What We Don't Know about the Evaluation of Writing
Abstract
Nineteen years ago, Braddock, Lloyd-Jones, and Schoer compared research in written composition to chemical research as it emerged from period of alchemy,1 an image that continues to haunt us, leading us to expect research in composition to evolve as a discipline, like each of sciences, with universally accepted methods and neat boundaries around its subject. Since that time a great deal of important research has occurred, much of it supported by methods and insights imported from social and behavioral sciences. But evolution suggested by image has not occurred. In particular, we certainly know more about evaluation than we did twenty years ago; but what we know is not definitive, nor is it an orderly and systematic corpus. It may be described as a growing list of terms and techniques, such as the general impression scales a system used by ETS;2 and analytic scales, guided scoring procedure developed by Paul Diederich;3 and Primary Trait Scoring, system developed by Richard Lloyd-Jones for National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP);4 and T-unit analysis, measure of syntactic fluency invented by Kellogg Hunt;5 and holistic scoring, a generic term that, as Charles Cooper defines it, includes a variety of guided scoring methods;6 and relative readability, focus of measurement proposed by E. D. Hirsch in The Philosophy of Composition.7 What is remarkable about this list is that it would make as much sense to study it in alphabetical order as chronological. Each of items is so thoroughly independent of others that not even order of their invention is logical or necessary. To items I have mentioned might be added others so disparate in what they purport to measure as to suggest that we have not even agreed on what it is we are trying to evaluate--whether it is mastery of editorial skills, or indices of cognitive development, or success in communicating a semantic intention. In evaluation of writing, old systems survive invention of new ones; nothing supersedes or replaces anything else. There are a few gains in precision, but always at expense of
- Journal
- College Composition and Communication
- Published
- 1982-12-01
- DOI
- 10.2307/357952
- CompPile
- Search in CompPile ↗
- Open Access
- Closed
- Topics
- Export
- BibTeX RIS
Citation Context
Cited by in this index (1)
-
Goggin (1997)Rhetoric Review
References (0)
No references on file for this article.
Related Articles
-
Assessing Writing Jul 2026LAWE-CL2: Multi-agent LLM-based automated writing evaluation system integrating linguistic features with fine-tuning for Chinese L2 writing assessment ↗Xuelin Wang; Qihao Yang; Yuxin Hao; Zhijun Wang; Sijia Guo
-
Assessing Writing Jul 2026Investigating the impact of ChatGPT-assisted self-assessment on college students' writing development: Insights from diverse linguistic backgrounds ↗Hamidreza Moeiniasl
-
Written Communication May 2026Beyond Co-Regulation: Interplay as a Methodological Framework for Examining Self-Regulation in Generative AI-Assisted Writing ↗Ryan Roderick; Susan Tanner
-
Assessing Writing Apr 2026Frederike Strahl; Jörg Kilian; Jens Möller
-
Assessing Writing Apr 2026How do L2 writing subskills interact hierarchically? Insights from diagnostic classification models ↗Farshad Effatpanah; Hamdollah Ravand; Mahmoud Abdi Tabari; Yi-Hsin Chen; Olga Kunina-Habenicht