MSU

LIBRARIES
.—_—.

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

THE EFFECTS OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE. PRIOR INTEREST .
AND LEARNING ON WRITING

By

Janet Abuhl Stroethofl'

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of English

1988

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECTS OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE. PRIOR INTEREST.
AND LEARNING ON WRITING

By

Janet Abuhl Stroethoff

This study examined the effects of prior-knowledge. learning
through writing, and various affective factors and writing activities on
the written product. The research questions were: Do students
with high prior-knowledge on familiar composition topics write
better papers? Do those students who learn a lot through writing,
write better compositions? Do interest. confidence. engagement,
and a strong opinion on these subjects help writers write better
papers? Do high motivation, active research on the topic, and more
learning about the topic help writers with low prior-knowledge learn
more via the experience and thus write better papers? Forty-three
college freshmen wrote one composition on the topics of ‘body
language.‘ ‘presidential candidates.’ and ‘clothes.’ Before and after
writing each paper the students took a free-association knowledge
test on the content of the t0pic and filled out a questionnaire. The
teachers’ grades for each composition were recorded and trained
graders scored the them on overall writing quality (holistic score),
coherence. sophistication. content. interest. syntactical complexity,

Janet Abuhl Stroethoff

and mechanical errors. The raters also scored the knowledge tests
for degree of organization and fluency. Composition ratings and
responses to the questionnaires were correlated using the Pearson-
Product Moment Correlation Coefficient. A T-Test analysis
compared the composition means between the high- and low-
knowledge groups and the high- and low-interest groups, etc. The
correlation and T-Test Analysis showed that although prior-
knowledge and interest apparently positively affect the quality of the
students' compositions. high prior—knowledge was not a necessary
and sufficient condition for good writing. This study also indicated
that those with low prior-knowledge do not necessarily learn during
the writing process. With regard to the students' questionnaire
responses, this study indicated that neither the writing activities nor
any of the affective variables. excluding prior-interest, were
associated with the quality of the writing. Finally, a regression
analysis supported the main conclusions that prior-knowledge and
prior—interest were the most significant variables studied in this
project on the written product. Suggestions are offered for teaching

and further research.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my advisor. Paul Munsell. He has been an
excellent teacher and he has provided me with very helpful
responses to my writing. I thank him for the many letters and
telephone conversations: I particularly appreciate his interest,
enthusiasm, and encouragement.

I would like to thank the members of my guidance committee:
Tess Tavormina and Marcie Williams for their continued interest and
help with the dissertation. and Kathleen Geissler for agreeing to
serve after the decisions of the proposal had already been made.

At the University of Montana, I would like to thank Robert
Hausmann for giving me the opportunity of working in the Writing
Program and for helping me get started. I particularly appreciate
Elizabeth Bergman, Bridget Jans and Gwenyth Mapes for opening up
their classes to me and giving valuable class time for this study. I
would also like to thank Dick Lane for his help with statisch and the
Mini-Tab Program.

My family has been particularly supportive throughout my
degree program. I thank my mom and dad. Mary Jane and Ralph, for
their encouragement and my brothers. Jeff and Jonathan. for their
continued interest. I also thank my dad for his help with statistics
during his summer vacation. Finally, I thank my husband, Karel, for
his consistent encouragement and support without which I surely

would have given up before the completion of this project.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
PRIOR-KNOWLEDGE
WRITING PROCESSES
STUDENTS' INTEREST AND ENGAGEMENT
SUMMARY
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
SETTING
SUBJECTS
MATERIALS
PROCEDURE
SCORING THE QUESTIONNAIRES
SCORING THE FREE-ASSOCIATION TESTS
SCORING THE COMPOSITIONS
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
INTERRATER RELIABILITY
CORRELATION AND COMPARISON ANALYSES

REGRESSION ANALYSIS

25
27
28
30
31
31
31
34
37
37
40
47
47
49
111

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION

REVIEW
DISCUSSION

SUMMARY

COMPARISON WITH OTHER STUDIES

POSSIBLE CONSTRAINTS ON THE PROJECT

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A:

APPENDIX B:
APPENDIX C:
APPENDIX D:

APPENDIX E:

APPENDIX F:

APPENDIX C:

APPENDIX H:

COMPOSITION TOPICS

PRE-WRITING QUESTIONNARIES
RESPONSES TO 'CONFIDENCE' QUESTION
POST-WRITING QUESTIONNAIRES
RESPONSES TO POST-WRITING QUESTIONS
PRE- AND POST-KNOWLEDGE TESTS
KNOWLEDGE TESTS EVALUATION

SCORING KNOWLEDGE TESTS AND EXAMPLE

APPENDD( I: WRITING MEASURES CRITERIA AND SCORE SHEETS

APPENDIX J: SCORING GUIDEIJNES FOR T-UNIT AND

ERROR MEASURES

APPENDIX K:

BIBLIOGRAPHY

RAW SCORES

vi

114
114
118
126
126
128
130
132
133

139
140
143
154
161
166
169
171
175

187
189
204

Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table 7:
Table 8:
Table 9:

Table 10:
Table l I:
Table 12:
Table 13:
Table 14:
Table 1 5:
Table 16:
Table 17 :
Table 18:
Table 19:
Table 20:
Table 2 1:

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER FOUR:

INTERRATER RELIABILITY

WRITING MEASURE MEANS

PRIOR KNOWLEDGE AND WRITING MEASURE CORRELATIONS
HIGH AND LOW PRE-ORGANIZATION GROUPS

T-TEST ON PRE-ORGANIZATION SCORES

T-TEST ON PRE-FLUENCY SCORES

T-TEST ON PRE-COMBINATION SCORES
KNOWIEDGE CHANGE CORREIATIONS
HIGH AND LOW KNOWLEDGE CHANGE SCORES

T—TEST ON ORGANIZATION CHANGE SCORES
T-TEST ON FLUENCY CHANGE SCORES
T—TEST ON HIGH AND LOW COMBINATION CHANGE SCORES
PRIOR INTEREST AND WRITING MEASURE CORRELATIONS
T—TEST ON HIGH AND LOW ‘PRE-INTEREST’

T-TEST ON HIGH AND LOW ‘PRE-CONFIDENCE'

T-TEST ON HIGH AND LOW ‘SUPPORT '

T-TEST ON HIGH AND LOW ‘LIKE’

T-TEST ON HIGH AND LOW ‘FEELINGS'

T-TEST ON HIGH AND LOW ‘INVOLVEMENT’

T—TEST ON HIGH AND LOW “POST-INTEREST
PRIOR-KNOWLEDGE AND WRITING MEASURE

CORRELATIONS

vii

48
50
51
54
55
56
59
63
64
65
66
67
71
73
74
75
78
79
80
81

84

Table 22:
Table 23:

Table 24:
Table 25:
Table 26:
Table 27:
Table 28:
Table 29:
Table 30:
Table 31:
Table 32:
Table 33:
Table 34:
Table 35:
Table 36:

Table 37:
Table 38:
Table 39:
APPENDIX K

Table 40:
Table 41:
Table 42:
Table 43:

T—TEST ON HIGH AND LOW ‘KNOWLEDGE’

SELF-REPORTED LEARNING AND COMPOSITION
CORRELATIONS

T—TEST ON HIGH AND LOW ‘LEARN-TOPIC'

T-TEST ON HIGH AND LOW 'LEARN-TEACHING POINT'

T-TEST FOR HIGH AND LOW 'LEARN-"TOPIC IN WORKSHOP'

T—TEST ON LEARN-TEACHING POINTS IN WORKSHOP'

EFFORT AND WRITING MEASURE CORRELATIONS

HIGH AND LOW EFFORT GROUPS

T-TEST ON HIGH AND LOW ‘DIFFICULTY‘

T-TEST ON HIGH AND LOW ‘READING‘

T-TEST ON HIGH AND LOW ‘INTERVIEWS‘

T—TEST ON HIGH AND LOW WRITING TIME’

T-TEST ON HIGH AND LOW ‘CHANGE'

T—TEST ON HIGH AND LOW ‘REWRITE TIME'
PERSONAL EVALUATION AND COMPOSITION
MEASURE CORRELATIONS

T-TEST ON HIGH AND LOW ‘PERSONAL EVALUATION

T-TEST ON HIGH AND LOW 'ANTICIPATED GRADE‘

REGRESSION ANALYSIS

PRIOR-KNOWLEDGE TEST-ORGANIZATION SCORES
PRIOR-KNOWLEDGE TESTuFLUENCY SCORES
PRIOR-KNOWLEDGE 'IEST--COMBINA'I‘ION SCORES
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRIOR- AND POST-KNOWLEDGE

TESTS-'0RGAN'IZATION SCORES

viii

85

88
91
92
93
94
96
99

100

101

102

103

104

105

108
109
110
112

189
189

190

190

 

Table 44:

Table 45:

Table 46:
Table 47:
Table 48:
Table 49:
Table 50:
Table 51:
Table 52:
Table 53:

Table 54:

Table 55:

Table 56:

Table 57:

Table 58:

Table 59:

Table 60:

Table 6 I:
Table 62:

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIOR- AND POST-KNOWLEDGE
TESTS- -FLUENCY SCORES

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIOR- AND POST-KNOWLEDGE
'I‘ESTS--COMBINA'I‘ION SCORES
PRE-QUESTIONNAIRE--INTEREST
PRE-QUESTIONNAIRE--CONFIDENCE
PRE-QUESTTONNAmE--LIKED WRITING THE PAPER
POST-QUES'I'ICNNAIRE--FEELINGS
POST-QUESTIONNAIRE—-INVOLVEMENT
POST-QUESTIONNAIRE--INTEREST

POST-QUESTIONNAIRE-—KNOWLEDGE ON BODY LANGUAGE

POST QUESTIONNAIRE-KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
POST-QUESTIONNAIRE--PRIOR-KNOWLEDGE
ABOUT CLOTHES

POST-QUESTIONNAIRE--LEARN ABOUT THE TOPIC
THROUGH WRITING

POST-QUESIIONNAIRE--LEARN ABOUT THE TEACHING POINT
THROUGH WRITING

POST-QUESTIONNAIRE--LEARN ABOUT THE TOPIC m
THE WORKSHOP

POST-QUESTIONNAIRE--LEARN ABOUT THE TEACHING
POINT IN THE WORKSHOP
POST-QUESTIONNAIRE—-DIFFICULT‘Y

POST QUESTIONNAIRE-AMOUNT OF READING
POST-QUESTIONNAIRE--NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS

POST-QUESTIONNAIRE—-AMOUNT OF WRITING TIME

ix

191

191
192
192
192
193
193
193
194

194

194

195

195

195

196

196

196

197
197

IF”) I—-.~¢‘ T

 

Table 63:
Table 64:

Table 65:

Table 66:
Table 67:
Table 68:
Table 69:
Table 70:
Table 72:
Table 73:

Table 74:

POST-QUESTIONNAIRE--AMOUNT OF CHANGE IN THE REWRITE 1 98

POST-QUESTIONNAIRE--AMOUNT OF TIME REWRITING
THE COMPOSITION
POST-QUESTIONNAIRE--PERSONAL EVALUATION
OF COMPOSITION

POST QUESTIONNAIRE-ANTICIPATED GRADE

WRITING MEASURE--HOLIS'I'IC SCORES

WRITING MEASURE--COHERENCE SCORES

WRITING MEASURE--SOPHISTICATION SCORES

WRITING MEASURE--CONTENT SCORES

WRITING MEASURE--T-UNIT LENGTH

WRITING MEASURE--NUMBER OF MECHANICAL ERROR
PER 100 WORDS

WRITING MEASURE--TEACHERS' GRADE

198

198
199
199
200
200
201
202

203
203

 

CHAPTERONE

INTRODUCTION

Writing begins with all that we have known since we
were born. and perhaps with a lot of knowledge that was
born in us. We write. first of all, to discover what we

know and then what we need to know. (Murray 1984:3)

How does what we know, to use Murray’s terms, interact with
what we write. and do we discover what we need to know by the
effort of writing? These are the questions that prompted this
research. Writing appears to be a recursive process of recalling or
gathering information. organizing it, translating it into words and
editing the text before showing it to another reader. How do writers
learn or construct meaning as they engage in this process?

Reading research has shed much light on how personal
experiences influence the construction of meaning and the
organization of new information (Langer. 1980; Langer and
Nicholich, 1981; Langer, 1983). Recently writing research has
become concerned with common and individual writing processes
and the variables that affect those processes. but only quite recently
have studies on the effects of prior knowledge on writing been

undertaken (Langer, 1984; Chesky. 1984; DeGroff. 1986).

 

2

Chesky (1984) examined compositions of students who wrote
on a topic about which they had little knowledge. “Tobacco Price
Supports.” and compositions of other students who wrote on a t0pic
on which they were well-informed. “Problems with Teachers.” He
found that when students wrote about something about which they
knew a lot, they wrote quantitatively more and qualitatively better,
and they were more involved in their writing and enjoyed the task
more than when they wrote about something about which they knew
very little or cared little about. Langer (1984) went to a history class
to study writing tasks which were used to test the students’
understanding of course material. She found that different kinds of
writing seemed to require different kinds of knowledge. Those
students with high scores on her organization measure for
background knowledge of the topic wrote good comparison and
contrast papers; whereas students who had high—knowledge fluency
scores but not necessarily well—organized knowledge scores wrote
good papers on argumentative topics. DeGroff (1984) tested
students’ prior knowledge of baseball and then evaluated the quality
of the students’ first drafts. the students’ comments made during
the conference, and the students’ final drafts. She found that the
content in the papers and the comments of the students with high
prior knowledge were more elaborate and richer than the content of
the students with low prior knowledge.

Newell (1984) explored the issue of learning. His study
examined what students learned from different writing tasks. He
tested prior-knowledge and then asked the students to read a
passage and then to write in one of the following formats:

notetaking, answering comprehension questions or writing an essay.
After the writing activities, the students took a post-knowledge test.
The findings suggest that essay writing helps students learn the
concepts from the reading passage more than taking notes or
answering comprehension-type questions.

Much research has been done in measuring apprehension
toward writing and its effect on the writers' written text. But little
has been done to measure the effect of interest on writing quality.
Chesky’s (1984) study indicated that students enjoy writing about
topics with which they are familiar rather than on topics about which
they know little. In related research. Kellogg (1987) measured the
amount of effort writers used in two experiments comparing high
and low knowledge writing tasks. He found that, overall. high-
knowledge writers used less effort than low-knowledge writers. An
additional and surprising finding was that the high knowledge
writers put more effort into the more engaging writing task than
they did in the less engaging task even though they had high
knowledge in both the engaging and less engaging topics. Kellogg
concluded that the more engaged the writers are in the topic, the
more effort they put into their writing. He did not evaluate the
quality of the papers produced by the writers. These recent studies
lend support to our intuition that writing leads to learning and that
the writers’ prior knowledge and interest in the topic will affect
their writing.

This study further investigates the assumptions that writers
with high prior-knowledge and writers with high interest write
better papers. In addition, this study investigates the process of

__'

F ~IJIAMA- -. .1

4

learning through writing: it attempts to determine how students
learn through writing and the effects of that learning on the quality
of students’ writing. Chapter Two reviews what is already known
about the effects of prior-knowledge of learning and on writing.

Chapter Three presents the procedures for collecting the data
and the evaluation of the compositions and tests. To summarize, this
study takes place in the college freshman composition class. The
students write three compositions, take knowledge tests before and
after writing each paper in order to measure prior-knowledge and
knowledge-gain through writing: and the students answer questions
about their interest in and their writing processes for each topic.
The students’ papers are evaluated on holistic quality. coherence.
sophistication. content, interest, length of the T-units and number of
mechanical errors. and receive a grade from the teacher. The
knowledge tests are rated for the level of organized knowledge.
fluency and are given a score which combines organization and
fluency.

Chapter Four presents the results of the statistical analysis.
Briefly. the composition scores are correlated with the prior-
knowledge scores. the knowledge gain scores. and the responses to
the questionnaire using the Pearson-Product Moment Correlation
Coefficient. In addition. the T-Test Analysis is used to determine
significant differences between composition scores of those students
with high and low prior-knowledge. high and low knowledge gain,
high and low responses on the questionnaire about interest, prior-

knowledge. learning, time and effort during the writing process.

 

Finally. a regression analysis examines the interrelations of the
variables.

Chapter Five discusses the findings, provides suggestions for
further research, and suggests some practical implications for the
writing teacher.

The hypotheses of this study are:

The hypothesis for the effects of prior knowledge is:

1. Prior-knowledge scores correlate with writing scores.

Each paper is evaluated on overall quality (holistic). coherence.
sophistication, content and interest. In addition, each paper
receives a syntactic complexity measure (mean T—unit length),
mechanics measure (number of errors per 100 words). and a grade
from the teacher. The hypothesis states that on seven of the writing
measures (holistic, coherence, sophistication. content, interest. T-
unit length and the teacher’s grade) the means for the students with
high prior-knowledge will be significantly higher than the means for
the students with low prior-knowledge.

On the mechanics measure, the means for the students with
high prior-knowledge will be significantly lower than the means for
the students with low prior-knowledge.

The hypothesis for the effects of learning on writing is:

2. For a student with a low prior-knowledge score. an
increase in knowledge about the topic during the writing process is
associated with a rise in the writing scores.

 

On the seven writing measures (holistic. coherence.
sophistication, content interest scores. T-unit length. and teacher’s
grade). the means for the students with a significant knowledge gain
(difference between the pre- and post-knowledge tests) will be
higher than for the students with low or no increase in learning.

On the mechanics measure. the means for the students who
learn a lot from writing will be lower than for the students with low
or no knowledge gain.

The following hypotheses concern the students’ responses on
the pre- and post-writing questionnaires:

3a. Interest and involvement in the topic correlate with
writing scores.

3b. Personal assessment of knowledge on the topic correlates
with writing scores.

3c. Personal assessment of learning about the topic and the
teaching point correlates with writing scores.

3d. Time and effort spent on writing correlate with writing
scores.

39. Personal assessment on the quality of the composition
correlates with writing scores.

These hypotheses state that the students’ responses to the
questions about interest, prior knowledge. learning through writing,
effort and personal evaluation will correlate with their writing scores

on each of the seven measures.

 

 

 

In summary. this study seeks to follow the path laid down by
research in reading and now in writing. and to further explore the
interrelationships of knowledge and a variety of affective and process

variables on the quality of writing.

CHAPTERNO

REVIEW OFTHE LITERATURE

The following review of the literature examines those studies
which have investigated the role of prior knowledge on
comprehension and recall in learning theory. reading theory and
writing theory. A selection of literature that considers writing as a
process of learning is examined. And what is known about how

students’ interests affect writing quality is briefly discussed.

PRIOR KNOWLEDGE
LeamingResearch

Discourse comprehension and verbal learning studies have
investigated how previously acquired knowledge affects the
processing of new knowledge within the same domain; how prior
knowledge influences the learning of new knowledge; and how prior
knowledge influences verbal generation. recall. and comprehension.
To test the effects of prior knowledge on the tasks mentioned above
(text generation, recall and comprehension) a series of experiments
were conducted on individuals with high and low knowledge of
baseball by Chiesi, Spilich and Voss (1979); Spilich. Vesonder. Chiesi
and Voss (1979); and Voss, Vesonder and Spilich, (1980).

In earlier studies experts and non-experts had been delineated
in chess-playing ability (Chase and Simon. 1973) and in Go playing
ability (Reitman, 1976), but a system had not been developed for
classifying a person's knowledge within any given subject or domain.
Chiesi, et al. (1979) worked on developing a system for Classifying
baseball knowledge. First they defined knowledge of a domain “as an
understanding of its basic concepts, as well as its goals, rules and/or
principles” (p.257). Then they developed a conceptual framework
for baseball that had three areas in which they predicted there would
be differences between the high- and low-knowledge individuals
concerning goal structure, game states and game actions. Spilich, et
al. (1979) developed a Baseball Knowledge Structure from the

conceptual framework for baseball:

Setting

 

General: Teams playing. team at bat. team in field. inning,
miscellaneous conditions
Specific: Relevant: teams’ records as related to goal structure.
players’ records as related to goal structure
Irrelevant: team attributes, player attributes

Enabling: Batter at bat and pitcher ready to pitch

 

 

10

 

Goal Structure

 

Team at Bat Level Variables Values Team in field

Winning game 1 Game outcome Win-lose Winning game

Scoring runs 2 Score Domain of Preventing runs
game scores from scoring

Getting runners on 3 Pattern of base Eight possible Preventing runners

base and advancing runners patterns from getting on base
or advancing by
making outs
Outs 0. 1. 2. 3
Having ‘Balls’ 4 Balls 0. 1. 2. 3, 4 Getting ’Strikes’
Avoiding ‘Strikes’ Strikes 0. 1,2,3 Avoiding ‘Balls’

 

Non game actions
relevant non game actions

irrelevant nongame actions (1979: 276)

Chiesi et a1. (1979) found that new information is mapped onto
existing knowledge structures. In other words. subjects of his study
who knew something about baseball remembered new information
more easily than those subjects who knew little about baseball. A 40-
item test of the terms and principles of baseball was administered in
order to designate those individuals with high knowledge and those
with low-knowledge of baseball. Then the subjects went through a
series of five experiments. Their responses to the oral descriptions
of the half innings demonstrated that knowledge in a given subject
facilitates the learning of new information within that subject.

11

Spilich et al. (1979) continued this work within the domain of
baseball. As was predicted. the better-informed individuals had a
greater ability to relate the specific actions of the game to its overall
goal structure, and they were better able to remember the most
important information given in the passage. Subjects listened to a
taped presentation of a half inning of a baseball game and then were
asked to: 1) summarize the text in two sentences. 2) write as much
as they could remember and 3) answer 40 multiple-choice questions.
These post tests were evaluated based on the previously developed
“Baseball Knowledge Structures.”

In Voss et a1. (1980) the quality of the verbally generated texts
by the high-knowledge individuals was judged higher because the
writers included information about how to achieve the goals of the
game, whereas the low-knowledge writers included actions
unrelated to the game’s goals such as fans’ actions or thoughts. The
subjects were asked to generate a text on a half inning of baseball,
and two weeks later they were asked to recall what they had said.
High knowledge individuals generated initial texts that were more
detailed and they recalled more information than those with low
knowledge. The subjects’ texts and recollections of their texts were
evaluated according to “problem representation” (knowledge of the
rules. goals and conventions of the game). and “content
representation” (the general content that the text would be
expected to have, given the particular knowledge domain of the half
inning of baseball).

 

12

In summary. these studies Indicate that high prior-knowledge
leads to higher comprehension. recall, and to better content of a

verbally generated text.

Reading Research
Prior knowledge is also important in reading. Current reading
theory has shown that reading is an individual process of generating
meaning from the text. Rosenblatt (1978) writes:

The reader’s attention to the text activates certain
elements in his past experience--external reference.
internal response--that have become linked with the
verbal symbols. Meaning will emerge from a network of
relationships among the things symbolized as he senses
them. The symbols point to these sensations. images.
objects, ideas. relationships, with the particular
associations or feeling-tones created by his past
experiences with them in actual life or in literature. The
selection and organization of responses to some degree
hinge on the assumptions. the expectations, or sense of
possible structures. that he brings out of the stream of
his life. Thus built into the raw material of the literary
process itself is the particular world of the reader.

(p. 1 1)

13

The assessment of prior knowledge and the quantification of
its effect on reading comprehension has been studied by Langer
(1980), Langer and Nicholich (1981). and Langer (1983a).
Researchers and teachers have developed several techniques used to
establish valid and reliable assessments of students' prior-knowledge
on a given topic. These techniques range from asking students for
free recall to asking them to complete multiple choice items. This
section outlines prior knowledge assessment measures and then
briefly notes some of the interesting results of some of the studies on
the effects of prior knowledge on reading.

Holmes and Roser (1980) compared five techniques for
measuring prior knowledge with thde through sixth grade students
on the subject of “Snakes.” In addition to determining the reliability
and validity of each technique. they wanted to find the best
technique for assessing prior knowledge. They defined the “best
technique” as the one which produced the highest quantity of
information.

They found that the 55 structured probe questions produced
the highest number of facts; the multiple choice test produced the
second highest number of facts: the word association task produced
the third highest number of facts. The structured probe questions
and the recognition task (M-C) yielded 35% - 28% incorrect facts
and the less structured techniques yielded very few inaccurate facts
15% - 25%. Because the structured probe question technique
yielded the most information per minute of administration of the
task, the investigators concluded that it was the most successful. In

addition they found that the techniques to assess topical knowledge

14

can be affected by topic and age; for example, the older readers
tended to perform better than young readers on free recall and
structured questions.

From this study it is important that we note that the multiple-
choice and structured probe questions yielded incorrect facts. and
that the older the children were. the better they performed on the
free recall tests. Also the subject. “Snakes,” contains more factual
knowledge rather than integrated knowledge. as would a subject
such as “Happiness.” Holmes and Rosner do not endorse the use of
the free recall tests because as a means of eliciting accurate factual
information. free recall tests were not the most efficient with regard
to adminstration time and grading time. Langer (1980). on the other
hand. has been interested in evaluating integrated knowledge rather
than factual knowledge. and she has developed criteria for evaluating
the responses to free recall tests.

Langer’s (1980) criteria evaluates the strength of organization
of the responses to free recall prompts. She evaluated the responses
to the free association prompts based on three levels of organization
of the knowledge represented by the students’ responses. The
responses were weighted from three to one with three representing

much prior knowledge and one representing little prior knowledge:

M eh m 2 Li 1 1
superordinate examples. associations
concepts. attributes. morphemes.
definitions. and defining sound alikes.
analogies. characteristics and first hand

and linking experience

 

15

Langer developed the above 3-level quality of knowledge guide from a
12-level guide and from other learning theories of thought
organization. One of these is Vygotsky’s (1962) three phases of
complexity from subjective and diffuse to the more objective and

organized:

a. abstract symbolic relationships are recognized.

h concrete relationships are formed around more objective
recognizable bonds.

c. knowledge is organized around poorly articulated images
and objects related only by the immediate perception of the

observer.

Another’s is Bruner’s (1956) three groups of conceptual categories:

a formal-specifying properties or attributes that are intrinsic
to whole class
b. functional: specific function, concrete. objective

0. affective: personally based and not easily described.

In Langer’s 1980 study the prior knowledge average scores on the
topics of Schizophrenia and Parakeets ranged from a high of 2.67 to
a low of 1.00. The following illustrates how the responses to the

prompt. schizophrenia. were scored:

 

l6

3- much prior knowledge
superordinate concept--“one of a group of severe mental
disorders...”
definition-~“a psychotic disorder characterized by
withdrawal from reality including behavioral
disturbances”

linking-“schizophrenia is like living in two worlds because...”

2-some prior knowledge
example--“split personality”
attribute--“character disorder”

defining characteristic-~“withdrawal from reality”

l-little prior knowledge
association—-“Jekyll and Hyde”
morphemes--“schizoid”
first hand experiences--“crazy--like in the movies”
(Langer 1980. p. 375)

Langer’s subjects responded to the prompts of the free association
test on schizophrenia. then they read the passage on schizophrenia,
and they wrote everything they could remember about what they had
read. The recall protocols were scored and then correlated with the
prior knowledge scores. She found that the levels of prior
knowledge were highly correlated with the reader’s organization of
recall.

 

17

In another paper Langer and Nicholich (1981) reexamined the
data from Langer (1980) again and found that the measure of recall
was independent of the reader’s I. Q. or general reading level. This
conclusion. then. is even stronger evidence for the effect of prior
knowledge on the ability to recall a reading passage than
demonstrated in Langer’s original paper.

Results of a similar study by Hare (1982) support Langer’s
qualitative measure as a predictor of overall passage recall even when
I. Q. is constant. But Hare’s results also suggest that the overall
quantity of prior knowledge predicted recall better than the quality
of prior knowledge. The subjects. all with high I. Q.’s. were asked to
predict how much they would remember of an article on “Planets.”
Then they took a free association test with the prompts: planets.
axis. and distance from sun. Each student was given a qualitative
score and a quantitative score for the free association test. After
reading the passage the students wrote a recall protocol and then
answered three comprehension questions which were evaluated
quantitatively and qualitatively. The overall quantity of prior
knowledge predicted the students’ recall performance better than
the quality of prior knowledge. These findings favor the use of a
quantitative over qualitative scoring system. Also interesting to note
in Hare’s study is that students’ own predictions did not correlate
with their levels of prior knowledge. In other words, those students
with high prior knowledge did not predict that they would
remember the passage well. In fact. the reasons for their

predictions were not based on their knowledge but more on their

18

perceived ability to remember; for example. “Because I have average
remembering skills.”

In contrast to Hare’s (1982) evidence that the quantitative
score is a better predictor than the qualitative score. Langer (1983a)
suggests that a qualitative prior knowledge score is more strongly
related to reading comprehension than the quantity of the prior
knowledge. She administered free-association prior-knowledge tests
on the topics of Stonehenge and World War I. The Stonehenge
passage was narrow. around specific astronomical uses of
Stonehenge. Either the students knew the prompt words on
Stonehenge or they did not; the Stonehenge prompts did not permit
a range of lower-level. partially-organized responses. The prompts
for the WW1 passage. however. did generate a range of responses.

After the students read the respective passages. they answered
specific questions instead of writing recall protocols as in her earlier
study. For both passages. Hare (1982) found that the quality of
background knowledge did not predict the subjects’ ability to answer
specific implicit or explicit questions. but it was a significant
predictor of total comprehension.

Langer (1981) describes her pre-reading plan and explains
that when teachers use it. the quality of learning for readers of all
achievement groups rises. She also endorses the use of the free
association test to measure background knowledge in studies of the
effects of specific knowledge on particular kinds of learning in
particular content areas. In her conclusion she suggests using five

stimulus words rather than three.

 

19

In sum. research on reading has concluded that. “prior-
knowledge is an exceptionally important determiner of
comprehension” (Langer and Nicholich. 1981). Based on her
studies in content area classes. Langer surrnises that availability and
organization of topic-specific knowledge is also important in writing.
In addition to leading us to examine the effects of prior-knowledge
on writing. an additional benefit of reading research is the direct
applicability of the free-association test to measure the writers’ prior
knowledge of the topic.

Writing Research

This section examines the recent studies of the effects of '

prior-knowledge on writing. The findings from learning theory and
reading theory, reviewed above. are just beginning to be examined in
writing research and have yielded some very interesting results.
Kellogg (1987) found that overall. high knowledge writers put
less effort into their writing than low knowledge writers. He tested
the time and cognitive effort of low and high knowledge writers on
three writing process tasks: planning ideas. translating ideas into
text. and reviewing ideas and the text. He sounded a beep at
irregular intervals and then asked the students to tell in which
process they had been engaged at the sound of the beep. He did so
to measure the amount of time the student spent on each of these
processes. To measure cognitive effort (or concentration) he
measured reaction times of the writers to another task while they
were writing. Concentration could be inferred from the delay: the

writer was to say “stop” as soon as the writer heard the beep.

T L...

R—A- *-

20

From the accounts of the writers, both low- and high-
knowledge writers intermixed planning. translating and reviewing;
and the allocation of time for each process was apparently the same
for both the high and low knowledge writers. But the effort
expended during the processes was different-~the high-knowledge
writers used less effort than the low-knowledge writers. His
hypothesis is that automaticity gradually develops with experience
and knowledge. This is the workload hypothesis: the more the
writer knows about the topic. the less effortful it is to remember and
use the relevant knowledge while writing the text and the more
effort is available to be creative.

In the first experiment topic knowledge varied among the
subjects. Kellogg used a 25-item M-C test on the history,
organization and purpose of the United Nations in order to
determine prior knowledge and then he asked the subjects to write
a persuasive essay on “Why the United Nations should remain in New
York City.” (This experiment was done shortly after the Korean
Airline 007 incident and the proposal of the United States to ban
Soviet flights into airports of New York. The Soviets at this time
suggested the United Nations move to a more neutral place.)

Although the high-knowledge group used less effort in their
writing, the quality of their writing was not significantly better than
the low knowledge group with respect to language usage.
organizational coherence. idea development. effectiveness. and
mechanics. Other studies. reviewed below. however. suggest that
prior knowledge is a very important factor in the quality of students’
writing.

I. —-, -—— 4r.-

21

In the second experiment the topics were manipulated. The
task in the high knowledge topic was to write an argument for or
against tuition for all state university students. The task in the low
knowledge topic was a fictitious situation for which the writer had to
argue for or against a proposal of an anti-greed club to give a large
amount of money every year to poor families. Again. effort was less
for the high knowledge writers. and again, according to his criteria.
writing performances were not significantly different. Kellogg
concludes that the workload hypothesis seems to apply to writing.
Apparently knowledgeable writers lessen the mental workload of
writing by performing some operations relatively automatically: and.
therefore. they invest roughly equal effort. some of which is
automatic. than the low knowledge writers. and. have roughly equally
good written products compared to the less knowledgeable writers.

DeGroff (1986) studied the effects of prior knowledge on the
writing processes of fourth grade writers by looking at the first
drafts. the comments made in peer conferences. and the revised
drafts. She used Spilich. et al.’s (1979) “Baseball Knowledge
Structure” to evaluate the content of the subjects’ prior knowledge.
Then she evaluated the content of their first drafts. the content of
their propositions in the conference utterances and the content of
their second drafts using Spilich’s knowledge structure. In the first
drafts she found that the high-knowledge subjects produced a
significantly greater mean proportion of auxiliary action propositions ’
than did the low-knowledge subjects. Low-knowledge subjects
produced more non-game relevant action propositions. During the

conference the high-knowledge subjects commented on goal-related

 

22

content While the low knowledge subjects commented about
information unrelated to goals of the game. And in the second draft
the high-knowledge subjects made more changes than the low-
knowledge subjects. DeGroff concluded. then. that prior knowledge
influences all three stages of the students’ writing processes. That
is. prior knowledge causes a difference in the quality of the content
of the first draft. the quality of the remarks made in the conference,
and the quality of the final draft.

Judith Langer (1984) tested the effect of topic-specific
knowledge on the quality and local coherence of written work. The
writing tasks of this study came from topics studied in history
courses and the writing was used to evaluate the students’ learning.
The results suggest that different writing assignments can be used to
evaluate different kinds of learning. She used her free association
test to measure the level of prior knowledge on the topic of the
tenth grade students. These responses were scored using her three
levels of knowledge organization mentioned earlier. Each student
was given three scores based on these responses: one that measured
the total number of responses (fluency score); one that measured the
highest level of organization attained in the responses (organization
score): and one that combined fluency with organization
(combination score). The writing samples that were then written
were scored on five measures: overall quality. coherence. syntactic
complexity. audience. and function.

In general. she found that the combined knowledge measure
had the strongest relationship to the holistic writing score: she also

found a significant relationship between the combined background

._!_._‘_.._....r—_

23

knowledge measure and Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) measure of
coherence. And she found that the effects of topic-specific
background knowledge were independent of the effects of the
general knowledge scores. More specifically she found that
different kinds of knowledge predict success in different writing
tasks. For the two assignments that asked for a simple reiteration of
facts or elaborations, a large amount of unintegrated knowledge was

sufficient. These were the topics:

a Write a paper comparing city and frontier life with regard
to individualism and democracy.

h Write a one or two page essay on your version of a Utopian
society. the kind you would like to live in.

c. It has been stated that in the 18th and 19th centuries the
South was a deferential society. In one or two paragraphs.
explain why this was true. In your answer, be sure to
discuss the concepts of prejudice and acquiescence and
how each related to this conclusion.

(1. Some historians refer to the 1920s as a decade in American
history when sexual freedom and the pursuit of happiness
flourished. At the same time. it is noted that the 1920s
were characterized by harsh moralistic and anti-foreign
sentiments. Explain how social changes during the 1920s
influenced the growth of new values that conflicted with
traditional ones.

Students with highly organized prior knowledge (3 points on
organization of prior knowledge) wrote better essays for topics a and
c. But when the prompt was more general as in topics b and d and
called for examples and elaboration. fluency (many responses. not

necessarily highly organized) mattered more. Langer concluded that

‘_. _.- ”mf—

24

writing assignments can be used to distinguish students’ learning of
separate facts versus integrated knowledge.

Chesky’s (1984) study continued Langer’s work. But rather
than test the subjects’ prior knowledge. Chesky manipulated the
topics--he chose a topic for which he thought the students would
have low knowledge (Tobacco Price Supports) and he chose a topic
for which he thought they would have high knowledge (Problems
with Teachers). He found that students who wrote on a topic for
which they had a high level of prior knowledge wrote quantitatively
more. qualitatively better, were more involved in their writing. liked
what they wrote, and found the task of writing much easier than
students who wrote on a topic for which they had low prior
knowledge. Forty high school students wrote on a low-knowledge
topic and 40 wrote on a high-knowledge topic. The audience for
which the paper was addressed was also varied.

The high-knowledge students wrote more and better; they
were more involved; they liked writing more: and they found writing
easier than the students with low-prior knowledge. With respect to
the effects of audience. Chesky found no differences in the quantity
or quality of the students’ writing between writing when they wrote
for their peers or for their teacher.

These studies in writing seem to endorse and support our
intuition that prior knowledge affects the quality of writing just as it
has been shown to affect the quality of learning and of reading. The
results of the studies reviewed help us understand better the
importance of prior knowledge in students’ composition writing.

DeGroffs (1986) study demonstrates that the quality of the written

1'..—

25

content is richer with high prior knowledge; Kellogg’s (1987) study
suggests that students with high prior knowledge use less effort in
their writing than students with low prior knowledge: Langer’s
(1984) study suggests that different kinds of writing tasks require
different kinds of prior knowledge; and Chesky’s (1984) study
demonstrates that students need to have high knowledge on the

topic on which they write in order to write better papers.

WRITING PROMSES

The previous sections have examined the importance of prior-
knowledge on the task. This section will examine the role the
writing process plays in the students’ learning about the writing
topic. Writing appears to be a recursive process of gathering
information. organizing it. translating it into words and editing the
drafts. As writers follow this process. they appear to learn about the
topic. Writing. in other words. includes the discovery of meaning or
knowledge as well as organization and correct language use.

In an essay. Reither (1985) suggests that writers do not need
to know what they are going to write about before they begin. He
says that writers learn about what they are discussing as they write--
“they can write their way out of ignorance.” He suggests that
students in content areas need to learn the knowledge of their
discipline and they need to learn the writing discourse strategies of
the community within their discipline. He concludes by strongly
recommending writing instruction across the curriculum. He also

asks these important research questions: Are writers who know how

 

26

to find out likely to be better writers? What kinds of knowing and
what kinds of know-how assist writing?

McCutchen (1986) attempted to separate content knowledge
and discourse knowledge in a study concerning the development of
children’s writing abilities. She asked two questions: a.) Can a rich
knowledge base overcome immature linguistic procedures? b.) Does
impoverished content knowledge make an otherwise mature writer
produce choppy and ill-structured texts? She wanted to examine
the interaction between the content components (what one knows of
a topic) and the discourse component (what one knows about how to
write). She called these latter concerns lower-level planning.
Concerns with audience. tone. clarity (Flower and Hayes) she
considered higher level planning. She gave her subjects (ten each
from grades 4. 6. and 8) a 30-item test for knowledge of football
rules and terms. Then she evaluated the subsequent written texts
on: 1. local coherence--how a sentence builds on the semantic
commitments of the previous sentence; 2) hierarchical structure--
how main arguments are elaborated: 3) analysis of content--level of
detail. She chose to evaluate these because they can be quantified
and because they seem intuitively to relate to aspects of the text that
probably influence subjective quality ratings. Halliday and Hasan
(1976) labeled three kinds of coherence: local connections. remote
connections. and unsuccessful connections.

She found that older children produced more linguistically
coherent texts; but regardless of grade, children produced more
coherent texts on topics in which they were knowledgeable. High-
knowledge students generally gave more main points: low-knowledge

27

students did attempt to create well-formed elaborated discourse
even though they did not discuss the goal structure of football in
specific plays. She concluded that differences in topic knowledge
affect what gets said. but knowledge of another sort affects how it
gets said. This knowledge of how to write. the discourse
component. changes with linguistic development and with the
experience with texts that comes with age.

Newell (1984) explored students’ learning from different
writing tasks. After a free—association prior knowledge test, the
students read a passage and then did a writing activity: took notes.
wrote comprehension questions or wrote an essay. After the
respective writing activity. the students took a post-knowledge test.
This measure was given both at the beginning and at the end of the
writing sessions to measure gains in the student’s knowledge of the
concepts. Newell found that essay writing helps students learn the
concepts from the reading passage more than taking notes or
answering comprehension-type questions. These results suggest
that essay writing required more extensive thought and

consideration of the content in the prose passages.

STUDENTS’ INTEREST AND ENGAGEMENT

Students’ interests are an implicit concern in the writing
classroom. This section briefly discusses the findings of the effects
of students’ interest and engagement on writing quality of two
studies previously reviewed.

Chesky (1984) asked four questions on his involvement survey:

how involved the students were in the writing; how the students

28

liked the writing; whether they found the writing easy or difficult;
whether they wrote for a grade or to say something to somebody: and
an open-ended question asking them to explain their feelings about
the writing assignment. He found that when the students wrote on
the topic for which they had high prior knowledge. they wrote better
and were more involved in their writing. liked their writing. and
found the task of writing much easier and less frustrating than when
students wrote with a low level of prior knowledge.

Kellogg (1987) observed that overall cognitive effort both for
low— and high-knowledge writers was greater in the first experiment
when the students wrote on the United Nations. This task may have
elicited greater emotional involvement no matter how much prior
knowledge the student had about the United Nations. Kellogg
speculates that with relatively unengaging tasks. the processes of
writing do not involve the high levels of effort that they do in tasks of
great interest to the writer.

SUMMARY

The literature indicates that the level of prior knowledge
affects the quality of the written text in complex ways. And to-date it
seems to endorse the free recall test as the one most likely to
succeed in evaluating integrated knowledge. The literature also
indicates that the students’ interest and involvement in the topic
seem to affect the quality of the written text and perhaps the quality
of the learning from the process of writing on the topic. The

present study further explores the processes of learning through

I. F—r'r-“.-':1‘

29

writing and the relationships between the student’s prior knowledge
and interest on the written text.

CHAPTERTBREE

METHODOLOGY

This study seeks to continue the work done with prior-
knowledge in learning theory. reading theory. and writing theory,
summarized in the previous chapter: and it asks further questions
concerning learning through writing. It also seeks to explore the
effects of affective variables and writing process activities on the
written product. The three main hypotheses of this study are: 1)
Prior-knowledge scores correlate with writing scores. 2) For a
student with a low prior-knowledge score. an increase in knowledge
about the topic during the writing process is associated with a rise in
the writing scores. 3) With regard to the pre- and post-writing
questionnaires. the students’ responses will correlate with their
writing scores.

This chapter presents the procedures used for collecting the
data and the evaluation of them. Briefly. the subjects wrote three
compositions. Before and after writing each composition. they took
a free-association knowledge test and filled in a questionnaire. This
chapter explains the topics used and the procedures and criteria for
evaluating the compositions, questionnaires, and knowledge tests.

30

31

SETTING

During the spring of 1988 at the foot of Mount Sentinel located
between the Bitterroot and Rattlesnake Valleys. three freshman
English Composition classes at the University of Montana

participated in this study.

SUBJECTS

Of the 60 students in the three classes who agreed to
participate in the study. 43 students completed every section of the
study. Only the data from these 43 students are included in the
tabulations.

MATERIALS

This section describes the topics. the pre- and post-writing
questionnaires. and the pre- and post-writing knowledge tests used
in this study.

Topics. The topics were familiar to the students which is to
say that each student would know at least a little about each of the
three topics and that within each topic-knowledge domain the
students would demonstrate different amounts and levels of
knowledge and personal involvement. The topics for this present
project did not require such exact information as did the writing
about a baseball inning (DeGroff 1986) nor did the topics concern an
issue that the students were not at all familiar with. as we can
assume was the case with Chesky’s (1984) “Tobacco Price

Supports.”

- g.—

n.- 4-. -—- ~4.”V

32

The final topics were selected as follows: The researcher
compiled a list of topics that teachers frequently use in composition
courses by consulting English and ESL composition texts. and the
suggested-topics list used by the University of Montana Writing
Program. Each teacher selected her preferences from the list and
then she met with the other two teachers to make the final decision-
-consensus was reached remarkably quickly. The three topics
corresponded to their teaching points for the three weeks of the
study: “body language“ to teach organization: “presidential
candidates” to teach transitions: “clothes” to teach development.

The instructions given to the students were to write an article
on the assigned topic for the campus newspaper, The Kaimin. Since
their audience was their professors and fellow students, their papers
were expected to be sophisticated as well as interesting. Appendix A
gives the instructions that the students received.

Questionnaires. The students answered questions about their
interest in and feelings about writing on the assigned topic: they also
answered questions about what they did in order to write the paper.
questions such as: amount read. number of people interviewed.
amount changed in the rewrite. etc. The questionnaires, like
Chesky’s. used a 5-point Likert scale. The pre-writing questionnaire
asked the students to rate their interest in the topic. their
knowledge of the topic and their confidence in their ability to write
a good paper on the topic (Appendix B). The responses to the open-
ended question on why they were confident in or uncertain about
their ability are in Appendix C. The post-writing questionnaires
(Appendix D) had the following questions:

33

on interest--how they liked writing on the topic. how they
felt about writing on this topic. how involved they were.
how interesting they found the assignment

on learning-how much they had learned about the topic
and the teaching points from the writing and from the
peer workshop

on effort--how easy or difficult they had found the writing,
how much time they had spent writing and rewriting.
what kinds of activities they had followed during their
writing processes

on evaluation--how good they thought their paper was. and
what grade they expected to receive

The students also answered an open-ended question on their
feelings about the assignment. The responses are in Appendix E.
Free-Association Knowledge Tests. To test prior knowledge. a
word association test was used. Langer (1984). Newell (1983) and
Chesky (1984) have successfully used this test to assess the subjects’
prior knowledge before they wrote compositions. Langer and Newell
chose the prompts for the free association tests from prose passages
the students had previously read; Chesky used selected articles on
the writing topics from which raters chose key concept words that
were related to the writing topic. A multiple-choice test was not
used to determine prior-knowledge because the students would not
produce a story within a domain such as baseball where statements
could be judged correct or incorrect (DeGroff 1986). Nor were the

34

tOpics selected as high- or low—knowledge topics as Chesky’s (1984)
were. He assumed that “Tobacco Price Supports” was a low-
knowledge topic for the students and that they would have high
knowledge on the topic “Problems with Teachers.”

For the present study the three teachers read pre-selected
articles on the subject and selected key concept words for the
compositions dealing with ‘clothes’ and ‘body language.’ Then they
rank ordered the selected words. The researcher then selected the
top 8 concept words for prompts on the ‘body language free
association test’ and the top 7 concept words for prompts on the
‘Clothes free association test.’ For the topic on the ‘presidential
candidates.’ the three teachers brainstormed among themselves and
made a list of key words for the issues in the campaign. Then they
rank ordered this list and the researcher selected the fourteen top-
ranked words as prompts for the free association test on the
presidential campaign. The researcher selected more prompts for
this topic in order to include more of the compaign issues. The Pre-
and Post-Knowledge Tests are in Appendix F.

PROCEDURE

The project began the third week of classes Spring Term 1988.
The students were already familiar with the procedure followed by
the University of Montana Writing Program: on Fridays the teacher
assigned the topic and asked the students to think about it over the
weekend: on Mondays the teacher introduced the teaching point of
that week-~for example the thesis statement and its support: on

Wednesdays the students brought a rough draft of their papers to

i Mn‘-_T"‘—-
I .

35

class and the teacher reviewed the teaching point of that week and
then asked the students to work in groups of two and critique their
colleague’s paper according to this lesson; on Fridays the students
brought in their typed papers. discussed them and then edited them
in in-class peer workshops before handing them in to the teacher.
The teacher, then. graded the papers evaluating them only on the
points that had been covered up to that point in the term.

The class day before the beginning of this project. the teacher
explained the procedures of the project to the students. The next
day. Friday of the third week of classes. the project began. The
researcher gave the students a letter explaining the project and
asking them to participate in it. A couple of the students chose not
to participate. After the teacher handed out a copy of the
assignment. discussed it and answered questions. the students filled
out the questionnaire about their interest in and knowledge of the
topic and then they took the free association test. On Monday, the
teacher taught the lesson of that week: on Wednesday the students
participated in a peer conference workshop using their drafts: on
Friday the students turned in their papers. filled out the post-writing
questionnaire, and took the post-writing free-association test. Then
the teacher introduced the next topic and the students began the
process again by taking the pre-writing questionnaire and free-
association tests. The researcher interrupted the class only on
Fridays. In all other ways. the students followed the same writing
and rewriting procedures of the course.

The researcher chose to do this project within the classroom

with the help of the teachers for several reasons which are most

R 2045.; fiT-E'TT’ ‘ ._..-

36

clearly stated by Ruth (1982). He explains the differences between
prompts for writing tests and prompts for class writing assignments.
The prompt for a writing test must function autonomously: that is.
the students may receive no help in interpretation from the
proctors. In this setting no preparatory content or motivating
impulse is given except for the command to write. The conditions
are controlled to be depersonalized. formal, and standardized. and
each stimulus should be the same for each student. A writing
prompt given within the context of a class. on the other hand. can be
negotiated: the teacher may offer guidance. clarify expectations. and
offer possible directions; the teacher may enlarge the ground of
shared knowledge; the teacher may suggest strategies for
discovering and structuring the essential material of the composition
and may help along in the process. Ruth’s (1982) chart is as follows:

 

 

Participants Writing assignment in Writing assignment in

and process a teaching context a testing context

1. population class members assembled students

2. leader teacher unknown proctor

3. assigned text negotiable autonomous

4. interaction allowable prohibited

5. writing process interpersonal. reciprocal depersonalized. oneway.
informal standardized

6. expectations known partly implicit

7. evaluation flexible. fixed standard.
contingent. graded ranked. scored

This researcher wanted the procedures of this project to

follow as closely as possible the usual procedures of the writing

37

assignment given within the English composition class. Of course
the pre- and post-knowledge tests and questionnaires were out of
the ordinary; but the teacher’s presentation of the topics, the
discussion that followed. and the students’ writing processes were

very similar to the usual writing routine.

SCORmGTBEQUESTIONNAIREs

Before and after the students wrote their compositions. they
answered questions about their feelings. knowledge. confidence: and
they self-evaluated their papers and answered questions about their
writing processes. Appendix B gives the Pre-Writing Questionnaire
and Appendix ‘D gives the Post-Writing Questionnaire. The students
rated their activities and involvement on a five-point Likert scale. On
the questionnaires the values were mixed--for some questions 5 was
high and for some questions 5 was low. This alternation between
high and low was used to keep the students alert as they answered
each question. Later the researcher converted all the values so that
for each question 5 was the value for high and good and 1 was the

value for low and poor.

SOORINGTBEFREEASSOCIATIONTEST

The researcher was interested in both the quantity the quality
of responses. Although Hare’s (1981) study suggests that only
quantity of prior knowledge information needed to be evaluated to
adequately predict readers’ comprehension on the ‘planets’ reading
passage, Langer’s study demonstrated that different kinds of
knowledge are needed for different kinds of tasks. Langer examined

38

the quality of the responses based on a scale that measured the
organization of the student’s knowledge from (3) highly integrated to
(2) loosely integrated knowledge and (I) barely connected
knowledge. For the present study two independent raters scored

the free association tests making three different assessments:

1. Organization score: the highest level of organization for all
the responses (Langer’s scale)

2. Fluency score: the number of responses to all the concept
words regardless of the level of organization

3. Combined score: fluency and organization--the number of

responses that showed at least some integrated knowledge

Training Procedures. The researcher used the above criteria
and Langer’s (1984) examples to write the grading guide. The
researcher then graded several sample knowledge tests using the
criteria and selecting difficult-to-evaluate examples to include in the
scoring guide (Appendix G). Then. the researcher trained six
graders to score these tests by giving them the grading guide. In the
training session the graders reviewed Langer’s criteria. examples.
and the examples the reseacher had selected from sample
knowledge tests. The graders practiced scoring responses from
tests that could not be included in the study (tests of students who
did not finish the complete project). As a group. the graders and
researcher discussed ranking problems and reached a consensus on
the sample knowledge tests before scoring the tests of the study.

The trained graders evaluated the free-association tests and

39

recorded their scores on prepared score sheets (Appendix H).
Before examining the scores of the graders, the researcher evaluated
all of the free-association tests for the second time. Interrater
reliability was very high on the free-association tests because the
students’ responses were remarkably similar to each other; it was
therefore easy to maintain a clear category of responses for each of
Langer’s three levels of knowledge.

Organization Score. Two independent graders (a trained
grader and the researcher) graded both the pre-writing and post—
writing free association tests: they gave a score for all the responses
under each word prompt using Langer’s (1980) 3-point scale: 3 for
much knowledge (incorporation of abstract. superordinate
principles; 2 for some knowledge (concrete. functional responses);
and 1 for little knowledge (diffuse. associational responses reflecting
little understanding of the concept). Appendix G gives the
descriptions of these three levels and the guidelines followed by the
raters. The score for all the responses on the tests were then
averaged to give the organization score. Appendix H gives an
example test and demonstrates the scoring procedure.

Fluency Score. No independent raters (a trained grader and
the researcher) counted the total number of responses for all of the
prompts on the tests whether or not the responses represented
much or little knowledge. Appendix H gives an example of fluency
assessment. The scores of the two raters were averaged to give the
final fluency score.

Combination Score. This score is simply a count of the number

of responses that represented much (3) or some (2) knowledge: in

r—uv..- f—p—f‘

40

other words it is a combination of the organization and fluency score.
It disregards those responses that did not demonstrate concrete (2)
or abstract knowledge (3) of the concept. Again two independent
raters counted the number of higher level responses. These two
scores were averaged to determine the student’s final combination
score. Appendix H gives an example of the method of scoring for the

combination score.

SCORINGTHECOMPOSITIONS

Hirsch (1977) wrote that the assessment of writing is the
“single most important snag to practical progress in composition
teaching and research.” Comparative studies suggest that while
indirect assessment (standardized tests) may be reliable. direct
assessment (writing samples) appears to be more valid and can
usually be reliable when proper procedures are followed. Within
direct measures there are many ways to evaluate the written sample.
Each method must ,deal with the central issue of criteria: what
factors constitute quality writing? In addition to these central issues
are the other concerns of inter-rater reliability, topics and rating
procedure.

The definition of quality writing is still being debated in the
literature; therefore. the choice of criteria and grading method are.
in the end. the choice of each researcher. Choices of other
researchers are briefly discussed before the choices for this project
are presented.

DeGroff (1986) looked at the quality of the content of her

subjects’ papers on baseball. She measured the propositions and

41

content against the rules and terms of baseball but she did not
evaluate the formal or linguistic properties of the papers.

Langer (1984) evaluated the papers on 1. holistic quality using
a 5-point holistic scale. 2. coherence using Hasan’s measure of
interaction among cohesive chains. 3. syntactic complexity using the
mean number of words per clause. 4. sensitivity audience. and 5.
function.

Chesky (1984) used 1. Myer’s (1980) holistic scoring (4-point
scale). 2. essay length (number of words). 3. context-creating
statements which demonstrated awareness of audience. 4. cohesion
from Mullis and Mellon (1980). 5. syntactic complexity as
determined by measuring the mean T-unit length from Mullis and
Mellon. and 6. error analysis from Mullis and Mellon.

In this present study. each composition was given seven scores
by two independent graders. The compositions were rated for
holistic quality. coherence. sophistication. content. interest,
syntactic complexity (mean T-unit length). and mechanics (mean
number of spelling. usage. or punctuation errors per 100 words).

Training Procedure. The researcher used Myer’s procedure in
training the graders and used his suggestions for the grading session:
The researcher developed the grading criteria (Appendix I). graded
a few sample compositions using the criteria. At the training
session. the graders reviewed the criteria and graded these same
sample compositions using the criteria. The compositions had been
typed by the students and the students’ names had been blackened
out because some of the students may have been familiar to the

graders. As a group. the graders discussed their ranking problems

42

and reached a consensus on the sample compositions. The graders,
then. graded another group of sample compositions. This second
time, scores were remarkably reliable (which will be statistically
deomonstrated in the following chapter). At this point the graders
began grading the compositions for the study. During the grading
session. the researcher checked the ratings of the two graders.
Whenever. the graders differed by more than two points. a third
grader was asked to rate the composition. Appendix I gives the
criteria the graders used to assess the compositions for overall
quality (holistic) coherence. sophistication, content, and interest.
The following sections further explain the procedure for each
assessment category. but for complete detail see Appendix I.
Holistic Score. No trained graders gave each composition a
score for its quality as a whole based on a six-point scale: 6 =
excellent: 5 = good: 4 = slightly above average: 3 = slightly below
average; 2 = below average; 1 = poor. For this score the graders
examined the author’s thesis. organization. development. syntax and
mechanics. Whenever the raters disagreed by more than 1 point. a
third grader was asked to rate the compositions. The two scores
were added together for the final score on holistic quality; the
highest possible score. then. was 12 and the lowest was 2.
Coherence Score. Witte and Faigley (1981) in an important
study on how coherence and cohesion correlate with writing quality
found that highly rated essays are much more dense with cohesive
ties than low rated essays. but Witte and Faigley do not go so far as to
state that a large or small number of cohesive ties of a particular type
will positively affect writing quality. Halliday and Hasan (1976)

43

identified five categories of linguistic features of cohesion:
reference. substitution. ellipsis. conjunction and lexical cohesion.
These tie sentences together to create a meaningful semantic unit of
text. Unfortunately, however. cohesive ties in themselves do not
lead to global or overall coherence (Bamberg 1984). Bamberg wrote
a holistic coherence evaluation scale based on current linguistic
theory and discourse analysis. This scale considers the coherence of
the text as a whole and not simply local coherence and cohesive ties.
Using these criteria she reevaluated students’ texts that had been
scored earlier for coherence using cohesive tie counts. Her results
demonstrate that the number of cohesive ties of a particular type will
not necessarily positively affect writing quality or the coherence of
the text as a whole. (Witte and Faigley. 1981: and Bamberg. 1984).
For these reasons the researcher used a modified version of
Bamberg’s criteria (see Appendix I for this written version) instead
of Halliday and Hasan’s version.

Two trained raters gave each composition a score on its
coherence based on a six-point scale. The raters assessed the
writer’s reader orientation. organization. placement and use of
supporting detail. audience awareness, paragraph and sentence
transitions, and cohesive ties. A third rater settled any
disagreements with scores that differed by more than one point.
The final two scores were added together for the composition's
coherence score.

Sophistication Score. Two trained raters gave each
composition a score on its level of sophistication using a six-point

scale (Appendix I). The raters based their scores on the writer's ‘

44

audience awareness, content. innovative ideas, choice of supporting
detail. sentence structures. and word choice. A third rater settled
any rankings that difiered by more than one point. The two closest
scores were added together for the composition’s sophistication
score.

Content Score. No trained raters gave each composition a
score on the amount of content and thoughtfulness of the details and
support using a six-point scale (Appendix I). A third rater settled
any disagreements and the two closest scores were added together
for the composition's sophistication score.

Interest Score. Two trained raters gave each composition a
score on the composition’s level of interest using a six-point scale
(Appendix I). The raters assessed the writer’s ideas. audience
awareness. sincerity, innovative presentation. choice of words,
sentence structures. and choice of details. A third rater settled any
disagreements that differed and the two closest scores were added
together for the composition’s interest score.

Syntactic Complexity. Many studies have been done to test
whether syntactic complexity correlates with quality compositions.
but these studies produce conflicting results. Mellon (1969) found
that compositions with high syntactic complexity were rated lower
than those with low syntactic complexity. On the other hand. Potter
(1967) found that measures of syntactic complexity did distinguish
between high and low rated papers in 2nd. 4th 6th and 10th grades.
Since this evidence is so conflicting. Crowhurst (1980) examined
two modes of discourse: the narrative essay and the argumentative

essay. Her subjects were from the 6th. 10th, and 12th grades and

45

she examined two compositions for each student: one of high
syntactic complexity and one of low. The argumentative essays of
high syntactic complexity were rated significantly higher than
argumentative essays of low syntactic complerdty. But the 12th grade
students’ narratives of low syntactic complexity were rated higher
than narratives of high syntactic complexity. These results suggest
that there is a positive relationship between effective argumentative
discourse and the ability to relate propositions syntactically. This
evidence supports the intuition that narrative style is not greatly
dependent on complex syntax. For example, both Hemingway’s
simple style and Faulkner’s complex style are effective for each
author’s purpose.

With these considerations in mind, the researcher chose to
evaluate the compositions on syntactic complexity. The raters
followed Mullis and Mellon’s (1980) measure of mean T-unit length
as Chesky (1984) and Crowhurst (1980) have done. No
independent graders (a trained grader and the researcher)
identified the T-units and counted the number of words to
determine the mean T—unit length for each composition. A T-unit is
a main clause with all of its phrases and subordinate clauses (Mullis
and Mellon 1980). Appendix J further defines the T-unit. and
explains the procedure of counting T—units. and gives an example.

Mechanics Score. Two independent graders (a trained grader
and the researcher) used Mullis and Mellon’s guidelines to count and
designate mechanical errors: word level. sentence level and

punctuation errors. Appendix J explains this procedure and gives an

46

example. The mechanics score is the mean number of errors per

100 words.

Following this collection and evaluation of data described in
this chapter. the researcher had eight scores for each composition
(holistic quality, coherence. sophistication, content and interest)
including the teacher’s grade. three scores for each pre- and post-
writing knowledge test (organization. fluency. and a combination of
the two). and all of the responses to the pre- and post-writing
questionnaires. The next chapter statistically examines these data
with regard to the three main hypotheses of this study: the first
examines the relationship between the pre—knowledge tests and the
writing scores: the second examines the relationship between the
learning from writing scores (the difference between the pre- and
post-writing knowledge test scores) and the writing scores; the
third examines the relationship between the pre- and post-writing

questionnaire responses and the writing scores.

CHAPTERFOUR

RESULTS

This chapter presents the data and the statistical analysis of
the data. The ratings of the graders are tested for reliability. The
writing scores are correlated with the knowledge tests scores and
the questionnaire responses. The knowledge scores and the
questionnaire responses are used to put the students into high- and
low-knowledge groups, high- and low-interest groups. and so on
with all the variables. Then the writing measure means of the high
and low groups are compared using the T-test analysis. Finally. the
interrelationships among the variables are examined using a

regression analysis.

INTERRATER RELIABILITY

Interrater reliabilility was determined by correlating the two
graders’ ratings for each measure on the knowledge tests and the
compositions. This gives us the reliability coefficient or the
consistency between the two graders. Table 1 gives the interrater
reliability for the grading of the pre- and post-knowledge tests

scores and for the composition scores.

47

48

INTERRATER RELIABILITY (Table 1)

Pre-Knowledge Tests Scoring

body lg candidates clothes
organization .93 1 .987 .977
fluency .974 .983 .992
combination .953 .978 .99 1
Post-Knowledge Tests Scoring
body lg candidates clothes
organization .872 .983 . 978
fluency .992 .994 .984
combination . 892 .965 .99 1
Composition Measure Scoring
body lg candidates clothes
holistic . 892 .838 .879
coherence .816 .849 .778
sophistication .890 .807 .873
content .877 .821 .918
interest .875 .868 .907
T-unit score .994 .997 .995
error score .985 .965 .9 l 8

49

CORRELATION AND COMPARISON ANALYSES

This section presents the results of the statistical correlation
and comparison analyses in such a way as to support or reject the
three hypotheses of this project. These analyses provide information
about relationships between the knowledge tests scores and the
composition scores. and between the questionnaire responses and
the composition scores. Pearson product-moment correlation
coefficients tested for significant relationships between 1) the three
measures of prior-knowledge and the writing measures. and between
2) the three measures of knowledge change and the writing
measures. and between 3) each response on the questionnaire
questions and the student’s writing measures. A T—test Analysis
tested for 1) significant mean differences between the high and low
knowledge groups and the writing measures. 2) significant mean
differences between the high and low knowledge change groups
(difference between pre- and post-knowledge test scores) and
the writing measures. and 3) significant mean differences between
the students’ high and low responses on the questionnaires and
their writing measures. The results are presented in the order of
the three hypotheses. The raw scores on the tests, compositions,

and questionnaires are provided in Appendix K.

50

Hypothesis it 1:

Prior-knowledge scores correlate with writing scores.

Specifically the hypothesis states that the high prior-
knowledge group will receive significantly higher scores on the
holistic. coherence, sophistication. content. interest. T-unit
measures and on the teacher’s grade: and that they will have
significantly fewer errors than the low prior-knowledge group. Table
2 gives the means of each writing measure for each composition.
The holistic. coherence. sophistication. content and interest scores
are based on a 12-point scale. The T-unit score is based on the
mean T-unit length of the compositions. The error score is based on
the mean number of errors per 100 words. The teacher’s grade is
based on a 5-point scale: A=5. B=4. C=3. D=2. F=l. Table 3 shows
the results of the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients

between the prior-knowledge tests and the composition scores.

WRITING MEASURE MEANS (Table 2)

body language candidates clothes
composition measures
holistic 7.63 7.90 8. 12
coherence 7.67 8.00 8.28
sophistication 6.93 7.44 7.47
content 7.19 7.53 7.33
interest 6.81 7.67 7.14
T-unit 14.85 16.10 14.39
errors 1.66 2. 68 2. 76

teacher’s grade

3.86

3.98

3.95

PRIOR KNOWLEDGE AND WRITING MEASURE CORRELATIONS (Table 3)

Body Language

51

organization

Composition measures

holistic .033
coherence - .044
sophistication - .064
content -.147
interest - .054
T-unit length - .003
mechanics .24 l
teacher’s grade .034
Presidential Candidates
organization
Composition measures
holistic .273
coherence . 135
sophistication .3 1 4“
content .184
interest .166
T-unit length .2 1 2
mechanics - . 1 00
teacher’s grade .257
Clothes
organization
Composition measures
holistic .219
coherence .250
sophistication . 138
content .205
interest .272
T-unit length . l 02
mechanics - .236
teacher’s grade . l 74

* = exceeds a of .05

fluency

.079
.022
-.051
-.092
-.034
.130
-. 133
-.089

fluency

.292
. 144
.373“
.247
.220
.172
-.187
.406“

fluency

. 176
.087
. 195
. 197
.099
.223
-.244
.086

combination

.096
.054
-.008
-.058
.079
.247
-.061
-.001

combination

.347“

. 122

.358"

.207

. 165

.222
-.200

. 140

combination

.334‘
.389‘
.205
.284
.379“
.090
-.293
.306“

52

Before the T-Test was used to analyze the data. high and low
pre-knowledge groups were determined to make the differences, if
they existed, more obvious. The low group was determined by taking
the scores from roughly the lower third and the high group was
determined by taking roughly the higher third. The number of
students in each group varies because the researcher wanted to
include all the students with the bordering score rather than to
choose randomly from those students on the boarder. The
designation of the high and low pre-knowledge groups is presented
in Table 4. The T-Test, then. analyzed the difference between the
means on each writing measure for the high and low pre-knowledge
scores. The T-Test was used to test whether the writing scores for
the high prior-knowledge group were significantly higher than for
the low prior-knowledge group.

Pre-Organization. The pre-organization score represents the
level of organization of the responses to the prior-knowledge
prompts, from highly organized (3 points) to diffusely organized (1
point). Table 5 presents the means for the high pre-organization
group and the low pre-organization group on each composition
measure. The findings Show that on the ‘body language’ composition
the high group did not receive significantly higher scores than the
low group: in fact. the low pre-organization group had higher means
on the coherence, sophistication. content. interest measures and the
teacher’s grade. and lower scores on the mechanics measure than
the high pre-organization group. On the ‘candidate’ composition the
sophistication measure significantly correlated with the pre-

organization score (Table 2). The T-Test analysis (Table 5) shows

53

that the high pre—organization group scored significantly higher on
the sophistication measure than the low pre-organization group
(P=.044). On the ‘clothes’ composition the high pre-organization
group received significantly higher coherence ratings than the low
pre-organization group (P=.03); and the high pre-organization group
had significantly fewer errors than the low pre-organization group
(P=.023).

Pre-Fluency. The pre-fluency score represents the number of
responses to the prior-knowledge test prompts; the scale is from
zero to any number. Table 4 gives the designated high and low pre-
fluency groups means. Table 6 compares the composition means for
the high and low groups. On the ‘candidate’ composition the high
fluency group received significantly higher composition measures:
holistic (P=.014). sophistication (P=.007). content (P=.011). interest
(P=.032), and the teacher’s grade (P=.013). In addition the
correlation coefficients (Table 2) shows that the fluency score
significantly correlated with the sophistication measure and the
teacher’s grade. On the ‘clothes’ those with high fluency scores
made fewer errors on their compositions (P=.017).

Pre-Combination. Table 4 gives the designation of the high and
low pre-combination groups. Table 7 compares the writing
measures for the high and low groups. On the ‘body language’
composition the high pre-combination group did not receive
significantly higher writing ratings than the low pre-combination
group. Again the low pre-combination group had several means that
were higher than the high group. On the ‘candidates’ composition
the high pre-combination group wrote significantly longer T-units

54

HIGH AND Low PRE-ORGANIZATTON GROUPS (Table 4)

Pre-Organization
body language:
high is 1.9 and above: low is 1.4 and below; mean=1.63
candidates:

high is 1.3 and above: low is .8 and below; mean=1.07
clothes:

high is 1.7 and above: low is 1.0 and below; mean=1.38

Pre-Fluency
body language:
high is 25 and above: low is 15 and below: mean=20.3l
candidates:

high is 21 and above; low is 13 and below; mean=l7.06
clothes

high is 18 and above: low is 15 and below; mean=14.92

Pre-Combination
body language:
high is 14 and above; low is 6 and below; mean=10.56
candidates:

high is 1 1 and above; low is 5 and below; mean=.8.22
clothes

high is 7 and above; low is 1 and below; mean=.4.23

55

T—TEST ON PRE—ORGANIZATION SCORES (Table 5)

high

mean stdev

holistic 8. 00
coherence 7.92
sophistication 7. 1 5
content 7. 1 5
interest 6.92
T-unit 1 4.89
errors 1 .57
t’s grade 3.85

holistic 8.44
coherence 8.31
sophistication“ 8.12

content 8.00
interest 8. 19
T—unit 1 7 .08
errors 2.38
t’s grade 4.13

holistic 8.33
coherence“ 8.58
sophistication 7.58
content 7.67
interest 7.67
T-unit 14.28
errors‘ 2.30
t’s grade 4.27
T = T-Test

1.73
1.66
1.57
1.72
1.66
2.89

.953
.80 1

1.26
1.45
1.54
1.26
1.22
2.25
1.41

.806

1.56
1.24
1.62
1.56
1.61
2.06

.871
.905

P = Significance

low

mean stdev

7.94
8.00
7.44
7.75
7. 13

14.86

1.3
3.94

7.69
7.77
7.08
7.38
7.46

15.77

2.91
3.70

7.53
7.47
7.07
7.00
6.73

14.61

3. 15
3.87

Body Language (high=13 students: low=16 students)

1.39
1.21
1.46
1.57
1.59
3.61
1.13

.680

1.38
1.59
1.61
1.33
1.39
3.03
1.08

.630

Clothes (high=12 students: low=15 students)

1.55
1.68
1.53
1.65
1.53
3.07
1.23

.640

T

. 1 1
-.14
-.50
-.96
-.33

.03

.70
-.33

Presidential Candidates (h‘ gh=16 students: low=13 students)

1.50

.95
1.78
1.27
1.47
1.29

-1.14

1.62

1.33
1.98

.84
1.08
1.51
-.34

-2.11

1.27

.46
.55
.69
.83
.63
.49
.75
.63

.073
.18
.044
.1 1
.077
.1 1
.13
.058

.099
.03
.20 ‘
. 15
.073
.63
.023
. 1 1

“ = exceeds a of .05

56

T-TEST ON PRE-FLUENCY SCORES (Table 6)

high low
mean stdev mean stdev T P

Body Language (high=14 students: low=14 students)

holistic 7.64 1.78 7.43 1.22 .37 .36
coherence 7.50 1.83 7.50 1.22 .00 .50
sophistication 6.50 1.29 7.07 1.38 -1.13 .87
content 6.79 1.63 7.29 1.27 -.91 .81
interest 6.57 1.60 6.86 1.51 -.49 .68
T—unit 15.11 2.85 14.95 1.49 .18 .43
errors 1.67 .945 1.90 1.46 -.49 .31
t’s grade 3.714 .726 4.07 .475 -1.54 .93

Presidential Candidates (high=16 students: low=12 students)

holistic‘ 8.56 1.09 7.50 1.24 2.36 .014
coherence 8.44 1.31 7.92 1.56 .93 .18
sophistication“ 8.25 1.44 6.75 1.48 2.68 .007
content“ 8.06 1.12 7.00 1.13 2.47 .011
interest“ 8.37 1.26 7.33 1.50 1.95 .032
T-unit 17.00 2.13 15.91 3.08 1.05 .15
errors 2.07 1.16 2.73 1.24 -1.42 .084
t’s grade“ 4.31 .793 3.67 .651 2.36 .013

Clothes (high=1 1 students; low=16 students)

holistic 8.36 1.69 7.69 1.35 1.11 .14
coherence 8.64 1.86 7.94 1.29 1.08 .15
sophistication 8.00 1.95 7.06 1.34 1.39 .092
content 7.64 2.34 6.88 1.63 .94 .18
interest 7.18 2.18 6.88 1.75 .39 .35
T—unit 14.75 1.62 13.66 2.74 1.31 .10
errors“ 2.29 .971 3.16 .991 -2.26 .017
t’s grade 3.91 .831 3.94 .772 -.09 .54

T = T-Test P= significance “ = exceeds a of .05

57

than the low pre-combination group (P=.039). And the high pre-
combination group received nearly significantly higher sophistication
scores than the low group. (Note that the difference was also
significantly higher in the pre-organization and sophistication T-Test
analysis Table 5).

On the ’clothes’ composition the higher pre-combination
group received significantly higher scores on the holistic measure
(P=.026), the coherence measure (P=.004). the content measure
(P=.027). the interest measure (P=.01). and the teacher’s grade
(P=.007): and the high group had significantly fewer errors than the
lower group (P=.042). In addition the correlation coefficients (Table
2) Show that the holistic. coherence. interest scores and the
teacher’s grade showed a significant relationship with the pre-

combination score on ‘clothes’ (P<.05).

Summary of Hypothesis 1. On the ‘body language’ composition
there was no significant relationship between prior-knowledge and
writing scores. Students with high prior-knowledge for the
‘presidential candidates’ topic. however. received significantly better
writing scores on holistic quality. sophistication. content. interest.
syntactic complexity (T-unit lenght) and higher grades from their
teacher. On the ‘clothes’ composition the students with high prior-
knowledge scores received significantly better writing scores for
holistic quality. coherence. content. interest. and higher grades. and
had fewer mechanical errors. Since these significant relationships
between prior-knowledge scores and the writing scores. were not

equally important on all three composition topics. the findings

58

provide only limited support for the hypothesis that prior-knowledge
correlates with writing scores.

59

T-TEST ON PRE-COMBINATION SCORES (Table 7)

high

low

P

.30
.60
.66
.86
.55
.059
.34
.61

.064
.44
.05
.23
.33
.039
. 19
.38

.026
.004
.072
.027
.0 10
.50

.042
.007

mean stdev mean stdev T
Body Language (high=14 students: low=14 students)
holistic 8.21 1.81 7.929 .997 .52
coherence 7.93 1.77 8.07 1.07 -.26
sophistication 7.14 1.66 7.36 1.08 -.41
content 7.14 1.79 7.79 1.25 —1.10
interest 7.14 1.79 7.21 1.37 -.12
T-unit 15.76 4.04 13.80 1.86 1.64
errors 1.21 .925 1.37 1.12 -.40
t’s grade 3.86 .770 3.93 .616 -.27
Presidential Candidates (high=13 students: low: 15 students)
holistic 8.46 1.39 7.60 1.50 1.57
coherence 8.15 1.52 8.07 1.62 .15
sophistication“ 8.23 1.59 7.20 1.61 1.70
content 7.85 1.34 7.47 1.30 .76
interest 8.15 1.34 7.87 1.96 .46
T-unit“ 16.71 1.72 15.28 2.38 1.84
errors 2.23 1.45 2.69 1.28 -.88
t’s grade 4.15 .899 4.07 .458 .32
Clothes (high=12 students; low=17 students)
holistic“ 8.83 1.70 7.59 1.46 2.06
coherence“ 9.08 1.31 7.53 1.59 2.88
sophistication 8.08 1.98 7.06 1.48 1.52
content“ 8.17 1.90 6.76 1.71 2.04
interest“ 8.17 1.95 6.47 1.50 2.53
T-unit 14.54 2.12 14.54 2.90 .00
errors“ 2.283 .871 2.96 1.17 -1.80
t’s grade“ 4.455 .522 3.882 .600 2.67
T = T-Test P = significance “ = exceeds on of .05

60

Hypothesis #2
For a student with a low prior-knowledge score. an increase
in knowledge about the topic during the writing process is
associated with a rise in the writing scores.

This hypothesis states that those learning the most will have
significantly higher scores on all the writing measures except for the
error measure in which case they will have significantly lower scores
than the low-knowledge gain group. The knowledge change scores
were determined by subtracting the pre-knowledge test scores from
the post-knowledge test scores. Table 9 gives the means of the
knowledge change scores on each composition and the division of
the high and low groups. Table 8 Shows the results of the Pearson
product-moment correlation coefficients between the knowledge
change scores and the students’ composition scores. Only two
relationships were significant: fluency and coherence on the ‘body
language’ composition; and combination and interest on the ‘clothes’
composition. In other words. increases in fluency of knowledge in
the ‘body language’ assignment were associated with increases in
coherence. In the ‘clothes’ assignment increases in the combination
score were associated with decreases in interest.

Again before the T-Test analyzed the data. high and low
knowledge change groups were identified (Table 9). In order for the
differences in the two groups to be apparent. the upper third of the
students are in the high-knowledge gain group and the lower third
of the students are in the low-knowledge gain group. The T-Test
analyzed the difference between the means on each writing measure.

61

Organization Change. Table 10 presents a comparison between
the means for the high and low groups and a comparison between
these two means. On the ‘body language’ composition. the high
group received significantly higher means on the coherence measure
than the low group. This is the only significant difference between
the high and low means on the T-Test for organization change.

Fluency Change. Table 8 shows that fluency change
significantly correlated with the coherence measure on ‘body
language.’ And Table 11 shows that on ‘body language’ the high
fluency group received significantly higher holistic scores (P=.018).
coherence scores (P = .005). and content scores (P = .011): the
interest scores were almost equal to a of .05 higher (P=.053).

Combination Change. Table 12 presents the high and low
means of the combination change scores and the T-Test results.
Again. on ‘body language’ the high group received significantly
higher means on the coherence measure (P=.031) and on the
content measure (P=.011). In addition. the high group for the

‘candidate’ composition had significantly fewer errors (P=.04).

Summary of Hypothesis #2. On the ‘body language’
composition the high knowledge gain group received significantly
higher writing scores on holistic quality. coherence and content. On
the ‘presidential candidates’ composition the high-knowledge gain
group had significantly fewer errors than the low knowledge gain
group. On the ‘clothes’ composition the knowledge gain scores did
not positively correlate with any of the composition measure scores.

These results, however. perhaps have limited value because for the

62

most part the students demonstrated on the tests that they learned
nothing or very little between the pre-writing and post-writing tests-
-more than half of the students had negative knowledge-gain scores
which is to say that their pre-writing knowledge was higher than

their post-writing knowledge. The data. therefore. indicate that
Hypothesis #2 cannot be accepted.

63

KNOWLEDGE CHANGE CORREIATIONS (Table 8)

Body Language
organization fluency combination
Composition ratings
holistic . 12 1 .225 .207
coherence . 1 1 l .3 1 9“ .260
sophistication -.007 .07 1 .083
content . 1 39 .24 l .239
interest .080 . 1 04 .09 1
T-unit length -. 130 -.214 -.292
mechanics -.218 -.250 -.01 1
teacher’s grade .0 l 9 .200 . 095
Presidential Candidates
organization fluency combination
Composition ratings
holistic .006 - .068 -.026
coherence .04 1 -.052 .085
sophistication -.071 -. 1 19 -.019
content .045 -.060 -.005
interest -.05 1 - .089 -.039
T-unit length -.153 -.114 -.181
mechanics -. 1 83 — .088 -.220
teacher’s grade -.046 -. 127 .069
Clothes
organization fluency combination
Composition ratings
holistic .089 - .0 1 0 -.233
coherence .083 -.217 -.175
sophistication . 1 09 .076 -. 1 29
content .027 - .008 -. 1 90
interest -.102 .006 -.325“
T-unit length .0 1 0 - .042 -.0 1 7
mechanics .082 -. 1 47 .220
teacher’s grade .098 .078 -.099

“ = exceeds a of .05

64

HIGH AND LOW KNOWLEDGE CHANGE SCORE (Table 9)

organization change
body language
high is .3 and above: low is -.3 and below: mean=.037
candidates
high is .2 and above: low is-.2 and below: mean=.044
clothes
high is .5 and above; low is-.5 and below; mean=-.25

fluency change
body language
high is 1.0 and above: low is 4. and below; mean=-1.42
candidates
high is 1.0 and above: low is -3. and below: mean=-.837
clothes
high is 2.0 and above; low is -3. and below; mean=—.930

combination change
body language
high is 4 and above; low is -4 and below; mean=-.37
candidates
high is 3 and above; low is -3 and below: mean=.379
clothes
high is 1 and above: low is -5 and below; mean=-2.05

65

T—TEST ON ORGANIZATION CHANGE SCORES (Table 10)

high

Body Language (high=l3 students; low=10 students)
.899
.899

holistic
coherence“
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit

errors

t’s grade

Presidential Candidates (high=10 students; low=14 students)

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit

errors

t’s grade

7.85
8. 15
6.92
7.31
6.85

13.91

1.54
3.85

8.00
8.40
7.50
7.90
7.90

15.59

2.00
3.80

mean stdev

1.04
1.25
1.14
2.18

.98 1
.689

1.25
1.35
2.01
1.52
1.52
2.49
1.22

.919

low

mean stdev

7.20
7.30
6.70
6.60
6.20
15.38
2. 17
3.70

7.50
7.86
7.29
7. 14
7.57
16.34
2.92
3.86

1.32
1.16
1.49
1.26
1.69
2.61
1.01

.483

1.29
1.51
1.07
1.03
1.45
3.14
1.57

.770

Clothes (high=3 students: low=13 students)

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit

errors

t’s grade

T = T-Test

7.67
8.33
7.33
7.33
7.00

13.87

3.93
4.00

2.89
2.52
3.21
2.31
2.65
2.50
2.48
1.00

8.00
8.15
7.31
7.31
7.62
14.42
2.95
3.77

P = Significance

1.87
1.63

1.93 .

2.10
2.18
2.45
1.07

. 725

T

1.33
1.93

.40
1.34
1.04

-1.44
-l.51

.60

.96
.92
.31
1.37
.53
-.65

-1.62

-.16

-. 19
. 12
.01
.02

-.37

-.34
.68
.38

. 10
.036
.35
.099
. 16
.92
.074
.28

. 18
. 18
.38
.097
.30
.74
.06
.56

.57
.46
.50
.49
.63
.62
.72
.37

“ = exceeds a of .05

66

T-TEST ON FLUENCY CHANGE SCORES (Table l 1)

high

mean stdev

low
mean stdev T P

Body Language (high=15 students; low=19 students)

holistic“
coherence“
saphistication
content“
interest
T-unit

errors

t’s grade

8.20 1.42 7.05
8.33 1.23 7.00
7.00 1.36 6.68
7.73 1.49 6.53
7.13 1.51 6.26
14.35 2.32 15.53
1.47 .88 1.93
3.93 .704 3.63

1.61 2.20
1.56 2.78
1.67 .61
1.39 2.42
1.52 1.67
3.50 -.18
1.19 -1.28

.68 1.26

.018
.005
.27
.01 1
.053
.88
. 1 1
. 1 1

Presidential Candidates (high=15 students: low=16 students)

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit

errors

t’s grade

7.73 1.22 7.81
7.60 1.45 8.00
7.00 1.73 7.50
7.20 1.37 7.50
7.27 1.39 7.56
15.34 2.75 16.30
2.73 1.27 2.89
4.00 .845 3.93

1.28
1.51
1.21
1.15
1.36
2.86
1.50

.680

Clothes (high=14 students: low=18 students)

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit

errors

t’s grade

T = T-Test

P = Significance

8.07 1.49 8.00
8.21 1.76 8.22
7.79 1.48 7.17
7.50 1.70 7.06
7.07 1.38 6.94
14.38 2.64 14.78
2.46 1.32 3.02
4.07 .475 3.77

1.88
1.59
2.09
2.15
2.26
2.01
1.21

.664

-.18
-.75
-.93
-.66
-.60
-.95
-.32

.23

.12
-.01
.98
.65
.20
-.47

-1.23

1.50

.57
.77
.82
.74
.72
.83
.37
.41

.45
.51
. 17
.26
.42
.68
. 12
.073

“ = exceeds a of .05

67

T-TEST ON COMBINATION CHANGE SCORES (Table 12)

Body Language (high=13 students; low=14 students)

holistic
coherence“
sophistication
content“
interest
T-unit

errors

t’s grade

Presidential Candidates (high=1 1 students: low=13 students)

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit
errors“

t’s grade

high

8.08
8.38
7.31
7.77
7.15

13.98

1.53
3.85

7.73
8.09
7.09
7.45
7.55

15.05
2.02
4.00

mean stdev

1.19
1.04
1.11
1.24
1.34
1.89

.897
.689

1.49
1.51
2.17
1.37
1.75
2.04
1.14

.632

low

7.07
7.29
6.57
6.50
6.50

15.74

1.61
3.64

8.00
7.85
7.54
7.62
7.69

16.16

3.05

3.846 .689

mean stdev

1.90
1.77
1.60
1.45
1.65
3.80

.964
.633

1.41
1.46
1.61
1.26
1.25
2.89
1.57

1.66
1 .98
1.40
2.45
1. 13

-1.53

-.23
.80

-.46

.40
-.57
-.30
-.23

-1.11
-1.84

.57

.055 .
.031
.088
.01 1
. 13
.93
.41
.22

.35
.7 1
.62
.59
.86
.04
.29

Table 12 (Cont’d.)

68

high

low
mean stdev mean stdev T P

Clothes (high=6 students; low=10 students)

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit

errors

t’s grade

T = Test

7.50 1.97
8.67 1.63
7.00 2.19
6.67 1.63
6.33 1.86
13.75 2.59 1
3.88 1.78
3.67 .816

P = Significance

8.70
9.00
7.90
8. 10
8.40
4.68
2.39
4.22

1.70 -1.24 .88
1.25 -.43 .66
1.97 -.83 .78
2.08 -1.53 .92
2.01 -2.09 .97
2.26 -.73 .76
.827 1.94 .95
.441 -1.52 .91 '

“ = exceeds a of .05

69

Hypothesis #3
Responses on the questionnaires correlate with the writing

scores.

This hypothesis is divided into five sub—hypotheses:
Hypothesis #3a
Interest and involvement in the topic correlate with writing
scores.
Hypothesis #3b
Personal assessment of knowledge on the topic correlate
with writing scores. '
Hypothesis #3c
Personal assessment of learning about the topic and the
teaching point correlates with writing scores.
Hypothesis #3d
Time and effort spent on writing correlate with writing
scores.
Hypothesis #3e
Personal assessment on the quality of the composition

correlates with writing scores.

Hypothesis #3a.
Interest and involvement in the topic correlate with writing

SCOTCS.

Table 4.12 shows the results of the Pearson product-moment

correlation coefficients between students’ responses to the

70

questions on interest and involvement and the composition
measures. The significant correlations are on the ‘clothes’
composition. For this composition there were significant
correlations between the students’ feelings about writing on this
topic. the interest measure (P<.05). their grade (P<.05). and an
approaching significant correlation between the students’ pre-
interest and the grade they received on their paper. and a negative
correlation between how involved they were in the writing and their
mechanics measure (P<.05). This may possibly suggest that the
more involved the students were, the fewer errors they made.

The T-Test tested for significant differences between the
composition measures for those students who chose high (4 or 5 on
the Likert Scale) and those students who chose low (1 or 2 on the
Likert Scale) on the interest and involvement questions. Those
students who choose 3 on the Likert Scale were not included in this
analysis because the researcher was interested in the difference
between the very interested students and the very uninterested
students. Each T-Test table gives the means for the interest
questions and the number of students in the high and low groups for
each composition. The results of the T-Test on each question for
each writing measure follow with a discussion of those results.

Pre-Interest. Table 14 presents a comparison of the means for
each composition measure between those who were interested in
the topic and those who were uninterested in the topic. The results
of the T—Test analysis show that the highly interested students did
not receive significantly higher composition scores on any of the

measures than those students who were uninterested in the topic.

71

PRIOR INTEREST AND WRTIING MEASURE CORRELATIONS (Table 13)

hol coh sop con int T-un err t’sg

BodyLanguage

interest » -.049 .051 -.101 .068 -.006 -.156 .289 .072

confidence -.055 -.081 -.153 -.040 .111 -.031 .045 .040

post-test

like -.043 .129 -.036 .040 .073 —.147 .160 .127

feelings .065 .072 .010 .071 .016 -.052 .181 .211

involvement -.026 -.034 -.074 -.041 -.083 -.160 .028 -.015

interest -.064 -.014 -.116 .010 .035 -.159 .173 .026

Presidential Candidates

Interest -.041 -.113 .108 .065 .100 -.033 .223 .170"

support .127 .164 .164 .082 .053 -.222 .001 -.086

confidence -.164 -.187 .025 -.018 —.066 -.085 .161 -.095

post-test

like .142 .062 .202 .288 .143 .190 -.071 .285

feelings .027 -.203 .109 .139 .039 .136 -.066 .193

involvement -.126 -.113 .033 .038 —.039 -.033 .253 -.157

interest -.169 -.188 -.059 .050 .024 -.027 .217 -.065

Clothes

interest .229 .239 .193 .177 .160 -.010 -.032 .303

confidence .119 .030 .153 .097 .063 -.184 -.013 .131

post-test

like .203 .074 .231 .193 .300 -.055 -.113 .277

feelings .193 .073 .290 .271 .323“ .062 -.013 .310“

involvement .026 -.004 .083 .072 .017 -.024 -.339“
.220

interest .137 .184 .158 .187 .136 .006 -.269 .223

'“ = exceeds a of .05

hol=holistic; coh=coherence: sop=sophistication: con=content:
int=interest: T-un=T=unit: err=errors; t’sg=teacher’s grade

72

Table 13 (cont’d)
Key to the Questionnaire Questions

Pre-Questionnaire Questions on Interest:

interest: How interested are you in writing a paper on this topic?

confidence: How confident are you in your ability to write a good
paper on this topic?

support (candidate): How strongly do you support the candidate you
have chosen to write about?

Post-Questionnaire Questions on Interest:

like: How did you like writing this paper?

feelings: How did you feel about writing this paper?
involved: How involved were you in writing this pape:?
interest: How interesting did you find the writing?

 

Confidence. Table 15 presents a comparison of the
composition means between the students who were highly confident
in their ability and those students who were uncertain of their ability
to write a good paper on each of the topics. Again the results of the
T-Test analysis show that the highly confident students did not
receive significantly higher composition ratings than the students
who were uncertain of their writing abilities. This is to say that
confidence did not make a difference in the quality of the students’
compositions.

Support. (‘Candidates’ only). Table 16 presents a comparison of

the means for each of the composition measures between the

T—TEST ON HIGH AND LOW ‘PRE-INTEREST’ (Table 14)

high

mean stdev

73

low

mean stdev

T

Body Language (high=12 students; low=17: mean=1.18)

holistic 7.33 1.72
coherence 7.58 1.93
sophistication 6.67 1.72
content 7.25 2.09
interest 6.75 1.82
T-unit 14.68 2.05
errors 2.33 1.45
t’s grade 4.00 .739

holistic 7.95
coherence 7.89
s0phistication 7 .63
content 7 .58
interest 6.75
T-unit 16.38
errors 2.99
t’s grade 4.05

1.54
1.52
1.86
1.43
1.82
2.62
1.61

.705

holistic 8.15 1.35
coherence 8.45 1.43
sophistication 7.55 1.70
content 7.30 2.00
interest 7.10 2.10
T-unit 14.43 2.64
errors 2.70 1.17
t’s grade 4.05 .621
T = T-Test

P = Significance

7.88
7.94
7.24
7.35
6.88

14.94

1.34
3.88

7.73
1.52
6.93
7.20
6.88

16.22

2.35
3.73

7.33
7.75
6.67
6.50
6.42

14.63

2.71
3.67

1.76
1.43
1.69
1.37
1.45
3.45

.943
.697

1.44
1.75
1.49
1.32
1.45
3.10

.861
.704

1.56
1.76
1.50
1.45
1.24
2.50
1.12

.888

-.84
-.55
-.90
-.15
-.21
-.25
2. 10

.43

Presidential Candidates (high=19 students: low=15 students:
me an=3 . 1 2)

.42
-.07
1.22

.80
-.21

.16
1.51
1.31

Clothes (high=20 students: low=12 students: mean=3.16)

1.51
1.16
1.53
1.31
1.16
-.21
-.02
1.32

.79
.70
.8 1
.56
.58
.60
.97
.33

.34
.53
. 12
.21
.58
.44
.93
. 10

.073
.13
.069
.10
.13
.58
.49
.10

“ = exceeds on of .05

7 4
T-TEST ON HIGH AND LOW ‘PRE-CONFIDENCE‘ (Table 15)

high

mean stdev

low
mean stdev T P

Body Language (high=22 students: low=7 students: mean=3.37)

holistic 7.55 1.71 7.86 1.46 -.47 .68
coherence 7.68 1.64 8.29 .756 -1.34 .90
sophistication 6.77 1.69 7.71 1.38 -1.49 .92
content 7.23 1.77 7.71 1.38 -.76 .77
interest 7.00 1.75 7.00 1.73 .00 .50
T—unit 14.89 2.15 15.24 5.08 -.18 .57
errors 1.71 1.29 1.10 .714 1.59 .94
t’s grade 3.91 .610 3.86 .900 .14 .45
Presidential Candidates (high=13 students; low=17 students:
mean=2.84)
holistic 7.69 1.55 8.12 1.45 -.77 .77
coherence 7.54 1.51 8.06 1.78 -.87 .80
sophistication 7.54 1.71 7.41 1.84 .19 .42
content 7.62 1.45 7.65 1.46 -.06 .52
interest 7.38 1.45 7.82 1.78 -.75 .77
T-unit 16.17 2.37 16.85 2.87 -.71 .76
errors 2.82 1.51 2.53 1.13 .59 .72
t’s grade 3.77 .832 3.94 .556 -.64 .74
Clothes (high=22 students; low=7 students: mean=3.47)
holistic 8.14 1.28 7.86 2.04 .34 .37
coherence 8.14 1.61 7.86 1.46 .43 .34
sophistication 7.55 1.68 6.71 1.60 1.18 .13
content 7.27 1.93 6.43 1.51 1.20 .13
interest 7.09 2.02 6.43 1.90 .79 .22
T-unit 14.03 2.75 15.50 2.28 -1.41 .91
errors 2.82 1.16 2.63 1.16 .38 .64
t’s grade 3.95 .669 3.71 1.11 .53 .30
T = T-Test P = Significance “ = exceeds a of .05

75

T-T‘EST ON HIGH AND Low ‘SUPPORT‘ (Table 16)

high low
mean stdev mean stdev T P

Presidential Candidates (high=6 students; low=20 students;

mean=2.40)
holistic 8.50 .837 7.70 1.45 1.70 .056
coherence 9.00 1.55 7.80 1.70 1.63 .071
sophistication“ 8.50 .837 7.15 1.79 2.57 .0096
content 8.00 .632 7.45 1.47 1.32 .10
interest 8.33 .516 7.65 1.73 1.55 .067
T-unit 15.17 1.47 16.80 2.67 1.92 .96
errors 2.17 1.43 2.63 1.33 -.70 .25
t’s grade 3.67 .816 3.95 .759 -.76 .76'

T = T-Test P = Significance

 

students who strongly supported the candidate and those who
strongly opposed the candidate they chose to write about. As the
table shows. the students who strongly supported the candidate they
wrote about received significantly higher sophistication ratings
(P=.0096) than those who strongly opposed the candidate they wrote
about. The compositions that presented the candidate in a negative
way tended to degenerate into name calling and over-simplified
negative slogans.

Enjoyed Writing. Table 17 compares the composition means
for those students who liked writing on each topic and those who
disliked the writing. Those students who liked writing the ‘clothes’

topic received significantly higher scores on the interest measure

76

(P=.032). Although no other differences were significant. most of
the writing scores are higher for the high ‘like’ group.

Feelings. Table 18 presents a comparison of the means for
each composition measure between those who enjoyed writing the
paper and those who thought it was a waste of time. The results of
the T-test analysis show that those students who enjoyed writing on
the ‘clothes’ composition received significantly higher ratings
(P=.046) on the interest writing measure than those who thought
the writing was a waste of time. And the results show that those
students who enjoyed writing the ‘body language’ composition
received significantly higher grades (P=.024) on their compositibns
than those students who thought that ’body language’ was a waste of
time.

Involvement. Table 19 presents a comparison of the means for
each of the composition measures between the highly involved
students and the very uninvolved students. The results of the T-Test
analysis shows that the highly involved students did not receive
significantly higher composition scores. In fact. on a few measures
the composition means for the uninvolved students were higher than
the composition means for the involved students.

Post Interest. Table 20 presents a comparison of the means
for each of the composition measures between the students who
found the writing very interesting and those who found the writing
boring. Again. the results of the T-Test analysis show that the highly
interested students did not receive significantly higher composition

ratings than the students who found the writing boring.

T-TEST ON HIGH AND LOW ‘LIKE‘ (Table 17)

high

mean stdev

77

low

mean stdev

T

P

Body Language (high=12 students: low=19 students: mean=2.79)

holistic 7.67 2.06
coherence 7.92 1.93
sophistication 7.25 1.60
content 7.58 2.02
interest 7.08 1.83
T-unit 14.74 1.99
errors 1.58 .918
t’s grade 3.92 .669

mean=2.53)
holistic 8.00
coherence 7 .75
sophistication 7.63
content 7 .87
interest 8.25
T-unit 16.95
errors 2.44
t’s grade 4.38

holistic 8.61
coherence 8.72
sophistication 8.00
content 7.83
interest 7.78
T-unit 14.50
errors 2.57
t’s grade 4.18
T = T-Test

.926

1.28
1.06
1.13

.886

2.29
1.69

.916

1.33
1.49
1.81
1.98
2.13
1.58

.905
.636

P = Significance

7.58
7.58
7.00
7. 1 1
6.63

15.31

1.38
3.68

7.68
7.73
7.05
7. 14
7.55

15.52

2.73
3.86

8.00
8.50
7.00
7.00
6.50

15.47

2.98
3.80

1.61
1.50
1.60
1.56
1.61
3.77

.992
. 749

1.36
1.58
1.50
1.21
1.68
2.57
1.35

.640

1.33
1.18
1.33
1.63
1.35
3.43
1.38

. 789

. 13
.52
.42
.70
.70
-.54
.57
.90

Presidential Candidates (high=8 students: low=22 students;

.73

.04
1.18
1.56
1.48
1.46
-.44
1.46

Clothes (high=18 students: low=10 students: mean=3.21)

1. 16

.43
1.66
1.20
1.94
-.84
-.85
1.28

.45
.31
.34
.25
.25
.70
.71
. 19

.24
.48
. 13
.072
.076
.084
.34
.09

. 13
.33
.055
.12
.032
.79
.20
. 1 1

“ = exceeds on of .05

78

Summary of Hypothesis #3a. The data, therefore. indicate that
the hypothesis that high interest and involvement in the topic

correlate with good writing scores cannot be accepted.

79

T-TEST ON HIGH AND LOW ‘FEELINGs‘ (Table 18)

high

mean stdev

mean stdev

low

T

P

Body Language (high=10 students: low=13 students: mean=2.86)

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit

errors

t’s grade“

Presidential Candidates (high=12 students; low=16 students;

mean=2 .9 1)
holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit
errors
t’s grade

8.40
8.50
7.60
8. 10
7.40

14.60

1.62
4.20

8.08
7.50
7.50
7.83
8.00

16.75

2.60
4.17

1.58
1.18
1.51
1.85
1.84
1.87
1.02

.422

1.44
1.57
1.51
1.47
1.28
2.60
1.02

.835

7.62
7.69
7. 15
7. 15
6.85

15.16

1.28

3.62 _

8.06
8.31
7.25
7.44
7.81

15.62

2.67
3.94

1.98
1.89
1.82
1.77
1.63
4.04

.926
.870

1.44
1.58
1.53
1.15
1.97
2.72
1.40

.574

1.06
1.26
.64
1.24
.75
-.44
.83
2.12

.04

-1.35

.43
.77
.30
1.1 1
-.16
.82

Clothes (high=13 students: low=12 students; mean=3.07)

holistic
coherence
sophisticated
content
interest“
T-unit

errors

t’s grade

T = T-Test

8.77
8.54

8.31
8.31

8.23
14.63
2.82

4.23

P = Significance

1.54
1.56
1.55
1.97
2.24
2.09
1.00

.725

8.08
8. 17
7.33
7.33
6.83

14.74

2.63
3.92

1.38
1.47
1.61
1.83
1.70
3.19
1.30

.669

1.18

.61
1.54
1.28
1.77
-.10

.41
1.13

. 15
. 1 1
.26
. 12
.23
.67
.79
.024

.49
.91
.33
.22
.38
. 14
.44
.2 1

. 13
.27
.069
. 1 1
.046
.54
.66
. 14

“ = exceeds a of .05

80

T-TEST ON HIGH AND Low ‘INVOLVEMENT‘ (Table 19)

high

mean stdev

low

mean stdev

T

P

Body Language (high=18 students; low=11 students: mean=3.26)

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit

errors

t’s grade

Presidential Candidates (high=19 students: low=12 students;

mean=3.28)
holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit
errors
t’s grade

7.72
7.89
7.00
7.39
6.89

14.51

1.56
3.94

8.00
8. 16
7.79
7.89
7.95

15.83

2.82
3.89

1.60
1.64
1.68
1.82
1.68
1.72
1.10

.639

1.25
1.50
1.18
1.29
1.18
2.94
1.38

.809

7.55
7.82
7.09
7.27
6.82

16.01

1.14
3.82

8.42
8.42
7.75
7.83
8. 17

15.87

2.18
4.17

2.02
1.60
1.64
1.56
1.72
3.97

.956
.874

1.16
1.56
1.29
1.11
1.85
1.94

.778
.577

.25
.11
-.14
.18
.11

-1.18

1.10
.42

-.94
-.46

.09

. 14
—.37
-.04
1.63

-1.09

Clothes (high=20 students: low=6 students: mean=3.44)

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit

errors

t’s grade

T = T—Test

8. 15
8. 10
7.45
7.30
7.20

14.24

2.51
4.11

P = Significance

1.69
1.71
1.73
2.08
2.14
2.01

.865
.567

8.83
9.00
8.00
7.83
7.38

14.80

3.30
4.00

1.33

.894

1.90
1.83
1.83
3.02
1.07

.894

-1.03
-1.70
-.64
-.60
-.71
-.42
-1.66
.27

.40
.46
.56
.43
.46
.87
.86
.34

.82
.67
.47
.44
.64
.52
.94
.86

.84
.95
.73
.72
.75
.66
.07
.40

“ = exceeds on of .05

T-TEST ON HIGH AND Low ‘POST-INTEREST‘ (Table 20)

81

high
mean stdev

low
mean stdev

T

P

Body Language (high=10 students; low=13 students: mean=2.79)

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit

errors

t’s grade

Presidential Candidates (high=21 students: low=12 students:

mean=3.24)
holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit
errors
t’s grade

7.67
7.62
7. 19
7.52
7.86

16.28

2.81
3.86

1.35
1.53
1.50
1.29
1.35
2.61
1.36

.854

8.25
8.25
7.58
7.50
7.83

16.23

2.25
4.08

8.20 1.75 7.92 1.50
8.40 1.18 8.23 1.17
7.40 1.58 7.54 1.45
8.00 1.94 7.54 1.39
7.40 1.84 6.85 1.63
14.45 2.26 15.59 3.71
1.53 .878 1.24 1.07
4.10 .568 3.92 .760

1.36
1.71
1.62
1.31
1.85
2.94

.852
.515

.40
.55
-.22
.64
.75
-.91
.72
.64

-1.19
-1.06
-.69
.05
.04
.05
1.47

-.95 ‘

Clothes (high=15 students; low=12 students: mean=3.09)

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit

errors

t’s grade

T = T-Test

8.00
8.20
7.27
7.47
7.27

14.39

2.77
4.00

P = Significance

1.85
1.74
1.94
1.88
2.12
2.16
1.02

.877

7.83
7.83
7. 17
7. 17
7.00

15.02

3.38
3.75

1.34
1.47
1.53
1.64
1.95
3.49
1.10

.754

.27
.59

. 15
.44
.34
-.54
-1.46
.78

.35
.30
.58
.27
.23
.81
.76
.26

.88
.85
.75
.48
.48
.48
.92
.82

.39
.28
.44
.33
.37
.70
.079
.22

“ = exceeds a of .05

82

Hypothesis #3b
Personal assessment of prior knowledge on the topic

correlates with writing scores.

Table 21 shows the results of the Pearson product-moment
correlation coefficients between the students’ self-report on prior-
knowledge and the scores the students received for their
compositions. This analysis does not show a significant relationship
between selfcreported prior-knowledge and the composition
measures for any topic. Oddly. on the ‘clothes’ composition there
was a positive correlation between the number of errors and the
students’ knowledge of the rules of dress where a negative
correlation was expected (P<.05). This is to say that those who said
they knew a lot about rules of dress made more mechanical errors.

The T—Test compared the composition means between those
students with self-reported high prior-knowledge (4 or 5 on the
Likert Scale) and those students with low prior-knowledge (1 or 2
on the Likert Scale). T-Test Table 22 gives the means for these
questions and the number of high and low students for each topic.
The results show that those students who reported that they had
high knowledge about how people talk received significantly higher
scores on the interest measure. Note. however, that on the ‘talk’
question for the ‘body language’ composition only three students
were in the low group and all three received a score of 6 points. The
T-Test shows that on ‘clothes’ the low knowledge students had

significantly fewer errors than the high knowledge students (P<.01).

83

Summary of Hypothesis 03b. The data. therefore. indicate that
the hypothesis that high personal assessment of knowledge on the
topic correlates with good writing scores cannot be accepted.

84

PRIOR-KNOWLEDGE AND WRITING MEASURE CORRELATIONS (Table 2 1)

hol coh sop con int T—un err t’sg
BodyLanguage
know-dress -.010 -.093 -.048 .076 .019 -.137 .017 .156
know-body lg -.045 -.113 -.159 -.000 .094 -.045 .021 -.008
know-talk .125 .082 -.003 .167 .121 .015 -.133 .173

Presidential Candidates
aware -.122 -.032 .127 .071 .006 .058 .136 .009
Clothes

rules of dress .002 .001 -.026 -.014 .032 -.089 .331“ .119

“ = exceeds or of .05

Key to Questionnaire Questions
Body Language:
How aware are you of how you and others dress?
How aware are you of your body language and that of others?

How aware are you of your style of dress and that of others?
Presidential Candidates:

How aware are you of the current presidential campaign?
Clothes:

How much do you know of formal and informal rules of dress?

hol=holistic; coh=coherence: sop=sophistication: con=content:
int=interest; T-un=T-unit: err=errors; t’sg=teacher’s grade

85

T-TEST ON HIGH AND LOW ‘KNOWLEDGE‘ (Table 22)

high low
mean stdev mean stdev T
BodyLanguage
--dress (high=33 students: low=4 students; mean=3.63)
holistic 7.58 1.66 7.00 1.15 .89
coherence 7.55 1.70 7.75 1.26 -.29
sophistication 6.88 1.49 6.50 1.91 .38
content 7.24 1.68 7.00 1.15 .37
interest 6.88 1.56 6.50 1.00 .67
T-unit 14.64 2.44 15.00 .748 -.63
errors 1.70 1.27 1.78 .574 -.22
t’s grade 3.88 .696 3.50 1.00 .74

P

.2 1
.61
.36
.36
.27
.73
.42
.26

--body language (high=24 students; low=6 students: mean=3.93)

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit

errors

t’s grade

--talk (high=32 students: low=3 students:

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest“
T-unit

errors

t’s grade

7.54

.711

7.58 1.89
6.75 1.59
7.17 1.83
6.92 1.59
14.72 2.48
1.80 1.15
3.83

.702

7.69
7.66
6.91
7.31
6.88

15.06

1.62
3.91

1.64
1.60
1.67
1.73
1.70
3.09
1.25

.641

7.33 1.03 .38
8.17 .408 -1.39
7.00 1.10 -.45
7.00 1.10 .29
6.00 1.26 1.50
13.98 1.53 .91
1.60 .963 .45
3.83 .983 .00
mean=3.37)
6.67 1.15 1.40
7.67 1.53 -.01
6.67 1.15 .33
6.67 1.15 .88
6.00 .00 2.91
15.73 1.42 -.69
2.47 .709 -1.81
3.00 1.00 1.54

.36
.9 1
.67
.39
.083
. 19
.67
.50

. l 5
.50
.39
.24
.003
.74
.084
. 13

Table 22 (cont’d.)

Presidential Candidates (high=21 students; low=16 students;

mean=3. l 9)
holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit
errors
t’s grade

86

7.86 1.24 8.31
8.05 1.60 8. 19
7.67 1.46 7.44
7.67 1.32 7.63
7.81 1.25 7.87
16.40 2.80 15.98
2.58 1.54 2.37
4.05 .669 3.94

Clothes (high=18 students; low=13 students: mean=3.16)

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T—unit

errors

t’s grade

T = T-Test

P = Significance

7.94 1.43 8.08
8.11 1.78 8.31
7.17 1.72 7.31
7.11 1.68 7.23
7.00 1.68 6.85
13.67 2.21 14.07
3.24 1.26 2.24
4.00 .707 3.77

1.25 -1.10 .86
1.33 -.29 .61
1.63 .44 .33
1.36 .09 .46
1.86 -.12 .55
2.73 .46 .32
.893 .52 .70
.574 .54 .30
1.75 -.22 .59 ‘
1.65 -.32 .62
1.84 -.22 .58
2.13 -.17 .57
1.82 .24 .41
1.73 -.57 .71
.770 2.75 .99
.725 .87 .20

“ = exceeds a of .05

87

Hypothesis #3c
Personal assessment of learning about the topic and the
teaching points correlates with writing scores.

Table 23 presents the results of the Pearson product-moment
correlation coefficients between the students’ self-reports on their
learning and their composition scores. There is one positive
correlation between the self-reports on the students’ learning
through writing and the interest rating on the ‘clothes’ composition
(P<.05). But in this analysis there are several significant negative
correlations at the .05 level. This is to say that low learning
responses were significantly correlated with high composition
scores and vice-versa.

The T-Test compared the composition means of those
students with high self-reported learning (4-5 on the Likert Scale)
with those students with low self-reported learning (1-2 on the
Likert Scale). The T-Test tables give the means for each question
and the number of students in the high and low groups. The results
in Tables 24-27 indicate that the students with high learning did not
receive significantly higher composition scores. In many cases, in
fact. the composition means in the low learning group are
significantly higher than the means in the high learning group at the
.05 level of significance.

88

SELF-REPORTED LEARNING AND COMPOSITION CORRELATIONS (Table 23)

hol coh sop con int T-un err t’sg

BodyLanguage
learn-topic -.187 -.135 -.180 -.134 -.245 -.018 .251 .091
learn-org -.357“-.262 -.312“-.332“-.31 1“ .117 .112 -.290

topic in wkshp -.063 -.231 -.120 -.139 -.214 .199 .117 -.274
organ in wkshp-.288 -.323“ -.415“-.355“-.291 -.098 .264 -.478“

Presidential Candidates
learn-topic -.084 -.167 -.152 -.031 -.046 .209 .231 -.220
learn-trans -.009 -.020 .048 -.096 -.249 -.091 .024 -.191

topic in wkshp-.127 -.022 -.188-.147 4333:4201 .049 -.381“
trans in wkshp .168 .102 .103 .045 -.243 .042 .017 .037

Clothes

learn-topic .167 .054 .091 .176 .351“ .036 .071 .007
learn-devel -.028 -.121 .024 .060 .064 .052 -.005 -.090
topic in wkshp-.118 .057 .006 .015 -.071 -.043 -.057 -.363“
devinwkshp -.098 .003 -.092 -.010 -.072 -.113 .024 -.332“

“ exceeds a of .05

Key to Questions on Learning:

learn-topic: How much did you learn about this topic from writing
this paper?

learn-organ/trans/dev: How much did you learn about organization/
transitions] development from writing this paper?

learn-topic: From Wednesday’s workshop how much did you learn

about the topic?

organ/trans/dev in wkshp: How much did you learn about

organization/ transitions/ development from the workshop?

hol=holistic; coh=coherence: sop=sophistication: con=content:
int=interest; T-un=T-unit: err=errors: t’sg=teacher’s grade

89

Learn about the Topic through Writing. On the correlation
coefficients (Table 24) the responses to the question on how much
the students learned about ‘clothes’ through writing positively
correlated with the interest writing measure (P<.05). But the T-Test
(Table 24) revealed no significant difference between the
composition means of the high and low learning groups. On the
‘candidate’ topic. the students who learned little about the topic had
significantly fewer errors than those who learned much about the
topic (P=.05).

Learn about the Teaching Points through Writing. On the ‘body
language’ the students' responses to question on how much they
learned about ‘organization’ (the teaching point for that week)
negatively correlated with their holistic, sophistication, content and
interest scores on their compositions(<.05). And the T-Test (Table
25) also demonstrated that these students who learned little,
received significantly higher holistic (P=.05). sophistication (P=.03).
content (P=.03) and interest scores (P=.04) and almost significantly
higher grades (P=.06). Also on the ‘candidates’ composition the
students who learned little about transitions received significantly
higher interest scores (P=.05) and almost significantly higher grades
(P=.06).

Learn about the Topic in the Workshop. Table 26 shows that
the responses to this question negatively correlated with the
students’ interest rating (P<.05). and the teacher’s grade (P<.05) on
the ‘candidates’ composition and with the teacher’s grade (P<.05)
on the ‘clothes’ composition. The T—Test analysis in Table 26 shows
that the students who learned little about ’body language’ in the

90

workshop had significantly fewer errors on their compositions
(P<.05). And the students who learned little about the candidates in
the workshop received significantly higher interest scores (P=.04).
had significantly longer T-units (P<.03). and received significantly
higher grades (P<.02).

Learn about the Teaching Point in the Workshop. There was a
significant negative correlation between the responses to this
question and the coherence. sophistication. content writing
measures and teacher’s grade on the ‘body language’ composition.
There was also a significant negative correlation on the responses to
this question and the grades received on the ‘clothes’ composition
(P<.05). The T-Test analysis in Table 27 revealed that these
students who said that they learned very little about the teaching
point in the workshop, received significantly higher ratings on
sophistication (P=.04). content (P=.03) and mechanics (P=.01)
measures and higher grades (P=.01) on the ‘body language’ paper.
For the ‘clothes’ paper the low responses to this question received

significantly higher grades from their teacher (P=.01).

Summary of Hypothesis #3c. The data. therefore. indicate that
the hypothesis that high personal assessment of learning about the
topic and the teaching points correlates with good writing scores

cannot be accepted.

91

T—TEST 0N HIGH AND Low ‘LEARN-TOPIc‘ (Table 24)

high

mean stdev

holistic 7 .67
coherence 7.83
sophistication 6. 76
content 7.33
interest 6. 50
T-unit 1 5.90
errors 1 . 55
t’s grade 4. 1 7

holistic 7.92
coherence 8.08
sophistication 7 .08
content 7. 46
interest 7.92
T-unit 1 7.42
errors 2.93
t’s grade 3.69

holistic 8.33
coherence 8.33
sophistication 6.67
content 7.33
interest 8.00
T-unit 14.60
errors 3.10
t’s grade 4.00
T = T—Test

1.51
1.60
2.07
1.97
1.22
1.38

.850
.408

1.50
1.50
1.66
1.27
1.50
3.21
1.20

.855

2.08
2.31
2.00
1.70

.854

.00

P = Significance

low

mean stdev

7.84
7.84
7.05
7.32
7.05

14.97

1.42
3.79

8.06
8.63
7.94
7.69
8.00

15.85

2.12
4.00

7.81
8.19
7.19
6.89
6.52

14.48

2.76
3.96

1.74
1.42
1.61
1.77
1.87
3.37
1.15

.713

1.29
1.54
1.39
1.25
1.67
2.54
1.39

.516

1.44
1.42
1.33
1.55
1.28
2.69
1.28

.706

T

-.24
-.01
-.42
.02
-.84
.97
.30
1.61

Presidential Candidates (high=13 students: low=16 students;
mean=2.91)

-.27
-.97

-1.49

-.48
-.13
1.44
1.68

-1.14

Clothes (high=3 students; low=27 students; mean=2.14)
.577
.577

1 .20
.34
-.42
.33
1.25
. 1 1
.61
.27

P

Body Language (high=6 students: low=19 students: mean=2.27)

.59
.50
.66
.49
.79
.17
.61
.06

.60
.83
.93
.68
.55
.08
.95
.87

. 14
.37
.64
.39
. 17
.46
.71
.39

“ = exceeds a of .05

92

T—TEST ON HIGH AND LOW LEARN-TEACHING POINT‘ (‘Table 25)

high

mean stdev

holistic. 7. 00
coherence 7.37
sophistication 6.47
content 6. 74
interest 6.37
T-unit 1 5. 1 8
errors 1 .8 1
t’s grade 3.68

mean=3.40)
holistic 7. 74
coherence 7 .84
sophistication 7 .53
content 7.26
interest 7 .26
T-unit 15.53
errors 3.06
t’s grade 3.84

holistic 7.83
coherence 7 .94
sophistication 7.39

content 7.28

interest 6.94

T-unit 14.62

errors 2.86

t’s grade 3.77
T = T-Test

1.56
1.57
1.61
1.73
1.71
2.26
1.34

.885

1.19
1.54
1.22
1.10
1.10
2.86
1.43

.765

1.76
1.89
1.88
1.87
1.86
2.37
1.16

.903

P = Significance

low

mean stdev

8.17
8.08
7.42
7.83
7.33

14.17

1.34
4.08

8.00
8.33
7.67
8.00
9.33

14.97

3.17
4.67

7.80
8.30
7. 10
6.80
6.30

14.13

2.77
3.90

1.53
1.44
1.08
1.27
1.23
2.51
1.10

.515

1.73
1.53

.577

2.00

1.15
1.70

2.48

.577

1.14
1.25
1.52
1.69
1.06
3.33
1.52

.568

'I‘

-2.05
-1.30
-1.95
-2.03
-1.83

1. 14

1.05
-1.59

Presidential Candidates (high=19 students; low=3 students:

-.25
-.52
-.32
-.62
-2.90
.47
-.07
~2.19

Clothes (high=18 students: low=10 students; mean=3.16)

.06
-.60
.44
.69
1.17
.41
. 17
-.48

P

Body Language (high=19 students: low=12 students; mean=3.19)
.97
.90
.97
.97
.96
.13
.85
.94

.59
.67
.62
.70
.95
.33
.48
.94

.48
.72
.33
.25
. 13
.34
.56
.68

“ = exceeds a of .05

9 3
T-TEST ON HIGH AND Low “LEARN-TOPIC IN WORKSHOP‘ (Table 26)

high
mean stdev

low
mean stdev T P

Body Language (high=10; low=16; av. leaming=2.71)

holistic 7.40 1.58 7.56 1.55 -.26 .60
coherence 7.20 1.69 7.87 1.45 -1.05 .84
sophistication 6.50 1.96 6.88 1.41 —.53 .70
content 7.00 2.00 7.25 1.61 -.33 .63
interest 6.50 1.65 7.06 1.65 -.85 .80
T-unit 15.51 3.14 13.98 1.63 1.43 .09
errors 1.79 .742 1.21 .978 1.72 .95
t’s grade 3.60 .843 3.88 .719 -.86 .80

Presidential Candidates (high=7 students; low=18 students;

mean=2.59)
holistic 7.57 1.62 8.22 1.31 -.95 .82
coherence 8.14 2.04 8.22 1.59 -.09 .54
sophistication 7.57 1.62 8.00 1.33 -.62 .72
content 7.29 1.25 7.83 1.15 -1.00 .83
interest 7.29 1.25 8.39 1.46 -1.88 .96
T-unit 14.37 2.72 16.93 2.23 -2.22 .97
errors 2.81 1.28 2.36 1.43 .78 .77
t’s grade 3.43 .787 4.22 .732 -2.31 .98

Clothes (high=5 students; low=16 students: mean=2.58)
holistic 7.00 2.24 8.12 1.20 —1.08 .83
coherence 6.80 2.39 7.50 1.10 -.64 .72
sophistication 6.80 2.39 7.50 1.10 -.64 .72
content 6.80 1.79 7.25 1.18 -.53 .69
interest 6.40 2.07 7.13 1.31 -.74 .75
T-unit 15.06 1.70 15.02 3.12 .04 .49
errors 2.78 1.42 2.72 1.22 .09 .53
t’s grade 3.40 1.14 4.31 .704 -l.69 .92

T = T-Test P = Significance “ = exceeds a of .05

94

T-TEST ON LEARN-TEACHING POINTS IN WORKSHOP‘ (Table 27)

high
mean stdev

low
mean stdev

T

P

Body Language (high=9 students; low=7 students: mean=3.08)

holistic
coherence‘
sophistication’
content
interest
T-unit

errors

t’s grade

6.67 1.32 7.86 1.86
6.56 1.51 7.71 1.25
5.56 1.24 7.29 2.06
5.78 1.09 7.14 1.46
5.89 1.36 7.00 1.73
15.14 3.03 15.93 4.82
1.94 1.04 .729 .616
3.11 .782 3.86 .378

-1.43
-1.68
-1.97
-2.06
-1.39

-.38

2.92
-2.51

.9 1
.94
.96
.97
.90
.64
.99
.99

Candidates (high=14 students; low=10 students; mean=3.08)

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit

errors

t’s grade

8.36 1.28 7.90
8.71 1.54 8.30
7.86 1.46 7.40
7.64 1.22 7.60
7.36 1.28 8.50
16.26 3.33 15.37
2.86 1.31 2.56
3.93 .730 3.80

1.52 .77
1.42 .68
1.43 .77
1.26 .08
1.84 -1.69
2.11 .80
1.61 .49

.919 .37

Clothes (high=1 1 students; low=13 students: mean=2.87)

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit

errors

t’s grade

T = T-Test

P = Significance

7.64 1.80 8.15
7.82 1.72 8.00
6.73 1.85 7.46
6.91 2.02 7.23
6.55 1.92 7.15
14.72 1.83 15.18
2.77 1.34 2.65
3.46 .820 4.23

1.07 -.84
1.47 -.28
1.05 -1. 17
1.24 -.46
1.41 -.87
3.22 -.44
1.02 .26

.725 -2.44

.22
.25
.23
.47
.94
.22
.68
.36

.79
.61
.87
.67
.80
.67
.60
.99

“ = exceeds a of .05

95

Hypothesis 03d
Time and effort spent on writing the composition correlates
with writing scores.

Table 28 shows the results of the Pearson product-moment
correlation coefficients between the students’ effort and the scores
they received on their compositions. Again there are several
negative correlations between amount of change. number of
interviews, and amount of rewrite times and the composition scores.

The T-Test compared the composition means of those
students with much effort and those with little efi'ort. The results of
the T-Test for each question on effort follow in Tables 30-35. Table
29 shows the designation of the high and low groups for each of the
questions on effort.

Difficulty. Table 30 compares the composition means of those
students who found the writing very easy and those who found the
writing very difficult. The results show that the students who said
that they had found the writing easy did not receive significantly
higher ratings than the students who said they had found the writing
difficult.

Reading. Note that the T-Test analysis was not possible in
Table 31 with ‘body language’ because only one student read more
than the others.

9 6
EFFORT AND WRITING MEASURES CORRELATIONS (Table 28)

hol coh sop con int T-un err t’sg
BodyLanguage
difficulty -.073 .001 -.151 -.073 -.010 -.097 .131 .187
amountread .134 .133 .108 .079 .119 -.030 -.142 .032
interviews .038 -.167 -.078 -.099 -.032 .137 -.022 .022
writing time -.018 -.061 .142 .101 .173 .027 -.280 -.009
amof change -.311“-.363“-.324“-.110 -.160 -.209 .118 -.314“
rewrite time -.292 -.348“-.229 -.187 -.176 -.109 -.187 -.262

Presidential Candidates

difficulty -.052 -.055 .037 .034 —.045 .285 .171 .057
amount read -.099 -.144 -.048 .020 .107 .018 .124 -.005
interviews -.240 -.368“-.190 -.255 -.293 -.022 .118 -.308“
writing time -.151 -.114 -.114 -.080 .004 -.303“ .275 -.298-
amof change -.045 .009 -.133 -.034 .158 -.231 -.036 .041
rewrite time -.004 .040 -.010 -.024 .057 -.280 -.044 -.070

Clothes

difficulty .188 .087 .255 .131 .154 -.084 -.146 .276
amount read -.064 .012 .026 -.065 -.196 -.004 -.030 .006
interviews —.043 -.045 -.097 -.035 -.076 .047 -.281 —.329“
writing time .236 .094 .084 .087 .171 .279 -.180 .205
arnofchange -.021 -.215 .019 .119 .036 -.057 .003 -.097
rewrite time -.157 -.089 -.190 -.157 -.218 .105 -.114 .040

“ = exceeds on of .05

Key to Questions on Effort:

difficulty: How difficult did you find the writing?

read: How much did you read for this paper?

interview: How many people did you interview for this paper?

write-time: About how much time did you spend thinking about your
paper and writing the first draft?

change: How much did you change your paper after the workshop?

rewrite-time: About how much time did you spend rewriting your
paper?

hol=holistic; coh=coherence: sop=sophistication: con=content:
int=interest; T-un=T-unit; err=errors: t’sg=teacher’s grade

97

Writing Time. Table 33 shows that the students who spent
much time writing the ‘body language’ composition had fewer errors
than the students who spent little time writing the composition.
The high students’ composition results were not significantly higher
than the low effort students on any of the other questions or topics.

The correlation coefficients on the questions of effort do. in
fact. support the opposite of what Hypothesis 3d proposes: on ‘body
language’ the amount the students changed their papers negatively
correlated with the holistic. coherence. sophistication measures and
the teacher’s grade (P<.05): and on ‘candidates’ the number of
people interviewed negatively correlated with the coherence
measure and the teacher’s grade (P<.05): also on ‘clothes’ the
number of people interviewed negatively correlated with the
teacher’s grade (P<.05). The interviews were intended as a method
from which the students could get ideas for writing not as a method
of editing their papers. This seems to suggest that the students
need not interview people to write good papers for their teachers
and. thus. succeed in their composition classes. In addition, the
length of the T-unit negatively correlated with writing time on the
‘candidate’ composition. This seems to suggest that the more time
spent writing. the shorter the T—units.

Interviews. Table 32 shows that on the ‘candidate’
composition the low interview group received significantly higher
coherence measures than the high interview group (P=.02). On the
‘clothes’ composition the low interview group had significantly

higher grades (P=.04) and the correlation approaches significance

98

between few errors and the students who spent little time writing
(P=.06).

Writing Time. Table 33 shows that the students who spent
little time writing the ‘candidate’ paper had significantly fewer
errors than those who spent much time writing their papers (P=.01).

Changes. Table 34 shows that students who changed their
‘body language’ papers very little from the first to second drafts
received significantly better grades (P=.04) and better sophistication
scores (P=.04).

Rewrite Time. Table 35 shows that students who spent little
time rewriting their ‘clothes’ papers received significantly higher

interest scores (P=.04).

Summary of Hypothesis #3d. The data. therefore indicated
that the hypothesis that much time and effort spent on writing

correlate with good writing scores cannot be accepted.

9 9
HIGH AND Low EFFORT GROUPS (Table 29)

Difficulty:
Body Language: high is 4-5. low is 1-2; mean=2.79
Candidates: high is 45. low is 1-2: mean=2.91
Clothes: high is 4—5. low is 1-2; mean=3.16

Amount read:
Body Language: high is 2 and above. low is 1; mean=1.02
Candidates: high is 2 and above. low is 1; mean=1.44
Clothes: high is 2 and above. low is 1: mean=1.05

Other Research:
Body Language (research): high is 4-5. low is 1-2; mean=2.49
Candidates (interviews): high is 1-4, low is 0: mean=.74
Clothes (interviews): high is 1-2. low is 0: mean=.22

Writing Time:
Body Language:
high is 3 hrs. and above; low is 1 h.r and below; av. 2.2
Candidates:
high is 3 hrs. and above; low is 1 hr. and below: av. 2.13
Clothes:
high is 4 hrs. and above; low is 1 h.r and below: av. 2.68

Amount Changed
Body Language: high is 4-5. low is 1-2; mean=2.9
Candidates: high is 4-5. low is 1-2; mean=3.33
Clothes: high is 4-5. low is 1-2; mean=3.17

Rewrite time:
Body Language
high is 2 hrs. and above; low is 45 min. and below; mean=1.71
Candidates
high is 2.5.hrs. and above; low is 1 hr and below; av. 1.81
Clothes

 

high is 3 hrs. and above: low is 1 hr and below: mean=1.94

100

T-TEST ON HIGH AND Low ‘DIFFICULTY‘ (Table 30)

high

mean stdev

holistic 7. 54
coherence 7.69
sophistication 6.54
content 7. 1 5
interest 6.92
T-unit 1 4. 1 5
errors 1 .67
t’s grade 3.92

holistic 8.33
coherence 8.20
sophistication 7 .93
content 8.00
interest 8.00
T—unit 16.57
errors 2.64
t’s grade 4.20

holistic 8.42
coherence 8.53
sophistication 7.95
content 7.63
interest 7.37
T-unit 14.27
errors 2.64
t’s grade 4.05
T = T-Test

1.85
1.55
1.33
1.63
1.55
2.04

.946
. 760

1.23
1.26
1.71
1.46
1.25
3.13
1.64

.561

1.57
1.87
1.87
2.01
2.09
1.99
1.10

.780

P = Significance

low

mean stdev

7.82
7.88
7. 18
7.35
6.88

15.18

1.26
3.77

8.25
8. 19
7.56
7.69
7.94

14.96
2.381 .899
.619

4.13

7.85
8.23
7.23
7.31
6.92

15.06

3.09
3.62

Body Language (high=13 students; low=17 students)

1.67
1.58
1.70
1.62
1.76
3.47
1.02

.664

1.18
1.68
1.31
1.14
1.69
2.28

Clothes (high=19 students; low=13 students)

1.77
1.48
1.74
2.02
1.93
3.10
1.44

.768

T

-.44
-.33

-1.15

-.33
.07

-1.01

1.14
.60

Presidential Candidates (high=15 students; low=16 students)

. 19
.02
.67
.66
. 12
1.63
.54
.35

.94
.50
1. 1 1
.45
.62
-.81
-.96
1.57

P

.67
.63
.87
.63
.47
.84
.87
.28

.42
.49
.25
.26
.45
.058
.70
.36

.18
.31
. 14
.33
.27
.79
.17
.064

“ = exceeds a of .05

101

T-TEST ON HIGH AND LOW ‘READING' (Table 31

high
mean stdev

low
mean stdev T P

Body Language (high=1 student; low=42 students)

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T—unit

errors

t’s grade

Presidential Candidates (high=14 students; low=29 students)

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit

errors

t’s grade

9.00 7.60
9.00 7.64
8.00 6.90
8.00 7. 17
8.00 6.79
14.30 14.86
.6 1.71
4.00 3.86

7.79 1.53 7.97
7.50 1.51 8.24
7.21 1.37 7.55
7.50 1.56 7.55
7.86 1.51 7.59
16.36 3.42 15.98
2.91 1.32 2.57
4.00 .877 3.93

1.35
1.57
1.74
1.24
1.62
2.31
1.42

.593

Clothes (high=2 students; low=40 students)

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit

errors

t’s grade

T = T—Test

P = Significance

7.50 2.12 8.15
8.00 2.83 8.30
7.50 2.12 7.50
6.50 2.12 7.40
5.50 .707 7.20
14.85 3.75 14.40
3.75 2.05 2.70
3.50 .707 3.97

1.58

1.56

1.74

1.89
1.91

2.46
1.16
.743

-.38

-1.49

-.69
-. 1 1
.54
.37
.79
.27

-.43
-.15

.00
-.59

—2.91

.17
.72
-.92

.64
.93
.75
.54
.30
.36
.78
.40

.63
.55
.50
.67
.89
.45
.70
.74

“ = exceeds a of .05

102

T-TEST ON HIGH AND LOW ‘INTERVIEWS‘ (Table 32)

high

mean stdev

holistic 7 .58
coherence 7 .33
sophistication 6.58
content 6.83
interest 6.58
T-unit 1 5.24
errors 2.05
t’s grade 3.83

students)
holistic 7. 76
coherence 7.41
sophistication 7. 1 5
content 7. 1 8
interest 7 .29
T—unit 1 6. 1 1
errors 2.54
t’s grade 3.88

holistic 8.33
coherence 8.33
sophistication 7.67
content 7.83
interest 7.50
T-unit 14.88
errors 3.47
t’s grade 3.50
T = T-Test

1.98
2. 10
2.02
1.95
1.62
3.80
1.41

.718

1.39
1.23
1.55
1.29
1.45
2.70
1.20

.857

1.63
1.37
2.34
2.23
2.59
1.18
1.11

.548

P = Significance

low

mean stdev

7.73
8.08
7. 12
7.38
6.96

14.70

1.63
3.89

8.00
8.40
7.68
7.76
7.92

15.86

2.71
4.00

8. 14
8.29
7.51
7.31
7.09

14.43

2.58
4.03

1.43
1.09
1.31
1.39
1.51
2.53
1.07

.711

1.44

1.71
1.68
1.36
1.66
2.50
1.50

.577

1.57
1.66
1.65
1.86
1.82
2.62
1.16

.758

T

-.23
-1.15
-.84
-.88
‘.68
.45
.91
-.21

-.53
-2.18
-1.00
-1.41
-1.30

.29

-.41

-.49

Clothes--interviews (high=6 students: low=35 students)

.27
.08

. 15
.54
.38
.70
1.79
~2.05

P

Body Language-research (high=12 students; low=26 students)

.59
.87
.79
.80
.75
.33
.81
.58

Presidential Candidates--interviews (high=17 students; low=25

.70
.98
.84
.92
.90
.39
.34
.69

.40
.47
.44
.30
.36
.25
.94
.96

“ = exceeds a of .05

103

T—TEST ON HIGH AND Low ‘WRITING TIME‘ (Table 33)

Body Language (high=16 students: low=14 students)

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit
errors“

t’s grade

high
mean stdev

7.69
7.63
7.31
7.50
7.19
14.30
1.23
3.88

1.82
1.89
1.62
1.86
1.64
1.91
1.03

.806

low
mean stdev

7.71
8.07
6.71
7.14
6.64
14.59
1.93
3.79

1.68
1.33
1.44
1.79
1.86
2.17
.965

.699

T

-.04
-.75
1.07
.53
.84
-.39
-1.92
.32

Prcsidential Candidates (high=9 students; low=9 students)

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit

errors

t’s grade

7.44
7.44
7.22
7.1 1
7.67

14.73
3.41
3.67

1.51
1.42
1.09
1.17
1.32
2.24
1.64
1.00

8.33
8.44
7.78
7.56
7.67
16.1 1
1.87

1.22
1.42
1.99
1.42
2.00
1.81
.550

4.111 .601

Clothes (high=10 students: low=9 students)

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T—unit

errors

t’s grade

T = T-Test

8. 10
8.00
7.90
7.20
6.80
14.45
2.30
4.20

1.52
2.00
1.66
2.10
1.69
2.14
1.46
.632

8.1 1
8.00
7.33
7.33
7.00
13.24
2.91
3.78

P = Significance

1.54
1.66
1.80
1.80
1.73
2.35
.912
.972

-1.37
-1.49
-.74
-.72
.00
-1.44
2.68
-1.14

-.02
.00
.71

-.15

-.25

1.16

-1.11

1.11

.52
.77
. 1 5
.30
.20
.65
.033
.37

.90
.92
.76
.76
.50
.91
.99
.86

.51
.50
.24
.56
.60
.13
.14
.14

“ = exceeds a of .05

104

T-TEST ON HIGH AND LOW ‘CHANGE‘ (Table 34)

high

mean stdev

holistic 7. 09
coherence 7 .09
sophistication 6.36

content 7. 1 8
interest 6.64
T-unit 14.05
errors 1 .72
t’s grade 3.64

holistic 8.00
coherence 8.24
sophistication 7 .47
content 7. 59
interest 8. 12
T-unit 1 5.86
errors 2.55
t’s grade 4.00

holistic 8.27
coherence 8.00
sophistication 7.33
content 7.60
interest 7.13
T-unit 14.24
errors 2.73
t’s grade 3.86
T = T-Test

1.81
2.07
1.50
1.83
1.69
2.13

.979
.674

1.12
1.30
1.28
1.42
1.65
3.04
1.18

.612

1.58
1.73
1.99
1.76
1.77
1.71
1.07

.864

low

mean stdev

8.19
8.25
7.50
7.44
7.00
15.56
1.48
4.13

8.00
8.33
8.22
7.67
7.44
17.41
2.81
3.78

8.36
8.82
7.27
7.09
7.09
14.67
2.67
4.00

P = Significance

Body Language (high=l 1 students: low=16 students)

1.52
1.06
1.67
1.63
1.41
3.51
1.15
.619

1.73
1.87
1.92
1.41
1.51
1.89
1.59
.972

Clothes (high=15 students: low=11 students)

1.57
1.33
1.56
1.81
1.58
3.49
1.47
.775

T

-1.65
-1.71
-1.84
-.37
-.59
-1.38
.59
-1.91

Presidential Candidates (high=17 students; low=9 students)

.00
-.14
-1.06
-.13
1.05
-1.60
-.44
.62

-. 16
-1.36
.09
.72
.06
-.38

. 10
-.43

P

.94
.94
.96
.64
.72
.91
.72
.96

.50
.55
.84
.55
. 16
.94
.33
.27

.56
.9 1
.47
.24
.47
.64
.54
.67

“ = exceeds a of .05

l O 5
T-TEST 0N HIGH AND LOW ‘REWRITE TIME‘ (Table 35)

high
mean stdev

low
mean stdev T P

Body Language (high=16 students: low: 16 students)

holistic 7.37 1.71 7.75 1.57 -.65 .74
coherence 7.44 1.93 7.87 1.20 -.77 .78
sophistication 6.75 1.61 7.00 1.55 -.45 .67
content 7.37 1.86 7.19 1.60 .31 .38
interest 6.75 1.57 6.75 1.73 .00 .50
T—unit 14.19 2.10 14.74 2.20 -.72 .76
errors 1.48 .986 1.69 1.23 -.55 .29
t’s grade 3.88 .719 4.00 .632 -.52 .70
Presidential Candidates (high=14 students; low=25 students) -
holistic 8.00 1.24 8.00 1.50 .00 .50
coherence 8.00 1.66 8.08 1.53 -.15 .56
sophistication 7.57 1.55 7.56 1.69 .02 .49
content 7.71 1.27 7.60 1.38 .26 .40
interest 8.14 1.46 7.60 1.63 1.07 .15
T-unit 15.76 2.48 16.59 2.80 -.96 .83
errors 2.37 1.18 2.89 1.49 -1.19 .12
t’s grade 3.93 .829 3.96 .676 -.12 .55
Clothes (high=6 students; low=17 students)
holistic 7.67 1.51 8.12 1.50 -.63 .73
coherence 7.67 1.51 8.24 1.39 -.81 .78
sophistication 6.50 1.22 7.47 1.37 -1.62 .93
content 6.50 1.76 7.18 1.88 -.79 .78
interest 6.17 .983 7.29 1.99 -1.79 .96
T-unit 14.98 1.84 14.31 2.04 .75 .24
errors 2.28 .722 2.55 1.16 -.66 .26
t’s grade 4.00 .707 4.00 .866 .00 .50
T = T—Test P = Significance “ = exceeds a of .05

106

Hypothesis #3e
Personal assessment on the quality of the composition

correlates with writing scores.

Table 36 shows the results of the Pearson product-moment
correlations coefficients between the students’ personal evaluation of
their papers and the scores their compositions received. There was
a significant correlation on the ‘clothes’ composition between the
students’ expected grade and the actual grade the teacher gave the
composition (P<.05). Also. there was a significant correlation on the
‘body language’ composition between the length of the T-units and
the expected grade (P<.05).

The T-Test in Table 37 shows the means for the students’
evaluation of their papers and the number of students in the high
group (4—5 on the Likert Scale) and in the low group (1-2 on the
Likert Scale). The results show that the students who thought they
wrote above average papers did not receive significantly higher
composition scores than the students who though they wrote below
average papers.

Table 38 gives the mean anticipated grade for each
composition (A=5. B=4. C=3. D=2. E=1). Those students who
thought they would receive an A or B were in the high group and
those who thought they would receive a D or E were in the low
group. Only one student thought his paper was probably a ‘D’--this
was the same student for each composition. In other words all the

other students thought their papers deserved a ‘C’ or better. Most

107

students expected a high grade but most did not receive a high
grade so the low level of significance is not surprising.

Summary of Hypothesis #3e. The data. therefore, indicate that
the hypothesis that high personal assessment on the quality of the
composition correlates with good writing scores also cannot be

accepted.

Summary of Correlation and Comparison Analyses. In
conclusion. then. the findings will not allow for the acceptance of
any of the hypotheses of this study. The findings. however. will allow
for very limited support for the effects of prior—knowledge about and
prior-interest in the topic on writing quality

hol coh
BodyLanguage
per-evaluation .036 .110
grade .090 .079
Presidential Candidates
per-evaluation .129 -.029
grade .291 .077
Clothes
per-evaluation .053 -.157
grade .047 -.115

“ = exceeds a of .05

Key to Questions on Personal Evaluation:

108

PERSONAL EVALUATION AND COMPOSITION MEASURE CORRELATIONS
(Table 36)

sop

.026
.054

.121
.095

.090
.058

COII

.005 -
-.014 -

.216
.267

.009
.048

int T—un err

.005 .144 .070
.028 .304“-.046

.228 .124 -.014
.130 .285 -.205

.131 -.048 .015
.074 .234 -.217

t’sg

.1 19
.099

.163
.162

.176
.315“

evaluation: What is your evaluation of the quality of your paper?
grade: What grade do you think you will receive on this paper?

hol=holistic; coh=coherence: sop=sophistication: con=content:
int=interest; T-un=T-unit; err=errors: t’sg=teacher’s grade

109

T-TEST ON HIGH AND LOW ‘PERSONAL EVALUATION' (Table 37)

high

mean stdev

low

mean stdev

T

P

Body Language (high=15 students; low=8 students; mean=3.21)

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit

errors

t’s grade

Presidential Candidates (high=20 students: low=7 students:

mean=3.49)
holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit
errors
t’s grade

7.73
7.93
6.87
7.20
6.67

14.89

1.60
3.93

8.15
8.00
7.65
7.85
8.25

16.36

2.81
4.00

1.49
1.53
1.51
1.82
1.54
2.00

.995
.594

1.50
1.56
1.60
1.39
1.48
2.38
1.34

.795

7.87
7.75
7.00
7.50
7. 13

14.00

.86
4.00

7.43
7.57
7. 14
7.00
7.57

15.77

2.89
3.71

1.64
1.91
1.51
1.85
1.64
2.32
1.02

.926

1.40
1.81
1.21
1.00
1.40
3.09
1.55

. 756

-.20

.23
-.20
-.37
-.65

.92
1.65
-. 18

1.15
.56
.87

1.74

1.09
.46

-.43
.85

Clothes (high=23 students: low=6 students: mean=3.44)

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit

errors

t’s grade

T = T-Test

8. 13
8. 13
7.57
7.35
7.30

13.97

2.81
4.00

P = Significance

1.71
1.74
1.88
2.01
2.18
2.19
1.15

.756

8. 17
9.00
7.00
7.33
6.83

14.38

2.60
4.00

1.33

.632

1.10

1.97

1.33
4.10
1.40

.632

-.06

-1.95

.95
.02
.66
-.24
.34
.00

.58
.41
.58
.64
.75
. 19
.94
.57

. 14
.30
.20
.052
. 15
.33
.34
.21

.52
.97
. 18
.49
.26
.59
.63
.50

“ = exceeds a of .05

T-TEST ON HIGH AND LOW ‘ANTICIPATED GRADE' (Table 38)

high
mean stdev

110

low
mean stdev

T

P

Body Language (high=32 students; low=1 student: mean=3.84)

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit

errors

t’s grade

7.78
7.84
7.03
7.25
6.88
15.40
1.68
3.94

9.00
10.00
8.00
10.00
9.00
10.40
1.50
4.00

Presidential Candidates (high=31 students: low=1 student; mean '

3 .84)
holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit
errors
t’s grade

Clothes (high=35 students; low=1 student: mean=3.95)

holistic
coherence
sophistication
content
interest
T-unit

errors

t’s grade

7.95
7.84
7.21
7.63
7.68
16.24
2.46
4. 16

8.06
8. 17
7.49
7.29
7. 1 1
14.39
2.75
4.00

6.00
7.00
7.00
6.00
8.00
13.30
6.00
4.00

9.00
9.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
9.90
5.00
3.00

111

REGRESSION ANALYSIS

Since the hypotheses are interrelated. we will use a regression
analysis to find out which of the variables are the more important
predictors of good writing. The holistic score was chosen as the
main indicator of writing quality for each composition. A stepwise
regression analysis was performed to find the best predictor from all
the variables for writing quality. On the ‘body language’ composition
this was the students’ response to the amount learned about the
teaching point (organization); on the ‘presidential candidates’
composition this was the prior-knowledge combination score: on the
‘clothes’ composition this was. also. the prior-knowledge
combination score. Using these variables in the base formula to
predict the holistic writing scores, each of the other variables was
used in a regression analysis and retained in the formula when it
increased the predictive power of the formula.

Table 39 shows. for each composition topic. the predictors
that predict the holistic writing scores. The other variables did not
predict the holistic writing score and for this reason are not

included in the regression formula.

112

REGRESSION ANALYSIS (Table 39)

Body Language

Holistic Score = -.660 (learn about organization) + .0489
(knowledge gain--fluency) + .236 (feelings) -.409 (amount changed)
+ .094 (involvement)

Predictor t-ratio p
question about amount learned about organization -2.42 .021
knowledge gain--fluency score 1.30 .202
question about feelings .66 .516
question about amount changed in the rewrite -1.94 .061
question about involvement .33 .744

R-square = 28.4% R—square (adjusted) = 17.9%

Presidential Candidates

Holistic Score = +.104 (pre-combination) -.117 (prior interest) - .
.121 (prior confidence) - .413 (interviews) - .235 (learned-topic in
workshop + .394 (learned-transitions in workshop)

Predictor t—ratio p
prior knowledge -combination score 2.59 .015
question on prior interest -.83 .413
question on prior confidence -.70 .487
number of interviews -2.15 .039
amount learned in the workshop about the topic -.96 .344
amount learned in the workshop about transitions 1.74 .092

R-square = 38.1% R-square (adjusted) = 26.1%

Clothes

Holistic Score = + .109 (pm-combination) + .538 (prior-interest) -
.238 (question on prior-knowledge) -. 088 (interviews) -. 114 (learn
about the topic in the workshop) - .140 (time spent re-writing on
the topic)

Predictor t-ratio p
prior-knowledge combination score 1.94 .062
question on prior-interest 2.5 .018
question on prior-knowledge -.99 .328
question on number of interviews -.21 .835
question on amount learned about topic in workshop -.52
.607
question on time spent rewriting -1.02 .318

R-square = 32% R-square (adjusted) = 17.9%

113

Of the positive predictors in these three formulas. prior
knowledge and prior interest (responses to the questions on
interest, confidence. feelings. and involvement) are the important
predictors on all three compositions. On the other hand. over half of
the predictors in the three formulas represent negative correlations
with the holistic writing scores. In addition these three regression
formulas account for only 28%-38% of the data (R-square). a
relatively small amount of the variability.

In conclusion. the regression analysis shows that the variables
of this study cannot adequately predict writing quality; but of the
variables studied, prior-interest and prior-knowledge are the most
important predictors. As the reader will recall. the T-test analysis
and correlation analysis also showed that the variables of this study,
for the most part. were not associated with writing quality: but of the
variables studied. interest and prior-knowledge were the variables

that best related to the composition scores.

CHAPTERFIVE

DISCUSSION

This chapter discusses the findings presented in Chapter Four
in relation to the hypotheses of this research project. This chapter
then compares the findings with other similar studies. provides
suggestions for further research and re-evaluates commonly held
assumptions on the teaching of writing. A brief review of the
hypotheses, procedures. and findings of the project is presented

first.

REVIEW

The research questions were: Do students with high prior-
knowledge on the familiar topics, ‘body language,’ ‘presidential
candidates.’ and ‘clothing.’ write better compositions? Do those
students who learn a lot through writing. write better compositions?
Do interest. confidence. engagement, and a strong opinion on these
subjects help the writer write a better paper? Do high motivation.
active research on the topic. and more learning about the topic help
the writer with low prior-knowledge learn more via the experience
and write a better paper?

Three college freshman composition classes (43 students)

wrote on three popular topics: ‘body language,’ ‘presidential

114

115

candidates’ and ‘clothes.’ Before writing each paper the students
took a free-association prior-knowledge test on the content of the
topic and filled out a questionnaire. After writing each composition.
they took the post-writing knowledge test and filled out a post-
writing questionnaire. Trained graders scored the compositions on
overall writing quality (an holistic measure). coherence.
sophistication. content. interest. syntactical complexity, and
mechanical errors. The raters also scored the knowledge tests for
degree of organization. and fluency. Composition ratings and
responses to the questionnaires were correlated using the Pearson—
Product Moment Correlation Coefficient. A T-Test analysis
compared the composition means between the high- and low-
knowledge groups and the high- and low-interest groups. etc.
Chapter 4 presents the results in detail. Briefly. these findings show
that, contrary to the anticipated results. successful students
apparently I) do not need to know a lot about the topic they write
on, 2) do not learn from writing and 3) do not need to be interested
in the topic. The following section will briefly review the findings.
discuss them in relation to the hypotheses and provide possible
explanations for the results.

The following paper written by a successful student provides
an illustration from which to look at the results of this study. The
paper is reproduced as the student wrote it. as are all other

students’ comments quoted in this chapter.

116

It’s All in the Clothes

Personal attire has become an important social
issue amoung the younger generation. What a person
wears can affect and reflect his style of living. “What
should I wear?”. is probably the most frequently asked
question by student-aged people. The answer to this
question is generally influenced by three social factors:
what type of statement or image a person is trying to
project. the reference group to which he or she
identifies. and the general trend of current fashion.

Personal image is very important in social circles.
It is not often that one sees the young studious business
major associating with the average punk rocker. A
person’s image is his statement about himself,
consequently his clothing will be highly representitive of
what he wants to say. For example. most people would
not view a person wearing a three-piece suit. tie. and
Flourshiem shoes as a head-banging rocker. Conversely.
someone dressed in a black leather jacket and spiked
gloves would hardly be associated with Wall Street. The
mark a person wants to make in life. and what he wants
to say about himself are usually projected by the type of
clothing he wears.

Just as what a person wants to say. is seen in his
clothing; who he wants to say it to is equally evident. For
example; Johnny Frat and Suzie Sorority are members of
the Greek system. This being their reference group.
they want to fit in. In order to fit in. they must meet or
surpass the traditional standard of overpriced designer
clothing. It would be a grave day, for either Johnny or
Suzie. to be caught in anything less than Levis. It would
be an unforgivable sin to spend fifteen dollars on a no-
name shirt at J .C. Penney’s when they could purchase
the exact same brandname shirt for fourty-five dollars
somewhere else. It is this type of social allegiance that

117

makes the obvious distinction between greeks and
normal human beings, granolas and foresters.

Probably the most widely recognized influence on
an individual’s attire is the current trend in fashion.
What J ean-Claude What’s his Face says. goes. A very good
example of a fashion slave is Jenny Nonsense. In late fall.
when Jean-Claude came out with a new pastel. cotton
mini-skirt. Jenny just knew that was going to be big
fashion. Wanting to beat the rush. she went out an
bought twenty. As fall slid into winter, and the
temperature dropped. this fashion trend was still hot. Of
course. Jenny didn’t mind the cantalope sized goose
bumps on her legs or even the fact that her thieghs were
frost bitten, because she was fashionable. This type of
senseless slavery to fashion has drawn the blind following
of hundreds-of-thousands of student aged people across
the country.

For many people. what clothes to wear is the most
crucial decision they make all day. Just what clothing
are chosen is influenced by: the statement a person is
trying to make. the specific social references he or she
makes. and the trend in fashion at that moment. Once
these three points have been pondered. the person is
able to properly attire him or herself.

Although there are many errors. the teacher gave the student an A-
because the writer carefully demonstrated proper use of the teaching
points presented up to that point in the term: thesis statement,
organization. transition, and development. While the examples and
illustrations are entertaining and colorful, the student has clearly not
explored any new knowledge. ideas. or relationships in this

composition. The graders recognized this by rating it average or

118

above average on each of the writing measures. This paper received
an 8 for holistic quality based on a 12-point scale. The following
discussion of the hypotheses will use this student’s paper as an

example.

DISCUSSION

Hypothesis #1: Prior-knowledge scores correlate with writing
scores.

The findings lend limited support for this hypothesis. The T—
Test evaluated the composition measure means of the high- and low-
knowledge groups and found that students with high prior-
knowledge scores received significantly better writing scores on the
‘presidential candidates’ composition for holistic quality,
sophistication. content. interest, T—units, and the teacher’s grade.
The regression analysis certainly seems to support the priority of
prior-knowledge compared to the other factors measured. On the
‘clothes’ composition the students with high prior-knowledge scores
received significantly better writing scores for holistic quality.
coherence. content. interest, teacher’s grade and for fewer
mechanical errors. On the ‘body language’ composition there was no
significant relationship between prior-knowledge and any of the
writing scores. Since relationships between prior-knowledge scores
and the writing scores were not equally significant for all three
compositions. this study did not consistently find that high prior-
knowledge was associated with good writing scores. The results,
show all possible combinations of high and low knowledge associated

with high and low composition scores.

119

Interestingly, the final composition on ‘clothes’ demonstrated
the strongest relationship between prior-knowledge and writing
quality (despite the counter example provided above). Perhaps, the
students began to use their knowledge of ideas and relationships
more towards the end of the term than at the beginning. The
Writing Program at the University of Montana is designed in such a
way that organization was taught when the students wrote the ‘body
language’ paper, transitions for the ‘presidential candidates’
composition and development for the ‘clothes’ composition. On the
first two compositions the students directed their efforts toward
form and were rewarded for that effort by the teacher. On the
‘clothes’ composition the teacher emphasized content more than on
the earlier compositions--the full development of ideas with
examples. illustrations and colorful details. This ordering of
teaching points may explain why prior-knowledge correlated most
with the scores on the composition on ‘clothes’ than on the other
two compositions. Perhaps. then. a study on the effects of prior-
knowledge and learning on writing may best be conducted toward
the end of the term when the students focus more on content than
on form. On the other hand. the fact that on the ‘clothes’ topic the
prior-knowledge factor was more important than on the ‘body
language’ and ‘presidential candidates’ topics may, perhaps. suggest
that good writers could also write well on the earlier topics

regardless of the amount of prior-knowledge they had.

120

Hypothesis #2: For a student with a low prior-knowledge
score, an increase in knowledge about the topic during the writing
process is associated with a rise in the writing scores.

The knowledge gain measures represent the difference
between the pre- and post-knowledge tests. And for the most part.
students appeared to learn nothing or very little. On the ‘body
language’ composition the high knowledge gain group received
significantly higher writing scores on holistic quality, coherence, and
content. And on the ‘presidential candidates’ composition the high
knowledge group had significantly fewer errors than the low
knowledge group. But more than half of the students had negative
knowledge gain scores which is to say that they had higher pre-
knowledge test scores than post-knowledge test scores. The results
did demonstrate a few significant differences on the ‘body language’
composition. but with respect to the test scores for all three
compositions. the students who demonstrated that they learned
something about the topic during the writing process. did not
necessarily write good papers. In fact. a few of those who appeared
to learn a lot received C’s and even D’s on their papers. The results
did not show that the students who had low prior-knowledge and
appeared to learn something during the writing process wrote
better.

The composition presented above illustrates these findings
well. Since the student had low prior-knowledge scores the
hypothesis predicted that he would have a substantial gain in
learning. But his knowledge gain scores were also very low. The

121

teacher gave him an A- and rewarded him for his development of
ideas. not his learning.

These low knowledge gain scores. however. may be as a result
of a loss of interest in this project on the part of the students.
Perhaps. earlier in the project, the students were more interested in
doing their best on the free-association tests. especially on the post-
tests: and then later on in the term the students realized that the
knowledge tests did not affect their success in the class and tried to
complete the tests quickly with little thought and effort. One
teacher reported later that at the end of the term. her students had
complained about having to respond to the prompts and answer the

questions.

Hypothesis #3a: Interest and involvement in the topic
correlate with writing scores.

The results of the statistical analyses give some support for this
hypothesis that students who are interested in the topic and enjoy
writing on the topic. write better compositions. Students who
strongly supported the ‘candidate’ about whom they wrote received
significantly higher writing scores for sophistication. Those students
who liked writing on ‘clothes’ and did not find it a waste of time
received significantly higher scores for interest. And those students
who enjoyed writing on ‘body language’ received significantly better
grades than those who thought ’body language’ was a waste of time.
On the other hand. since the relationship between interest and the
writing scores was not equally significant for all three compositions,

this study seems to indicate that neither enjoyment nor interest are

122

uniformly necessary to succeed in the English composition
classroom. All combinations existed between high and low interest
and high and low composition scores. For example the student who
wrote the paper reproduced above, wrote on the pre-questionnaire:
“I feel I can write this but a lack of interest may inhibit creativity.”
This student succeeded in his class-~he received an A: but the
trained graders rated his paper about average (8 on a 12-point scale).
Another student who received an A on the ‘body language’ paper and
a good score from the trained graders (10 on a 12-point scale)
wrote: “I’m bored with the subject. and quality of my writing is
affected by boredom!” '

Hypothesis 3b: Personal assessment of prior knowledge on the
topic correlates with writing scores.

Overall. those students who indicated on the questionnaires
that they knew a lot about the topics did not get better scores on
their compositions. The correlation between self-reported
knowledge and composition scores was low, so we find all possible
combinations between high and low knowledge and high and low
composition scores. Some students who said that they knew little
about the topic, still wrote good papers. For example, on the
‘presidential candidates’ topic one student who received a B+ and a
10 (on a 12-point scale) from the graders said, “I don’t know enough
to write a good essay.” Another who received an A- and a 10 from
the graders said. “I don’t know enough about each candidate to write
extensively about them.” Another who received an A from the

teacher and a 9 from the graders on holistic quality said. “I don’t

123

know a lot about this year’s campaign...so I don’t know how good this
paper will be.” And some students who said that they knew much
about the topic. wrote poor papers. For example. one student who
received a C from the teacher and an 8 from the graders on holistic
quality said. “I feel I am informed enough about the candidates and
their followers that I can write a logical and clear essay.” And
another who received a C- from the teacher and a 6 from the graders
on holistic quality said. “Because I am interested in Politics and I do
follow the presidential race. I feel I will be able to write a decent
paper.” And another who received a C and an 8 on holistic quality
said. “I feel confident I could write on a presidential candadate
because of all I have read.” And. of course. there are examples of the
type of student who knew a lot and wrote a good paper: “My major
is political science and this sort of topic interests me.” This student
received an A but an 8 on holistic quality. Overall, however, these

expected and unexpected results cancel out.

Hypothesis 3c: Personal assessment of learning about the topic
and the teaching points correlates with writing scores.

The amount the students said that they learned did not
significantly correlate with either high or low composition scores.
Many students who said they learned little (and most reported little
learning) received high composition scores. And in the T-Test
Analysis the students who reported high learning did not receive
significantly higher scores than those who reported that they

learned little. In fact. as the correlation coefficients indicated. the

124

individuals in the low learning group often received higher
composition scores than some in the high learning group.

Perhaps, good writers already know what they need to know
about organization. transitions and development before they write
their papers. During the writing process they use that knowledge
and find that it is adequate for the type of writing they have been
asked to do. Or perhaps these findings may be explained by looking
at the expectations of each student. The good writers may expect to
learn much in their writing and when they have finished feel that
they could have done better or that they had not learned as much
from the assignment as they had wanted. And the poor writers may
have reported that they learned much but still may not have learned
enough to receive an A or B on their papers or high ratings from the

graders.

Hypothesis 3d. Time and effort spent on writing correlate
with writing scores.

There was no significant correlation between the students’
perceived ease or difficulty of writing and the composition scores.
For the most part. students did not do any extra reading for these
assignments except for the elections composition and this extra
reading had neither positive nor negative correlations with the
compositions scores. On the elections composition, the students
who interviewed few people received significantly higher coherence
scores and on the clothes composition those students who
interviewed few people received significantly higher grades. Those

students who spent more time writing made fewer errors in ‘body

125

language’ but students who spent more time writing the
‘presidential candidates’ paper made more errors. Those students
who indicated on the questionnaire that they had made many
changes had low sophistication scores and low grades from the
teacher on ‘body language.’ Also interesting is the fact that those
students who spent much time rewriting the ‘clothes’ composition
received significantly lower scores for interest.

The correlation coefficients and T-Test results indicate that
less effort and time predict better writing scores. Possibly, the
successful writers have already had much experience in writing and
at this point could write with little effort and time. On the other
hand. the significant correlations and mean differences are not so
overwhelming as to suggest that to succeed. students should put as
little effort and time as possible into their writing. The amount of
time and effort do not seem to be associated with either high or low

scores.

Hypothesis 3e: Personal assessment on the quality of the
composition correlates with writing scores.

The students’ anticipated grade did not significantly correlate
with the teacher’s actual grade until the final composition on
‘clothes.’ On the ‘clothes’ topic the students’ personal assessments
were significantly related to the grade they received from their
teacher on the composition.

Apparently students do not judge their papers as their
teachers do nor as the trained graders did--they evaluated their
papers more highly . Not until the final composition on ‘clothes’ did

126

the students’ anticipation of a grade correlate with the grade they
actually received. Perhaps the students were learning their
teacher’s criteria for evaluation or learning better how to evaluate

writing through the peer-workshops.

SUMMARY

The results of this study show that prior-knowledge apparently
positively affects the quality of the students’ compositions
(hypothesis 1). But the relationship is not so strong as to allow us to
suggest that high prior-knowledge is a necessary and sufficient
condition for good writing. Some writers with low-knowledge Were
judged to have written well, and some with high-knowledge were
given low ratings. The regression analysis, on the other hand, shows
that prior-knowledge is the most significant variable examined in
this study. This study also indicates that those with low prior-
knowledge do not necessarily learn during the writing process
(Hypothesis 2). In relation to the students’ questionnaire responses,
the findings show that prior-interest and confidence sometimes. not

always. are associated high composition scores.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER STUDIES

Langer’s (1984) study showed that prior-knowledge correlated
highly with the quality of the composition. She even showed that
high prior-organization scores seem to lead to good analytic essays
and high pre-fiuency scores seem to lead to good argumentative
essays. Why did the results of this present study not demonstrate

this same conclusion? The researcher believes that the answer lies

127

in the difference between the two classrooms: Langer’s study was
conducted in a history class and the present study was conducted in
a composition class. Content or ideas are more likely to be the focus
in history papers whereas the form and style of writing are
emphasized in composition classrooms.

Chesky (1984) found that students with high prior-knowledge
on the topic and high prior-interest in the topic write significantly
better compositions. Why do not the results of this study
demonstrate the same conclusion? A reasonable explanation is that
Chesky (1984) made the difference between high and low
knowledge very clear by introducing one topic that was bound to be
familiar. ‘Problems with Teachers’ and one topic that was bound to
be unfamiliar. Tobacco Price Supports.’ By having two topics of such
clearly varying familiarity and interest, Chesky’s study was. to some
degree designed to show that high knowledge correlated with good
writing. Chesky. in other words. may have confounded the two
variables--interest and knowledge--in such a way that the subjects
found it much easier to write well on one topic than on the other.

The present study. in contrast. used prior-knowledge tests to
measure a more subtle kind of knowledge--differences in students’
levels of knowledge on familiar English composition topics. Langer’s
topics were from the history class and the test measured learning of
the content taught or read in class. Chesky’s tests confirmed the
fact that the students would have low knowledge on the unfamiliar
topic and high knowledge on the familiar topic. Apparently. subtle
difi'erences in prior-knowledge on popular composition topics do not
affect the writing process or the quality of the written product to any

128

great extent. Generally, students already seem to have enough
knowledge of content to succeed on the familiar t0pics frequently
assigned to them in the English composition classroom and seem to

know enough to satisfy the requirements for a particular form.

POSSIBLE CONSTRAINTS ONTHEPROJECT

The results of the present study are surprisingly different from
those discussed above. One way to explain or understand the
findings is to analyze the constraints that existed on the research
that were not anticipated in the original design. This section
addresses the possible constraints and hidden assumptions that
affected the present study, and suggests possible ways to resolve
them in subsequent studies.

Topics. The ‘body language’ topic and to some extent the
‘clothes’ topic were complex; generally the students found it difficult
to find a specific focus in their writing. Much of the writing was
unthoughtful and oversimplified. For example. many students wrote
about stereotypes without any further exploration beyond the obvious
observations. For example. typical descriptions of “granolas” were:
granolas eat yogurt and nuts, wear hiking boots to class. and never
shave or brush their hair. In addition. all three topics were chosen
to be assessable to some extent to all of the students and thus the
knowledge tests did not demonstrate wide gaps in knowledge. For
these reasons. the quality of the compositions was not dependent on
the students’ prior-knowledge about the topic.

Tests. The knowledge tests were designed in content

classrooms and for this reason may not adequately assess prior-

129

knowledge on topics that are assessable to all. Perhaps a knowledge
test to assess knowledge on self-generated topics could be designed.

Questionnaires. Students do not report their writing activities
in such a way that all the responses can be represented in a linear
way. Reports of learning gain or amount changed are subject to the
perception of the individual student. Very good students and very
poor students both seem to realize how little they know in relation
to what there is to know; but the middle-level students feel that
their present level of knowledge serves them more than adequately.
Other studies would better monitor the writing processes of the
students through actual observations rather than throUgh
questionnaires.

Time. The students had very little time to write and rewrite
their papers. The topics were received on Friday; a draft was
brought to class the next Wednesday; the final copy was turned in for
a grade on Friday. It can hardly be expected. therefore. that the
students would have time to learn through various methods of
research with such little time for these activities. In a subsequent
study. care should be taken to allow for adequate time for learning to
take place.

Course Design. The course objectives and the research were in
conflict. Since the course had no demands on learning content. it is
hardly surprising that the post-writing tests were not better than the
pre-writing tests. The teaching and. thus. most likely. the learning
was about form not content. It is hardly surprising that little
variation in knowledge of content was observed when the research

was conducted in a setting where there was little variation by design

130

because the teacher was trying to eliminate variation in the students'
knowledge of content.

Researcher. The study was not part of the course. For this
reason and because the student’s grade was not linked to the tests
and questionnaires, the students were not particularly motivated
about doing their best on the tests and questionnaires. The prior-
knowledge test fit the instructional program as a type of pre-writing
activity; however. the post knowledge tests appeared not to serve
either the needs of the student or the teacher. In a subsequent
study the post-knowledge could be judged not by imposing a post-
knowledge free-association test but by analysis of the writing itself
using Langer’s criteria to analyze the content of the written

compositions.

SUGGESTIONS FORFURTHERRESEARCH

The above considerations as well as the distinctions between
this study and the earlier studies lead to several recommendations:

1. Develop a better prior-knowledge test and grading criteria
to measure subtle differences in knowledge on popular English
composition topics. Langer’s (1984) free-association test and
grading criteria worked well within the history class because the
prompts were based on the assigned reading and the students were
expected to have grasped certain historical content. Using the
prompts from the reading. the graders were able easily to assess the
level of students’ understanding through the responses to the

prompts.

131

The composition classroom. however, needs a prior knowledge
test and evaluative criteria to assess prior—knowledge on a very broad
topic. The researcher feels that prompts limit the students’
responses, but unfortunately cannot recommend a more suitable
procedure. In addition. a better test would also make changes in
knowledge more apparent because the pre- and post-tests used in
this study did not demonstrate the differences in knowledge after
writing. Perhaps. the test could simply be the assigned topic with
the instructions to students to free-associate or brainstorm on what
they know about that topic in general. This type of test would not
limit their free associations to certain prompts; prompts that may
not be appropriate to their experiences.

2. Design a study that would compare the quality of written
compositions in the regular English composition class with the
quality of compositions written in content area classes. The
research would ask the question of whether students write better
when they are trying to express specific ideas than when they are
writing to practice certain writing conventions.

3. Explore a broader range of popular topics and prior-
knowledge about and prior-interest in those topics. Since the
regression analysis showed that prior-knowledge and prior-interest
were the main predictors for the holistic quality scores given to the
compositions. further exploration of prior-knowledge and prior-
interest and other potentially predictive variables on a broad range of
topics would prove fruitful.

132

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

This study leads to a re-evaluation of common assumptions that
teachers hold about the teaching of writing.

1. In the composition classroom. students apparently do not
learn as much about the topic through the writing process as many
teachers might like to think. One of the teachers in this project
asked her students to write about the presidential candidates
because she really wanted them to become better informed voters.
In this study. most of the students received worse scores on the
post-knowledge test than on the pre-knowledge test. If teachers
want their students to learn from the writing process. the teachers
will need to change their teaching focus and grading criteria or
include an opportunity to learn about the topic. The results of this
study imply that the composition teacher needs to encourage
learning about content along with form.

2. Students do not necessarily learn the teaching points from
the peer workshops or from the writing and rewriting processes. In
fact. most of the students reported that they learned very little from
the workshops and that they changed their papers very little from
the rough draft to the final draft they turned in. Teachers may want
to re-assess the value of the peer workshop and the task of rewriting
papers. These results imply that the composition teacher to make
the peer-workshop more meaningful. Perhaps the peer workshop
needs to be more structured at the beginning of the term. The
teacher may need to look at the drafts and make the assignment to
rewrite a very specific assignment until the students learn what

rewriting really is.

133

3. Students receive good grades even when they are not
interested in the topic assigned. In this study. some students
received good grades on topics they found boring and some students
received bad grades on topics they found interesting. Teachers
apparently need to allow more flexibility so that students can write
on something they are interested in. The teachers could provide a
selection of topics from which the students could choose: or the
teacher could approve topics generated by the students.

4. Teachers’ grades reflect form. not substance. In this study
the teachers seemed to reward the correct form rather than
explorations in the topic. The A papers did not necessarily reflect
innovative thinking, or learning about the topic or about writing
process. Teachers may think their students are learning from
writing or are being creative. but the students do not need to learn
in order to succeed and hence seem to learn little. Teachers. then.
need to decide what they want their students to do during the
writing process. As it stands there is a double standard--teachers say
they want exploration in writing. But rather than rewarding risk-
taking, they reward ‘perfect form.’ This study implies that the
teachers who want their students to learn about content need to

have their grading practices reflect this priority.

PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS

An old maxim quips. “Do as I say. not as I do.” another.
“Physician. heal thyself.” As a researcher I feel obliged to look at
practical situations to see whether the hypotheses make common

sense. The most likely practical experience. interestingly. becomes

134

my own--in the writing of this dissertation. Do the hypotheses apply
to me? In this final section I would like to ask myself the questions
implied by the hypotheses of this project with respect to my own
experience and respond to Murray’s statement quoted in Chapter
One. Question 1: Did I have high prior-knowledge before I began?
Question 2: Did I learn anything through the writing process?
Question 3: What activities during the writing process helped me
learn?

Prior-knowledge. Before discussing my prior knowledge. I
need to distinguish different levels of knowledge or schemata:
discourse (writing a dissertation), facts about statistics. and facts
about methods of teaching and evaluating writing. Before writing
this dissertation I knew the main structure for the five chapters and
I had a grasp of the project as a whole although I did not clearly
visualize the steps and sections that made up the whole. My schema
about statistics was next to nothing; but I knew that I would need to
learn how to demonstrate signifiCant relationships. My knowledge
about writing was somewhat richer; because I had had prior
experience teaching ESL writing, I was familiar with teaching
writing as process but I was not familiar with the evaluation of native-
speakers’ compositions.

Knowledge Gain. Of course, I cannot quantitatively measure
what I learned. but I sense I have learned much. On the discourse
level I learned about the parts of the dissertation and that a writer
can only work on one section at a time--slowly it becomes a whole
piece. On the statistics level. I learned the formula of the

correlation-coefficient and the T-Test: initially I calculated the

135

numbers by hand in order to understand the function of the formula
and then later I depended on the quick use of a computer program.
And. of course, I learned what the results mean. Concerning my
understanding of the teaching of writing I learned how English
composition is taught at the University of Montana; I know how
these students write; I know how they are evaluated: I know now
what successful and unsuccessful freshman compositions are by the
standards at the University of Montana.

Writing Process. More interesting than what I learned through
this dissertation is how I learned it. 1 did not learn these things by
writing alone; I interacted with other texts and with other
professionals in the field. First, I read many research models:
Chesky’s dissertation and Langer’s and DeGroffs studies.
Understanding of these models. I believe. came mostly as l was
designing my own model. The writing process itself was the means
by which I became aware of what I needed to learn and what
prompted me to explore further readings.

In addition to learning through writing after reading. I learned
through writing after talking: my research questions became more
clearly defined by interacting with my advisor. These discussions
showed me that I was interested more in the process of learning
than in the effects of prior knowledge on writing quality.

Later I learned by interacting with the three teachers.
observing their classes. discovering their methods of teaching and
evaluation. After the collection of the data I learned by interacting

with the actual data: I read and evaluated the compositions, and
statistically analyzed the data. Finally I started to write again:

 

w far—:7 [F"1——'. _; .V—u-

 

136

learning and writing. of course. in the long run. was interactive.
Each draft lead to discussions with my advisor, rewriting, further
discussions and rewriting. I feel that the nature of these discussions
is an important key to my discovery of meaning: most importantly
my advisor gave me confidence that I had something very important
to say. He did not tell me what to say but he suggested categories or
areas that I should confidently pursue. Again this was not a one-time
talk; but each time I finished a draft. he read it and responded with
enthusiasm about the ideas already there and with encouragement to
continue to pursue the ideas in particular areas.

In conclusion, with regard to my experience: I will reject the
narrow interpretation of hypothesis #1--l did not begin with the
degree of knowledge necessary for successful writing of a
dissertation. I did not have the knowledge I needed about the ideas.
statistics or even form before I started. Rather I learned when it
became apparent that I did not know what I needed to know. I will
accept hypothesis #2--in order to write. I had to learn. As
mentioned above. I learned about current writing theory. statistics.
and form in order to write this dissertation. I will accept hypothesis
#3--I engaged in various learning activities during the writing
process: reading. discussing. writing and rewriting in order to
write.

With regard to Murray’s statement. “We write to discover what
we know and then what we need to know.” my experience is not
supportive. I did not begin with writing; rather. I learned before
writing. The prompt: you will need to write a dissertation.’ caused

me to first discuss ideas with my advisor. and second to read other

137

studies and then finally to write my own research design. The
prompt also caused me to learn about teaching English Composition
and to learn about statistics. The prompt to write. then, forced me
to do activities from which I would learn enough to be able to write.
And when I started the act of writing, I realized what I needed to
reread or re-discuss in order to make my writing more clear.

The writing of the students involved in this project is also not
supportive of Murray’s statement. In this project. the students did
not write to learn nor did they use the prompt to write about a
‘presidential candidate.’ for example, as an opportunity to do
activities that would help them learn about a candidate. I believe
that they wrote to get a good grade which they apparently received
when they wrote in a particular format. Their writing was directed
toward a form and they did not need to interact with other texts or
with knowledgeable people in the field in order to follow that form.

Attention to form is important but I believe that it should be
put in its proper place--toward the final stages of writing. I directed
my attention to form after I had written the results of my learning.
Attention to form. then. came in the later drafts. The discipline of
well-organized writing and correct form can help to clarify muddled
ideas in the writer’s mind--this has certainly been important in my
writing of Chapter Five. My advisor’s comments on form and
structure have led. of course. to better form and readability but they
have also forced me to continue to learn from the results of this
research. This is to say that strictness in form forced me to explore

new areas of content. But. I believe. that the writer need not. and, in

138

fact. perhaps should not attend to form until later in the writing
process.

The attention of the subjects of this study was mainly and
consistently focused on form prescribed by the teacher. The peer
workshops and the teacher’s comments on the process and on the
papers were focused on form and not on the content of the paper
and its relationship with the form. This leads to the question: if the
students were directed to learn some new ideas first and then later
use that learning in their writing. would they write better?

I wish to conclude by reiterating a direction for further
research: what type of writing situations lead to learning? Wou1d
students learn through writing if their writing demanded that they
interact with other texts on the subject and with other people who
are informed rather than being taught to focus on the form of
presentation? Do students develop their writing skills for future
long-term use when they are being taught to only focus on the form
of presentation at the expense of content? Such questions, and
more. will prompt our inquiries into the writing process for many

years to come.

APPENDICES

rm ”5. ”17"..-

APPENDIXA

COMPOSITION TOPICS

 

Ericsson- ‘ho 0 new
0

APPENDIX A

COMPOSITION TOPICS

week one: “Body Language” (organization)

The editor of The Kiamin. Kevin McRae. has given you the
Opinion page for next Friday’s edition. In this article demonstrate
how and why you think your fellow students’ behavior changes in
different situations. different places and different times. An
interesting article may include The places you choose to illustrate
your ideas can be general (churches, bars. classrooms. stadiums,
gyms, outdoors, grocery stores. malls. etc) or specific (Carousel. St.
Paul’s church, composition class. dorm, cafeteria).

week two: “Presidential Candidates” (transitions)

Again Kevin McRae has given you half of the opinion page for
next Friday’s edition of W. This time he wants you to write
a political essay. This year will be the first time for many students at
U-M to exercise their right to vote in a presidential election. For
this essay choose one of the presidential candidates
(Bush/Jackson/Dukakis) and then explain what you think of the
person who strongly supports that candidate for President.

week three: “Clothes” (development)

“Clothes Make the Person.” Social psychologists are just
beginning to understand the impact that clothing can exert on the
person wearing the clothing and those who interact with that
person. For your article in next week’s Kaimin. develop your own
position as the “Miss Manners” of the University of Montana by
answering the question “what should I wear?” thinking of the many
roles, personalities and backgrounds and goals of students at U-M.

139

APPENDIX B

FEE-WRITING QUESTIONNAIRES

APPENDIXB

PIKE-WRITING QUESTIONNAIRES

BODY LANGUAGE

student number

 

Instructions: Read the following questions and answer them by
circling one of the numbers below the question. This is not a test--
there are no right or wrong answers. Your anwers will not affect
your grade; in fact. your teacher will not see your answers. Please be
honest.

I. How interested are you in writing a paper on this topic?

5 4 3 2 1
interested uninterested

2. How aware are you of how you and others dress?

5 4 3 2 1
aware unaware

3. How aware are you of your body language and that of others?

5 4 3 2 1
aware unaware

4. How aware are you of your style of talk and that of others?

5 4 3 2 1
aware unaware

5. How confident are you in your ability to write a quality paper on
this topic?

5 4 3 2 1
confident uncertain

6. On the back of this sheet explain your answer to question 5.

140

141

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

student number

 

Instructions: Read the following questions and answer them by
circling one of the numbers below the question. There are no right
or wrong answers and your anwers will not affect your grade. Please
be honest.

I. How interested are you in writing a paper on this topic?
5 4 3 2 l
uninterested interested
2. How aware are you of the current presidential campaign?
5 4 3 2 1

unaware aware

3. How strongly do you support the candidate you have chosen to

write about?
5 4 3 2 1
much little

4. How confident are you in your ability to write a good paper on
this topic?

5 4 3 2 1
uncertain confident

5. Explain your answer to question 4.

142

CLOTHES

student number

 

Instructions: Read the following questions and answer them by
circling one of the numbers below the question. There are no right
or wrong answers and your anwers will not affect your grade. Please
be honest.

I. How interested are you in writing a paper on this topic?
5 4 3 2 1
uninterested interested
2. How much do you know of formal and informal rules of dress?
5 4 3 2 1
little much
3. How confident are you in your ability to write a good paper on
this topic?
5 4 3 2 1
uncertain confident

4. Explain your answer to question 3.

APPENDIxC

RESPONSES To ‘CONPIDENCE' QUESTION

APPENDIxC

RESPONSES To ‘CONFIDENCE‘ QUESTION

These are exact transcriptions of the students’ written responses.

Body Language Pre Questionnaire

From those who were highly confident (5):

0 I can write about anything.

I’m a psych major, this stuff is my life! I’ve also written previous essays
on body language and done research on the subject because I’m interest
not because its required I’ve also taken a comm. class that delt with this
subject.

I feel I am being shown a good way to write with the help of others in
the class.

It seems like an interesting topic, ----- well for a student in school.
Theres also a lot of psychology involved, and I’ve had a course in psych.

I think I do pretty well at writing papers. I have always received good

grades in English. If I apply myself I usualy do okay at turning out good
essays.

I feel I can do a good job because I’m aware of others in different
situations and places that I go.

I feel my writing is good. I am able to organize my thoughts and clearly
express them in writing.

From those who were confident (4):

0 I feel that the topic given was broad enough that I can’t pick a section of

it and elaborate quite well.

143

144

I am confident in my ability to write a paper that I am satisfied with, but

all the people I know have a different ideas of what constitutes a good
one.

I think I will do fairly well on this paper because it is an interesting topic
and should be fairly easy to write.

I feel fairly confident that I will be able to write this paper. It will be a

matter of drawing in and organizing the types of things normally only
subtly noticed.

It doesn’t appear to be a difficult tapic. It should be interesting.

I believe I am capable of writing a good paper on this subject because I
pay attention already to what goes on around me.

I’m in a sorority and alot of emphasize is put on how you look and dress
by some people on the weekends. I know quite a bit about this topic.

I feel I would rather write on something a little bit more exciting but this
topic isn’t bad. I have a nonverbal comm class and am usually aware of
actions and messages between people. I feel I could write a pretty good
paper on this topic.

I am fairly confident with writing a paper on this topic. I have taken
communication classes, both in high school and in college that
identified human non-verbal communication.

I can write on just about anything and end up with at least a C.

I feel I am very confident when it comes to writing. I write poetry and I
feel I can expression myself in writing clearly.

I know several people that have changed since spring has hit and can
use them as examples.

I thought of a situation that will work good for the paper.

I feel that this topic can be very interesting but I do not feel confident
with my writing ability.

145

I have thought about this subject before and I have noticed how myself
and others change in different situations.

I feel I can write a good paper on this topic because I enjoy observing
people, especially if they are doing unique or strange things.

I feel that I am a good writer on any subject.
I haven’t thought about it yet so I have no idea what I 'm doing.

I constantly watch people. I don’t know that I’m aware of my own body

language and dress, but I certainly take interest in others. I think I could
write a pretty good paper if I took the time.

From those who were neither confident nor uncertain (3):

none

I really don’t have very much time during next week. English is a
subject that I have to take and it comes last after everything else.

It matters on how much time I have to write it. For instance this week I

didn’t have the time to write my paper, so I turned in a 20 minute paper
which will probably receive a ’C’

I feel like I am very observant to the people around me. Depending on
the situations people do wear different masks.

I don’t know how much time I would be able to spend on the paper and
this may affect the quality of it.

I have not throughly given this topic thought at this point. I believe that
once I sit and concentrate on this topic I maybe able to write a quality
paper on it, but maybe not.

One problem I had witth writing this paper is that I’m not a very

religious person. This made it difficult for me to put myself in a
religious persons shoes. However, I do feel strongly about my point.

146

no comment

I don’t really pay attention to how someone dresses, unless it is really
add. So I don’t know if I can focus on one idea.

I’m bored with the subject and quality of my writing is affected by
boredom!

I really don’t have any desire to write this paper, no desire to write
would tend a person not to really care of an outcome of a paper.

I am not completely confident on writing and a quality paper on this
topic. The time limit was very short, and I was unable to really get the
good, strong evidence that was needed to make a strong paper.

I’m never confident on many apper that I do write. I do not like writing

papers. I have ahard time writing on paper what I really feel. I’m very
aware of my style of talk, and I feel it is unfair to be counted off for
wording a sentence different than the way the teacher might word it.

don’t really think about these things too much but can spot them if I am
looking specifically for them.

Although I am not interested in writing a paper on this topic I still
believe that I am skilled enough to create a successful paper.

I can observe and understand, it is just hard to put it into words and
make a reader see what I did.

I do not live on campus, nor do I know many students. I feel that my

lack of exposure to traditional campus life limits my knowledge and
experience on this subject.

I don’t know that I can make valid observations about sudents in general
in this area because I think people are phony most of the time, and it’s
hard to tell if people have ”real" personalities, and to see how they

differ.

organization has always been my weak point, but I’m fairly good in
observance writing.

147

0 I have written articles for a high school newspaper before, however, I

have always found it difficult to analize people.

From those who were somewhat uncertain (2):

The paper will probably come into a little more focus as it is discussed

further. The main objective will be getting to know the topic a little
better.

It’s hard to say because its hard to write a negative point of view on the
mascot. Which is not too bad.

I would need to sit and think extensively about the subject before I could
write. I am not sure what ideas would come to mind.

This is something I don’t think about often

I don’t feel very confident in composing a paper on this subject because
I’m a non-traditional student. Therefore I don’t associate very much
with the other students, I don’t live in a dorm. I don’t go to bars which
cater to the college age around etc.

From those who were uncertain (1):

0 I guess I haven’t had enough time to think the assignment through.

0 I don’t have a lot to do with other students, just my family.

0 I’m not confident on writing a paper on any subject, the topic of body

language is one I have never thought much about so it makes it harder.

0 I cannot write, I do not like to write. Writing, for me, is barring. If I had

my choice I would never have to write an essay again.

148

Presidential Candidate

From those who were highly confident (5):

I’ve read much on the candidates
I follow politics closely and feel I could write a pertinent essay.

Politics bores me, but since the assignment asks for a profile on a person
who supports the candidate I’ll take out my aggression in that manner.

My major is political science and this sort of topic interests me.

From those who were confident (4):

I’m no sure I have enough knowledge about each candidates.
I’m finding it easier to narrow down what I want to say.

I feel confident I could write on a presidential canadate because of all I
have read.

Because I am interested in Politics and I do follow the presidential race. I
feel I will be able to write a decent paper.

I can do it because I know a lot of people with strong political views.
I tend to watch a lot of news and specials about the Presidential race.
I know about the race so I’m confident that I can write a descent paper.

The only thing that I can see having a problem with is my lack of
knowledge about the candidates and current issues.

I feel I am informed enough about the canditates and their followers that
I can write a logical and clear essay.

149

From those who were neither confident nor uncertain (3):

0 I have been following the presidential campaigns a little, so I feel

confident enough to try and write a paper.

I don’t really know all the view points of each person running. I may
have to do some research.

I hope I’m able to write exactly what I’m thinking and being right.

I’m not very political but I think the candidate I’m going to write about is
honest and cares about all of the citizens of this country.

no exaplaination.
I’m not voting, I haven’t been watching them.

One probleme I have with presidential campaigns during the primaries
is all each candidate does is accuse. They don’t state their views.

I don’t know a lot about this year's campaign, except who not to vote for,
so I don’t know how good this paper will be.

I don’t know!
I consider my english writing comes out okay when I write a paper.

I have no feelings one way or the other since I don’t yet know anything
about the candidate.

Am not sure person will provide me with enough info. that will

support his true personality for satisfaction of instructor-~2 halfs that will
equal the whole?!

From those who were somewhat uncertain (2):

0 As a poor college boy, I don’t have a subscription to any newspaper,

periodicles, etc. I know there's no excuse.

150

0 I’ve kept up on the campaign trail fairly well and feel adequately
prepared to write on the sub.

0 I don’t know enough about each candidate to write extensively about
them.

0 I am caught up on all the candidates.

0 I’m able to write with greater detail and content when the subject is
something I'm interested in and familiar with.

O Boring!! I think this topic crowds each individual. It is ”digression”

torture! I think this essay is testing us on our political knowledge, not
on our knowledge and use of English structure!

0 Since I don’t have much knowledge I don’t expect to much.
0 I have my own feelings that can be transformed into an essay.

0 I know who the candidates are but I don’t know anything about their
policies or ideas.

0 I don’t know much about the election and the candidates.

From those who were uncertain (1):

0 I think this topic sux. It’s really a touch assignment because I’m not too
involved in politics.

0 I am not very interested in the pres campaign and never find time to
read the paper.

0 I’m Canadian I don’t care.

0 I have not been following the Presidential campaigns at all, so I do not

feel that I can make an educated selection. This in turn effect my ability
to write on it.

0 I don’t know enough to write a good essay.

151

0 I haven’t been following the political campaign so I don’t know much

about any of the candidates. It is going to be hard to write on this subject.

0 I don’t follow the elections.

Clothes Questionnaire

From those who were highly confident (5):

just being in social situations give you much knowledge. You don’t

need objective materials, as many did (including myself) with the
presidential article.

I’ve read almost everything concerning ettiquette and dress.
I read Glamour and Miss Manners alot.

Clothing is something I enjoy dealing with. I’m a people watcher, and
that’s usually the first thing I notice.

Im a psych major this stuff curls my toes!
I feel I can write a good paper on this topic.
I 'm always confident.

It seems like a relatively easy topic write on because opinions an dress
can vary so greatly, especially in the 80’s.

It something that I’m very conscious of socially.

I feel I know enough about different types of dress and their influence on
personalities to write an effective paper.

From those who were confident (4):

I consider myself well informed about proper dress behaviors.

152

I find it fairly intersting and relevant to me.

This should be easier than the last paper. Its a subject I feel I know more
about, and it is not so broad.

I am confident of coming up with a good topic and having fun with it.
Once again, I see a large potential for satire here.

Well I just feel that the seed of an idea I have now is such that I have,
enough knowlege to semi-confident.

I feel my writing ability is fine. I just need to work on transitions and
details in this paper.

It isn’t a really tough topic and also leaves room for some imagination.

It is a fun topic, so it should be a fun paper to write and I’ll work hard on
it since it’s so interesting to me!

From those who were neither confident nor uncertain (3):

I’m not sure if I will right a good paper.

I don’t know much about appropriate clothes for all sort of formal and
informal occasions.

I have spent a few years away from society!

I learned by watching others, but I surely have not been to the Ritz so I
have no idea of how to dress formally.

Not sure on my thesis-

I know a lot about dress, but as far as writing a good paper go’s I’m not
sure.

None

153

0 I don’t think about it and I really don’t care.

0 I have had many occasions where it's a black tie event an others that are
the tore up levis kind.

0 I think I can write a mechanically correct paper but the content may lack
information.

0 I think I would come up with a creative solution to this assignment.
0 I feel I can write this, but a lack of interest may inhibit creativity.

0 I don’t know a whole lot about proper manners of dress, even if I know
some do’s and don’ts.

From those who were somewhat uncertain (2):

0 Need more time to think about topic-~and develop ideas.

0 It difficult to write on a topic that you aren’t interested in.

From those who were uncertain (1):

0 This a broad topic and it is going to be difficult to narrow down.

0 I don’t pay much attention to what other people wear I really only care
what I like or don’t like.

0 The topic itself seems unclear to me. Am I supposed to write an advice
column.

0 I never think much about what other people are wearing and I especially
don’t think about what they are wearing means.

0 I know about fashions and nice clothes but I could care less about who's
wearing what.

APPENDIX D

POST-WRITING QUESTIONNARES

APPENDIX D

POST-WRITING QIJESTIONNAIRES

‘Body Language' Post Writing Questionnaire

Student number

 

Instructions: You have finished your writing assignment. and now I
would like you to answer some questions about your writing process.
Please answer the following questions by circling one of the numbers
or letters below the question. Again, there are no right or wrong
answers and your anwers will not affect your grade. Please be honest.
Thank you.

1. How did you like writing this paper?

5 4 3 2 1
disliked liked

2. How difficult did you find the writing?
5 4 3 2 1

easy hard
3. How much did you learn about this topic from writing this
paper?
5 4 3 2 1
little much
4. How much did you learn about organization from writing this
paper?
5 4 3 2 1
nothing much

5. What is your evaluation of the quality of your paper?

5 4 3 2 1
good poor

6. How did you feel about writing this paper.
5 4 3 2 1

waste of time didn't enjoyed it
mind it

154

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

155

How much did you read for this paper?
a read more than 20 pages
b. read 10-20 pages
c. read 5-10 pages
(1. read less than 5 pages

How much other “research” did you do for this paper?
5 4 3 2 1
observed] thought about it
interviewed others
About how much time did you spend writing the first draft?
From wednesday’s workshop how much did you learn about the

topic?

5 4 3 2 1
nothing much

How much did you learn about organization from the
workshop?

5 4 3 2 1
nothing much

How much did you change your paper after the workshop?

5 4 3 2 1
complete rewrite just typed it up

How involved were you in writing this paper?

5 4 3 2 l
uninvolved involved

How interesting did you find the writing?

5 4 3 2 1
interesting boring

About how much time did you spend rewriting your paper?

What grade do you think you will receive on this paper?

156

17. On the back. please write any additional comments you have on
how you feel about your paper or on how you wrote your paper?

l 5 7
‘Presidential Candidates' Post-Writing Questionnaire

Student number

 

Instructions: You have finished your writing assignment, and now I
would like you to answer some questions about your writing process.
Please answer the following questions by circling one of the numbers
or letters below the question. Again, there are no right or wrong
answers and your anwers will not affect your grade. Please be honest.
Thank you.

1. How did you like writing this paper?

5 4 3 2 1
disliked liked

2. How difficult did you find the writing?
5 4 3 2 1

easy hard
3. How much did you learn about this topic from writing this
paper?
5 4 3 2 1
little much
4. How much did you learn about transistions from writing this
paper?
5 4 3 2 1
nothing much

5. What is your evaluation of the quality of your paper?

5 4 3 2 1
good poor

6. How did you feel about writing this paper.

5 4 3 2 l
waste of time didn't enjoyed it
mind it

7. How much did you read for this paper?
read more than 20 pages
read 10-20 pages

read 5-10 pages

read less than 5 pages

99cm

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

158

How many people did you interview for this paper?
About how much time did you spend writing the first draft?

From wednesday’s workshop how much did you learn about the
topic?

5 4 3 2 1
nothing much

How much did you learn about transitions from the workshop?

5 4 3 2 1
nothing much

How much did you change your paper after the workshop?

5 4 3 2 1
complete rewrite just typed it up

How involved were you in writing this paper?

5 4 3 2 1
uninvolved involved

How interesting did you find the writing?

5 4 3 2 1
interesting boring

About how much time did you spend rewriting your paper?

What grade do you think you will receive on this paper?

On the back, please write any additional comments you have on
how you feel about your paper or on how you wrote your paper?

1 5 9
‘Clothes' Post-Writing Questionnaire

Student number

 

Instructions: You have finished your writing assignment, and now I
would like you to answer some questions about your writing process.
Please answer the following questions by circling one of the numbers
or letters below the question. Again. there are no right or wrong
answers and your anwers will not affect your grade. Please be honest.
Thank you.

1. How did you like writing this paper?

5 4 3 2 l
disliked liked

2. How difficult did you find the writing?
5 4 3 2 1

easy hard
3. How much did you learn about this topic from writing this
paper?
5 4 3 2 1
little much
4. How much did you learn about development from writing this
paper?
5 4 3 2 1
nothing much

5. What is your evaluation of the quality of your paper?

5 4 3 2 1
good poor

6. How did you feel about writing this paper.

5 4 3 2 1
waste of time didn't enjoyed it
mind it

7. How much did you read for this paper?
a read more than 20 pages
b. read 10-20 pages
c. read 5-10 pages
d. read less than 5 pages

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

160

How many people did you interview for this paper?

About how much time did you spend thinking about your paper
and writing the first draft?

From wednesday's workshop how much did you learn about the

topic?

5 4 3 2 1
nothing much

How much did you learn about development from the
workshop?

5 4 3 2 1
nothing much

How much did you change your paper after the workshop? .

5 4 3 2 1
complete rewrite just typed it up

How involved were you in writing this paper?

5 4 3 2 1
uninvolved involved

How interesting did you find the writing?

5 4 3 2 1
interesting boring

About how much time did you spend rewriting your paper?

What grade do you think you will receive on this paper?

On the back. please write any additional comments you have on
how you feel about your paper or on how you wrote your paper?

APPENDIXE

RESPONSES TO POST-WRITING QUESTIONS

APPENDIXE

RESPONSES ON THE POST-WRITING QUESTIONS

These are exact transcriptions of the students’ written responses.

‘Body Language‘ Post-Writing Questionnaire

Developing my thesis statement was the most difficult obstacle in

writing my paper. Creating a good ending was my second biggest
obstacle.

It was a fun topic but hard to fit all the ideas together.
Very difficult to find a topic.

My paper was good. The only problem I saw was flowing from 1 point to
the next.

I wasn’t very interested in this topic so I had a hard time getting into the
paper.

I didn’t feel that I did a very good job on the essay. I didn’t really care

about the topic so I didn't have enough interest to put enough time into
it.

I put a lot of thought into my paper, but I don’t feel it is well written.

I was incredibly bored with the subject. I had trouble sticking with the
assignment and changed my story to something I thought was at least of
any significance. I thought the assignment stifled all creativity and
imagination and simply called on the students to rehash and organize
things that are obvisous and that we’ve been told over and over again.

I love to write about people almost as much as I love to watch them.

161

162

0 I had a lot of problems starting the paper. I knew what I wanted to say

but I just had problems putting it on paper. The first draft had no focus.
So I tried to giv it more focus on the second draft.

0 I wasn’t very interested in this topic.
0 Kind of a lame topic but not too bad.
0 It sucks.

0 I wasn’t able to tie my logic into the paper properly. I strayed from my
thesis a little in rewrite.

0 Coming up with an idea was hard at first. After I came up with a subject
to write about it went somewhat easier to write.

0 This week was just terrible for me! I had 3 tests. This subject was also
hard for me to write about because I didn’t have enough time to really
think about a good developed subject.

0 Some of my answers so far may seem contradictory, but this is how I

perceifed this paper: I didn’t really understand the topic or what I was
going to write about it. After choosing a topic it became fun.

0 It was hard to start but came together well in the end.
0 I wrote this paper according to my feelings. I made this paper deal with

feelings between people for the same reason.

‘Presidential Candidates‘ Post-Writing Questionnaire

0 This paper was easy to write than my last one.
0 The paper flowed easier--ideas etc.

0 I wrote my paper based mainly on his ideas. In a editorial, I figured you
would not to mabe, run down his ideas because he can't come back with
a arguement. So I just told what I thought about all of his thoughts in a
couple of sentences, in the conclusion. I hope I did the paper right.

163

To write a good paper on this topic it woulc have taken a lot more time
for research then we had.

I liked writing this paper, mainly because Reagan ripping and Bush
bashing are 2 of my favorite things. This was a satarists dream.

I don’t feel real good about how my paper turned out. I had a hard time
getting motivated for this topic.

Like the past assignments, I thought this was extremely boring and dry.
It puts too many guidelines on the students, and doesn’t allow for
creativity. Plus, started with the premise that Kevin McRae asked you
write this type of editorial is ludicrous.

Politics are a drag and having to research for this sucked but I squeezed
out a decent paper.

I had a hard time writing on this subject. It seemed way to broad for me.
Plus who is that excied about the 1988 election.

I wrote this paper on a different t0pic.

It is funny, when I read my paper before its typed it seems complete.

After it is typed there seems to be a lot of holes in it. I feel I’m focusing
better on this paper.

A little lost on what direction to go. Tryed to go away from the ’expected’
way.

I guess that it was hard for me to describe what a certain supporter was
like. It seems like you were forced to make some large generalizations.

none.

I had a hard time writting this paper. I felt it was to general. I would
rather of wrote the paper on one of the candidates.

164

This paper was very boring to me. I am not the least bit interested in

politics. I had to go back; read through the newspapers just to find out
what is going on.

I think I effectivly B.S.ed this paper.

It was a little hard to get started more so than the other papers we’ve
done. After getting stared it was easier to write and interesting.

I kind of thought that this topic was biased towards those who follow the
elections or buy the Missoulian.

I think this is one of my better papers.

165

‘Clothes' Post-Writing Questionnaire

At first I couldn’t narrow topic down-J wrote out lots of different ideas
and put them away for a day. When I went back to do my paper, The
ideas easily fell into place.

My previous grades don't correspond with what I think. I think my
thought were good and I followed her terminalogy on writing this paper.

It’s funny.

I had a difficut time with the topic and didn't get a chance to talk to

Elizabeth about it, therefore my paper isn't really about the topic, other
than it is about apparell.

I had a problem thinking of a subject until I put on a CD. . It brought
back a lot of memories about watching different people at concerts.

710718

Again this topic gave me some trouble since I had trouble focusing. Its

hard to write an intelligent paper when you know very little about the
subject and are not very interested.

I found this paper very hard to write. Thinking of a topic to write about

was almost impossible to come up with. I don’t think I'll get as good as
grade on this paper.

I had to completely rewrite my paper because I didn't have enough info

for my first subject. The second subject seemed more humors and
interesting.

APPENDIXF

PRE- AND POST-KNOWLEDGE TESTS

 

APPENDIXF

PRE- AND POST-KNOWLEDGE TESTS

‘Body Language‘ Knowledge Test

Student number

 

Instructions: Using the following words as prompts I want you to
brainstorm or make free associations. As you read each prompt and
form an impression or meaning from it, list your ideas or
impressions using words, phrases or whole sentences. Make as
many associations for each prompt as possible. If you draw a blank
on one prompt, just go on to the next one and return to the
troublesome one later. Please do the best you can.

PERSONAL SPACE

GESTURES

POSTURE

EYE MESSAGES

VOICE PITCH AND SPEED

SOLIDARITY AND POWER IN SPEECH

APPROPRIATE DRESS

PERSONAL STATEMENT THROUGH DRESS

166

167

‘Presidential Candidates‘ Knowledge Test

Student number

 

Instructions: Now that you have finished writing your composition, 1
again would like you to answer the initial questions and then using
the following words as prompts brainstorm or make free
associations. List your ideas or impressions using words, phrases or
whole sentences. Make as many associations for each prompt as
possible. Please do the best you can. Thank you.

Name the current presidential candidate you wrote/will write about?
What is his political party?

Where is he from?

What is his position or job now?

KIND OF VOTER HE APPEALS TO

INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE

TAXES--DEFICIT

IMAGE

POTENTIAL CONTROVERSY

MILITARY SPENDING

WILDERNESS BILL

ISRAEL-PALESTINE

WOMEN'S ISSUES

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

DRUGS

CONTRAS

ARMS REDUCTION

U. S. INVOLVEMENT IN THE PERSIAN GULF

168

‘Clothes’ Knowledge Test

Student number

 

Instructions: Now that you have finished writing your composition, 1
again would like you to brainstorm or make free associations using
the following prompts. List your ideas or impressions using words,
phrases or whole sentences. Make as many associations for each
prompt as possible. Please do the best you can. Thank you.

SOCIAL POSITION

OCCUPATIONAL GOALS

ATTRACTIVENESS

CREDIBILITY

MOOD

SELF-DEFINITION

APPENDIxG

KNOWLEDGE TESTS EVALUATION

APPENDIXG

KNOWLEDGE TESTS EVALUATION

Much (3) incorporations of abstract, superordinate pinciples
superordinate concepts--higher class category
definitionS--precise meaning

analogies--substitution or comparision for a literal concept or
expression

linking--connecting one concept with another

Some (2) concrete, functional responses

examples--equal class, but more specific

attributes—-subordinate to larger concept

defining characteristics--defines a major aspect of the concept
Little (1) diffuse, associational responses reflecting little
understanding of the concept

associations--peripheral cognitive links

morphemes--echoes smaller unit of meaning such as prefixes,
suffixes or root words

sound alikes--similar phonemic unites

first hand experiences--peripheral responses based on recent
exposure

169

 

l 7 0
Rules for rating the word associations

1. Rate the responses in light of the assigned topic.

2. Rate the whole response to one prompt on its own--don't
evaluate it in conjunction with other responses

3. Try not to read into the responses.

4. Score simple value judgments-good or bad--as little prior
knowledge equals 1 point.

5. Imprecise use of words or incomplete definitions will drop a
level on the rating scale, from much to some.

6. To assign the fluency score: If the student has written a
paragraph, divide it into sentences, phrases or ideas. Count the
total number of responses on the whole tests.

Chesky. John. TWKWM
W . Dissertation. University of Kentucky. 1984. Ann
Arbor: UMI. 1984. 8428407

Langer, Judith. The effects of available information on responses to
school writing tasks. r h hin f E li h
18:27-44. 1984

mun

SCORING KNOWLEDGE TESTS AND EXAMPLE

 

APPENDIXH

SCORING KNOWLEDGE TESTS AND EXAMPLE

‘Body Language‘ Knowledge Test Score Sheet

Student

personal space
gestures

posture

eye messages

voice pitich and speed
solidarity-power
appropriate dress

personal statement--dress

total organization

total fluency

av organization

combination

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

171

 

172

‘Presidential Candidate’ Knowledge Test Score Sheet

Student

nam etc

voter appeal
internat'l experience
taxes-deficit

image

potential controversy
military spending
wildemess bill
Israel-Palestine
women’s issues
international trade
drugs

contras

arms reduction

US. in Persian Gulf

total organization

total fluency

average organization

combination

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 7 3
‘Clothes‘ Example of Knowledge Test Scoring

Sample Test:
SOCIAL POSITION

Clothes make the person, Businessman wear suits
granolas wear tied-died and woolen-—I’m so stereotypical!

OCCUPATIONAL GOALS

With higher income, there is usually more expensive clothes in the
closet! Business people wear suits and dresses, painters wear old t—shirts
and jeans

ATTRACTIVENESS

They don’t make enough clothes that look good on fat people!
Most clothes can bring out features on people

CREDIBILITY

Most people would not trust a person with dirty torn-up clothes.

MOOD

Clothes bring out all sorts of moods in certain people.

SELF-DEFINITION

I like clothes. I wished I had more money to buy more.

IMAGE

Brings out specific personalities

 

l 7 4
Sample Score Sheet grader A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student I jag I
social position I _.’_3_I___I
occupational goals I 3 | I
attractiveness I _2_ I I
credibility I 3 l I
mood I _Ll l
self-definition l _LI ___ I
image I _J_I I

 

total organization I 15 I I

 

 

 

total fluency I 14 l l
av organization I 2, 1 4 I I

 

 

combination I 1 1 I I

 

APPENDIXI

WRITING REASURES CRITERIA AND SCORE SHEETS

 

APPENDIXI

wmmcmasumcmmmSconESst

Holistic Scale
Includes thesis, organization, development, syntax and mechanics

6 = excellent in all areas except for perhaps one
clearly stated thesis
three or more good reasons for support
no irrelevant statements
clear and complete organization--definite beginnings and
endings
many supporting detafls--interesting and appropriate
varied and mature sentence structure
accurate and interesting word choices
few or no mechanical errors

5 = good in all areas or excellent in most and average in others

clear thesis

two reasons given

few irrelevant statements

good organization

many details-~appropriate but not all are innovative

varied sentence structure which is mostly correct and
appropriate

accurate but not vivid word choice or a few clumsy
experiments

few mechanical errors

4 = slightly above average in all areas or above average in most areas
and below average in few areas
stated or easily inferred thesis
one good reason--others are weak
some irrelevant statements or cliche’s but a few substantial
ideas
has an organizational plan but may digress
details are usually appropriate
variety in sentence structure but may have some errors or
simple syntax
some mechanical errors

3 = slightly below average in all areas or in most areas

thesis is not clear but with some work the reader can infer it
weak support-- two reasons or simple reasons

175

176

many irrelevant statements

may have one good idea--others are cliche's

some variety in sentence structure but errors or very simple
syntax

many mechanical errors

2 = below average in most areas
fails to state thesis completely or explicitly
has only one reason for support
many irrelevant statements
unclear organization
a few substantial ideas but not many
mostly simple word order
poor word choice--some Obvious inaccuracies
some or many mechanical errors

1 = poor in all areas
failure to state thesis and support it
irrelevant passages
no apparent organization
few details-~unsupported generalizations
no variety in did not vary sentence structure
simple syntax and word choice
many mechanical errors

177

Coherence Scale

Includes reader orientation. organization, placement and use Of
supporting detafl, paragraph and sentence transitions, and cohesive
ties

6 = Fully Coherent

Writer clearly identifies the topic

Writer does not shift topics or digress

Writer orients the reader by creating a context or situation

Writer organizes details according to a discernible plan that is
sustained throughout the essay

Writer skillfully uses cohesive ties such as lexical cohesion,
conjunction. reference, etc. to link sentences and/ or
paragraphs together

Writer often concludes with a statement that gives the reader a
definite sense of closure

5 = Mostly Coherent

Writer identifies the topic

Writer may have one minor digression

Writer provides some reader orientation

The support is organized according to a plan with only minor
details misplaced

Writer uses cohesive ties and for the most part uses them well

Writer mostly concludes with a statement that gives the reader
a sense of closure

4 = Partially Coherent

If writer does not explicitly identify the topic. s/he provides
enough details so that readers can probably identify the
specific subject

Writer has one main topic but there may be a few digressions

Writer provides only a little reader orientation

Writer has a plan in mind, but may not sustain it throughout or
may list details in inappropriate parts of the essay

Writer uses some cohesive ties such as lexical cohesion,
conjunction, reference, etc.. to link sentences/ paragraphs
together not always effectively

Writer does not usually conclude with a statement that creates
a sense of closure

3 = Mostly Incoherent

Writer probably does not explicitly identify the topic but reader
may be able to guess the topic

The paragraphs include many digressions and shifts

Writer provides little or no orientation for the reader

Writer uses a few cohesive ties but many are not used
successfully

Writer does not attempt a statement of closure

178

2 = Incoherent

Some of the following prevent the reader from integrating the
text into a coherent whole:

Writer does not identify the topic and the reader would be
unlikely to infer or guess the topic from the details
provided

Writer shifts topics or digresses frequently from the topic

Writer assumes the reader shares his/her context and provides
little or no orientation

Writer uses few cohesive ties such as lexical cohesion,
conjunction, reference, etc. to link sentences and/or
paragraphs together

Writer creates no sense of closure

Disourse flow is irregular or rough because mechanical and/ or
grammatical errors frequently interrupt the reading process

1 = Incomprehensible

Many of the following prevent the reader from making sense of
the text: '

Topic cannot be identified

Writer moves from topic to topic by association or digresses
frequently

Writer assumes the reader shares his/ her context and provides
no orientation

Writer has no organizational plan and either lists or follows an
associative order

Writer uses very few cohesive ties such as lexical cohesion.
conjunction. reference. etc. and sentences do not seem
connected or linked together

Discourse flow is very rough or irregular because writer omits
structure words. inflectional endings and/ or makes
numerous grammatical and mechanical errors that
continuously interrupt the reading process.

Adapted from Betty Bamberg 1984. Assessing coherence: A
reanalysis of Essays Written for National Assessment of Educational

Progress, 1969-1979. 1 hin f En Ii 18: 305-
319.

179

Sophistication Scale
Includes audience awareness. content, innovative ideas. choice of
supporting detail. sentence structures. word choice

6 = Sophisticated

The writer presents a thoughtful thesis statement--probably a
new way to look at the topic for the reader

The writer clearly directs his paper toward the university
audience with respect to content and langauge

Writer carefully choses examples-~may Show some research
into the subject

Writer uses several uncommon words or familiar words in an
uncommon setting

Writer shows an interest in words and in putting them
together in slightly unusual ways (syntax)

Writer uses words correctly and with imagination

5 = Sophisticated for the most part
Writer’s thesis is thoughtful but probably not innovative
Writer chooses examples well--probably from thoughtful
observations
Writer chooses words to have an effect on audience
Writer’s words are varied. pleasing and innovative
Writer’s point of view is consistent and clear
Writer demonstrates consistent audience awareness
Writer uses words correctly

4 = Not sophisticated but above simplicity

Writer's thesis statement is clear but not innovative

Writer chooses appropriate but mostly typical examples

Writer attempts to speak to the audience but is inconsistent

Writer attempts to use uncommon words but not always
accurately

Writer uses mostly repetitive sentence structure but a few
attempts at diversity

3 = Not Sophisticated almost simple
Writer‘s thesis may be clear but is repetitive. simple or a cliché
Writer is somewhat aware of audience but does not speak
directly to it
Writer does not consider the appropriateness of the word to
its context
Writer's word choices are repetitive and some are inaccurate

180

Simple

Writer‘s thesis probably is not immediately clear to the reader
or perhaps s/ he includes no thesis statement

Writer's details and support are minimal-~mostly
generalizations

Writer uses no variety in word choice--simple language

Writer’s syntax is full of tired Old phrases

Writer demonstrates little if any awareness of audience

Very Simple
Writer presents no thesis
Writer is egocentric
Compostion is full of generalities
Word choices are simple or inaccurate
Many mechanical errors

181

Content Scale
Includes amount and thoughtfulness of the included detail and
support

6 = lots of thoughtful content

Writer has thought much about the topic and writes what s/ he
really thinks

Writer discusses each main point long enough to show clearly
what s/ he means

Writer supports each main point with arguments. examples. or
details

Writer gives the reader many thoughtful reasons for thinking
this way

Writer's points are clearly related to the topic and to the main
idea or impression s/he is trying to convey

No necessary points are overlooked and there is no padding

5 = much and mostly thoughtful content
Writer has thought about the tOpic
Writer discusses each main point satisfactorily
Writer supports each main point more than adequately
Writer’s points are related to the topic--perhaps one minor
digression

4 = average
Writer includes perhaps one idea that is not Obvious to the
reader

Writer has good support but mostly generally accepted--not
innovative

Writer usually will have some padding

Writer probably does not support every point completely
adequately

3 = slightly below average

Writer probably does not really believe what s/he is writing or
does not fully understand what it means

Writer tries to guess what the teacher wants and writes what
s/he thinks will get by

Writer does not explain the points very clearly or make them
come alive to the reader

Writer writes what S/ he thinks will sound good-«not what s/ he
believes or knows.

Writer uses typical examples

The thesis statement is overworked

 

 

 

182

2 = little and poorly thought out content
Writer has not seriously considered the topic
Writer does not support each point--one point may be well
supported or each point poorly developed
Writer uses some untrue facts

1 = mostly overworked generalizations

Writer is only trying to get something down on paper

Some ideas may not make any sense to the reader or the
writer may even contradict her/himself later on in the
paper

Writer does not explain his points: s/he only asserts them and
then goes on to something else. or he repeats them in
slightly different words

Writer does not bother to check his facts. and much of what he
writes is obviously untrue

 

 

 

183

Interest Scale

Includes ideas. audience awareness. sincerity. innovative
presentation. choice of words and sentence structures. choice of
details

6 = Very interesting and engaging

Writer sounds like a person. not a committee

Writer seems quite sincere and candid

Writer writes about something he knows well. often from
personal experience.

Writer chooses very interesting examples

Writer’s presentation of the thesis is very interesting--probably
new to the reader

5 = Interesting and engaging
Writer is genuine
Writer usually writes about ideas s/he knows well
Most examples are interesting and innovative
Writer‘s thesis is interesting

4 = Partially interesting

Writer may try to appear better or wiser than s/he really is.

Writer may use lofty sentiments and broad generalities.

Writer uses a few homely details that Show that s/he knows
what s/ he is talking about

Writer is mostly correct but colorless. without personal feeling
or imagination.

Perhaps one interesting idea

0.)
II

Uninteresting
Writer reveals that little thought was put into the paper
Details and examples are not thoughtful--they are easy for the
reader to anticipate
Writer may include some inaccuracies
For the most part the writer is not aware of the audience

2 = Boring
Composition is full of cliches-may have one interesting
thought
Writer presents no new point of view
Writer includes inaccuracies
Writer does not reveal her/himself--may sound like an
encylopedia entry

1 = Very boring
Writer has included no interesting thoughts or sentences
Writer makes no effort to entertain audience
Composition is only cliche's
May include many inaccuracies

 

 

 

 

184

Interest Scale

Includes ideas. audience awareness. sincerity. innovative
presentation, choice of words and sentence structures. choice of
details

6 = Very interesting and engaging

Writer sounds like a person. not a committee

Writer seems quite sincere and candid

Writer writes about something he knows well. often from
personal experience.

Writer chooses very interesting examples

Writer's presentation of the thesis is very interesting--probably
new to the reader

5 = Interesting and engaging
Writer is genuine
Writer usually writes about ideas s/ he knows well
Most examples are interesting and innovative
Writer's thesis is interesting

4 = Partially interesting

Writer may try to appear better or wiser than s/he really is.

Writer may use lofty sentiments and broad generalities.

Writer uses a few homely details that show that s/he knows
what s/he is talking about

Writer is mostly correct but colorless. without personal feeling
or imagination.

Perhaps one interesting idea

00
II

Uninteresting
Writer reveals that little thought was put into the paper
Details and examples are not thoughtful--they are easy for the
reader to anticipate
Writer may include some inaccuracies
For the most part the writer is not aware of the audience

2 = Boring
Composition is full of cliché‘s--may have one interesting
thought
Writer presents no new point of view
Writer includes inaccuracies
Writer does not reveal her/himself--may sound like an
encylopedia entry

I = Very boring
Writer has included no interesting thoughts or sentences
Writer makes no effort to entertain audience
Composition is only cliché’s
May include many inaccuracies

_' mum mung-“F

 

 

Example Score Sheet

Student

 

Topic

 

Holistic Quality
Coherence
Sophistication
Content

Interest

Student

 

Holistic Quality
Coherence
Sophistication
Content

Interest

Student

 

Holistic Quality
Coherence
Sophistication
Content

Interest

0303030303 0309030303

0303030303

0101010101 0101010101

010010101

185

##### #####

#####

0000030000 0003000003

0303030003

Grader
Set #

2 1
1

NNNNN (ONION
H H

NNMNN
t—I

 

186

Example Master Score Sheet

Coh Soph Con Int

Hol

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIXJ

SCORING GUmELINES FOR T-UNIT AND ERROR mm

APPENDIXJ

SCORING GUIDELINES FOR T-UNIT AND ERROR MEASURE

Mullis and Mellon's Guidelines for Describing three Aspects of
Writing (1980) was used to delineate T-units and determine errors
in the compositions. To score the essays for syntactic complexity.
two trained graders marked off the sequence of T-units and divided
the number of T-units by the number of words in the essay to
determine mean T-unit length. This number was the T-unit score
for that composition. Each main clause with its phrases and
subordinate clauses counted as one T-unit. Compound sentences
with two or more main clauses. are divided into as many T-units. T-
units were marked regardless of the students' punctuation.

The trained raters also examined the composition for errors.
Errors were grouped under three types: sentence errors.
punctuation errors. and word level errors. The student's mechanics
score was the mean number of errors per 100 words of the essay.
The following paragraph and sample score sheet illustrates these

procedures.

187

 

1 8 8
Sample Paragraph:

He not only has the great speaking abilities of Martin Luther King,
but he cares about the little guys like King did. / When I say ”little
guys”, I don't mean the people off of the Wizard of Oz. / The little
guys are the unemployed, the elderly, the welfare families, etc. /
Iackson wants to try and help these people get jobs, receive better

benefits, or try to get some type of programs going so the welfare

mothers can go to work. /

Sample Score Sheet:
tepic WW

 

 

 

Student IELI ___ I ___ I ____ I l l I ___ I ___ I ___ I
words I 81 I I I I ___ I I I I ___ I ___ |
T—units I 4 | I I I I I I I I I

 

 

 

sent errors I 1 I___I I I | I I I I I

 

 

punc errors I 2 I___I l I I I I I I l
word errors I .3 I___I I l I I I I I I

 

total errors I Q I I I I I I I I I I

 

T-score I&I I I I I I I I I I
E-score Iz._4_l I I I l - I I I I I

APPENDIX K

RAWSCORES

189

ss N OO ssss Hy ON s H OO
s H ON ssssssseess HH HVN see O NO
sse O HVN ssssess 5 ON sssesess O ON
ssees m ON sseessss O OH seeses O vN
ssssssesssss NH OH sssss O NH ssssssss O ON
ssesssssssess OH NH sssess O O sssssess O OH
sesse O O s H H» ssssssss O NH
ss N ¢ s H .O s H .O
3:253 «Eon—:8 Eco—SSE OEOQEE Enough “Scan—E
.2530 332650 nan—833.5 owl—was..— .30:
AH ¢ O—Dflb OEOUW BZMDHGHI IPOMIF HQQEOZVHINHOE
sss O O.N
e H O.N e H O.H e H O.N
sse O N.N sese H4 O.H s H ¢.N
see O O.N esssssss O EH ss N N.N
esses m O.H ssesssee O NH essssesss O O.N
sssee m O.H esssss O O.H sessseeess OH O.H
e H HV.H ssesess N. . O. sees O O.H
seesessss O NH es N O. ssssesses O ¢.H
sssseseesssse OH O.H ss N H». see O NH
es N O. s H N. see O O.H
s H O. s H 0.0 s H O.
383% 35328 383% E828 983$. 2:828
8520 835.56 3828:. amass—.88

8s 2%.: wmmoow zoFfiE<omOIemfiw ROSESOZMEOE

190

s H O.
es N O.
es N N.
ssssssessss HH 0.0
ssesssseese HH NV
esss HV .va
essss O OH
ssss ¢ Of
es N O.H-
s H N.Hn
magnum HEOQEE

8320

GO.
G
fififi

§§*§§§§.
§§*§§§§§*§§§§G

iGGGQ
§§§§§
{G
ii

85:55 3393.:
acne—5:30 gave—sou.—

NNLOIDV‘OOHO

(o

QENQNEQQ

mi

O

*G

ii.
GGQGGOG
{GOO}!
GOO.
GO

*
Econ

AOO 2ow mummOOO ZOFgOMOnqum—IH. OOQMSOZVHJFOOQ Q24 umOE ZHEO OOZONHEAH

GOO.

GQCGO

GO

GOO}.

GOO!!!
GOOIGOO
Gifi‘fiififiQGGQQ

3:25am mun—BEBE
8520

OBOmNmfi‘Or-I

OH
H:
NH
OH
O
O
v
N
H O

*fiii

Q

5..
iiiii
GOOGGG
§§§§§
GGGQG

§*§§§§*§§Q§§

G
O

Enough HEOQEE
means—=30 gnu—038m

HHNIOLDOinOv-ist'

OH
OH
¢H
NH
. OH
O
O
O
N
o

G

G!

.0!
OGGQGQGO

{GOGGOGOG
§§§§§§§§fi§

§§§§§§§§
{Q

~ o4

m w.

m o.

S o.o

o a:

a a-

a or

c we

o 97

H 3.
8m. «5328

owl—mas.— g

a mm

a an

m cu

m 3

a S

3 w

w a

m o

mace—SEE «503:8

8v 2%.: mmxoow zoF<zE200I$aP mOOOEBOzméog

egg

191

s H OH
sss O H4
ss N N s H OH s H OH
ssessssssssesssss NH O O NH es N NH
ssssssss O N: e H O sees O O
eeess O fir eeessssssess NH v eseseess O HV
es N O: sessssssssssses OH O sseeesssss OH O
s H O. ssssssssss OH O- ssssessses OH Hun
es N OH: sss O O- sesss O O.
N NH: H NH: see O NH-
mucmcgm HOSE: manna—um «Son—:5 9:255 «BOOBS
8.308 saga—vs 3:062 Oman—S 3
Be SEND mmmoom 29525209.“.me mangozmémom Oz< - moan EEO mOzmeD
es N HvH
s H OH
se N O
s H O
s H OH ss N fl
O NH ssesess N. N es N OH
ses O O ssseeeesss OH O ess O OH
sssssssese OH Hy ss N N- sessss O O
ssssssessse HH O sesss O Hun eeesesssesss NH O
essesesssss HH fin sesss O O- esseeessseesses OH O.
eeess O O: ess O O- s H OH:
N NH: sse O OH: esss OH:
Edmuzuw ~5an5 magnum OEOQEE 9:355 “50928
8520 83.850 Ruse—.32.. 8:55:38

3un 2335 OMKOOO BZQDHOIFOE MOOMEOZVHIFOOAH QZ< IMOE ZOEO OOZEMEEQ

192

sesss O O ssss O O sss O O
sssssssssssse OH O esss O O sssssssss O O
ssesssessssesss OH O ssssssssessss OH O sssssssesese NH O
ssssss O N ssssesssssse NH N eseseessess HH N
ssss O H ssseseesss OH H sessesse O H
mucocsuw OEOOEE wagon—um «Eon—BE magnum “523::
85.5 83550 3828s." emu—ans;
Ame 058.. madam mm... 95.3? BEIOmEzzOmeDO .58
eeessssess OH O sees O O eeess O O
sssssseesees NH O ssessssss O O sssssssssssssssss NH O
ssssssssseesss OH O sssssssssssss OH O sssssesssssees OH O
es N N ssessseses OH N see O N
sesss O H sesssss h H sese O H
3:35am «569:5 magnum EBA—ES 9:255 «56938
85.5 83.8538? amass—8a
Fe 038.. mozmozzou:mm_<zzo:.mga-u§
seseses N. O sseeeseees OH O esse O O
ssseesessesse OH O sssesssss O O ssesesesssses OH O
sssssssssss HH O esssseess O O sesssessssssee OH O
sees O N esssss O N ssesss O N
eeesssss O H sesssesse O H eeeses O H
383% E828 352% 888:: 352.6 35828
8.320 8.3.6an 353.2.— cussed?

Ow Snub EmmmezTémazzopmmDOémm

193

ssss O O sessss O O s H O
sesesesssee HH O ssesessessssss OH O esssseess O O
sssssssssessseee OH O essssesses OH O eseseesessssssssses OH O
sesssssss O N ssesssss O N ssssesss O N
sss O H ssss O H ssssse O H
3:255 OEOQEE magnum OEOQEE 3:355 «509:8
8520 835:8 3838:. «unease—seen
:m 228.. swung—Immizzofimmaaémom
sesssss N. O ssessess O O sseess O O
ssssesseseees OH O esssessssss HH O sssssesessse NH O
ssssssessesssssse NH O sssssssesses NH O sesssesesssses OH O
ssss O N sssssssss O N sseeeeses O N
ss N H see O H ss N H
Bantam “BOOBS 9:35am “Scan—E Baowgw «50338
8520 83.6an Ease—.32.— amass—soon
8m Snub szm>40>z_--mm_<zzOmeboémom
sesss O O sss O O
ssssssss O O ssssseess O O sssssessss OH O
ssssesesssssssssee OH O eeesseessseesse OH Oeesessseeseessesssse ON O
essessses O N esssssessesss OH N sessssseee OH N
sss O H see O H see O H
magnum OEOOEE Eamon—um “503:8 Buouaw «525::
8520 835:8 Ease—.2 unifies—Son

8w 2nt mozsmmm:mmu<zzome:O- EOE

 

 

ssssss O
ssseseesssss NH
sssssseseess NH

sssesesse O
ssss O

r“NOOIO

2835 3.828

8508
On 2%.: 3:840 .509. mggozm.moam--mmzzzofiwmsaémom
eess O O sssssssses OH O
ss N O sssssssesss HH O
eeseeesssessseese NH O ssesss O O
sees O N sseeeesse O N
ssseseesseseesee OH H sseesee N. H

194

283% 2:825 253% 2:828
«.39—am Ema—Eco 33:033...— uo 0.331

8m 2%.: mum—.2920 $528595 mm... .592 m8§§--mm€zzo:mmnaéwom

sssssesssess NH O
sseessesesessseesese ON O essesssee O O sssssssseseesse OH O
sseessse O O ssseesesesssese OH O ssseesssesssssseee OH O
es N N esssssssssess OH O seeess O O
s H H ssssss O N esss O N
OHHHOUHHHW “GHOQUHE OHHHOUHHHW HCHOQUHE OHHHDUBW awn—Danae
flea. smash—Von 80.5

Rm 2%.: 8,3025 Son 20 moomgozm--mm~<zzomeEO¢mom

195

see O O s H O s H O
ss N O ssssss O O sesesssse O O
sssssssssssesessss NH O ssssssssssssss OH O sssessssssss NH O
sssssses O N essessssssss NH N ssssssesss OH N
ssesssee O H esssss O H sseses O H
2:225 88228 2:225 58228 2:225 58228
8520 828850 85528:: amass—.8
Km 2%.: 6:920? OE. E 080.: OE. .503 EIOOEZOEOODQHOOO
se N O es N O ss N O
essessssseesesss OH O ssssesssessssssee NH O essesssessssseess NH O
ssssss
sssssssssseeses OH O essesssssssssse HN O seseseeesees NH O
eeeseee N. N es N N ssssesessss HH N
ese O H s H H s H H
2525 58:28 282% 8:828 282.5 58228
8520 8.88:8 2:828: cusses—23:
6m 2%.: OEOB OOOOOE. EEO Oaxofid. OE. .50O< EOOOEZOEOODOLOOO
see O O s H O
see O O esssssssss OH O essss O O
sssseseesseee OH O sesssessssesss OH O sssseesssesessssse OH O
esseesessssese OH N ssesssseseee NH N seesssss O N
sssssssseeeee OH H see... O H sssssessses HH H
2:258 88:28 28.58 8:828 2:256 58:28
850—0 2335an 13:033.:— omqnug 3

OO 23”: 0253 IODOME OrrurH. OE EOE EHIHOEZZOEQDQIPOOAH

196

u H O
O O
.. H N _._ H O
ii§§§fifc *2... mu m GOO. H N
:3...:.......:.._._..__..:.:.__.. 5:3...333. OH N :.........§.......:.:.:.3
:*§::::::o¢:ic OO H ...f.:...:..o..:.:._:..:.:.. :3...:....:.:.:.:.23::
.2. N O ::§._§§..f....f.:.:.:.. ON H :§§¢:::::::3.3: NO H
2:255 5825: 2:255 5822:. 2:255 5825:
8:86 8.88:8 5852.. 5:25:53:
.05 2.5.: 025<Om O0 E05--OO.<220§5000.50O
33.3.... O O _.._._ N O _.. H O
:..:..:...f.:3..o..3.. OH O §§§:§§¢§:::uo OH O 3.3.3.3350... NH O
3.3.3:...39: HH O c::c:ooe.:.:.:.. NH O :«o........:.:.:.:..!.:.. OH O
«9.2.3.2... O N §:*::::::.:.. HH N :5::..:.3.:....3 HH N
5.2.2... O H 33...... O H 1:59.... O H
2:255 5825: 2:255 5825: 2:255 5822::
8:86 8.88:8 35228... 5558.28
an 25:: F.50EEQOOEZZOPOODO.emom
.2. N O :5... O O
2....0555... O O :u:..:..¢..;:§.._ HH O _.. H O
o..:.:..f.:.3:_....!.:.. OH O :5.....:.2.i.....:.:.:._::_._ OH O 53.2.3.3... O O
o::c:o¢
..:.:.:.:.:.i_.. O N 0.2.2:... O N :f.::_._¢§_.:.3.._.:.:._ NN O
3.2.1.... O H 3.2.2.. O H 3.2.3.2.; h N
2:255 5825: 2:255 5825: 2:255 5825:
8520 822.880 58.52.. 55532.8

:5 25.: 5052203 OE. z. 5.0m 02503 OE. 50$. 255 :OmEzzonODQSE

197

. H NH . H 0.0
. H H H . H 0.0 O 0.0
O OH O 0.0 . 5 N 0.0
O O . H 0.0 . H 0.0
H O O 0.0 . 5 N 0.0
O h . H 0.0 O 0.0
O O . H 0.0 . 5.... O 0.0
5 H O ....5 O 0.0 . H O.N
...5... b O .... O O.N ................. OH O.N
.......... OH O .............5 OH O.N ..5 O O.H
............. OH N .5.. O O.H ...... O O.H
......5 b H ...555 O O.H ... O O.
. . N O . . . O O. . H 0.0
2:255 5822:. 2:255 5822:. 2:255 5822:.
22.20 2.2.850 35.22... .2553 .28
am 2.5,: 2.5. 0252? O0 g0:<.-5.<zzomeDO.50m
5 H O 5...... N. O
.. . O O ..... O O
5. . O N ...5. O N ..... O O
.5. O H ........ O H ........5.. HH N
OO 0 ON 0 ............... OH H
2:255 5822:. 2:255 5822:. 2:255 5822:.
850—0 53:—5.50 33:03.05 Oman-us E

:o 2.5.: OBOSOEE O0 OOOSDZ--OO.<220FOODQ-50O

198

...5.. O O .5......5 O O 5... O O
..55........5..5. NH O ........... HH O ........5.. HH O
........5..... OH O .5.....5......... OH O....5.....5....5...5 ON O
.. N. N ..5... O N ....55 O N
.5.. O H 5 H H .5 N H
2:255 5822:. 28.55 5822:. 2:255 5822:.
8:86 82885.0 85:028.: 88552.8
55 2:5,: zoEmoOzoo O0 205.55% izommOO-OO.<zzo..5ODO.50O
. H OH . H O
.5. O O . H O 5. N O
. H O .5 N O ... O O
5. N O .5.. O O ... O O
....55............ OH N ......... O N .......... OH N
..5......5..... OH H ON H .5....5............5. HN H
.. N O . H O .... O O
3:355 «5022:. 3.5on .5022... $5qu .5092...
8:88 88.2.5.0 8:828... 5.59.52...
:5 25.: 20:52:00 OE. ozFEBOm OEO. O0 92:05.-OO.<220FOODO.50O
.5........ OH O .5...... O O .5... O O
....5 O O ......... O O .5.... O O
...............5 OH O ....5....5... OH O ..........5.. OH O
.... O N 55.... O N .5.......... NH N
.55.... N. H .55 O H .... O H
2:255 5822:. 2:255 5822:. 2:255 5822:.
8520 8.2.850 85.28.... 55:32::

Amo 2:5,: OEOO OE. 2. 8255 O0 E:02<-OO.<220E.OODQ.50O

199

5 H NH .5..... 5 OH
5.. O HH .55.... N. OH 55.. O O
.55. O. OH ....5 O O ........55....5.. NH O
..5. O O.55................5 ON O 5.5.5....55. NH O
.............5....... HN O .......... OH O .. N O
.5........ OH O . H O . H O

2:255 5822:. 2:255 5822.: 2:255 5822:.

8:220 8.2.85.0 8.5.28... «5858228:

E. 2.5,: 55.005 05:0m:OO5<O.2 02:53

....... b O ....55. N. O
.......5..... ....55...
......5......5. ON O 5.5.5.....55... ON O
...... O O .5.....5... HH O
5 H H . H H
2:255 5822:. 2:255 5822.:
mega—U Goad—wag gnu—3g

60 22...: 85.0 0Oe<20Fz<--OO.<220:.mODO.O.50O

...5........5
..5.......5.5.5 ON

§§§§‘ m

OlOQ§§OGQ m

. H

HOO O

3:255 5:202:22:
«was i

200

. H HH
.H H NH ..5 O OH
.5 N HH ...55 O O .. N OH
.5 N OH .................5 NH O ... O O
.... O O ... O 5 ......5.5.5.5... OH O
.........5...55 OH O ..5...... O O 5...........5..5 OH O
....55.55..55555 OH O ..5 O O ..5 O O
... O O .. N O .5. O O
2:255 5825: 2:255 5822:. 2:255 5822:.
8:220 8.2.850 85828... 85:55:28:
AGO D—Qflb OMNHOUW ZOFCUEEQCWnuflngS 02E“?
5 H NH H
.5 N HH 5.5......... NH OH ..5. O OH
....5 O OH ..5 O O .5...... O O
........... HH O 5.55......... OH O .....5....5..5...5. OH O
5.5....5....... OH O .5.. O N. ...55... O O
........ O O .........5 OH O .. N O
. H O 5 H O .5 N O
52:00:25 25032:. 5.50:5 25092:. 8:06.25 2:20:28
8:220 8225.50 85228.... 58:55.28:

60 225.: 52005 O02OOOOOO--OODO<OE 02:53

201

.. N NH
. H HH . H NHH
.5. O OH ..... O OH .5 N OH
5 H O 5.5. O O .55.. O O
..........5 HH O .......5..5...55 OH O .......55. OH O
. H N. .... O N. ......5...5...... HN O
......5...5...5... OH O ..5...5...5. NH O 5. N O
...... O O 5 H O 5.. O O
2:255 5822.: 2:255 5825: 2:255 5822:.
8:220 8.8880 8.5.28... 885328..
HH N. ”HAHN: OQNHOUW ggmulggz UZENHB
. H NH 5 H HH
.5 N HH ... O OH
.5.. O OH ..5. O O
.55 O O ..5. O OH .5....5..55.. OH O
.5....5... OH O .55.. O O 5 H h
.....5.5...5.5..5... ON O 555............. OH O .....5........... NH O
.. N O ... O N. ... O O
. H O ..5....5..5.555 OH O 5 H O
5.:0c3w 5.0325 3:255 E8328 8:02.55 22092:.
8:220 8.2.8.80 8.5228... 83:32.2.

8.. 22...: 2.205 925209-535: 02523

202

. H ON

. H NN

. H HN

. H NN ... O ON

.... O OH .. N OH

... O NH .... O OH
...... O OH ...... O NH . H ON
....... N. OH ........ O OH . H NN
........ O OH ....... N. OH .... O OH
...... O OH .... O OH .............. OH OH
...... O NH ... O OH ............ NH OH
.. N HH ... O NH .......... OH NH
.. N OH . H HH . H OH
$28.25 222.28 35.030 .5222... 98.5.0 3.2.2.2

8505 03030.30 15:02.0...— § 3

Am... 0.00,: 5.020. sz-H--0m:w<mE 02.5.3

203

......... O O ........ O O ...... O O
........ ........... ..............
............... ON O ............... ON O ............... ON O
......... O O ........ O O ....... b O
. H N . H N .. N N
$5.55 ....0........ 3.8.2.5 .5032... 3.8wa .5022...
850.0 «0.5.05.0 3.50.8...— ouflfig E
HON. OHDOrC OM36 .ONHQHAUEIIMHNHDES 02E“;
.. N 0.0
. H 0.0 . H 0.0
... O 0.0 . H 0.0 . H 0.0
. H 0.0 ...... O 0.0 0.0
. . .. . O 0.0 . H 0.0 . . N 0.0
.. N 0.0 O 0.0 .... O 0.0
...... O 0.0 ...... O 0.0 ...... O O.N
........ O O.N ...... O O.N ...... O O.N
............ NH O.N .............. OH O.N ........ O O.H
O O.H .... O O.H ...... O O.H
.... O O.H . H O.H ........ O O.
_ . H O. ... O O. .... O 0.0
$5.25 .5222... 5222.6 ....222... 322.2% .5222...
8520 8.2.2.50 3.2.28... egg

$5 03...: 820.5 00. ...... 9.02.... $224208). ...0 2202077220322 0225.?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bamberg, Betty. “Assessing Coherence: A Reanalysis of Essays
written for the National Assessment of Education Progress

1969-70.” Beeeareh in the Teaehing ef English 18
(1984):305-319.

Berthoff, A. E. “Tolstoy, Vygotsky and the Making of Meaning.”
0]] om sii n mm nica 29 (1978): 249-55.

Britton, B.K. and A. Tessor. “Effects of Prior Knowledge on Use of
Cognitive Capacity on Three Complex Cognitive Tasks.” Jegrnal

ef Verbal gaming and Verbal Behavier 21 (1982): 421-436.

Britton, J. W. London: Allen Lane, 1970.

Bruner, J. S., J. Goodnow and G. A. Austin. W. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, 1956.

Charney, Davida. “The Validity of Using Holistic Scoring to Evaluate

Writing: A Critical Overview.” WW
English 18 (1984): 65-81.

Chase, W. G. and H.A. Simon. “Perception in Chess.” Qegmtjle
W (1973): 55-81.

Cheisi, Harry I... George J. Spilich and James F. Voss. “Acquisition of
Domain-Related Information in Relation to High and Low

Domain Knowledge.” V
mm 18 (1979): 257-273.
Chesky, John. ff r Kn w n n

Wrigng. Diss. University of Kentucky, 1984. Ann Arbor, UMI.
1984. 8428407

Chesky, John. “The Effects of Prior Knowledge and Audience on

High School Students' Writing.” Jeurnal ef Edgeatien
BeseggehBO (1987): 304-313.

204

205

Crowhurst. M. “Syntactic Complexity and Teachers' Quality Ratings

of Narrations and Arguments.“ Beseareh in the Teaehing ef
English 14 (1980): 223-231.

DeGroff, Linda Jo Caple. 1986. Ilse lnfluenee ef Prier Knewledge en
Process-Approach Writing Tasks. ERIC ED 269 758.

Emig, J. The Qempesing fleeess ef Twelfth graders. Champaign,
IL: National Council of Teachers of English. 1971.

Flower, L. and J. Hayes. “Problem-Solving Strategies and the Writing
Process.” College English 39 (1977): 449-461.

Graves. D. 1983 Writing: WW. Exeter.
New Hampshire: Heinemann Educational Books.

Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan. WM. London:
Longman, 1976.

Hare, Victoria Chou. “Preassessment of Topical Knowledge: A
Validation and Extension.“ Journal of Reading Behavior 14
(1982): 77-86.

Hilgers, T. L. “Experimental Control and the Writing Stimulus: The
Problem of Unequal Familiarity with Content.“ W

W 16 (1982): 381-390.
Hirsch, E. D.. Jr. W. Chicagoz

University of Chicago Press. 1977.

Holmes, Betty C. and Nancy L. Roser. 1980. W
flfieehnigues Used 19 Assess Readers' Brier Knewledge. ERIC
ED 198 512. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
National Reading Conference. thirtieth. San Diego. Ca, Dec 3-6,
1980.

Izard, C.E. Was. New York: Plenum Press. 1977.

Kellogg. Ronald T. “Effects of Topic Knowledge on the Allocation of
Processing Time and Cognitive Effort to Writing Process.“

W 15 (1987): 256-266.

Langer, Judith A. “Relation between Levels of Prior Knowledge and
the Organization of Recall.“ In M.L. Kamil and J. J. Moe (Eds.)
°-r_-- iv , 8.4.;- '---.rh .u n r i
Washington, D.C.: National Reading Conference, 1980.

Langer. Judith A. “From Theory to Practice: A Prereading Plan.”
Jegmal ef Reading 25 (1981): 152-156.

206

Langer. Judith A. and M. Nicolich. “Prior Knowledge and Its Effect

on Comprehension. Jegmal 91 Reading Behefle; 13 (1981):
373-379.

Langer. Judith A. 1983a. “Effects of Topic Knowledge on the Quality
and Coherence of Informational Writing.“ ERIC ED 234 418.

Langer, Judith A. “Examining Background Knowledge and Text

Comprehension.” W 19 (1983b):
468-481.

Langer. Judith A. “The Efl'ects of Available Information on Responses
to School Writing Tasks.“ r 1 h
18 (1984): 27-44.

Lewis Dorothy P 1983 W
Fluency and the Quality ef _thePr oug et. ERIC ED 258 175.

McCutchen, Deborah. “Domain Knowledge and Linguistic Knowledge

in the Development of Writing Ability.“ Jegmal ef Memeg; and
Lsnguege 25 (1986): 431-444.

Mellon. J.C. Transformational Sentenee-Combining. Research
Report No. 10. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of

English. 1969.

Mullis, I. V. S. and Mellon, J. C. 1980. MW
r g _0‘ 0ng ° 41 - ion .nc M h ni

ERIC ED 205 572. Education Commission of the States.
Denver Co. National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Murray, Donald. W. New York: Holt Rinehart and
Winston. 1984.

Myers. Miles. 1980. A Preeedure fer Wrigng fisessment and
MW. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teacher of
English. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 193
676). Eric Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication
Skills. Urbana. IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Newell, George E. “Learning from Writing in Two Content Areas.”
MW 18 (1984): 265-287.

Perl, S. “The Composing Processes of Unskilled College Writers.”
T n fE li 13(1979): 317-336.

Potter, R. R. “Sentence Structure and Prose Quality.“ Research in
WW 1 (1967): 17-28.

207

Reither. James A. “Writing and Knowing: Toward Redefining the
Writing Process.“ W 47 (1985): 621-628

Reitman. J.S. “Skilled Perception in Go: Deducting Memory
Structures from Inter-Response Times.” Cognitive Psychology
(1976): 336-356.

Rosenblatt. Louise. WW. Carbondale.
IL: Southern Illinois University Press. 1978.

Rubin, Donald L. and Bennett A. Rafoth. “Social Cognitive-Ability as a
Predictor of the Quality of Expository and Persuasive Writing

among College Freshmen.” Web—111m
.E_ng1;sg 20 (1986): 9-21.

Ruth, Leo. 1982. “Study 1: Designing Prompts for Holistic Writing
Assessments: Knowledge from Theory, Research and
Practice.” In Properties 9f Writing Tasks; A Study Qf
Alternativs Prgcsgurss fgr HQlistiQ Writing Asssssmsnt. Final
Report. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 230
576). Berkeley, California: University of California.

Spilich, G. J., Vesonder. G.T., Chiesi, H.L. and Voss. J.F. “Text
Processing of Domain-Related Information for Individuals with

High and Low Domain Knowledge.” MW
W 18 (1979): 275-290.

Tierney. Robert J and James H. Mosethal. “Cohesion and Textual
Coherence.“ Esssarsh in $1.1: Tssghing 9f English 17 (1983):

215-29.
Veal, LoR. 1974. 1 Q ' -. ‘ -1" 5.-.. . -_ - . ., -1. Q J. ' ‘1 9 °
W. Report N0-

8. Athens: University of Georgia, Department of Language
Education, 1974. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No.
ED 090 555).

Voss, J F Vesonder, G.T. and Spilich. G.T. “Text Generation and
Recall by high-Knowledge and Low-Knowledge Individuals.“

MW 19 (1980):
651-667.

Vygotsky. L. S. W. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
1962

Witte, S. P. and L. Faigley. “Coherence, Cohesion and Writing

Quality.“ lelege ngpgsigon EQ Communication 32 (1981):
189-204.

,fizazp ‘