Scoring academic writing from subjectivity to objectivity: A scale for evaluating students' written product

Dublin Core

Contributeur

[aucun texte]

Couverture

[aucun texte]

Créateur

Date

2011-12-31

Description

Due to the drawbacks of adopting any of the common scoring scales independently and in order to make the scoring process less subjective and more objective, the researcher thought of developing a rubric for evaluating students' written product. Some of the well-known scoring scales are time consuming, others mainly depend on the scorer's impression which is not always accurate. The researcher here made a hybrid of both the holistic and analytic scoring scales and developed it to suit academic writing. The rubric was refereed by a group of specialists who assured its validity. Content validity and internal consistency were also calculated. To test the suitability of this scoring rubric for the purpose it was designed for, a stratified random sample of 30 essays was selected from a corpus of N=120 essays written by Palestinian tertiary level students majoring in English in the academic year 2009/ 2010. Pearson correlation and Alpha scale were used in order to assure the reliability of the scale. The Scoring scale follows a taxonomy in which errors experienced in the subjects' writings are divided into three major categories: errors related to conventions, content development and style. Each category includes a number of subcategories; for instance, conventions include writing mechanics and grammar and vocabulary common errors; each of which is scored out of 25. In addition, content development includes cohesion and coherence, which are scored out of 20 marks and 15 marks respectively and finally style and cogency are marked out of 15 marks only.

Langue

eng

Droits

[aucun texte]

Titre

Autre forme de titre

[aucun texte]

Résumé

[aucun texte]

Table des matières

[aucun texte]

Date de disponibilité

[aucun texte]

Date de création

[aucun texte]

Date d'acceptation

[aucun texte]

Date du copyright

[aucun texte]

Date de soumission

[aucun texte]

Date de parution

[aucun texte]

Date de modification

[aucun texte]

Date de validité

[aucun texte]

Droit d'accès

[aucun texte]

Licence

[aucun texte]

Est conforme à

[aucun texte]

A pour autre format

[aucun texte]

A comme partie

[aucun texte]

A d'autres versions

[aucun texte]

Est un autre format de

[aucun texte]

Est une partie de

[aucun texte]

Est référencé par

[aucun texte]

Est remplacé par

[aucun texte]

Est requis par

[aucun texte]

Est une version de

[aucun texte]

Référence

[aucun texte]

Remplace

[aucun texte]

Requiert

[aucun texte]

Étendue de la ressource, taille, durée

[aucun texte]

Support

[aucun texte]

Référence bibliographique

[aucun texte]

Couverture spatiale

[aucun texte]

Couverture temporelle

[aucun texte]

Méthode d’abonnement

[aucun texte]

Périodicité d’acquisition

[aucun texte]

Politique d’acquisition

[aucun texte]

Public visé

[aucun texte]

Niveau public destinataire

[aucun texte]

Médiateur

[aucun texte]

Méthode d’enseignement

[aucun texte]

Provenance

[aucun texte]

Ayants droit

[aucun texte]

Related Items you might want to check out...

Scoring academic writing from subjectivity to objectivity: A scale for evaluating students' written productSchreibstrategien im Deutschen und ArabischenL’écriture, un espace de jeux et d’enjeux dans « Terrasse à Rome » de Pascal Quignard et « Saison de pierres » d’Abdelkader DjemaiLa Voix de L’indicible dans Enfance de Nathalie Sarraute
Tumblr

Embed

Copy the code below into your web page