Measuring writing: Recent insights into theory, methodology and practice

Measuring Writing: Recent Insights into Theory, Methodology and Practice

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 1-235

  Van Steendam, Elke ^a   Tillema, Marion ^b   Rijlaarsdam, Gert ^c   Van den Bergh, Huub ^d  

^a University College Brussels   (Belgium)

^b AVANS UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^d UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84928059597     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1163/9789004248489     Document Type: Book

References (436)

1. Abasi, A. R., & Akbari, N. (2008). Are we encouraging patchwriting? Reconsidering the role of the pedagogical context in ESL student writers' transgressive intertextuality. English for Specific Purposes, 27(3), 267-284.
2. Abasi, A. R., & Graves, B. (2008). Academic literacy and plagiarism: Conversations with international graduate students and disciplinary professors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(4), 221-233.
3. Adamzik, K. (2004). Textlinguistik: Eine einführende Darstellung. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
4. Adsanatham, C., Alexander, P., Carsey, K., Dubisar, A., Fedeczko, W., Landrum, D., y Polak, M. (2013). Going multimodal: Programmatic, curricular, and classroom change. In T. Bowen & C. Whithaus (Eds.), Multimodal literacies and emerging genres. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
5. Allen, G. (2011). Intertextuality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
6. American College Testing (ACT). (2002). Writing framework and specification for the 1998 national assessment of educational progress. Washington, DC: Governing Board.
7. Anderson, J. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Aram, D. (2010). Writing with young children: A comparison of paternal and maternal guidance. Journal of Research in Reading, 33, 4-19.
9. Attali, Y., & Burstein, J. (2006). Automated essay scoring with e-raters V.2. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(3), 3-23. Retrieved from http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/view/1650. Accessed on July 30, 2012.
10. Attali, Y., & Powers, D. E. (2008). A developmental writing scale. Princeton, NJ: ETS.
11. Augst, G., Disselhoff, K., Henrich, A., Pohl, T., & Völzing, P.-L. (2007). Text-Sorten-Kompetenz. Eine echte Longitudinalstudie zur Entwicklung der Textkompetenz im Grundschulalter. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.
12. Bacha, N. (2001). Writing evaluation: What can analytic versus holistic essay scoring tell us? System, 29, 371-383.
13. Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14. Bachman, L. F. (2006). Generalizability: A journey into the nature of empirical research in applied linguistics. In M. Chalhoub-Deville, C. A. Chapelle & P. Duff (Eds.), Inference and generalizability in applied linguistics: Multiple perspectives (pp. 165-207). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
15. Bachmann, T., & Becker-Mrotzek, M. (2010). Schreibaufgaben situieren und profilieren. In T. Pohl & T. Steinhoff (Eds.), Textformen als lernformen (pp. 191-209). Köln: Gilles & Francke.
16. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). A second look at T-unit analysis: Reconsidering the sentence. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 390-395.
17. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bofman, T. (1989). Attainment of syntactic and morphological accuracy by advanced language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 17-34.
18. Barkaoui, K. (2007). Participants, texts, and processes in second language writing assessment: A narrative review of the literature. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 97-132.
19. Bazermann, C., & Russel, D. (Eds.). (1994). Landmark essays on writing across the curriculum. Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.
20. Bearne, E. (2009). Assessing multimodal texts. In A. Burke & R. F. Hammett (Eds.), Assessing new literacies: Perspectives from the classroom (pp. 15-34). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
21. Becker-Mrotzek, M., & Vogt, R. (2009). Unterrichtskommunikation: Linguistische Analysemethoden und Forschungsergebnisse (2nd ed.). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
22. Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2009). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measure? Which genre? Reading and Writing, 22, 185-200.
23. Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2011). Writing development in four genres from grades three to seven: Syntactic complexity and genre differentiation. Reading and Writing, 24, 183-202.
24. Bennett, R. E. (2004). Moving the field forward: Some thoughts on validity and automated scoring. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
25. Bennett, R. E., & Bejar, I. (1998). Validity and automated scoring: It's not only the scoring. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 9-17.
26. Bennett, R. E., & Ben-Simon, A. (2005). Toward theoretically meaningful automated essay scoring. Unpublished final project report, Educational Testing Service.
27. Bennöhr, J. (2010, February). How much variance in writing competence can be explained by morphology? Identification of indicators for competence assessment of students' essays and development of a prototype for computer-assisted text analysis. Paper presented at 32. Annual Conference of German Linguistic Society, Berlin.
28. Bennöhr, J. (2011, February). Entwicklung von Qualitätsindikatoren in Schüleraufsätzen in den Klassen 4, 6, 8 und 10. Paper presented at 32. Annual Conference of German Linguistic Society, Göttingen.
29. Ben-Simon, A., & Bennett, R. E. (2007). Toward theoretically meaningful automated essay scoring. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 6(1), 3-44. Retrieved from http://www.jtla.org. Accessed on July 30, 2012.
30. Bereiter, C. (1980). Development in writing. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 73-93). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31. Berman, R. A., & Nir-Sagiv, B. (2007). Comparing narrative and expository text construction across adolescence: A developmental paradox. Discourse Processes, 43, 79-120.
32. Berninger, V. W., Mizokawa, D. T., Bragg, R., Cartwright, A., & Yates, C. (1994). Intraindividual differences in levels of written language. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 10, 259-275.
33. Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34. Blok, H. (1986). Essay rating by the comparison method. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch [Journal for Educational Research], 11, 168-176.
35. Böhme, K., Bremerich-Vos, A., & Robitzsch, A. (2009). Aspekte der Kodierung von Schreibaufgaben: Vergleich holistischer und analytischer Kodierungen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Interraterreliabilität. In A. Bremerich-Vos, D. Granzer & O. Köller (Eds.), Bildungsstandards Deutsch und Mathematik (pp. 290-329). Weinheim: Beltz.
36. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37. Borton, S., & Huot, B. (2007). Responding and assessing. In C. Selfe (Ed.), Multimodal composition: Resources for teachers (pp. 99-111). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
38. Bowden, D. (2012, February 3). CWPA task force for writing in digital environments outcomes statement. Retrieved from https://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A11/4ind1202&L1/4WPA-L
39. Bowen, T., & Whithaus, C. (Eds.). (2013). Multimodal literacies and emerging genres. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
40. Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., Van den Bergh, H., & Hout Wolters, B. A. M. (2004). Observational learning and its effects on the orchestration of the writing process. Cognition & Instruction, 22, 1-36.
41. Bredel, U. (2007). Sprachbetrachtung und Grammatikunterricht. Paderborn: Schöningh.
42. Bredel, U. (2010). Sprachbegriffe und Sprachthematisierung - Das Verhältnis von Linguistik, Sprachdidaktik und Schule. In C. Noack & K.-M. Köpcke (Eds.), Sprachliche Strukturen thematisieren (pp. 47-59). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider.
43. Breetvelt, I., Van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1994). Relations between writing processes and text quality: When and how? Cognition and Instruction, 12(2), 103-123.
44. Brennan, R. L. (2001). Generalizability theory. New York, NY: Springer.
45. Brennan, R. L., Gao, X., & Colton, D. A. (1995). Generalizability analyses of work keys listening and writing tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(2), 157-176.
46. Brent, E., & Townsend, M. (2006). Automated essay grading in the sociology classroom: Finding common ground. In P. F. Ericsson & R. Haswell (Eds.), Machine scoring of student essays: Truth and consequences (pp. 177-198). Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
47. Bridwell-Bowles, L., Powell, K. E., & Walter, T. (2009). Not just words any more: Multimodal communication across the curriculum. Across the Disciplines 06.
48. Brinker, K. (2010). Linguistische Textanalyse: Eine Einführung in Grundbegriffe und Methoden (5th ed.). Berlin: Schmidt.
49. Brinker, K., Antos, G., Heinemann, W., & Sager, S. F. (Eds.). (2001). Text- und Gesprächslinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. Berlin: de Gruyter.
50. Broad, B. (2003). What we really value: Beyond rubrics in teaching and assessing writing. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
51. Broad, B., Adler-Kassner, L., Alford, B., Detweiler, J., Estrem, H., Harrington, S., y Weeden, S. (2009). Organic writing assessment: Dynamic criteria mapping in action. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
52. Brown, G. T. L., Glasswell, K., & Harland, D. (2004). Accuracy in the scoring of writing: Studies of reliability and validity using a New Zealand writing assessment system. Assessing Writing, 9, 105-121.
53. Bruner, J. (1983). Child's talk: Learning to use language. New York, NY: Norton.
54. Burstein, J. (2003). The E-rater scoring engine: Automated essay scoring with natural language processing. In M. D. Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A crossdisciplinary perspective (pp. 113-122). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
55. Burstein, J., Chodorow, M., & Leacock, C. (2003). CriterionSM online essay evaluation: An application for automated evaluation of student essays. Princeton, NJ: ETS.
56. Burstein, J., Kukich, K., Wolff, S., Lu, C., & Chodorow, M. (1998a). Computer analysis of essays. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
57. Burstein, J., Kukich, K., Wolff, S., Lu, C., Chodorow, M., Braden-Harder, L., & Harris, M. D. (1998b). Automated scoring using a hybrid feature identification technique. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (pp. 206-210). Montreal, Canada.
58. Campbell, C. (1990). Writing with others' words: Using background reading text in academic compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing (pp. 211-230). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
59. Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative performance. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication. New York, NY: Longman.
60. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
61. Carlisle, R. (1989). The writing of Anglo and Hispanic elementary school students in bilingual submersion and regular programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 257-280.
62. Carlson, B., & Camp, R. (1985, April). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL. ERIC document Reproduction Service No. ED255543. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED255543.pdf. Accessed on July 31, 2012.
63. Carrell, P. L. (1995). The effect of writers' personalities and raters' personalities on the holistic evaluation of writing. Assessing Writing, 2, 153-190.
64. Casanave, C. P. (1994). Language development in students' journals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 179-201.
65. CEFR: Council of Europe (Ed.). (2001). The common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
66. Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2003). Second language interaction: Current perspectives and future trends. Language Testing, 20(4), 369-383.
67. Chang, Y.-Y., & Swales, J. (1999). Informal elements in English academic writing: Threats or opportunities for advanced non-native speakers?. In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes, and practices (pp. 145-167). Harlow: Longman.
68. Chapelle, C. A. (1998). Construct definition and validity inquiry in SLA research. In L. F. Bachman & A. Cohen (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 32-70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
69. Chapelle, C. A. (2006). L2 vocabulary acquisition theory: The role of inference, dependability and generalizability in assessment. In M. Chalhoub-Deville, C. A. Chapelle & P. Duff (Eds.), Inference and generalizability in applied linguistics: Multiple perspectives (pp. 47-64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
70. Chapelle, C., Enright, M. K., & Jamieson, J. (Eds.). (2008). Building a validity argument for the Test of English as a foreign language. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
71. Cherry, R. D., & Meyer, P. R. (1993). Reliability issues in holistic assessment. In M. M. Williamson & B. A. Huot (Eds.), Validating holistic scoring for writing assessment: Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 109-141). Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
72. Chiang, S. Y. (1999). Assessing grammatical and textual features in L2 writing samples: The case of French as a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 219-232.
73. Chiang, S. Y. (2003). The importance of cohesive conditions to perceptions of writing quality at the early stages of foreign language learning. System, 31, 471-484.
74. Chudowsky, N., Kober, N., Gaylor, K. S., & Hamilton, N. (2002). State high school exit exams: A baseline report. CEP-HSEE01 Report-080102. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org/publications/index.cfm?selectedYear1/42002
75. Clachar, A. (1999). It's not just cognition: The effect of emotion on multiple-level discourse processing in second-language writing. Language Sciences, 21, 31-60.
76. Cohen, D. (1995). What standards for national standards? Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 751-757.
77. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
78. Competence grid. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.institut-beatenberg.ch. Accessed on August 18, 2011.
79. Connor, U. (1991). Linguistic/rhetorical measures for evaluating ESL writing. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 215-225). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
80. Connor, U., & Carrell, P. L. (1993). The interpretation of the tasks by writers and readers in holistically rated direct assessment of writing. In J. G. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp. 141-160). Boston, MA: Heine and Heine.
81. Connor, U., & Lauer, J. (1985). Understanding persuasive essay writing: Linguistic/rhetorical approach. Text, 5, 309-326.
82. Connor, U., & Lauer, J. (1988). Cross-cultural variation in persuasive student writing. In A. C. Purves (Ed.), Contrastive rhetoric (pp. 138-159). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
83. Connor, U., & Mbaye, A. (2002). Discourse approaches to writing assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 263-278.
84. Cooper, P. L. (1984). The assessment of writing ability: A review of research. GRE Board Research Report GREB No. 82-15R, ETS Research Report 84-12. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
85. Council of Writing Program Administrators (2011). Framework for success in postsecondary writing. Urbana, IL: Council of Writing Program Administrators, National Council of Teachers of English, and the National Writing Project. Retrieved from http://wpacouncil.org/files/framework-for-success-postsecondary-writing.pdf. Accessed on July 31, 2012.
86. Crick, J. E., & Brennan, R. L. (1983). Manual for GENOVA: A generalized analysis of variance system. ACT Technical Bulletin No. 43. Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.
87. Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. New York, NY: Wiley.
88. Culpepper, M. M., & Ramsdale, R. (1982). A comparison of multiple choice and essay test of writing skills. Research in the Teaching of English, 16, 295-297.
89. Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and language proficiency. Language Learning, 39, 81-141.
90. Cumming, A. (1990). Expertise in evaluating second language compositions. Language Testing, 7, 31-51.
91. Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui, K., & James, M. (2005). Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10(1), 5-43.
92. Cumming, A., Kantor, R., & Powers, D. E. (2002). Decision making while rating ESL/EFL writing tasks: A descriptive framework. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 67-96.
93. Dabrowska, E. (2009). Constructing a second language: Some final thoughts. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 277-290.
94. Daneš, F. (1970). Zur linguistischen Analyse der Textstruktur. Folia Linguistica, 4, 72-78.
95. Deane, P. (2011). Writing assessment and cognition. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
96. Deane, P., Quinlan, T., & Kostin, I. (2011). Automated scoring within a developmental, cognitive model of writing proficiency. ETS Research Report No. RR-11-16. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
97. Deane, P., Quinlan, T., Odendahl, N., Welsh, C., & Bivens-Tatum, J. (2008). Cognitive models of writing: Writing proficiency as a complex integrated skill. CBAL literature review writing. ETS Research Report No. RR-08-55. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
98. de Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman.
99. Dehaene, S. (2010). Reading in the brain: The new science of how we read. New York, NY: Penguin Viking.
100. Delaruelle, S. (1997). Text type and rater decision-making in the writing module. In G. Brindley & G. Wigglesworth (Eds.), Access: Issues in English language test design and delivery (pp. 215-242). Sydney: National Center for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University.
101. DeRemer, M. L. (1998). Writing assessment: Raters' elaboration of the rating task. Assessing Writing, 5, 7-29.
102. De Saussure, F. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Lausanne: Payot.
103. DESI-Konsortium (Eds.). (2008). Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch. Ergebnisse der DESI-Studie. Weinheim. Basel: Beltz.
104. Deville, C., & Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2006). Old and new thoughts on test score variability: Implications for reliability and validity. In M. Chalhoub-Deville, C. A. Chapelle & P. Duff (Eds.), Inference and generalizability in applied linguistics: Multiple perspectives (pp. 9-25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
105. DeVoss, D., Eidman-Aadahl, E., & Hicks, T. (2010). Because digital writing matters: Improving student writing in online and multimedia environments. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
106. Donovan, C. A. (2001). Children's development and control of written story and informational genres: Insights from one elementary school. Research in the Teaching of English, 35, 394-447.
107. Donovan, C. A., & Smolkin, L. B. (2006). Children's understanding of genre and writing development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 131-143). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
108. Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202-224.
109. Duke, N. K. (2001, April). What do we expect young children to know and be able to do with different genres of text? An analysis of state standards. In C. C. Pappas (Chair), Children, genre, and schooling. Seattle, WA: American Educational Research Association.
110. East, M. (2009). Evaluating the reliability of a detailed analytic scoring rubric for foreign language writing. Assessing Writing, 14, 88-115.
111. Eckes, T. (2008). Rater types in writing performance assessments: A classification approach to rater variability. Language Testing, 25(2), 155-185.
112. Eco, U. (1983). Semiotics and the philosophy of language. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
113. Edelblut, P., & Mikulas, C. (2005, October). A comparison of the accuracy of Bayesian and IntelliMetrict automated essay scoring methods to score essays written in English. Paper presented at the 10th Annual National Roundtable Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
114. Eidman-Aadahl, E., Blair, K., DeVoss, D. N., Hochman, W., Jimerson, L., Jurich, C., y Wood, J. (2012). Developing domains for multimodal writing assessment: The language of evaluation, the language of instruction. In H. McKee & D. N. DeVoss (Eds.), Digital writing assessment. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
115. Elliot, S. (2003). IntelliMetric: From here to validity. In M. D. Shermis & J. C. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
116. Elliot, S., & Mikulas, C. (2004, April). How does IntelliMetricTM score essay responses? A mind based approach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
117. Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second-language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 375-396.
118. Engber, C. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 139-155.
119. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
120. Enright, M. K., & Quinlan, T. (2010). Complementing human judgment of essays written by English language learners with e-raters scoring. Language Testing, 27, 317-334.
121. Ericsson, P. F., & Haswell, R. H. (Eds.). (2006). Machine scoring of student essays: Truth and consequences. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
122. Espin, C., Wallace, R., Lembke, E., Campbell, H., & Ticha, R. (2005). Curriculum-based measurement (CBM): Reading and writing measures in secondary education. Paper presented at the Council for Exceptional Children's Convention and Expo. Retrieved from http://progressmonitoring.org/RIPMProducts2.html#scoring
123. Eye, A., & Mun, E. Y. (2005). Analyzing rater agreement: Manifest variable methods. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
124. Feilke, H. (2003). Entwicklung schriftlich-konzeptualer Fähigkeiten. In U. Bredel, H. Günther, P. Klotz, J. Ossner & G. Sieber-Ott (Eds.), Didaktik der deutschen Sprache (Vol. 1, pp. 178-192). Paderborn: Schöningh.
125. Fix, M., & Melenk, H. (2002). Schreiben zu Texten - Schreiben zu Bildimpulsen. Das Ludwigsburger Aufsatzkorpus. Mit 2300 Schülertexten, Befragungsdaten und Bewertungen auf CD-ROM. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider.
126. Frantzen, D. (1995). The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course. Modern Language Journal, 79, 329-344.
127. Frase, L. T., Faletti, J., Ginther, A., & Grant, L. (1999). Computer analysis of the TOEFL test of written English. TOEFL Research Report No. 64. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
128. Frey, E., & Heringer, H. J. (2007). Automatische Bewertung schriftlicher Lernerproduktionen. Linguisische Berichte, 211, 331-345.
129. Frow, J. (2006). Genre. New York, NY: Routledge.
130. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (n.d.). Using CBM for progress monitoring in written expression and spelling. Retrieved from http://www.studentprogress.org/library/Training/CBM%20Reading/UsingCBMReading.pdf
131. Galbraith, D. (2009). Writing as discovery. British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II, 6, 1-27.
132. Gansel, C., & Jürgens, F. (2007). Textlinguistik und Textgrammatik. Eine Einführung (2nd ed.). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
133. García, J.-N., de Caso-Fuertes, A.-M., Fidalgo-Redondo, R., Arias-Gundí n, O., & Torrance, M. (2010). Spanish research on writing instruction for students with and without learning disabilities. In C. Bazerman, R. Krut, K. Lunsford, S. McLeod, S. Null, P. Rodgers & A. Stansell (Eds.), Traditions of writing research (pp. 71-81). London: Routledge.
134. Gebril, A. (2009). Score generalizability of academic writing tasks: Does one test method fit it all? Language Testing, 26(4), 507-531.
135. Gebril, A. (2010). Bringing reading-to-write and writing-only assessment tasks together: A generalizability analysis. Assessing Writing, 15(2), 100-117.
136. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
137. Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Sydney: Heinemann Education Books.
138. Girgensohn, K., Lange, I., Lange, U., Neumann, F., & Zegenhagen, J. (2009, May 27). Gemeinsam schreiben: Das Konzept einer kollegialen Online-Schreibgruppe mit Peer-Feedback. Retrieved from http://www.zeitschrift-schreiben.eu/cgi%20bin/joolma/index.php?option1/4com_content&task1/4view&id1/467&Itemid1/432. Accessed on July 31, 2012.
139. Glaserfeld, E. V. (2007). The constructive view of communication. In A. Müller & K. Müller (Eds.), An unfinished revolution? (pp 351-360). Vienna: Echoraum.
140. Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 20 U.S.C y 5801 (1994).
141. Godshalk, F. I., Swineford, F., & Coffman, W. E. (1966). The measurement of writing ability. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.
142. Goffman, E. (1979). Footing. Semiotica, 25, 1-29.
143. Goldstein, D. (2012, May 9). Machines shouldn't grade student writing - yet. Slate. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/05/robo_graders_like_ets_s_e_rater_aren_t_good_enough_yet_.2.html
144. Gormann, T. P., Purves, A. C., & Degenhart, R. E. (1988). The IEA Study of written composition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
145. Goswami, U. (2004). Neuroscience and education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 1-14.
146. Grabe, L. E., Grosklos, U., Lischewski, A., & Markwerth, P. (2006). Kompetenzraster. Handreichung. Retrieved from http://kasg8.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/handreichung_kompetenzraster_neuwied.pdf. Accessed on July 31, 2012.
147. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory & practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. London: Longman.
148. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989). A components analysis of cognitive strategy instruction: Effects on learning disabled students' compositions and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 353-361.
149. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Fink-Chorzempa, B., & MacArthur, C. A. (2003). Primary grade teachers' instructional adaptations for struggling writers: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 279-292.
150. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2011). Informing writing: The benefits of formative assessment. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
151. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207-241.
152. Grant, L., & Ginther, A. (2000). Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 123-145.
153. Gu, Q., & Brooks, J. (2008). Beyond the accusation of plagiarism. System, 36(3), 337-352.
154. Hake, R. (1986). How do we judge what they write?. In K. L. Greenberg, H. S. Wiener & R. A. Donovan (Eds.), Writing assessment: Issues and strategies (pp. 153-167). New York, NY: Longman.
155. Hall-Mills, S. S. (2010). Linguistic feature development in elementary writing: Analysis of microstructure and macrostructure features in a narrative and an expository genre. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
156. Hamilton, L. S., & Stecher, B. M. (2006, April). Measuring educators' responses to high-stakes testing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
157. Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (1996). Test of written language (Vol. 3). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
158. Hamp-Lyons, L., & Mathias, S. P. (1994). Examining expert judgments of task difficulty on essay tests. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 85-96.
159. Harsch, C., Lehmann, R., Neumann, A., & Schröder, K. (2007). Schreibfähigkeit. In B. Beck & E. Klieme (Eds.), Sprachliche Kompetenzen. Konzepte und Messung. DESI-Ergebnisse Band 1 (pp. 50-72). Weinheim: Beltz.
160. Hartig, J. (2004). Methoden zur Bildung von Kompetenzstufenmodellen. In W. Moosbrugger & D. Frank (Eds.), Qualitätssicherung im Bildungswesen (pp. 11-29). Frankfurt a. M.: Arbeiten aus dem Institut der Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe-Universität.
161. Hartmann, W., & Lehmann, R. H. (1987). The Hamburg Study of Achievement in Written Composition. National Report for the IEA International Study of Achievement in Written Composition. Part I: Method and Findings. Hamburg: University.
162. Haswell, R. H. (1991). Gaining ground in college writing: Tales of development and interpretation. Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University Press.
163. Haswell, R. H. (2000). Documenting improvement in college writing: A longitudinal approach. Written Communication, 17, 307-352.
164. Hattie, J. (2003). Formative and summative interpretations of assessment information. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/50784590/2003-Hattie-Formative-and-summative-interpretations-of-assessment-information. Accessed on July 28, 2011.
165. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
166. Hayes, J. (2006). The social and historical context for writing research. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 28-40). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
167. Hayes, J., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & J. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, MI: Lawrence Erlbaum.
168. Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
169. Heck, R. H., & Crislip, M. (2001). Direct and indirect writing assessments: Examining issues of equity and utility. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(1), 19-36.
170. Heinemann, M., & Heinemann, W. (2002). Grundlagen der Textlinguistik. Interaktion-Text-Diskurs. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
171. Herrington, A., & Moran, C. (2001). What happens when machines read our students' writing. College English, 63(4), 480-499.
172. Herrington, A., & Moran, C. (2006). Writeplacer plus in place: An exploratory case study. In P. F. Ericsson & R. H. Haswell (Eds.), Machine scoring of student essays: Truth and consequences (pp. 114-129). Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
173. Hicks, T. (2009). The digital writing workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
174. Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers' text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
175. Hinkel, E. (2003). Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic texts. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 275-301.
176. Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Japanese EFL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 181-209.
177. Hoffman, J. V., Assaf, L. C., & Paris, S. G. (2001). High-stakes testing in reading: Today in Texas, tomorrow? The Reading Teacher, 54, 482-494.
178. Homburg, T. J. (1984). Holistic evaluation of ESL compositions: Can it be validated objectively? TESOL Quarterly, 18, 87-107.
179. Horkay, N., Bennett, R., Allen, N., & Kaplan, B. (2005). Online assessment in writing. In B. Sandene, N. Horkay, R. Bennett, N. Allen, J. Braswell, B. Kaplan & A. Oranje (Eds.), Online assessment in mathematics and writing: Reports from the NAEP Technology-Based Assessment Project. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2005457.asp
180. Howard, R. (1999). Standing in the shadow of giants: Plagiarists, authors, collaborators. Stamford, CT: Ablex.
181. Huang, C. (2009). Magnitude of task-sampling variability in performance assessment: A metaanalysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(6), 887-912.
182. Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. NCTE Research Report No. 3. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
183. Huot, B. (1990). The literature of direct writing assessment: Major concerns and prevailing trends. Reviewof Educational Research, 60, 237-263.
184. Huot, B., & Neal, M. (2006). Writing assessment: A techno-history. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 417-432). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
185. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. New York, NY: Continuum.
186. Hyland, T. A. (2009). Drawing a line in the sand: Identifying the borderzone between self and other in EL1 and EL2 citation practices. Assessing Writing, 14(1), 62-74.
187. Ingenkamp, K. H. (1998). Lehrbuch der Diagnostik. Weinheim: Beltz.
188. Inoue, A. B. (2005). Community-based assessment pedagogy. Assessing Writing, 9(3), 208-238.
189. Intaraprawat, P., & Steffensen, M. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 253-272.
190. Ishikawa, S. (1995). Objective measurement of low-proficiency EFL narrative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 51-69.
191. James, C., & Garrett, P. (Eds.). (1992). Language awareness in the classroom. Harlow, UK: Longman.
192. Jaschik, J. (2011, February 21). Can you trust automated grading? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/02/21/debate_over_reliability_of_automated_essay_grading
193. Jimerson, L. (2011). The NWP multimodal assessment project. Retrieved from http://digitalis.nwp.org/resource/1577
194. Johnson, R. L., Penny, J., Fisher, S., & Kuhs, T. (2003). Score resolution: An investigation of the reliability and validity of resolved scores. Applied Measurement in Education, 16, 299-322.
195. Jones, G., Jones, B., Hardin, B., Chaptman, L., Yarbrough, T., & Davis, M. (1999). The impacts of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(3), 199-203.
196. Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2, 130-144.
197. Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 36(2), 109-133.
198. Jost, J., & Becker-Mrotzek, M. (2012). Empirische Forschung in der Sprachdidaktik. Am Beispiel empirischer Schreibdidaktikforschung. In V. Frederking, H. W. Hunecke, A. Krommer & Chr. Meier (Eds.), Taschenbuch des Deutschunterrichts. Band 3. Grundfragen und aktuelle Problemfelder. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider.
199. Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.
200. Kajder, S. (2006). Bringing the outside in: Visual ways to engage reluctant readers. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
201. Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2008). New learning: Elements of a science of education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
202. Kamberelis, G. (1999). Genre development and learning: Children writing stories, science reports, and poems. Research in the Teaching of English, 33, 403-460.
203. Kane, M. T. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38(4), 319-342.
204. Kane, M. T. (2006). Validation. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (Vol. 4, pp. 17-64). Westport, CT: National Council on Measurement in Education and American Council on Education.
205. Keck, C. (2006). The use of paraphrase in summary writing: A comparison of L1 and L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(4), 261-278.
206. Kegley, P. H. (1986). The effect of mode discourse on student writing performance: Implications for policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 8, 147-154.
207. Keith, T. Z. (2003). Validity of automated essay scoring systems. In M. D. Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
208. Kemp, F. (2005). Computers, innovation, and resistance in first-year composition programs. In S. J. McGee (Ed.), Discord and direction: The postmodern writing program administrator (pp. 105-122). Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
209. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
210. KMK. (2003). Entwicklung und Implementation von Bildungsstandards. Bonn: Druck des Sekretariates der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der BRD.
211. KMK (2003, 2004). Bildungsstandards Fach Deutsch. Retrieved from http://www.kmk.org/schul/Bildungsstandards/Grundschule_Deutsch_BS_307KMK.pdf;http://www.kmk.org/schul/Bildungsstandards/Hauptschule_Deutsch_BS_307KMK.pdf;http://www.kmk.org/schul/Bildungsstandards/Deutsch_MSA_BS_04-12-03.pdf. Accessed on August 30, 2011.
212. Knopp, M., Becker-Mrotzek, M., & Grabowski, J. (2011, February). Exploring subskills of writing literacy: Lexicon, cohesion, and partner orientation. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Writing Research: Writing Research Across Borders II, Washington, D. C. Retrieved from http://www.bmbf.schreibkompetenz.com/PDF/V_Knopp_2011.pdf. Accessed on August 16, 2011.
213. Kondo-Brown, K. (2002). A FACETS analysis of rater bias in measuring Japanese second language writing performance. Language Testing, 19, 3-31.
214. Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 148-161.
215. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York, NY: Routledge.
216. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
217. Kroll, B. (1990). What does time buy? ESL student performance on home versus class compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 140-154). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
218. Kubota, R. (1998). An investigation of L1-L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second language Writing, 7, 43-69.
219. Kuhlemeier, H., & Van den Bergh, H. (1998). Relationships between language skills and task effects. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 443-463.
220. Kukich, K. (2000, September/October). Beyond automated essay scoring. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 15(5), 22-27. Retrieved from http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Beyond+Automated+Essay+Scoring&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-au:IE-SearchBox& ie=&oe=&redir_esc=&ei=3R9QUKKVDozMmAWXroCIC
221. Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). Introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259-284.
222. Landauer, T. K., Laham, D.,&Foltz, P. W. (2003). Automated scoring and annotation of essays with the Intelligent Essay Assessor. In M. D. Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 87-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
223. Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 in written production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307-322.
224. Laufer, B., & Paribakht, T. S. (1998). The relationship between passive and active vocabularies: Effects of language learning context. Language Learning, 48, 365-391.
225. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching. A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. London: Routledge.
226. Lee, Y.-W., & Kantor, R. (2007). Evaluating prototype tasks and alternative rating schemes for a new ESL writing test through G-theory. International Journal of Testing, 7(4), 353-385.
227. Lehmann, R. H. (1994). Research on national and international writing assessments: Contributions from the Hamburg study of achievement in written composition. In R. Ansorge (Ed.), Schlaglichter der Forschung. Zum 75. Jahrestag der Universität Hamburg (pp. 173-184). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.
228. Lehnen, K. (2000). Kooperative Textproduktion. Zur gemeinsamen Herstellung wissenschaftlicher Texte im Vergleich von ungeübten, fortgeschrittenen und sehr geübten SchreiberInnen. Doctoral thesis. U of Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany. Retrieved from https://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/luur/download?func1/4downloadFile&recordOId1/42301399&fileOId1/42301403
229. Letters from the Internment Camps. (2010). Retrieved from http://voicethread.com/about/library/4th_Grade__Letters_from_the_Internment_Camps/
230. Lewkowicz, J. (1994, December). Writing from sources: does source material help or hinder students' performance? Paper presented at the Annual International Language in Education Conference, Hong Kong. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED386050. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED386050.pdf. Accessed on July 31, 2012.
231. Linacre, J. M. (2012). A user's guide to FACETS Rasch-model computer program. Retrieved from http://www.winsteps.com/a/facets-manual.pdf Lloyd-Jones, R. (1977). Primary trait scoring. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing: Describing, measuring, judging (pp. 33-66). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
232. Lumley, T. (2002). Assessment criteria in a large-scale writing test: What do they really mean to the raters? Language Testing, 19(3), 246-276.
233. MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Schwartz, S. (1991). Knowledge of revision and revising behavior among students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 61-73.
234. Malone, M., & Montee, M. (2009, March). Test user beliefs about TOEFL iBT tasks. Paper presented at AAAL, Denver, CO.
235. Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2002). Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19(1), 85-104.
236. Manion, C. E., & Selfe, R. (2012). Sharing an assessment ecology: Digital media, wikis, and the social work of knowledge. Technical Communication Quarterly, 21(1), 25-45.
237. Marzano, R. J. (2002). A comparison of selected methods of scoring classroom assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 249-267.
238. Marzano, R. J. (2010). Formative assessment & standard-based grading. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.
239. Mathias, R. E. (2008). Writing performance and behavior of second grade students across four genres. Unpublished master's thesis. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
240. Matsuhashi, A. (1981). Pausing and planning: The tempo of written discourse. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 113-134.
241. Mayes, S. D., Calhoun, S. L., & Lane, S. E. (2005). Diagnosing children's writing disabilities: Different tests give different results. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 101, 72-78.
242. McCann, T. (1989). Student argumentative writing knowledge and ability at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 62-76.
243. McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 381-392.
244. McColly, W. (1970). What does educational research say about the judging of writing ability? The Journal of Educational Research, 64(4), 148-156.
245. McCurry, D. (2010). Can machine scoring deal with broad and open writing tests as well as human readers? Assessing Writing, 15(2), 118-129.
246. McLeod, S., Miraglia, E., Soven, M., & Thaiss, C. (Eds.). (2001). WAC for the new millennium: Strategies for continuing writing-across-the-curriculum programs. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
247. McMaster, K., & Espin, C. (2007). Technical features in curriculum-based measurement in writing. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 68-84.
248. McMaster, K. L., & Campbell, H. (2008). New and existing curriculum-based writing measures: Technical features within and across grades. School Psychology Review, 37, 550-566.
249. McNamara, T. (1996). Measuring second language performance. London: Longman.
250. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
251. Meara, P., & Bell, H. (2001). PLex: A simple and effective way of describing the lexical characteristics of short L2 texts. Prospect, 16, 5-24.
252. Meara, P., & Miralpeix, I. (2004). D-tools. Lognostics Centre for Applied Language Studies University of Wales Swansea, Swansea.
253. Melzer, D. (2006). WAC websites as knowledge webs. The WAC Journal, 17, 23-32.
254. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). New York, NY: Macmillan.
255. Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13-23.
256. Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
257. Meyer, B. J. F. (1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text (pp. 11-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
258. Miller, C. R., & Charney, D. (2006). Persuasion, audience, and argument. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 583-598). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
259. Monaghan, W., & Bridgeman, B. (2005). E-rater as a quality control on human scores. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RD_Connections2.pdf
260. Morain, M., & Swarts, J. (2012). YouTutorial: A framework for assessing instructional online video. Technical Communication Quarterly, 21(1), 6-24.
261. Morbey, M. L., & Steele, C. (2013). Student mastery in metamodal learning environments: Moving beyond multimodal literacy. In T. Bowen & C. Whithaus (Eds.). Multimodal Literacies and Emerging Genres. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
262. Moss, P. A. (1994). Can there be validity without reliability? Educational Researcher, 2(4), 5-12.
263. Moss, P. A., Cole, N. S., & Khampalikit, C. (1982). A comparison of procedures to assess written language skills at grades 4, 7, and 10. Journal of Educational Measurement, 19, 37-47.
264. Mullis, S. (2012). Can a computer grade essays as well as a human? Maybe even better, study says. All Tech Considered. National Public Radio. April 24.
265. Muncie, J. (2002). Process writing and vocabulary development: Comparing lexical frequency profiles across drafts. System, 30, 225-235.
266. Murray, E. A., Sheets, H. A., & Williams, N. A. (2010). The new work of assessment: Evaluating multimodal compositions. Computers & composition online. Retrieved from http://www.bgsu.edu/cconline/murray_etal/index.html
267. MyMoment. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.mymoment.ch. Accessed on August 27, 2011.
268. Nachtwei, N., Becker-Mrotzek, M., & Grabowski, J. (2010, August). Subcomponents of writing literacy: Diagnosis and didactical support. Paper presented at 12th International Conference of SIG Writing, Heidelberg. Retrieved from http://www.bmbf.schreibkompetenz.com/PDF/V_Nachtwei_2010.pdf. Accessed on August 29, 2011.
269. NAEP. (2007). Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/writing_2007/data.asp. Accessed on August 16, 2011.
270. Nation, P. (2002). RANGE and FREQUENCY: Programs for windows based PCs. Retrieved from http://www.vuw.ac.nz/lals/staff/Paul_Nation
271. National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). (2007). The Nation's report card writing 2007. US Department of Education NCES 2008-455. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2007/2008468.pdf
272. National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). (2010). Writing framework for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: NAGB. Retrieved from http://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/publications/frameworks/writing-2011.pdf
273. National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). (2011). Developing Achievement Levels on the National Assessment of Educational Progress for Writing Grades 8 and 12 in 2011 and Grade 4 in 2013. Retrieved from http://www.nagb.org/publications/achievement.htm. Accessed on August 16, 2011.
274. Neal, M. (2011). Writing assessment and the revolution in digital texts and technologies. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
275. Neumann, A. (2006). Stabilität von Raterurteilen über die Zeit - Anpassung an vorhandene Schülerleistungen. Auswertung zweier Replikationsstudien zu den Urteilen in ''DESITextproduktion''. Empirische Pädagogik, 20, 286-296.
276. Neumann, A. (2007). Briefe schreiben in Klasse 9 und 11: Beurteilungskriterien, Messungen, Textstrukturen und Schülerleistungen. Münster: Waxmann.
277. Neumann, A. (2008). Textproduktion in der Sekundarstufe I: Empirische Hinweise zur vergleichbaren Messbarkeit von Schreibleistungen aus der Sicht des Large-Scale-Assessment. In A. Bremerich-Vos, D. Granzer & O. Köller (Eds.), Lernstandbestimmung im Fach Deutsch: Gute Aufgaben für den Unterricht (pp. 117-132). Weinheim: Beltz.
278. Neumann, A. (2012). Blick(e) auf das Schreiben. Erste Ergebnisse aus IMOSS. Didaktik Deutsch, 32, 63-85.
279. Neumann, A., & Lehmann, R. H. (2008). Schreiben Deutsch. In DESI-Konsortium (Eds.), Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch. Ergebnisse der DESI-Studie (pp. 89-103). Weinheim, Basel: Beltz.
280. Neumann, A., & Matthiesen, F. (2011). Indikatorenmodell des Schulischen Schreibens (IMOSS). Testdokumentation 2009, 2010. Lüneburg: Didaktikdiskurse.
281. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60-92. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. y 6301 (2002).
282. Nussbaumer, M. (1991). Was Texte sind und wie sie sein sollen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
283. Nystrand, M., Cohen, A. S., & Dowling, N. M. (1993). Addressing reliability problems in the portfolio assessment of college writing. Educational Assessment, 1, 53-70.
284. Odell, L., & Katz, S. (2012). Making the implicit explicit in assessing multimodal composition: Continuing the conversation. Technical Communication Quarterly, 21(1), 1-5.
285. Olinghouse, N. G., & Wilson, J. (2012). The relationship between vocabulary and writing quality in three genres. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. doi: 10.1007/s11145-012-9392-5.
286. Olinghouse, N. G., Zheng, J., & Morlock, L. (2012). State writing assessment: Inclusion of motivational factors in writing tasks. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 28, 97-119.
287. Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2010). Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students' argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 218-233.
288. Orr, M. (2003). Intertextuality: Debates and contexts. Cambridge: Polity press.
289. Osburn, H. G. (2000). Coefficient alpha and related Internal consistency reliability coefficients. Psychological Methods, 5, 3343-3355.
290. Page, E. B., & Petersen, N. S. (1995). The computer moves into essay grading: Updating the ancient test. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 561-565.
291. Parkes, J., & Suen, H. K. (1995, April). The preferability of constrained optimization in determining the number of prompts, modes of discourse, and raters in a direct writing assessment. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.
292. Pauwels, L. (2006). A theoretical framework for assessing visual representational practices in knowledge building and science communication. In L. Pauwels (Ed.), Visual cultures of science: Rethinking representational practices in knowledge building and science communication (pp. 1-25). Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College Press.
293. Pedulla, J., Abrams, L., Madaus, G., Russell, M., Ramos, M., & Miao, J. (2003). Perceived effects of state-mandated testing programs on teaching and learning: Finds from a national survey of teachers. Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation, and Educational Policy.
294. Peirce, C. (1965). Collected papers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
295. Peirce, C. (1983). Phänomen und Logik der Zeichen. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.
296. Penny, J., Johnson, R. L., & Gordon, B. (2000a). The effect of rating augmentation on interrater reliability: An empirical study of a holistic rubric. Assessing Writing, 7, 143-164.
297. Penny, J., Johnson, R. J., & Gordon, B. (2000b). Using rating augmentation to expand the scale of an analytic rubric. Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 269-287.
298. Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others' words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 201-230.
299. PISA2009 (2010). Retrieved from http://bildungsklick.de/pm/52810/pisa-2009-am-dipf. Accessed on August 30, 2011.
300. Plakans, L. (2008). Comparing composing processes in writing-only and reading-to-write test tasks. Assessing Writing, 13, 111-129.
301. Plakans, L. (2009). Discourse synthesis in integrated second language writing assessment. Language Testing, 26(4), 561-587.
302. Plakans, L. (2010). Independent vs. integrated writing tasks: A comparison of task representation. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 185-194.
303. Poe, M., Lerner, N., & Craig, J. (2010). Learning to communicate in science and engineering: Case studies from MIT. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
304. Pohl, T., & Steinhoff, T. (Eds.). (2010). Textformen als Lernformen. Köln: Gilles & Francke.
305. Polio, C. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47, 101-143.
306. Polio, C. (2001). Research methodology in second language writing research: The case of textbased studies. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 91-115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
307. Popp, S. E. (2001). Comparability and linking in direct writing assessment: Benchmarks, discourse mode, and grade level. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ.
308. Popp, S. E., Ryan, J. M., Thompson, M. S., & Behrens, J. T. (2003, April). Operationalizing the rubric: The effect of benchmark selection on the assessed quality of writing. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
309. Porter, D., & O'Sullivan, B. (1999). The effect of audience age on measured written performance. System, 27, 65-77.
310. Powell-Smith, K. A., & Shinn, M. R. (2004). Administration and scoring of written expression curriculum-based measurement (WE-CBM) for use in general outcome measurement. Retrieved from http://www.aimsweb.com/measures-2/written-expression-cbm
311. Powers, D. E., Burstein, J. C., Chodorow, M., Fowles, M. E., & Kukich, K. (2001). Stumping E-Rater: Challenging the Validity of Automated Essay Scoring. (GRE Board Professional Report No. 98-08bP; ETS Research Report RR-01-03 GREB-98-08bP). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/research/dload/powers_0103.pdf
312. Prater, D., & Padia, W. (1983). Effects of mode of discourse on writing performance in grades four and six. Research in the Teaching of English, 17, 127-134.
313. Prior, P. (2005). Moving multimodality beyond the binaries: A response to Gunther Kress' ''Gains and Losses''. Computers and Composition, 22(1), 23-30. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.12.007
314. Pullens, T. (2012). Bij wijze van schrijven: Effecten van computerondersteund schrijven in het primair onderwijs. [In a manner of writing: Effects of computer-supported writing in primary education]. Doctoral thesis, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands.
315. Quinlan, T., Higgins, D., & Wolff, S. (2009). Evaluating the construct coverage of the e-rater scoring engine. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
316. Raimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability, and composing strategies: A study of ESL student writers. Language Learning, 37, 439-469.
317. Ramineni, C., Trapani, C. S., Williamson, D. M, Davey, T., & Bridgeman, B. (2012). Evaluation of e-raters for the GRE issue and argument prompts. Princeton, NJ: ETS.
318. Read, J. (2005). Applying lexical statistics to the IELTS speaking test. Research Notes, 20, 10-16.
319. Rehbein, J. (2001). Das Konzept der Diskursanalyse. In K. Brinker, G. Antos, W. Heinemann & S. F. Sager (Eds.), Text- und Gesprächslinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung (pp. 927-945). Berlin: de Gruyter.
320. Reid, J. (1990). Responding to different topic types: A quantitative analysis from a contrastive rhetoric perspective. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 191-210). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
321. Richards, A. R. (2003). Argument and authority in the visual representations of science. Technical Communication Quarterly, 12, 183-206.
322. Rijlaarsdam, G., Braaksma, M., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Kieft, M., Raedts, M., y Van den Bergh, H. (2009). The role of readers in writing development: Writing students bringing their texts to the test. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, M. Nystrand & J. Riley (Eds.), Handbook of writing development (pp. 436-452). London: Sage.
323. Rijlaarsdam, G., Braaksma, M., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Raedts, M., Van Steendam, E., y Van den Bergh, H. (2008). Observation of peers in learning to write, practice and research. Journal of Writing Research, 1, 53-83.
324. Rijlaarsdam, G., Van den Bergh, H., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., Tillema, M.,y Raedts, M. (2011). Writing. In K. Harris, S. Graham & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook (Vol. 3, pp. 189-227). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
325. Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 27-57.
326. Roca de Larios, J., Murphy, L., & Marí n, J. (2002). A critical examination of L2 writing process research. In S. Ransdell & M. L. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 11-47). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
327. Rudner, L. M., Garcia, V., & Welch, C. (2005). An Evaluation of IntelliMetric Essay Scoring System Using Responses to GMAT AWA Prompts. GMAC Research Reports. Retrieved from http://www.gmac.com/B/media/Files/gmac/Research/research-report-series/RR0508_IntelliMetricAWA.pdf. Accessed on July 31, 2012.
328. Russel, D. R. (2010). Writing in multiple contexts. In C. Bazerman, R. Krut, K. Lunsford, S. McLeod, S. Null, P. Rogers & A. Stansell (Eds.), Traditions of writing research (pp. 353-364). New York, NY: Routledge.
329. Sandene, B., Horkay, N., Bennet, R. E., Allen, N., Braswell, J., Kaplan, B., & Oranje, A. (2005). Online Assessment in Mathematics and Writing: Reports from the NAEP Technology-Based Assessment Project: NAEP. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2005457.asp
330. Santos, T. (1988). Professors' reactions to the academic writing of non-native-speaking students. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 69-90.
331. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics, Vol. 2. Reading, writing, and language learning (pp. 142-175). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
332. Schmitt, M. (2011). Perspektivisches Denken als Voraussetzung für adressatenorientiertes Schreiben. Heidelberg: PoD. Retrieved from http://opus.bsz-bw.de/phhd/volltexte/2011/7526/pdf/Schmitt_2011_Diss_Perspektivisches_Denken_Fliesstext.pdf. Accessed on July 30, 2012.
333. Schneider, M., & Connor, U. (1990). Analyzing topical structure in ESL essays: Not all topics are equal. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 411-427.
334. Schnotz, W. (2006). Pädagogische Psychologie: Workbook. Weinheim: Beltz.
335. Schoonen, R. (1991). De evaluatie van schrijfvaardigheidsmetingen. Een empirische studie naar betrouwbaarheid, validiteit en bruikbaarheid van schrijfvaardigheidsmetingen in de achtste groep van het basisonderwijs [The evaluation of measures of writing ability. An empirical study into the reliability, validity and usefulness of measures of writing ability at grade 6]. Doctoral thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
336. Schoonen, R. (2005). Generalizability of writing scores: An application of structural equation modeling. Language Testing, 22(1), 1-30.
337. Schoonen, R. (2011). How language ability is assessed. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. II, pp. 701-716). New York, NY: Routledge.
338. Schoonen, R. (2012). The generalisability of scores from language tests. In F. Davidson & G. Fulcher (Eds.), Routledge handbook of language testing (pp. 341-355). London: Routledge.
339. Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & Van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a blueprint of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of foreign language writing. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 77-101). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
340. Schoonen, R., Van Gelderen, A., De Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., & Stevenson, M. (2003). First language and second language writing: The role of linguistic fluency, linguistic knowledge and metacognitive knowledge. Language Learning, 53(1), 165-202.
341. Schoonen, R., Van Gelderen, A., De Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Snellings, P., Simis, A., & Stevenson, M. (2002). Linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge and retrieval speed in L1, L2 and EFL writing: A structural equation modelling approach. In S. Ransdell & M.-L. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 101-122). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
342. Schoonen, R., Van Gelderen, A., Stoel, R., Hulstijn, J., & De Glopper, K. (2011). Modeling the development of L1 and EFL writing proficiency of secondary-school students. Language Learning, 6(1), 31-79.
343. Schoonen, R., Vergeer, M., & Eiting, M. (1997). The assessment of writing ability: Expert readers versus lay readers. Language Testing, 14(2), 157-184.
344. Schründer-Lenzen, A., & Henn, D. (2009). Entwicklung eines Computerprogramms zur Analyse der schriftlichen Erzählfähigkeit. In D. Lengyel, H. H. Reich, H.-J. Roth & M. Döll (Eds.), Von der Sprachdiagnose zur Sprachförderung (pp. 91-108). Münster: Waxmann.
345. Scott, C. M., & Windsor, J. (2000). General language performance measures in spoken and written narrative and expository discourse of school-age children with language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 324-339.
346. Shavelson, R. J., Baxter, G. P., & Gao, X. (1993). Sampling variability of performance assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(3), 215-232.
347. Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. London: Sage.
348. Shaw, P., & Liu, E. (1998). What develops in the development of second-language writing? Applied Linguistics, 19, 225-254.
349. Shaw, S., & Weir, C. (2007). Examining writing: Research and practice in assessing second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
350. Shermis, M. D., & Burstein, J. (2003). Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
351. Shermis, M. D., Shneyderman, A., & Attali, Y. (2008). How important is content in the ratings of essay assessments? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15, 91-105.
352. Shi, L. (2004). Textual borrowing in second language writing. Written Communication, 21, 171-200.
353. Shohamy, E., Gordon, C. M., & Kraemer, R. (1992). The effect of raters' background and training on the reliability of direct writing tests. The Modern Language Journal, 76, 27-33.
354. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 15, 1-22.
355. Song, C. B., & Caruso, I. (1996). Do English and ESL faculty differ in evaluating the essays of native English-speaking and ESL students? Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 163-182.
356. Sorace, A., & Keller, F. (2005). Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua, 115(11), 1497-1524.
357. Spaan, M. (1993). The effect of prompt on essay examinations. In D. Douglas & C. Chapelle (Eds.), A new decade of language testing research (pp. 98-122). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
358. Spandel, V., & Stiggins, R. J. (1990). Creating writers: Linking assessment and writing instruction. New York, NY: Longman.
359. Stecher, B. M., Hamilton, L. S., & Gonzalez, G. (2003). Working smarter to leave no child behind. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
360. Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary children. In R. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (pp. 53-120). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
361. Stemler, S. E. (2004). A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9. Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v1/49&n1/44. Accessed on July 31, 2012.
362. Sterling-Deer, C. (2009). Writing in the disciplines, technology, and disciplinary grounding Across the Disciplines 6.0. Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/technologies/sterlingdeer.cfm
363. Stross, R. (2012). The algorithm didn't like my essay. The New York Times, June 9, pp. BU.3.
364. Sudweeks, R. R., Reeve, S., & Bradshaw, W. S. (2005). A comparison of generalizability theory and many-facet Rasch measurement in an analysis of college sophomore writing. Assessing Writing, 9(3), 239-261.
365. Sun, L. (2008). The literate lexicon in narrative and expository writing: A developmental study of children and adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.
366. Sweedler-Brown, C. O. (1993a). ESL essay evaluation: The influence of sentence-level and rhetorical features. Journal of second Language Writing, 2, 3-17.
367. Sweedler-Brown, C. O. (1993b). The effects of ESL errors on holistic scores assigned by English composition faculty. College ESL, 3, 53-69.
368. Syverson, M. A. (1999). The wealth of reality: An ecology of composition. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
369. Tedick, D. J. (1990). ESL writing assessment: Subject-matter knowledge and its impact on performance. English for Specific Purposes, 9, 123-143.
370. Tedick, D. J., & Mathison, M. A. (1995). Holistic scoring in ESL writing assessment: What does an analysis of rhetorical features reveal?. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 205-230). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
371. Tillema, M. (2012). Writing in first and second language. Empirical studies on text quality and writing processes. Dissertation. LOT: Utrecht.
372. Tillema, M., Van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Sanders, T. (2012). Quantifying the quality difference between L1 and L2 essays. A rating procedure with bilingual raters and L1 and L2 benchmark essays. Language Testing. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0265532212442647
373. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
374. Toulmin, S. E., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.
375. Tracy, R. (2011). Konstruktion, Dekonstruktion und Rekonstruktion: Minimalistische und (trotzdem) konstruktivistische Ü berlegungen zum Spracherwerb. In S. Engelberg, A. Holler & K. Proost (Eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik (pp. 397-428). New York, NY: de Gruyter.
376. Troia, G. A. (2005). Content of state writing standards across the U.S. Unpublished raw data.
377. Troia, G. A., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1999). Teaching students with learning disabilities to mindfully plan when writing. Exceptional Children, 65, 235-252.
378. Übersax, J. S. (2009): Statistical methods for rater agreement. Retrieved from http://www.johnuebersax.com/stat/agree.htm. Accessed on August 18, 2011.
379. University of Lancaster (n.d.). Dialang. University of Lancaster: Author. Retrieved from http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/researchenterprise/dialang/about.htm
380. Valenti, S., Neri, F., & Cucchiarelli, A. (2003). An overview of current research on automated essay grading. Journal of Information Technology Education, 2, 220-230.
381. Van den Bergh, H., & Eiting, M. (1989). Estimating rater reliability. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 29-40.
382. Van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., Van Weijen, D., & Tillema, M. (2009). Process execution of writing and reading: Considering text quality, learner and task characteristics. In M. Shelly, B. Hand & L. Yore (Eds.), Quality research in literacy and science education: International perspectives and gold standards (pp. 399-426). New York, NY: Springer.
383. Van der Hoeven, J. (1997). Children's composing: A study into the relationship between writing processes, cognitive and linguistic skill and text quality. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
384. Van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York, NY: Springer.
385. Vandermay, R., Meyer, V., Van Rys, J., & Sebranek, P. (2012). The college writer: A guide to thinking, writing, and researching, brief. Boston, MA: Wadsworth CENGAGE Learning.
386. Van Dijk, T. (1980). Macrostructures. An inderdisciplinay Study of Global Structures in Discourse, Interaction, and Cognition. Hillsdayle, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
387. Van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., De Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., & Stevenson, M. (2004). Linguistic knowledge, processing speed and metacognitive knowledge in first and second language reading comprehension: A componential analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 19-30.
388. Van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., De Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Snellings, P., Simis, A., & Stevenson, M. (2003). Roles of linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge and processing speed in L3, L2 and L1 reading comprehension: A structural equation modeling approach. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7(1), 7-25.
389. Van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., Stoel, R. D., De Glopper, K., & Hulstijn, J. (2007). Development of adolescent reading comprehension in Language 1 and Language 2: A longitudinal analysis of constituent components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 477-491.
390. Van Steendam, E. (2004, September). Improving text coherence through peer feedback. An Investigation into the Effect of Different Forms of Feedback Instruction on Text Quality with Advanced ESL Students. Paper presented at EUROSLA, San Sebastian.
391. Vantage. (2004). IntelliMetrict Web-based essay scoring engine. Retrieved from http://www.vantage.com/pdfs/intellimetric.pdf
392. Van Weijen, D. (2009). Writing processes, text quality ad task effects. Dissertation. LOT: Utrecht.
393. Van Weijen, D., Van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Sanders, T. (2008). Differences in process and process-product relations in L2 writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 203-226.
394. Van Weijen, D., Van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Sanders, T. (2009). L1 use during L2 writing: An empirical study of a complex phenomenon. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 235-250.
395. Vaughan, C. (1991). Holistic assessment: What goes on in the rater's mind?. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 111-125). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
396. Veal, L. R., & Hudson, S. A. (2009). Direct and indirect measures for large-scale evaluation of writing. In B. Huot & P. O'Neil (Eds.), Assessing writing (pp. 13-18). Boston, MA: Bedford.
397. VERA4 (n.d.). Retrieved http://www.isq-bb.de/Jahrgangsstufe-4.28.0.html. Accessed on August 23, 2011.
398. VERA8. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.iqb.hu-berlin.de/vera. Accessed on August 30, 2011.
399. Verhelst, N. D., & Verstralen, H. F. M. (2001). An IRT model or multiple raters. In A. Boomsma, M. A. J. van Dujin & A. B. Snijder (Eds.), Essays on item response modelling (pp. 89-108). New York, NY: Springer.
400. Verheyden, L. (2010). Development in writing in grades 3 and 4: Four studies on factors that contribute to explain growth patterns. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Leuven, Belgium.
401. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Problems of general psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 39-285). New York, NY: Plenum.
402. Vygotsky, L. S. (2002). Denken und Sprechen. Weinheim: Beltz.
403. Warnock, S. (2009). Methods and results of an accreditation-driven writing assessment in a business college. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 23(1), 83-107.
404. Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda. Language Teaching Research, 10, 157-180.
405. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. (1969). Menschliche Kommunikation. Formen, Störungen, Paradoxien. Bern: Huber.
406. Way, D., Joiner, E., & Seaman, M. (2000). Writing in the secondary foreign language classroom: The effects of prompts and tasks on novice learners of French. Modern Language Journal, 84, 171-184.
407. Webb, N. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Haertel, E. H. (2007). Reliability coefficients and generalizability theory. In C. R. Rao & S. Sinharay (Eds.), Handbook of Statistics. Vol. 26. Psychometrics (pp. 81-124). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V.
408. Weigle, S. C. (1998). Using FACETS to model rater training effects. Language Testing, 15, 263-287.
409. Weigle, S. C. (1999). Investigating rater/prompt interactions in writing assessment: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Assessing Writing, 6, 145-178.
410. Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
411. Weigle, S. C. (2004). Integrating reading and writing in a competency test for non-native speakers of English. Assessing Writing, 9(1), 27-55.
412. Weigle, S. C., & Parker, K. (2012). Source text borrowing in an integrated reading/writing assessment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 118-133.
413. Weissenburger, J. W., & Espin, C. A. (2005). Curriculum-based measures of writing across grade levels. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 153-169.
414. Wengelin, Å ., Johansson, D., & Johansson, V. (2010-2013). Gaze behaviour in writing. Retrieved from http://www.ht.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id1/423922&p1/4181. Accessed on August 29, 2011.
415. Wengelin, Å ., Torrance, M., Holmqvist, K., Simpson, S., Galbraith, D., Johansson, D., & Johansson, V. (2009). Combined eyetracking and keystroke-logging methods for studying cognitive processes in text production. Behaviour Research Methods, 41, 337-351.
416. Wesdorp, H. (1974). Het meten van de produktief-schriftelijke taalvaardigheid. Directe en indirecte methoden: 'opstelbeoordeling' versus 'schrijfvaardigheidstoetsen'. [The measurement of productive-written language ability. Direct and indirect methods: 'essay rating' versus 'writing tests']. Doctoral Thesis, University of Amsterdam/RITP, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
417. Whitaker, D., Berninger, V., Johnston, J., & Swanson, H. L. (1994). Intraindividual differences in levels of language in intermediate grade writers: Implications for the translating process. Learning and Individual Differences, 6, 107-130.
418. White, E. M. (2009). Holisticism. In B. Huot & P. O'Neil (Eds.), Assessing writing (pp. 19-28). Boston, MA: Bedford.
419. Whithaus, C. (2002). Green squiggly lines: Evaluating student writing in computer-mediated environments. Academic writing: Interdisciplinary perspectives on communication across the curriculum. Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/aw/articles/whithaus2002/
420. Whithaus, C. (2005). Teaching and evaluating writing in the age of computers and high-stakes testing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
421. Whithaus, C. (2006). Always already: Automatic essay scoring (AES) and grammar checkers in college writing courses. In R. Haswell & P. Freitag Ericsson (Eds.), Machine scoring of student essays: Truth and consequences (pp. 166-176). Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
422. Whithaus, C. (2012). Claim-evidence structures in environmental science writing: Modifying Toulmin's model to account for multimodal arguments. Technical Communication Quarterly, 21(1), 105-128.
423. Wilber, D. (2010). iWrite: Using blogs, wikis, and digital stories in the English classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
424. Williamson, M. M. (1993). An introduction to holistic scoring: The social, historical, and theoretical context for writing assessment. In M. M. Williamson & B. Huot (Eds.), Validating holistic scoring for writing assessment: Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 1-44). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
425. Winerip, M. (2012). Facing a robo-grader? Just keep obfuscating mellifluously. The New York Times, April 22, pp. A.11.
426. Winter, F. (2010). Leistungsbewertung. Eine neue Lernkultur braucht einen anderen Umgang mit den Schülerleistungen. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider.
427. Wirtz, M., & Caspar, F. (2002). Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität. Methoden zur Bestimmung und Verbesserung der Zuverlässigkeit von Einschätzungen mittels Kategoriensystemen und Ratingskalen. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
428. Wohlpart, J., Lindsey, C., & Rademacher, C. (2008). The reliability of computer software to score essays: Innovations in a humanities course. Computers and Composition, 25(2), 203-223. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2008.04.001.
429. Wolf, M. (2007). Proust and the Squid: The story and science of the reading brain. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
430. Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
431. Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., Wilson, M. R., & Haldans, S. A. (2007). ACER ConQuest Version 2.0. Generalized item response modeling software (mannual). Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
432. Wysocki, A. (2005). Awaywithwords: On the possibilities in unavailable designs. Computers and Composition, 22(1), 55-62.
433. Yang, Y., Buckendahl, C. W., Jusziewicz, P. J., & Bhola, D. S. (2002). A review of strategies for validating computer-automated scoring. Applied Measurement in Education, 15, 391-412.
434. Yeh, S. S. (1998). Validation of a scheme for assessing argumentative writing of middle school students. Assessing Writing, 5, 123-150.
435. Yu, G. (2009). Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances. Applied Linguistics, 31, 236-259.
436. Zabala, D., Minnici, A., McMurrer, J., Hill, D., Bartley, A. P., & Jennings, J. (2007). State high school exit exams: Working to raise test scores. Washington, DC: Center on Educational Policy.