Writing Rubric
The
essay grade rubric is designed to assess both the rhetoric and content
of ESL 2510 students=
essays, and reflects the objectives of the course in preparing the
students for English 1010. Students with a total essay score of 76% or below would not
be considered meeting the
minimal requirements to pass from ESL 2510 into English 1010.
On the other hand, students with scores in the 80's
would be considered meeting
adequate requirements for passing from ESL 2510 to English 1010.
Students with scores in the 90's would be considered
well-prepared to pass from ESL 2510 into English 1010. Each division
of the rubricC
rhetoric and contentC
constitutes 50% of the total essay grade and examines three
specific areas. Each
section is measured on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being very poor; 2 poor;
3 almost adequate (close, but still not
meeting minimum requirements); 4 good; and 5
very good, but not perfect.
Each section can be considered separately; however, the total
essay score reflects an equal weight of both sections.
Rhetoric
The
rhetoric section of the rubric analyzes usage, style, and mechanics:
Usage examines the range of appropriate vocabulary use and correctness
of grammar; style measures the appropriateness of
sentence structure, focusing specifically on smoothness of word
order, clarity of meaning, and use of appropriate range and
sophistication of transition words and phrases; mechanics assesses
correctness of spelling and punctuation, as well as appropriate use of
MLA format for documenting sources used in the essay.
Both
usage and style are weighted twice as much as mechanics.
This reflects the notion that for second language students,
especially for those from certain language backgrounds, spelling and
punctuation, while important, should be given secondary importance in
relation to sophistication of vocabulary, sentence structure and
grammatical elements in writing.
Content
The
content section of the rubric analyzes both the organization and
development in the essay of the introductory paragraph (s), the body
paragraphs, and the concluding paragraph(s).
The introductory paragraph(s) section looks for use of
interesting, inviting devices to introduce the topic to the reader and
to capture the reader=s attention, as well as to introduce the thesis statement of the essay
and to define important terms for the reader that will be used in the
essay. The body
paragraphs section analyzes the appropriate and logical development
and organization of the essay; paragraphs
should contain a topic sentence and well-developed appropriate
support. The concluding
paragraph section examines the way the essay is brought to a close by
providing a summary of the main points
for the reader in a logical, clear, strong, and interesting
way.
The
introductory paragraph(s) area is weighted a possible 15 points out of
50. The body paragraphs
are weighted 30 possible points out of 50, and the concluding paragraph is weighted 5
possible points out of 50. The
different weighting is designed to reflect the relative importance of
these sections in the overall structure of the essay, as well as the
difficulty they pose for the second language writer.
Writing Samples
Three
writing samples were used to formulate the assessment of ESL 2510
studentsC an unassisted pre-test essay, an unassisted post-test essay, and a
(potentially) assisted class essay.
Sample #1, the Pre-Test Essay was administered in the
Social Science Testing Center. Students
were given a short reading on culture and asked to respond to the
reading in essay formatC
giving their opinion and supporting it with personal knowledge and
experience as well as with reference to the essay given them to read.
Students were allowed to use their dictionaries; there was no
time limit. The purpose of the Pre-Test was to measure the unassisted
writing levels of the students at the beginning of the semester.
Unassisted means that while the students could consult their
dictionaries, they were unable to consult other language informants,
such as tutors.
Sample
#2, the Post-Test Essay was also administered in the Social Science
Testing Center. This time
students were given an essay to read that was related to but different
from one of the topics studied during the semester.
Students were asked to respond to the reading in essay formatC
giving their opinion and supporting it with personal knowledge and
experience as well as with reference to the essay given them to read.
Students were allowed to use their dictionaries; there was no
time limit. The purpose of the Post-Test was to measure the unassisted
writing levels of the students at the end of the semester, and to
compare the results with the Pre-Test scores.
Hopefully, through a comparison of the two writing samples,
conclusions could be drawn about the problems and progress of the
students in their unassisted essay writing ability in English as an
additional language.
Sample
#3, was the last assigned class essay of the semester.
Students wrote in response to class readings using their
personal knowledge and experience as well as the sources read in the
class. Students had two
weeks to write the essay, during which time they could avail
themselves of tutorial assistance, if they desired to do so, for any
part of the writing processC
from brainstorming, to organizing ideas, to generating development, to
revising and editing. Furthermore, the students could revise their essays for a
possible change of grade, if they chose to do so, after the essay had
been graded once by the instructor.
The purpose of this sample was to compare the results of the
students=
assisted writing with their unassisted writing.
Analysis
Of
the 21 students enrolled in the class, 16 were used for analysis.
Of the other 5 students, some either withdrew from class or
failed to complete all three writing samples.
All three writing samples were graded by the course instructor according
to the writing rubric as described above. Students were assigned numbers
to protect their anonymity and the results were then tabulated
according to the criteria of the rubric for each writing sample (see
Table 1)
After
tabulation, aggregate scores were calculated by adding all the
students= scores for each criteria
of the rubric. The
results were recorded for each writing sample (See Table 2).
Then aggregate percentages were calculated by dividing the
total aggregate score for each criteria by the number of total
possible points for that criteria (See Table 3).
Finally aggregate combined percentages were calculated for the
rhetoric and content areas of the rubric by
averaging the 3 aggregate percentages of
rhetoric (usage, style, and mechanics) and doing the same for
the content area by averaging the 3 aggregate percentages of content
(introductory paragraph(s), body paragraphs, and concluding
paragraph(s) (See Table 4).
Summary of Data
Analysis
of Table 3 Aggregate Percentages indicates that as a whole, student
writing improved during the course of the semester from an average
unassisted writing level of 70 (inadequate to meet the entering
criteria of English 1010) to an average unassisted writing level of
86, and an assisted writing level of 90 (very adequate to meet the
entering criteria of English 1010).
The
lowest beginning average score of 55 in usage was still the lowest
score in unassisted writing at the end of the semester (78), and
mechanics remained second lowest score overall in unassisted writing.
However, when compared with assisted writing, the average score
for usage improved from Abarely@
adequate (78) , to quite acceptable (84), while the average score in
mechanics rose only a little in the lower end of acceptable (81 and 82
respectively). The
average student ability in style
in unassisted writing rose
considerably during the semester, from not quite adequate (76) to
quite adequate (84), and with a slight improvement (86) in assisted
writing.
The
lowest beginning average score of 66 in concluding paragraphs in
unassisted writing jumped considerably to an average score of 90 in
unassisted writing by the end of the semester, and an even higher
score of 96 for assisted writing.
The same pattern is echoed in the average scores for
introductory paragraphs and body paragraphs as well, with introductory
paragraphs beginning at an average score of 73 and reaching a 93 in
unassisted writing and a 94 in assisted writing by the end of the
semester, and body paragraphs starting out at a 76 and showing great
improvement (91) in unassisted writing by the end of the semester.
However, an average score of 97 in assisted writing by the end
of the semester indicates tremendous growth in this area.
Of
interest, both style and body paragraphs were the highest average
scores at the beginning of the semester in unassisted writing.
At the end of the semester, body paragraph average scores
surpassed style by 7 points in unassisted writing, and by 11 points in
assisted writing, with style in 4th and 5th
place overall in unassisted and assisted writing.
This indicates that content development is faster than style
development among our ESL students, which is not surprising to those
of us who teach.
Not
surprisingly, students were stronger throughout the semester in the
content area of their writing, ending the semester with rhetoric
scores in the 80's range in both assisted and unassisted writing,
while content area was in the 90's in both assisted and unassisted
writing (See Table 4). While
students began the semester with a rhetoric average quite below
adequate, they ended the semester in the adequate range for unassisted
writing, and quite adequate for assisted. In content area, students began the semester just below adequate, and
improved to the very good range (mid-90's).
This indicates that students have good organizational skills
and rich development, but lag behind in ability to express their
ideas. This is not
surprising, as it fits the results of other research in the field of
second language learning. Students= ability to express themselves well will not Acatch
up@ with their resources of ideas for a few years (from
the 2510 level, it will take
about 2-3 more years).
An
analysis of Table 5 shows that overall, students improved in their
writing ability considerably. Table
5-A indicates the aggregate percentage differences between the
unassisted writing at the beginning of the semester (the Pre-Test
Writing Sample) and the unassisted writing at the end of the semester
(the Post-Test Writing Sample). Students
grew most considerably in the rhetoric area in usage (an average of 23
percentage points) and in the content area in writing concluding paragraphs (24 percentage points) and
introductory points (20 percentage points)
This indicates that students are learning effectively how to
improve in these areas during the course of the class instruction.
With
assistance, the scores increase across the board, but not considerably
when compared to unassisted writing (See Table 5-B).
This may be due to at least two variablesC
1) that students are not required to have assistance, but may choose
to do so. The exact
students who sought assistance is unknown;
and 2) tutors
assist, but do not correct students= papers, so it is possible that some students more than others may
readily apply what
the tutors suggest, or may go more often to the tutors during the
various stages of the writing process.
The
information in Table 5-C bears out that fact that students are
developing a strong foundation in writing skills that they are able to
perform on their own without tutorial assistance; however, with
assistance, students are able to build on their skills, especially in
the areas of usage, style, and content development. These are the areas in which students may benefit most from
tutorial helpC
in catching grammatical mistakes and finding more appropriate
vocabulary words; and in discussing topics with another person and
thereby calling up ideas from memory and fleshing out areas that are
less fully developed. Students
seem more able to come to logical and strong conclusions with the help
of a tutor, perhaps to help them pull their ideas together and see the
big picture.
The
overall picture of the ESL 2510 writing assessment is that during the course
of the semester students develop their writing skills in both rhetoric
and content areas from levels of inadequate (66) and almost adequate
(74) in rhetoric and content respectively [for meeting the entrance
criteria for English 1010] to
levels of (almost) good (81) and
good (92) in these two overall areas in unassisted writing, C
and to levels of good (85) and very good (96) in assisted writing.
This indicates that students=
rhetoric writing ability lags behind content development.
However, this is a normal progression in learning a second
language academically. Within
the next 2-3 years, the discrepancy between the two areas (rhetoric
and content development) will become much more minimal for most
students.
Another
indication of the assessment is that while students show considerable
growth in their unassisted writing ability, the availability of
tutorial assistance enhances their final product,
often from the good to the very good range.
This is important because it shows that students are not
relying on tutorial support to Ado
the work for them,@
but as scaffolding for them to be able to reach
just beyond their means of accomplishment by themselvesC they are able to utilize the zone of proximal development as outlined
by Vygotsky. This type of
development is essential for students, especially for second language
students in intensive learning situations.
The
lowest area of developmentC
in the students=
unassisted writingC
remains usage and mechanics. 2510
students generally come into the class with stronger skills in style
(as indicated in Table 3) than in usage and in mechanics, and their
ability in style grows during the 2510 semester, but not as much as
the two areas of usage and mechanics. This indicates that even though these two areas are the
weakest for the students in rhetoric, they are also areas where
students experience rapid growth during the semester.
The Sample #2 writing
score of 78 shows that in this area, students are Ajust@
adequate at the end of the semester in unassisted writing, but that
with assistance, they can improve their finished writing to the Aquite
adequate@ score of 84. Usage (and
for some students who come from certain orthographic backgrounds,
mechanicsC
spelling) will remain a major writing challenge for the next few
years. It is not
something that can be magically adjusted.
For
this reason, tutorial assistance in writing is crucial for our ESL
students not only while they are in the program, but also when they
are taking English 1010, English 2020 C
and beyond. In
addition, the ESL Program has made a grammar review component required
for all students. It is
hoped that this class will help students in their usage, but further
studies will need to be done to show efficacy.
Also, the provision made by the Writing Assistance Center for a
special ESL tutor has been an invaluable addition to the writing
program. However, one
tutor cannot cover the demand. Two tutors would more adequately provide the support that our
ESL students need to meet their language development needs.
In addition to tutorial assistance and the grammar review
class, usage instruction is being provided in the ESL 2510 class that
is based on the needs of the students as indicated in their Sample #1
writing. In sum, the
assessment results show that students are developing well in the
content area; further work will continue to focus on and
1
1
support the students=
growth in rhetoric.
Table 1
Student #1
|
Sample
|
usage
|
style
|
mech
|
intro
|
body
|
concl
|
total
|
|
#1
|
13
|
15
|
8
|
9
|
19
|
3
|
67
|
|
#2
|
12
|
16
|
8
|
12
|
27
|
4
|
74
|
|
#3
|
16
|
16
|
9
|
15
|
25
|
5
|
86
|
Student #2
|
Sample
|
usage
|
style
|
mech
|
intro
|
body
|
concl
|
total
|
|
#1
|
14
|
17
|
8
|
13
|
27
|
4
|
83
|
|
#2
|
19
|
20
|
9
|
15
|
30
|
5
|
98
|
|
#3
|
20
|
20
|
10
|
15
|
30
|
5
|
100
|
Student #3
|
Sample
|
usage
|
style
|
mech
|
intro
|
body
|
concl
|
total
|
|
#1
|
12
|
13
|
7
|
12
|
24
|
2
|
70
|
|
#2
|
16
|
17
|
8
|
15
|
28
|
5
|
89
|
|
#3
|
17
|
17
|
8
|
15
|
30
|
5
|
92
|
Student #4
|
Sample
|
usage
|
style
|
mech
|
intro
|
body
|
concl
|
total
|
|
#1
|
10
|
17
|
8
|
14
|
30
|
5
|
84
|
|
#2
|
16
|
18
|
9
|
15
|
30
|
4
|
92
|
|
#3
|
17
|
18
|
9
|
15
|
30
|
5
|
94
|
Student #5
|
Sample
|
usage
|
style
|
mech
|
intro
|
body
|
concl
|
total
|
|
#1
|
9
|
13
|
6
|
13
|
30
|
5
|
76
|
|
#2
|
14
|
15
|
10
|
15
|
30
|
5
|
89
|
|
#3
|
19
|
20
|
10
|
12
|
30
|
5
|
96
|
Student #6
|
Sample
|
usage
|
style
|
mech
|
intro
|
body
|
concl
|
total
|
|
#1
|
9
|
16
|
6
|
12
|
27
|
4
|
76
|
|
#2
|
16
|
18
|
8
|
15
|
30
|
5
|
92
|
|
#3
|
16
|
17
|
9
|
13
|
30
|
5
|
90
|
Student #7
|
Sample
|
usage
|
style
|
mech
|
intro
|
body
|
concl
|
total
|
|
#1
|
12
|
17
|
9
|
12
|
30
|
3
|
83
|
|
#2
|
16
|
18
|
9
|
15
|
30
|
4
|
92
|
|
#3
|
17
|
18
|
9
|
15
|
30
|
5
|
94
|
Student #8
|
Sample
|
usage
|
style
|
mech
|
intro
|
body
|
concl
|
total
|
|
#1
|
8
|
15
|
5
|
12
|
25
|
4
|
69
|
|
#2
|
14
|
15
|
7
|
15
|
27
|
5
|
83
|
|
#3
|
18
|
18
|
9
|
15
|
30
|
5
|
95
|
Student #9
|
Sample
|
usage
|
style
|
mech
|
intro
|
body
|
concl
|
total
|
|
#1
|
8
|
15
|
6
|
10
|
18
|
3
|
60
|
|
#2
|
12
|
15
|
7
|
14
|
28
|
4
|
80
|
|
#3
|
17
|
17
|
8
|
15
|
29
|
5
|
91
|
Student #10
|
Sample
|
usage
|
style
|
mech
|
intro
|
body
|
concl
|
total
|
|
#1
|
9
|
15
|
6
|
8
|
15
|
4
|
57
|
|
#2
|
19
|
19
|
9
|
15
|
30
|
5
|
97
|
|
#3
|
16
|
16
|
8
|
13
|
28
|
5
|
86
|
Student #11
|
Sample
|
usage
|
style
|
mech
|
intro
|
body
|
concl
|
total
|
|
#1
|
10
|
15
|
9
|
8
|
18
|
2
|
62
|
|
#2
|
15
|
15
|
8
|
12
|
26
|
5
|
81
|
|
#3
|
16
|
17
|
9
|
15
|
30
|
5
|
92
|
Student #12
|
Sample
|
usage
|
style
|
mech
|
intro
|
body
|
concl
|
total
|
|
#1
|
9
|
12
|
5
|
6
|
15
|
2
|
50
|
|
#2
|
14
|
15
|
6
|
14
|
28
|
4
|
81
|
|
#3
|
15
|
16
|
8
|
12
|
30
|
4
|
85
|
Student #13
|
Sample
|
usage
|
style
|
mech
|
intro
|
body
|
concl
|
total
|
|
#1
|
12
|
15
|
6
|
12
|
22
|
3
|
70
|
|
#2
|
18
|
18
|
8
|
13
|
24
|
4
|
85
|
|
#3
|
19
|
18
|
4
|
15
|
30
|
5
|
91
|
Student #14
|
Sample
|
usage
|
style
|
mech
|
intro
|
body
|
concl
|
total
|
|
#1
|
18
|
19
|
8
|
15
|
29
|
4
|
93
|
|
#2
|
19
|
20
|
9
|
15
|
29
|
5
|
97
|
|
#3
|
17
|
15
|
5
|
13
|
30
|
4
|
84
|
Student #15
|
Sample
|
usage
|
style
|
mech
|
intro
|
body
|
concl
|
total
|
|
#1
|
10
|
13
|
6
|
7
|
15
|
2
|
53
|
|
#2
|
14
|
13
|
7
|
10
|
23
|
4
|
71
|
|
#3
|
12
|
14
|
6
|
12
|
22
|
4
|
70
|
Student #16
|
Sample
|
usage
|
style
|
mech
|
intro
|
body
|
concl
|
total
|
|
#1
|
12
|
16
|
7
|
12
|
19
|
3
|
69
|
|
#2
|
16
|
17
|
8
|
13
|
24
|
4
|
82
|
|
#3
|
18
|
19
|
10
|
15
|
30
|
5
|
97
|
Sample
#1: Pre-Test (Unassisted Essay)
Sample
#2: Post-Test (Unassisted Essay)
Sample
#3: Last Formal Class Essay (Tutor-
Assisted at students=
discretion)
Table 2
Aggregate Scores
|
Sample
|
usage
|
style
|
mech
|
intro
|
body
|
concl
|
total
|
|
#1
|
175
|
243
|
110
|
175
|
363
|
53
|
1122
|
|
#2
|
250
|
269
|
130
|
223
|
439
|
72
|
1383
|
|
#3
|
270
|
276
|
131
|
225
|
464
|
77
|
1443
|
Table 3
Aggregate Percentages
|
Sample
|
usage
|
style
|
mech
|
intro
|
body
|
concl
|
| 