physical eloquence and the biology of writing. Albany: State University of New York Press.
88. Odell, L., Goswami, D., & Herrington, A. (1983). The discourse-based interview: A procedure for exploring the tacit knowledge of writers in nonacademic settings. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), Research on writing: Principles and methods (pp. 221-236). New York: Longman.
89. Pajares, F., & Johnson, M. J. (1994). Confidence and competence in writing: The role of self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 28, 313-331.
90. Penrose, A. M. (1992). To write or not to write: Effects of task and task interpretation on learning through writing. Written Communication, 9, 465-500.
91. Pula, J. J., & Huot, B. A. (1993). A model of background influences on holistic raters. In M. M. Williamson & B. A. Huot (Eds.) Validating holistic scoring for writing assessment: Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 237-265). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
92. Purves, A. C. (1992). Reflections on research and assessment in written composition. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 108-122.
93. Purves, A. C., Gorman, T. P., & Takala, S. (1988). The development of scoring scheme and scales. In T. Gorman, A. C. Purves, & R. E. Degenhart (Eds.), The IEA's study of written composition I: The international writing tasks and scoring scales, vol. 5 (pp. 41-58). New York: Pergamon.
94. Raforth, B. A., & Rubin, D. L. (1984). The impact of content and mechanics on judgements of writing quality. Written Communication, 1, 446-58.
95. Ray, R. E. (1993). The practice of theory: Teacher research in composition. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
96. Reid, J. M. (1993) Teaching ESL writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Regents/Prentice Hall.
97. Rogers, P. S. (1994). Analytic measures for evaluating managerial writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 8, 380-407.
98. Rogers, P. S. (2000). CEO presentations in conjunction with earnings announcements: Extending the construct of organizational genre through competing values profiling and user-need analysis. Management Communication Quarterly 13, 426-485.
99. Rogers, P. S., & Hildebrandt, H. W. (1993). Competing values instruments for analyzing written and spoken management messages. Human Resource Management, 32, 121-142.
100. Rogers, P. S., & Rymer, J. (1995a). What is the relevance of the GMAT analytical writing assessment for management education? Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 347-367.
101. Rogers, P. S., & Rymer, J. (1995b). What is the functional value of the GMAT analytical writing assessment for management education? Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 477-494.
102. Rogers, P. S., & Rymer, J. (1996a). The GMAT analytical writing assessment: Opportunity or threat for management communication? Business Communication Quarterly, 60(2), 7-25.
103. Rogers, P. S., & Rymer, J. (1996b). "What shall we do with these essays?" Using the analytical writing assessment for diagnostic purposes. Selections, 39 (Spring): 25-39.
104. Rogers, P. S., & Rymer, J. (1996c). The Analytical Writing Assessment: Using the test results for diagnostic purposes (131 pp.). Prepared for the Graduate Management Admission Council, McLean, VA.
105. Rogers, P. S., & Rymer, J. (1996d). The Analytical Writing Assessment diagnostic program (69 pp.). Prepared for the Graduate Management Admission Council, McLean, VA.
106. Russell, D. R. (1991). Writing in the academic disciplines, 1870-1990. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
107. Ruth, L., & Murphy, S. (1988). Designing writing tasks for written assessment of writing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
108. Rymer, J., Beard, J. D., & Williams, D. L. (1990, November). Correlating correctness and functionality in MBA writing assessments. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Business Communication, San Antonio.
109. Schriver, K. A. (1989). Evaluating text quality: The continuum from text-focused to reader-focused methods. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 32, 238-255.
110. Schriver, K. A. (1992). Teaching writers to anticipate readers' needs: What can document designers learn from usability testing? In H. P. Maat & M. Steehouder (Eds.), Studies of functional text quality (pp. 141-157). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
111. Shaughnessy, M. (1977). Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
112. Sloan, G. (1990). Frequency of errors in essays by college freshmen and by professional writers. College Composition and Communication, 41, 299-308.
113. Smagorinsky, P. (1994). Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology. Sage Series in Written Communication, Vol. 8. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
114. Spivey, N. N. (1990). Transforming texts: Constructive processes in reading and writing. Written Communication, 7, 256-287.
115. Straub, R. (1996). The concept of control in teacher response. College Composition and Communication, 47, 223-251.
116. Suchan, J. (1998). The effect of high-impact writing on decision making within a public sector bureaucracy. The Journal of Business Communication, 35, 299-327.
117. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
118. Swales, J. M. (1998). Other floors, other voices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
119. Thomas, J. P. (1995, November). Coherence: Toward a logic for effective management documents. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Business Communication, Orlando.
120. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
121. vanDijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
122. Walker, C., & Elias, D. (1987). Writing conference talk: Factors associated for high- and low-rated writing conferences. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 226-85.
123. Walker, R. (2001). Improving writing and analytic skills: The development of a student-centered system. Unpublished manuscript.
124. Wall, S. V., & Hull, G. A. (1989). The semantics of error: What do teachers know? In C. M. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 261-292). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
125. Walter, O. M. (1966). Speaking to inform and persuade. New York: Macmillan.
126. Walvoord, B. E., & Anderson, V. J. (1998). Effective grading: A tool for learning and assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
127. Webster, L., & Amnion, P. (1994). Linking written language to cognitive development: Reading, writing, and concrete operations. Research in the Teaching of English, 28, 89-109.
128. Weigle, S.C. (1999). Investigating rater/prompt interactions in writing assessment: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Assessing Writing, 6, 154-178.
129. White, E. M. (1994). Teaching and assessing writing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
130. Williams, J. M. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
131. Williams, J. M. (1982). The phenomenology of error. College Composition and Communication, 32, 152-168.
132. Williams, J. M. (1991). Rhetoric and informal reasoning: Disentangling some confounding effects in good reasoning and good writing. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 225-246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
133. Williamson, M. M. (1993). An introduction to holistic scoring: The social, historical and theoretical context for writing assessment. In M. M. Williamson & B. A. Huot (Eds.), Validating holistic scoring for writing assessment: Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 1-43). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
134. Winsor, D. (1996). Writing like an engineer. A rhetorical education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
135. Witte, S. P., & Cherry, R. D. (1994). Think-aloud protocols, protocol analysis, and research design. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology (pp. 69-85). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
136. Witte, S. P., & Flach, J. (1994). Notes toward an assessment of advanced ability to communicate. Assessing Writing, 1, 207-246.
137. Wolcott, W., with Legg, S. M. (1998). An overview of writing assessment: Theory, research, and practice. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
138. Writing Programs Fact Sheet, University of Michigan Business School (2001). Available: http://webuser.bus.umich.edu/Programs/BMC/WritingPrograms. html
139. Yancey, K. B. (1999). Looking back as we look forward: Historicizing writing assessment. College Composition and Communication, 50, 483-503.
140. Yates, J. & Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). Genres of organizational communication: A structurational approach to studying communication and media. Academy of Management Review, 17, 299-326.
141. Yeh, S. S. (1998). Validation of a scheme for assessing argumentative writing of middle school students. Assessing Writing, 5, 123-150.