Pulling your hair out: Crises of standardization in communal writing assessment

Research in the Teaching of English

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 213-258

  Broad, Bob ^a  

^a ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 2542619729     PISSN: 0034527X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. AGAR, M. H. (1980). The professional stranger. New York: Academic Press.
2. AGAR, M. H. (1986). Speaking of ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3. ALFORD, D. E. (1995). Modern English and the idea of language: A potential postmodern practice. Unpublished dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
4. ALLEN, M. S. (1995). Valuing differences: Portnet's first year. Assessing Writing, 2, 67-89.
5. ARONOWITZ, S. (1988). Science as power. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
6. AXELROD, R. B., & COOPER, C. (1991). The St. Martin's guide to writing. (Short 3rd ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press.
7. BELANOFF, P., & ELBOW, P. (1991). Using portfolios to increase collaboration and community in a writing program. In P. Belanoff & M. Dickson (Eds.), Portfolios: Process and product (pp. 17-36). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
8. BIZZELL, P. (1994). "Contact zones" and English Studies. College English, 56, 163-169.
9. BROAD, R. L. (1994). "Portfolio scoring": A contradiction in terms. In L. Black, D.A. Daiker, J. Sommers, & G. Stygall (Eds.), New directions in portfolio assessment (pp. 263-276). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
10. BROAD, B. (1997). Reciprocal authorities in communal writing assessment: Constructing textual value within a 'new politics of inquiry'. Assessing Writing, 4, 133-167.
11. CHARNEY, D. (1984). The validity of using holistic scoring to evaluate writing: A critical overview. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 65-81.
12. CONNELL, R.W. (1982). Making the difference: Schools, families, and social division. Sydney: George Allen and Unwin.
13. COOPER, C. R. (1977). Holistic evaluation of writing. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing: Describing, measuring, judging (pp. 3-31). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
14. CRONBACH, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing (5th ed.). New York: Harper.
15. DELANDSHERE, G., & PETROSKY, A. R. (1994). Capturing teachers' knowledge: Performance assessment a) and post-structuralist epistemology, b) from a post-structuralist perspective, c) and post-structuralism, d) none of the above. Educational Researcher, 23(5), 11-18.
16. DESPAIN, L., & HILGERS, T. L. (1992). Readers' responses to the rating of non-uniform portfolios: Are there limits of portfolios' utility? WPA: Writing Program Administration, 16(1-2), 24-37.
17. DIEDERICH, P. B. (1974). Measuring growth in English. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
18. DIEDERICH, P. B., FRENCH, J. W., & CARLTON, S. T. (1961). Factors in the judgment of writing quality. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
19. ELBOW, P. (1990). What is English? New York and Urbana, IL: Modern Language Association and National Council of Teachers of English.
20. ELBOW, P. (1991). Foreword. In P. Belanoff & M. Dickson (Eds.), Portfolios: Process and product (pp. ix-xxi). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
21. ELBOW, P. (1993). Ranking, evaluating, and liking: Sorting out three forms of judgment. College English, 55, 187-206.
22. ELBOW, P. (1994). Will the virtues of portfolios blind us to their potential dangers? In L. Black, D. A. Daiker, J. Sommers, & G. Stygall (Eds.), New directions in portfolio assessment (pp. 40-55). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
23. FLOWER, L. (1989). Cognition, context, and theory building. College Composition and Communication, 40, 282-311.
24. GLASER, B. G., & STRAUSS, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago:Aldine.
25. GODSHALK, F. I., SWINEFORD, F., & COFFMAN, W. E. (1966). The measurement of writing ability. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
26. GUBA, E. (1978). Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation. Los Angeles: UCLA Graduate School of Education.
27. HACKER, D. (1992). A writer's reference (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press.
28. HARKIN, P., & SCHILB, J. (Eds.). (1991). Contending with words: Composition and rhetoric in a postmodern age. New York: Modern Language Association.
29. HARRIS, J. (1989). The idea of community in the study of writing. College Composition and Communication, 40, 11-22.
30. HASWELL, R. H. (1998). Rubrics, prototypes, and exemplars: Categorization theory and systems of writing placement. Assessing Writing, 5, 231-268.
31. HUOT, B. (1990). Reliability, validity, and holistic scoring: What we know and what we need to know. College Composition and Communication, 41, 201-213.
32. HUOT, D. (1996). Toward a new theory of writing assessment. College Composition and Communication, 47, 549-566.
33. MESSICK, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.) (pp. 13-103). Washington, D.C.: National Council on Measurement in Education.
34. MILES, M. B., & HUBERMAN, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35. MISHLER, E. G. (1990). Validation in inquiry-guided research. The role of exemplars in narrative studies. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 415-442.
36. MOSS, P.A. (1994). Can there be validity without reliability? Educational Researcher, 23(2), 5-12.
37. PATTON, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38. PRATT, M. L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession 91, 33-40.
39. REYNOLDS, N. (1990, October). Issues of consensus, authority, and resistance: A study/story of a rater-training session. Paper presented at the University of New Hampshire Conference on the Writing Process, Durham, NH.
40. SMITH, B. H. (1988). Contingencies of value: Alternative perspectives for critical theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41. STRAUSS, A., & CORBIN, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273-85). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42. STRAUSS, A., & CORBIN, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. STRAUSS, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.
43. Webster's third new international dictionary of the English language, unabridged. (1961). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.
44. WHITE, E. M. (1994). Teaching and assessing writing (2nd ed.). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
45. WIGGINS, G. P. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
46. WIGGINS, G. P. (1994). The constant danger of sacrificing validity to reliability: Making writing assessment serve writers. Assessing Writing, 1, 129-139.
47. 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 (pp. 1-43). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
48. WILLIAMSON, M. (1994). The worship of efficiency: Untangling theoretical and practical considerations in writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 1, 147-173.
49. YOUNG, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.