Use of writing samples on standardized tests: Susceptibility to rule-based coaching and the resulting effects on score improvement

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 227-252

  Hardison, Chaitra M ^a,b   Sackett, Paul R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 46749132816     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08957340802161782     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Anastasi, A. (1981). Coaching, test sophistication, and developed abilities. American Psychologist, 36, 1086-93.
2. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3. Becker, B. J. (1990). Coaching for the Scholastic Aptitude Test: Further synthesis and appraisal. Review of Educational Research, 60, 373-417.
4. Breland, H., Bridgeman, B., & Fowles, M. (1999). Writing assessment in admission to higher education: Review and framework (College Board Report No. 99-3; GRE Research Report No. 96-12R). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
5. CCCC Committee on Assessment. (1995). Writing assessment: A position statement. College Composition and Communication, 46, 430-437.
6. De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills, and knowledge: Writing instruction in middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 687-698.
7. The College Board (2005). The SAT reasoning test assessing reasoning skills and college readiness. (College Board Fact Sheet No. 050011517).
8. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
9. Fulkerson, R. (1990) Composition theory in the eighties: Axiological consensus and paradigmatic diversity. College Composition and Communication, 41, 409-429.
10. Hillocks, G. (1984). What works in teaching composition: A meta-analysis of experimental treatment studies. American Journal of Education, 93, 133-170.
11. Johnstone, K. M., Ashbaugh, H., & Warfield, T. D. (2002). Effects of repeated practice and contextual-writing experiences on college students' writing skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 305-315.
12. Messick, S. (1980). The effectiveness of coaching for the SAT: Review and reanalysis of research from the fifties to the FTC. (ETS RR-80-08). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
13. Messick, S. (1982). Issues of effectiveness and equity in the coaching controversy: Implications for educational and testing practice. Educational Psychologist, 17, 67-91.
14. O'Hara, L. A., & Sternberg, R. J. (2001). It doesn't hurt to ask: Effects of instructions to be creative, practical, or analytical on essay-writing performance and their interaction with students' thinking styles. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 197-210.
15. Powers, D. E., & Rock, D. A. (1998). Effects of coaching on SAT I: Reasoning scores. (College Board Report No. 98-6). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
16. Powers, D. E., & Fowles, M. E. (1997). Effects of applying different time limits to a proposed GRE writing task. (GRE Board Report No. 93-26cR). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
17. Saunders, P. A., & Scialfa, C. T. (2003). The effects of pre-exam instructions on students' performance on an effective writing exam. Written Communication, 20, 195-212.
18. Wallace, D. L., Hayes, J. R., Hatch, J. A., Miller, W., Moser, G., & Silk, C. M. (1996). Better revision in eight minutes? Prompting first-year college writers to revise globally. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 682-688.
19. Zwick, R. (2002). Fair game? The use of standardized tests in higher education. New York: Routledge Falmer.