Assessing Writing

1019 articles
Year: Topic:
Export:

May 2000

  1. Author Index to Volume 7
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(01)00027-7
  2. Contents Index to Volume 7
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(01)00026-5
  3. doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(01)00025-3
  4. Rhetoric and the writer's profile
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(00)00020-9
  5. The effect of rating augmentation on inter-rater reliability
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(00)00012-x
  6. Students' conditioned response to teachers' response: portfolio proponents, take note!
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(00)00021-0

February 2000

  1. A sociocultural perspective on teacher response: Is there a student in the room?
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(00)00019-2
  2. Introduction
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(00)00014-3
  3. Response and the social construction of error
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(00)00015-5
  4. Responding to the invisible student
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(00)00016-7
  5. Cyrano's nose: Variations on the theme of response
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(00)00018-0
  6. The student, the text, and the classroom context: A case study of teacher response
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(00)00017-9

January 1999

  1. The development of large-scale portfolio placement assessment at the University of Michigan: 1992–1998
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(99)00006-9
  2. Reviewers for volume 6
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(01)80003-9
  3. Contents index to volume 6 number 1,1999
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(01)80002-7
  4. Changes in secondary teachers' perceptions of barriers to portfolio assessment
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(99)00004-5
  5. All done with the best of intentions: one Kentucky high school after six years of state portfolio tests
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(99)00005-7
  6. Investigating rater/prompt interactions in writing assessment: Quantitative and qualitative approaches
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(00)00010-6
  7. Reading the invisible ink: Assessing the responses of non-composition faculty
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(00)00007-6
  8. Effects of self-evaluation training on narrative writing
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(99)00003-3
  9. Exploring the theories and consequences of self-assessment through ethical inquiry
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(00)00008-8
  10. Introduction
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(00)00013-1
  11. About the authors
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(99)90001-6
  12. Author index to volume 6
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(01)80001-5
  13. An Overview of Writing Assessment: Theory, Research, and Practice
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(00)00011-8
  14. From the editors
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(99)00007-0
  15. Grading Student Writing
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(99)00002-1

January 1998

  1. Multiple inquiry in the validation of writing tests
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(99)80007-5
  2. Learning from research in assessment: A response to writing assessment—raters' elaboration of the rating task
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(99)80004-x
  3. From the editors
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(99)80011-7
  4. About the authors
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(98)90005-8
  5. Reviewing books on grading: Should I respond, assess, evaluate, or grade?
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(99)80015-4
  6. It was the best of times. it was a waste of time: university of kentucky students' views of writing under KERA
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(99)80012-9
  7. Interrater reliability in a california middle school english/language arts portfolio assessment program
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(99)80013-0
  8. Rubrics, prototypes, and exemplars: Categorization theory and systems of writing placement
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(99)80014-2
  9. A question of choice: The implications of assessing expressive writing in multiple genres
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(99)80005-1
  10. Reviewers for volume 5
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(98)90007-1
  11. Editorial Board
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(98)90001-0
  12. About the authors
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(98)90003-4
  13. Index to volume 5
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(99)80016-6
  14. Introduction to special issue
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(99)80002-6
  15. Commentary on “validation of a scheme for assessing argumentative writing of middle school students”
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(99)80010-5
  16. Writing assessment: Raters' elaboration of the rating task
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(99)80003-8
  17. From the editors
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(99)80001-4
  18. Direct assessments of writing: Substance and romance
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(99)80006-3
  19. Testing the test of the test: A response to “multiple inquiry in the validation of writing tests”
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(99)80008-7
  20. Validation of a scheme for assessing argumentative writing of middle school students
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(99)80009-9

January 1997

  1. From the editors
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(97)80008-6
  2. Taking time out from grading and evaluating while working in a conventional system
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(97)80003-7
  3. Thirteen ways of looking at a bluebook
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(97)80007-4