Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Competence in written expression : interactions between instruction and individual differences among… Jeroski, Sharon 1982

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1982_A2 J47.pdf [ 26.25MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054572.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054572-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054572-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054572-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054572-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054572-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054572-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054572-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054572.ris

Full Text

COMPETENCE IN WRITTEN EXPRESSION: INTERACTIONS BETWEEN INSTRUCTION AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AMONG B.A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1963 M.A. , University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1977 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Measurement and Research Methodology i n Language Education JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS by SHARON FRANCES JEROSKI We accept th i s thesis as conforming to the required standard. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1982 Sharon Frances Jeroski, 19 82 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t permission f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood th a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permission. Department of Measurement and Research Methodology i n Language Education. The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date 22 A p r i l 1982 -6 (2/79) A b s t r a c t T h i s study exp l o r e d the r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s of i n d i v i d -u a l d i f f e r e n c e s , i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s and a p t i t u d e - t r e a t m e n t -i n t e r a c t i o n s (ATI) to the w r i t i n g performance of 600 grade e i g h t and nine students i n two B r i t i s h Columbia s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s . Two experimental schools were i d e n t i f i e d i n each d i s t r i c t . P a r t i c i p a t i n g c l a s s e s w i t h i n a sc h o o l were randomly assigned t o Treatment A, a s k i l l s - b a s e d approach to d e s c r i p t i v e w r i t i n g , or to Treatment B, a workshop approach to e x p r e s s i v e and p e r s o n a l w r i t i n g , f o r eig h t e e n to twenty hours of i n s t r u c t i o n over ten weeks. Both treatments emphasized p r e w r i t i n g and peer e d i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s ; they d i f f e r e d p r i n c i p a l l y i n the degree of s t r u c t u r e p r o v i d e d . Treatment A a c t i v i t i e s were t e a c h e r - d i r e c t e d , and de-signed t o p r o v i d e i n s t r u c t i o n and p r a c t i c e i n s p e c i f i c s k i l l s . Treatment B o f f e r e d l e s s guidance; students s e l e c t e d and d e f i n e d t h e i r own w r i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s . C o n t r o l c l a s s e s i n a t h i r d s c h o o l r e c e i v e d o n l y l i t e r a t u r e i n s t r u c t i o n . P r i o r to i n s t r u c t i o n , measures of w r i t i n g a b i l i t y (a l i n e a r composite of seven performance s c a l e s ) , a t t i t u d e toward w r i t i n g , r e a d i n g comprehension, f i e l d independence and c o g n i t i v e complex-i t y were obtained. Posttreatment, students completed an extended n a r r a t i v e and three D i r e c t e d W r i t i n g t a s k s , and two a f f e c t i v e s c a l e s . Seven performance s c a l e s — one h o l i s t i c , two a n a l y t i c and four D i r e c t e d W r i t i n g -- were used to e v a l u a t e student w r i t i n g . A s e r i e s o f w i t h i n - d i s t r i c t m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y examined t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f a p t i t u d e s , t r e a t -ments and ATI t o e a c h outcome v a r i a b l e . Where p r e d i c t o r s c a u s e d a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e f o r o n l y one o u t -come o r i n o n l y one d i s t r i c t , t h e s e were d i s m i s s e d as c h a n c e r e s u l t s . Sex, w r i t i n g a b i l i t y , a t t i t u d e and r e a d i n g c o m p r e h e n s i o n d e m o n s t r a t e d c o n s i s t e n t e f f e c t s on o u tcomes. D i r e c t e d W r i t i n g s c a l e s showed s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s f o r e x p e r i m e n t a l o v e r c o n t r o l g r o u p s ; h o l i s t i c and a n a l y t i c s c a l e s d i d n o t . T r e a t m e n t B s t u -d e n t s r e s p o n d e d more f a v o u r a b l y t o t h e a f f e c t i v e s c a l e s t h a n d i d T r e a t m e n t A, b u t t h e r e were few d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e s e t r e a t -ments f o r w r i t i n g o u t comes. F o u r A T I ' s showed a c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n o v e r t h r e e o r more e q u a t i o n s f o r p e r f o r m a n c e o u tcomes: 1. S e x - b y - a t t i t u d e - b y - t r e a t m e n t ( E x p e r i m e n t a l v e r s u s Con-t r o l ) . G i r l s w i t h n e g a t i v e a t t i t u d e s p e r f o r m e d b e t t e r u n d e r t h e c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n ; t h o s e w i t h p o s i t i v e a t t i -t u d e s , u n d e r e x p e r i m e n t a l t r e a t m e n t s . The r e v e r s e was t r u e f o r b o y s , a l t h o u g h d i f f e r e n c e s were n o t l a r g e . 2. R e a d i n g - b y - t r e a t m e n t ( A v e r s u s B ) . S t u d e n t s w i t h h i g h r e a d i n g s c o r e s p e r f o r m e d b e t t e r u n d e r B; t h o s e w i t h low s c o r e s , u n d e r A. 3. C o m p l e x i t y - b y - t r e a t m e n t ( A v e r s u s B ) . S t u d e n t s w i t h h i g h c o m p l e x i t y s c o r e s a t t a i n e d h i g h e r p e r f o r m a n c e s c o r e s i n T r e a t m e n t A; t h o s e w i t h low c o m p l e x i t y s c o r e s , i n B. 4. S e x - b y - r e a d i n g - b y - t r e a t m e n t ( A v e r s u s B ) . Boys w i t h h i g h r e a d i n g s c o r e s p e r f o r m e d b e t t e r u n d e r B; t h o s e w i t h low s c o r e s , u n d e r A. The r e v e r s e was t r u e f o r g i r l s , a l -t h o u g h t h e T r e a t m e n t B a d v a n t a g e f o r low s c o r e s was s l i g h t . i v . S e x - b y - f i e l d independence-by-treatment (A versus B) c o n t r i b u t e d to three of four a f f e c t i v e outcomes. For boys i n Treatment A, the a s s o c i a t i o n between f i e l d independence and a f f e c t i v e scores was p o s i t i v e ; f o r a l l other groups, the a s s o c i a t i o n was n e g a t i v e . The f u l l model, i n c o r p o r a t i n g a p t i t u d e s , treatments and ATI, e x p l a i n e d a s u r p r i s i n g l y low p r o p o r t i o n — g e n e r a l l y l e s s than 50 percent — of the v a r i a n c e i n w r i t i n g performance. V . Table of Contents A b s t r a c t . i i L i s t of Tables . v i i i L i s t of Figures x i i L i s t of Appendices x i i i Acknowledgements . x i v CHAPTER I . THE PROBLEM AND RELATED RESEARCH 1 Measurement of w r i t t e n expression . . . . . . 7 V a l i d i t y of i n d i r e c t methods 8 V a l i d i t y of d i r e c t methods 11 V a l i d i t y of s c o r i n g procedures . . . . 15 R e l i a b i l i t y 35 R e l a t i o n s h i p s between w r i t i n g and other v a r i a b l e s . . . 38 Wide-scale assessments 39 School-based studies . 43 I n s t r u c t i o n i n w r i t t e n expression 56 Current p r a c t i c e s . 56 Overview of research on i n s t r u c t i o n a l e f f i c a c y . . 63 Grammar and l i n g u i s t i c s 65 Sentence-combining p r a c t i c e . . . . 66 Frequency of p r a c t i c e 67 Teacher feedback 67 Increased reading 6 9 P r e w r i t i n g experiences . 6 9 Classroom o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . . . . . 75 Workshop and c o l l a b o r a t i v e approaches 7 6 Peer feedback 7 9 Free or personal w r i t i n g 82 Summary 84 Ap t i t u d e - t r e a t m e n t - i n t e r a c t i o n s 8 5 Ex p l o r a t o r y nature of ATI research . 87 S e l e c t i o n of apti t u d e s 88 Treatments 91 Summary 93 CHAPTER I I . RESEARCH OBJECTIVES . . . 96 A s s o c i a t i o n of biodemographic, c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e v a r i a b l e s 97 D i f f e r e n t i a l e f f i c a c y of treatments 98 Ap t i t u d e - t r e a t m e n t - i n t e r a c t i o n s 98 Instrumentation 99 v i . CHAPTER III. PROCEDURES 101 Treatment condit ions 102 Se lect ion and development of instruments 106 Reading comprehension 107 Cognit ive Sty le 107 Measures of wr i t ing performance 110 Development of the scales 114 A f f ec t i ve measures 117 Biodemographic var iab les 119 Recruitment and t ra in ing of f i e l d personnel 119 Tra in ing 123 F i e l d execution 124 Sample 124 Pretest ing 125 Del ivery of experimental treatments 126 Posttest ing 130 Treatment of the data 131 Scoring of the Writ ing Performance Tests 132 Organization of mater ia ls 135 Organization of marking workshops 136 Data analyses . . . . . 138 R e l i a b i l i t y analyses 139 Cor re l a t i ona l analyses of pretest data 140 Regression analyses: experimental versus cont ro l . . . 140 Regression analyses: Treatment A versus Treatment B . 144 Analyses of performance changes: s p e c i f i c s k i l l s . . . 145 Summary 146 CHAPTER IV. RESULTS 150 Pre-experimental performance 150 Biodemographic var iab les 151 Cognit ive var iab les . . . 151 At t i tude toward wr i t ing 156 Writ ing performance 158 Experimental versus contro l group analyses 181' Apt i tude-treatment- interact ions : Treatment A versus.* Treatment B 210 Pre- to posttest changes on s p e c i f i c performance scales . . 2 46 v i i . CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 252 Summary 252 Background 252 Procedures . 254 Pretest performance 256 In f e r e n t i a l analyses of posttest scores 257 Limitations 267 Conclusions 273 Measurement of writing a b i l i t y 273 Associations among variables 276 Treatment e f f e c t s 279 Aptitude-treatment-interactions 283 Additional comments . 287 Recommendations 28 9 REFERENCES 291 APPENDICES 309 L i s t of Tables Table 1 D e s c r i p t i o n of the Sample a t I n i t i a t i o n and Com-p l e t i o n of the Experiment 2 L i s t of Instruments and V a r i a b l e s by Time of T e s t i n g 3 Biodemographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Sample by D i s t r i c t and Treatment L e v e l 4 Reading Comprehension: Summary of R e s u l t s by Treatment L e v e l and D i s t r i c t 5 Measures of C o g n i t i v e S t y l e : Summary of R e s u l t s by Treatment L e v e l and D i s t r i c t 6 A t t i t u d e Toward W r i t i n g S c a l e T o t a l Scores: Summary of P r e t e s t R e s u l t s by D i s t r i c t and Treatment L e v e l 7 W r i t i n g Performance Sc a l e s A s s o c i a t e d with the N a r r a t i v e E x e r c i s e : Summary of P r e t e s t R e s u l t s by D i s t r i c t and Treatment L e v e l 8 D i r e c t e d W r i t i n g S c a l e s A s s o c i a t e d with the Exer-c i s e R e q u i r i n g D e s c r i p t i o n of Human P h y s i c a l Fea-t u r e s : Summary of P r e t e s t R e s u l t s by D i s t r i c t and Treatment L e v e l 9 D i r e c t e d W r i t i n g S c a l e s f o r D e s c r i p t i o n of D e t a i l i n P l a c e s and f o r Convey P e r s o n a l i t y : Summary of P r e t e s t R e s u l t s by D i s t r i c t and Treatment L e v e l 10 Summary of I n t e r r a t e r R e l i a b i l i t y : W r i t i n g Per-formance S c a l e s 11 Summary of Analyses of E x e r c i s e E f f e c t s : D i r e c t e d W r i t i n g P r e t e s t s 12 P r e t e s t W r i t i n g Performance S c a l e s : C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x 13 Composite General W r i t i n g A b i l i t y Scores: Summary of P r e t e s t R e s u l t s by D i s t r i c t and Treatment L e v e l Page 122 147 152 154 155 157 160 165 166 171 ' 173 175" 17 9 I X , Table Page 14 Summary of Posttest Results: Scales Associated with the Narrat ive Exercise by Treatment and D i s t r i c t 183 15 Summary of Posttest Results: Scales Associated with the Directed Writ ing Exercises by Treatment and D i s t r i c t 184 16 Summary of Posttest Results: A f f ec t i ve Scales by Treatment and D i s t r i c t 185 17 Corre la t ion Matrix: Aptitude and Outcome Var iab les for A l l Students by D i s t r i c t 186 18 Summary of Regression Analys i s of H o l i s t i c Posttest Scores for A l l Students Analyzed by D i s t r i c t 190 19 Summary of Regression Analys is of Sentence Structure Posttest Scores for A l l Students Analyzed by D i s t r i c t 191 20 Summary of Regression Analys is of Vocabulary Post-test Scores for A l l Students Analyzed by D i s t r i c t 192 21 Regression Equations within Treatment Where ATI Contributed S i g n i f i c a n t l y to the F u l l Model: Narra-t i ve Scales 195 22 Summary of Regression Analys i s of Human Descr ipt ion Posttest. Scores for A l l Students Analyzed by D i s t r i c t 198 23 Summary of Regression Analys i s for Organization of Deta i l s Posttest Scores for A l l Students Analyzed by D i s t r i c t 199 24 Summary of Regression Analys i s of Descr ipt ion of Places Posttest Scores for A l l Students Analyzed by D i s t r i c t 200 25 Summary of Regression Analys i s of Convey Persona l i ty Posttest Scores for A l l Students Analyzed by D i s t r i c t 205 26 Regression Equations within Treatment where ATI Contributed S i g n i f i c a n t l y to the F u l l Model: Directed Writ ing and At t i tude Scales 2 04 27 Summary of Regression Analys is for At t i tude Toward Writ ing Posttest Scores for A l l Students Analyzed by D i s t r i c t 206 X . Table Page 28 Variables Which Caused S i g n i f i c a n t Increases i n R-Squared: Orthogonal Contrasts for Experimental versus Control Groups and Treatment A versus Treatment B 2 08 29 Intercorrelations among Aptitudes and Outcomes: for Experimental Students Only by D i s t r i c t 213 30 Summary of Regression Analysis of H o l i s t i c Posttest Scores for Experimental Groups Analyzed by D i s t r i c t 216 31 Summary of Regression Analysis of Sentence Structure Posttest Scores for Experimental Groups Analyzed by D i s t r i c t 218 32 Summary of Regression Analysis of Vocabulary Postest Scores for Experimental Groups Analyzed by D i s t r i c t 219 33 Regression Weights within Treatment within D i s t r i c t where ATI Contributed S i g n i f i c a n t l y to the F u l l Model: Narrative Scales 221 34 Summary of Regression Analysis of Describe Human Appearance Posttest Scores for Experimental Groups Analyzed by D i s t r i c t 2 24 35 Summary of Regression Analysis of Organize Details Posttest Scores for Experimental Groups Analyzed by D i s t r i c t 225 36 Summary of Regression Analysis of Describe D e t a i l in Places Posttest Scores for Experimental Groups Analyzed by D i s t r i c t 226 37 Summary of Regression Analysis of Convey Personality Posttest Scores for Experimental Groups Analyzed by D i s t r i c t 231 38 Regression Weights within Treatment where at Least One First-Order ATI Contributed S i g n i f i c a n t l y to the F u l l Model: Directed Writing Scales 233 3 9 Regression Weights for Second-Order ATI's Involving Sex within Treatment where at Least One Second-Order ATI Contributed S i g n i f i c a n t l y to the F u l l Model: Directed Writing Scales 234 x i . Table Page 40 Summary of Regression Analysis of Attitude Toward Writing Posttest Scores for Experimental Groups Analyzed by D i s t r i c t 236 41 Summary of Regression Analysis df S a t i s f a c t i o n with Treatment Posttest Scores for Experimental Groups Analyzed by D i s t r i c t 238 42 Regression Weights within Treatment within D i s t r i c t where ATI Contributed S i g n i f i c a n t l y to the F u l l Model: A f f e c t i v e Scales 240 43 Variables Which Made S i g n i f i c a n t Contributions to Regression Equations by Scale and D i s t r i c t : Treat-ment A versus Treatment B Analyses 243 44 Summary of Regression Analysis of Posttest Writing Performance Scores Cont r o l l i n g for Sex and Pretest Performance Analyzed by D i s t r i c t 247 4 5 Summary of Pre- and Posttest Performance for Treat-ment Groups within D i s t r i c t : Scales Associated with the Narrative Exercise 24 9 4 6 Summary of Pre- and Posttest Performance for Treat-ment Groups within D i s t r i c t : Directed Writing Scales 251 x i i . L i s t of F i g u r e s Page 1. R o l e and C o n s t r u c t Dimensions o f the Adapted R e p e r t o r y G r i d 111 2. R e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f I n t e r a c t i o n : S e x - b y - A t t i t u d e - b y -Treatment (E vs C) 259 3. R e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f I n t e r a c t i o n s : Reading-by-Treatment (A vs B) and C o g n i t i v e C o m p l e x i t y - b y - T r e a t m e n t (A vs B) 261 4. R e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f I n t e r a c t i o n : Sex-by-Reading Comprehension-by-Treatment (A vs B) 263 x i i i . L i s t of Appendices Appendix Page A Instructional materials 309 B L i s t of reviewers and consultants 367 C Aptitude measures 369 D Writing performance measures and scales 376 E F i e l d notes 404 F Teachers' Evaluation Forms 412 G Unit outline: control classes 417 H Score d i s t r i b u t i o n s 419 I Psychometric data for selected instruments 430 J Summary tables ° 434 xiv. Acknowledgements The research reported here was completed with the assistance of Educational Research Inst i t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia Major Grant No. 97, and the professional development programs in Prince George and V i c t o r i a school d i s t r i c t s . I would l i k e to s p e c i f i c a l l y acknowledge the contributions of Bob Strain and Don Recchi, who provided l o c a l coordination i n the i r respective d i s t r i c t s , and of the teachers who participated in the i n s t r u c t i o n a l or marking a c t i v i t i e s . The reviewers and consultants l i s t e d i n Appendix B,provided valuable advice i n the developmental stages of the materials and tes t s . My supervising committee f a c i l i t a t e d completion of thi s study at a l l stages. Their advice and suggestions have enhanced the quality of the f i n a l manuscript. I have been most fortunate to work with Robert Conry as my research supervisor. In every aspect of my work, he has provided me with opportunities to develop as a researcher. He has encour-aged me to be independent, and recognized — better'than I — when I needed help, and when I could work on my own. I have been enriched through my work with him. I would also l i k e to acknowledge the e f f o r t s and support of Margaret Francis who prepared the manuscript, and persevered ch e e r f u l l y through often unreasonable demands. F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to acknowledge the patience and encouragement I received from my family — Joe, Michael and Brent. I could not have completed this study without them. 1. CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND RELATED RESEARCH W r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n i s fundamental to many s c h o l a s t i c , work and l e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s . The a b i l i t y of students to w r i t e e f f e c -t i v e l y -- or even with "minimal competence" — has r e c e n t l y been questioned. J o u r n a l i s t s , p a r e n t s , c o l l e g e p r o f e s s o r s and o t h e r s have expressed t h e i r dismay i n newspapers, magazines and p r o f e s -s i o n a l j o u r n a l s . Donald Graves (1978a), f o l l o w i n g an e x t e n s i v e examination of the s t a t u s of w r i t i n g commissioned by the Ford Foundation, observed: W r i t i n g i s r a p i d l y d i s a p p e a r i n g from schools ... i t i s an even g r e a t e r problem than the press imagines. (p. 4) He was i n s i s t e n t t h a t t h i s problem be addressed, e x p r e s s i n g the c o n v i c t i o n t h a t : W r i t i n g i s important, not as e t i q u e t t e , but because i t c o n t r i b u t e s to the development of a l l persons, no matter what t h e i r background. I t i s not the e x c l u s i v e p r o p e r t y of the pro-f e s s i o n a l w r i t e r . Of a l l the c r a f t s , i t i s u s u a l l y the most immediate and a t t a i n a b l e --a p e n c i l , a p i e c e of paper, and the person can begin. (p. 16) Graves based h i s c o n c l u s i o n s on s i t e o b s e r v a t i o n s , i n t e r v i e w s , examination of extant data bases, content analyses of textbooks, and i n v e s t i g a t i o n of teacher c e r t i f i c a t i o n p r a c t i c e s . Other s t u d i e s have focused on student achievement; the r e s u l t s of these are equal ly d i sconcert ing . The 1978 Assessment of Written Expres sion in B r i t i s h Columbia revealed pervasive weaknesses in the wr i t ing s k i l l s of secondary school students (Conry & Rodgers, 1978; Conry & Je ro sk i , 1980). Interpretat ion panels, composed of representat ives from government, business, education, and school trustee and parent groups, expressed grave concern about samples of student wr i t ing and d i s t r i bu t i on s of r e su l t s . They judged grade eight performance " s a t i s f ac to ry or bet ter " on only four -teen of the th i r t y - th ree s k i l l s ; grade twelve performance was viewed with even greater alarm — resu l t s for only three of th i r ty -one s k i l l s were judged to be s a t i s f ac to ry . Results of the assessment implied that B r i t i s h Columbia s tu -dents neither enter nor leave the secondary grades with a set of competencies in wr i t ten expression. These p r o v i n c i a l re su l t s are congruent with those reported elsewhere (College Board News, 1976 Del la-Piana et a l , 1976; Ferguson & Maxey, 1976; Harnishchfeger & Wiley, 1976; Mundy, 1976). Mu l l i s (1981), reviewing wr i t ing per-formance resu l t s from the National Assessment of Education Prog-ress (NAEP) in the United States, reported that achievement patterns for 13-years-olds e i ther remained stable or decl ined between 1969 and 1979. The pattern for 17-year-olds was less cons istent and included a mixture of improvement, dec l ines and s t a b i l i t y . Mu l l i s noted that the 1979 percentages of competent or better papers: may be somewhat disappoint ing in that only about ha l f of the 17-year-olds could write a l e t t e r judged to success fu l ly s tra ighten out a b i l l i n g error and only 15 percent wrote a persuasive speech judged competent or bet ter . (p. 42) 3. The model employed i n the B.C. Assessment delineated four roles i n which adult writers might function: student, worker, c i t i z e n , and creative adult. Weak performance at both grades eight and twelve i n expository writing s k i l l s — those most often c a l l e d into play i n the student role — were a source of discouragement to many of the English teachers involved i n i n t e r -preting r e s u l t s . Others were even more disturbed by the i n f r e -quency of competence i n basic observation and recording — s k i l l s c entral to writing tasks of the worker or c i t i z e n — and i n nar-rat i v e s k i l l s — which are part of the repertoire of the creative adult. Responses to exercises which had been designed to e l i c i t basic observation and recording s k i l l s were frequently character-ized by lack of o b j e c t i v i t y and s p e c i f i c i t y . While grade four students received a 'very s a t i s f a c t o r y ' rating for o r i g i n a l i t y displayed i n response to a narrative exercise, grade twelve sto-r i e s were more frequently described as 'barren' or 'pedestrian', and were mechanically flawed as well. Clearly, secondary student writers are not equipped with the competencies required to per-form either u t i l i t a r i a n or s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g writing tasks. The B.C. Assessment was a descriptive study, and did not address d i r e c t l y the reasons for l e v e l s of performance. In the l i g h t of patterns of achievement, however, tentative conclusions were advanced that: 1. writing occupies a r e l a t i v e l y minor role i n most high school English courses, and 2. current emphasis at t h i s l e v e l i s on the writing tasks employed i n the role of student to the v i r t u a l exclusion of i n s t r u c t i o n and practice i n those s k i l l s required by adults i n t h e i r roles as workers, c i t i z e n s , and creative adults. 4. The f i r s t contention has been va l idated in other loca les : 13 and 17 year old respondents to NAEP questions ind icated that they neither received much d i r e c t i n s t ruc t i on in wr i t ing nor were required to do much wr i t ing in school (N7AEP, 1980a; NAEP, 1980b). The Nat ional Study of Secondary School Wr i t ing, funded by the Nat ional In s t i tu te for Education, i s seeking to provide desc r ip -t i ve data on t y p i c a l i n s t ruc t i on in composition. Prel iminary r e -su l t s from a one year on-s i te observat ional study, and from a survey of a nat iona l sample of Engl i sh teachers (Applebee, 1981b) revealed that, while 44 percent of student time was devoted to wr i t i ng , most of th i s wr i t ing was mechanical i n nature, and t y p i -c a l l y involved f i l l i n g in workbook or mimeograph exercises or copying from the blackboard or a textbook. Across the curr iculum, only 3 percent of student time was spent on 'extended w r i t i n g ' , or the generation of wr i t ten discourse. Even in Engl i sh c lasses , extended wr i t ing comprised only 10 percent of c lass time, and v i r t u a l l y no time was a l l o t t e d to pre-wr i t ing or rev i s i on a c t i v i -t i e s . The contention that students leave secondary schools d e f i -c ient in wr i t ing s k i l l s i s not new; in recent years, however, confirmatory evidence has emerged, la rge ly through wide-scale assessments. Concurrently, research on the processes, measurement and development of wr i t ing has increased. For example, the 197 3 American Educat ional Research Assoc iat ion (AERA) annual meeting l i s t e d four, papers deal ing with wr i t ing research, while the 1981 program contained no less than fo r ty -n ine . 5. Brown (1979) has eloquently summarized the evolut ion of perspectives on the ro le of wr i t ing in our cu l ture : Writ ing has had a curious h i s tory . . . being associated at various times with penmanship, the education of the e l i t e , Ciceronian rhe-t o r i c , grammar, good manners, good th ink ing, bad manners, no th ink ing, and much more. At times i t has been a f r i l l for the col lege bound, at times a basic s k i l l ; not too long ago, the McLuhanites pronounced i t termina l ly i l l . Today, i t seems to be gett ing a second wind, but A l v in T o f f l e r has just repredicted i t s demise. (p. 5-6) He also notes the hunger of Eng l i sh teachers for "any research, however tentat ive and poorly done . . . that promises help with the teaching of wr i t ing " (p. 1) and phrases t he i r dilemma: They are being to ld both to improve performance in one of the most complex of human arts and to demonstrate the improvement with inappropriate and s imp l i s t i c tests of achievement . . . Test ing i s increas ing ly forc ing them to emphasize sim-p l i s t i c aspects of wr i t ing that are easy to tes t at the expense of more complex and impor-tant s k i l l s that are in t rac tab le from a tes t ing point of view. (p. 1) While wr i t ing research continues to occupy a substant ia l proport ion of convention programs and learned journals , one appealing area of inves t i ga t ion has thus far been excepted: the extent to which i nd i v i dua l d i f ferences moderate the e f fec t s of i n s t r u c t i o n a l condit ions on student achievement - - apt i tude-treatmeht- interact ions (ATI). In a comprehensive review of ATI research, Cronbach & Snow (1977) found " v i r t u a l l y no research on productive kinds of thought . . . (including) wr i t ten expression" (p. 509). An ATI i s considered to be demonstrated whenever the regression of outcome from one treatment, upon measure(s) of some pretreatment charac ter i s t i c ( s ) of the learner , d i f f e r s in slope 6. from the regression of outcome from another treatment on the same information. Cronbach & Snow were adamant about the impor-tance of ATI research i n education: What l i e s before us i s the task of accumu-la t i n g knowledge about how a person's char-a c t e r i s t i c s influence his or her response to the alternatives education can o f f e r . It i s unconscionable merely to predict which few w i l l win. Probable losers must be converted into winners ... Instructional decisions must be based on a whole complex of student char-a c t e r i s t i c s and teacher actions. (p. v i i ) Given the highly i n d i v i d u a l nature and the l e v e l of personal i n -volvement required in the production of written expression, i t seems at least mildly surprising that t h i s area should thus far have been excepted from ATI research. The present study seeks to explore the existence of ATI i n written expression i n a f i e l d setting. To t h i s end, patterns of association among written expression and other variables have been examined, competing i n s t r u c t i o n a l treatments have been de-fined, delivered and compared, and evidence to ascertain the existence of ATI's has been sought. Selected research related to these a c t i v i t i e s w i l l be reviewed i n four sections i n t h i s chapter: 1. Research regarding- the measurement of written expression, 2. Research into associations among writing s k i l l s and bio-demographic, achievement, a b i l i t y , and a f f e c t i v e v a r i a -bles , 3. Research dealing with i n s t r u c t i o n i n written expression, and 4. P r i n c i p l e s and research r e l a t i n g to the investigation of aptitude-treatment-interactions. 7. Measurement of written expression Two concerns which have implications for measurement pro-cedures are paramount i n any study of written expression. F i r s t , the multi-dimensionality of the construct 'writing' i s imperfect-ly understood (Brown, 1979; Conry & Jeroski, 1980; Conry & Rod-gers, 1978; Tamor, 1981). What has become clear, i s that no single measure can provide a v a l i d estimate of writing s k i l l : The notion that a single indicator or even a handful of narrowly defined measures i s ever going to be a s u f f i c i e n t base for responsible, comprehensive inference i s mistaken from the s t a r t . (Brown, 1979, p. 4) A given measure of writing s k i l l , then, may be considered v a l i d only within a c a r e f u l l y defined context, where each component of the measurement -- the task, the administrative conditions, the scoring procedure, and the interpretation — has been defined and selected to represent v a l i d l y that context. The second prob-lem which accompanies any empirical attempt to examine features of written expression i s that of obtaining r e l i a b l e indicators of writing s k i l l where writing samples are used. Sources of error i n the measurement of writing are varied and complex, and include i n t e r r a t e r differences, sampling error i n task selection, student-by-topic i n t e r a c t i o n , v a r i a b i l i t y of rater judgement over time, order of reading papers and method of scoring. 8. V a l i d i t y of i n d i r e c t methods. P r i m a r i l y because o f t h e ease and r e l i a b i l i t y w i t h w h i c h they may be s c o r e d , o b j e c t i v e t e s t s of w r i t i n g - r e l a t e d s k i l l s have e n j o y e d wide use, a l t h o u g h t h e i r v a l i d i t y i s s u b j e c t t o s e r i o u s q u e s t i o n . Coffman (1971), s y n t h e s i z i n g r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s , n o t e d : There have been many r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s t o a s s e s s t h e r e l a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of e s s a y and o b j e c -t i v e t e s t s . G e n e r a l l y , however, c a r e f u l l y con-s t r u c t e d o b j e c t i v e t e s t s have been compared w i t h r u n - o f - t h e - m i l l e s s a y t e s t s , (p. 274) and c o n c l u d e d : To r e j e c t a t e s t o f r e l a t i v e l y low r e l i a b i l i t y t h a t was r e a l l y a sample of t h e u n d e r l y i n g q u a l -i t y i n f a v o u r o f a more i n d i r e c t measure of . h i g h e r r e l i a b i l i t y m i ght be t o s e t t l e f o r l o w e r v a l i d i t y f o r t h e measure. (p. 297) F a r r e l l (1980), o f f e r i n g a t e a c h e r ' s p e r s p e c t i v e on t h e assessment of w r i t i n g s k i l l s , examined d a t a w h i c h c a l l e d t h e con-t e n t v a l i d i t y of s t a n d a r d i z e d o b j e c t i v e t e s t s i n t o q u e s t i o n . He n o t e d t h a t ' e x p e r t s ' a t an i n v i t a t i o n a l c o n f e r e n c e o f E n g l i s h Language A r t s s p e c i a l i s t s , c harged w i t h r e v i e w i n g t h e c o n c e p t u a l s t r u c t u r e of the language a r t s c u r r i c u l u m , and w i t h a d v i s i n g t h e American C o l l e g e T e s t i n g (ACT) Program on assessment, unanimously gave low p r i o r i t y t o t h e t a s k s o f e d i t i n g -- t h o s e t a s k s most o f t e n r e q u i r e d i n a s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t ( H u n t l e y , 1977). I n the d e v e l o p m e n t a l phases of the T e s t of S t a n d a r d W r i t t e n E n g l i s h (TSWE), a s e r i e s o f s t u d i e s . w e r e conducted by t h e E d u c a t i o n a l T e s t i n g S e r v i c e (ETS) t o a s c e r t a i n (1) whether th e i t e m s r e f l e c t -ed c o n cerns s h a r e d by t h e E n g l i s h p r o f e s s i o n -- c o n t e n t v a l i d i t y , (2) whether t e s t s c o r e s were p r e d i c t i v e o f c o l l e g e E n g l i s h grades 9. — predictive v a l i d i t y , and (3) the degree of association between scores on the TSWE and h o l i s t i c scores for responses to an essay test — concurrent v a l i d i t y (Breland, 1976, 1977a, 1977b). Not sur p r i s i n g l y , the TSWE fared best i n terms of predictive and con-current v a l i d i t y , and most poorly i n terms of content v a l i d i t y . Content v a l i d i t y was examined through a survey of college English departments, 40-item questionnaires sent to 200 professors of English, and content analyses of professional journals such as Research i n the Teaching of English, English Journal and College  English. Data from the three sources were convergent i n ind i c a -ting that s k i l l s measured by the TSWE, while desirable, were not among the most important considerations i n assessing or teaching writing. The top f i v e p r i o r i t i e s of English professors were: 1. writing a u n i f i e d essay, 2. using supporting d e t a i l , 3. arranging arguments l o g i c a l l y , 4. making verbs agree with subjects, and 5. writing expository prose. (Breland, 1976) Of these, only one — making verbs agree with subjects -- i s d i r e c t l y assessed by the TSWE, or, indeed, any standardized ob-jec t i v e t e s t . Further ETS research (Breland, 1977a, 1977b) i n -dicated that the TSWE did possess high degrees of pred i c t i v e and concurrent v a l i d i t y , s p e c i f i c a l l y that: — i t correlated more highly with subsequent college composition grades than did a pre-instruction essay te s t , and — where both d i r e c t (essay) and i n d i r e c t (TSWE) methods were used, approximately 50 percent of the variance was shared. 10. Breland suggested that, given r e l i a b i l i t y problems inherent i n d i r e c t evaluation of writing s k i l l s , a b r i e f multiple choice te s t i s a more useful indicator of writing s k i l l than a b r i e f writing sample. Della-Piana et a l (1977) considered three standardized tests and concluded that these lacked both content and construct v a l i d i t y as measures of writing s k i l l , as they "often do not measure what they say they measure, always f a i l to measure what they should measure, and consequently cannot provide useful i n -formation" (p. 32). Maxwell (1973) concurred, commenting: Nationally standardized tests of the ordinary variety are scandalously inadequate i n that they t r y to measure something by not measuring i t . (p. 1254) While ETS provides data to support the concurrent v a l i d i t y of i n d i r e c t methods, evidence generally i s contradictory. When scores on the C a l i f o r n i a Survey of Basic S k i l l s : Written Expres-sion and Spelling were correlated with scores from the Assessment of Writing Performance, the c o e f f i c i e n t between the mean essay score and the mean objective score — with class as the unit of analysis — was .79. In the B r i t i s h Columbia 1978 Assessment, however, with i n d i v i d u a l student the unit of analysis, c o r r e l a -tions between proofreading/editing scores obtained from objective items and h o l i s t i c scores obtained from narrative and expository essays ranged from -.14 to .54 at grade eight, and from .20 to .60 at grade twelve (Conry & Jeroski, 1980) — scarcely strong evidence of concurrent v a l i d i t y . McCaig (1977) found even s t r o n g e r e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t t h e use o f o b j e c t i v e i t e m s c o r e s as p r o x i e s f o r w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n . He examined w r i t i n g - r e l a t e d s u b t e s t s o f the Iowa T e s t s o f B a s i c S k i l l s and t h e M i c h i g a n Assessment o f B a s i c S k i l l s and h o l i s t i c r a t i n g s o f w r i t i n g sam-p l e s made by two independent judges u s i n g an anchored seven-p o i n t s c a l e . E s t i m a t e d c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s ranged from -.08 t o .18. The use of i n d i r e c t as opposed t o d i r e c t methods o f m e a s u r -i n g s k i l l i n w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n demands the a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f pr o x y measures. As S t i g g i n s (1980) has n o t e d , t h i s c o n d i t i o n r a r e l y h o l d s , p a r t i c u l a r l y when measurement o c c u r s i n an a p p l i e d s e t t i n g . A d d i t i o n a l l y , c o n t r a d i c t o r y e v i d e n c e can be c i t e d w hich c a s t s doubt upon the c o n c u r r e n t v a l i d i t y o f s t a n d a r d i z e d i n d i r e c t measures. V a l i d i t y o f d i r e c t methods. I n r e c e n t y e a r s , t h e r e a l i z a -t i o n has grown t h a t the r e l i a b l e a ssignment o f a s c o r e t o a w r i t i n g sample does n o t ensure v a l i d measurement. Perhaps the most n o t a b l e example i n t h e s e terms was the 196 9 NAEP Assessment o f W r i t i n g w h i c h was c i t e d f o r l a c k o f - c o n g r u i t y between what s t u d e n t s were i n s t r u c t e d t o do and what judges were asked t o e v a l u a t e ( M a x w e l l , 1973), f o r the f a i l u r e t o examine a n y t h i n g b u t u t i l i t a r i a n w r i t i n g ( M e l l o n , 1971) , for. the use o f i n a p p r o p r i a t e t o p i c s ( S i s t e r Coogan, 1971), and f o r i m p r e c i s e f o r m u l a t i o n o f t o p i c s ( M e l l o n , 1975). The f i r s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n any attempt t o o b t a i n w r i t i n g samples which w i l l p e r m i t v a l i d i n f e r e n c e i s the development of s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l w hich w i l l : — m o t i v a t e the r e s p o n d e n t , — a l l o w g e n e r a l i z a t i o n t o a d e f i n e d u n i v e r s e of w r i t i n g t a s k s , and — f o c u s the response t o e n a b l e s c o r i n g and d e s c r i p t i o n i n s p e c i f i c terms. W h i l e t h e r e i s no l a c k of agreement r e g a r d i n g the i m p o r t a n c e of the s t i m u l u s t a s k and the d e f i c i e n c i e s demonstrated by e x e r c i s e s i n c u r r e n t use, l i t t l e e m p i r i c a l d a t a have.been r e p o r t e d t o docu-ment the e f f e c t s of v a r i a t i o n s i n e x e r c i s e . Keech (1981a, 1981b) has d e s c r i b e d r e s e a r c h d e s i g n e d t o examine the n a t u r e of i n t e r a c -t i o n s among the w r i t i n g t a s k , the t e s t c o n t e x t , s t u d e n t w r i t i n g a b i l i t i e s , s t u d e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of and. response t o the t a s k , and the r e a d e r ' s judgement of the f i n i s h e d p i e c e . She d e t a i l e d f a c t o r s w hich may a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t the v a l i d i t y of assessment of w r i t i n g samples: The s t u d e n t may not u n d e r s t a n d the c o n s t r a i n t s of the t e s t s i t u a t i o n , may not u n d e r s t a n d the t o p i c , may not be s t i m u l a t e d by the t o p i c , may n o t r e a l i z e t h a t he/she s h o u l d e d i t f o r s u r f a c e f e a t u r e s . There are many p o s s i b l e miscommuni-c a t i o n s i n the t e s t s i t u a t i o n . J u s t the f a c t t h a t time c o n s t r a i n t s are imposed on the s t u -d e n t s ' t h i n k i n g a f f e c t s the assessment because s t u d e n t s t h e n w r i t e m e r e l y t o p e r f o r m ; t h e y don't w r i t e w i t h the commitment o r i n t e n t i o n t h a t i s p o s s i b l e i n a non-timed s i t u a t i o n . (1981a, p. 57) Her s t u d y , i n p r o g r e s s , has been d e s i g n e d t o a ccount f o r : 1. t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c e f f e c t s of p a r t i c u l a r t o p i c s o r t y p e s of t o p i c s ; 2. the kinds of i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t are p a r t i c u l a r l y e n a b l i n g or d i s e n a b l i n g i n the t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n ? and 3. the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , p r e d i c t i o n and c o n t r o l of t o p i c e f f e c t s , or the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l and group d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t may c r e a t e v a r i a b i l i t y i n t o p i c e f f e c t s . (1981a, p. 59) A second study d e s c r i b e d by Keech (1981b) seeks to examine d e v e l -opmental f e a t u r e s of h o l i s t i c w r i t i n g which may cause a student t o r e c e i v e a lower score than on a p r e v i o u s e v a l u a t i o n , even though these f e a t u r e s may be i n d i c a t i v e t h a t the m a t u r i t y and complexity of what the student w r i t e r attempted has i n c r e a s e d . T h i s second study w i l l examine the w r i t i n g of students who p a r t i -c i p a t e d i n the Bay Area W r i t i n g P r o j e c t f o r three or more yea r s , and whose h o l i s t i c scores have not r e f l e c t e d improvement. C e r t a i n l y , i t i s more e n t i c i n g than s a t i s f y i n g t o d e t a i l work i n progress r a t h e r than to r e p o r t r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s which bear on i s s u e s of v a l i d i t y i n the design of w r i t i n g s t i m u l i . Unfortunate-l y , , a p a r t from fragmentary data and s u b j e c t i v e o b s e r v a t i o n s --such as t h a t o f f e r e d i n the NAEP (1974) r e p o r t t h a t q u a l i t y of w r i t i n g improved as tasks became more i n t e r e s t i n g and engaging — no such completed r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s c o u l d be i d e n t i f i e d . In the absence of p a s t r e s e a r c h , then, the s t u d i e s d e s c r i b e d by Keech are i n c l u d e d t o r e c o g n i z e the importance of such c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n attempts to p r o v i d e v a l i d measurement of w r i t i n g s k i l l s . While e m p i r i c a l data can only be a n t i c i p a t e d , the l i t e r a t u r e abounds wi t h g u i d e l i n e s and c a u t i o n s f o r the f o r m u l a t i o n of w r i -t i n g t a s k s . Examples of such g u i d e l i n e s are: 14. 1. Purposes f o r w r i t i n g and the s k i l l s n e c e s s a r y t o a c h i e v e t h o s e g o a l s must be i d e n t i f i e d ( M u l l i s , 1980). 2. I n d e v e l o p i n g any w r i t i n g t a s k , t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r , t h e audience and t h e n a t u r e of the w r i t e r a r e fundamental v a r i a b l e s . These must be s p e c i f i e d i n o r d e r t o d e l i n e -a t e the s i t u a t i o n f o r the w r i t e r and produce r e s p o n s e s homogeneous t o t h e degree t h a t they can be v a l i d l y a s s e s s e d by t h e same s c o r i n g system ( M u l l i s , 1980). 3. P l a c i n g b e f o r e s t u d e n t s u n s i t u a t e d t a s k s l e a d s t o u n s i t -u a t e d r e s p o n s e s and some r e a l l y s i l l y d a t a ( O l s o n , 1976, p. 20) . 4. The t a s k s h o u l d p e r m i t average s t u d e n t s t o p r o v i d e a v e r -age r e s p o n s e s , and y e t b r i g h t s t u d e n t s s h o u l d be a b l e t o demonstrate t h e i r s k i l l ( A l l o w a y , 1980, p. 7 7 ) . 5. The e x e r c i s e s h o u l d be e n g a g i n g , and s h o u l d n o t c a l l f o r c l i c h e s as answers ( A l l o w a y , 1980, p. 71-77). 6. The e x e r c i s e must s t i m u l a t e s t u d e n t s t o w r i t e — and f u r t h e r , t o w r i t e as w e l l as t h e y can. Each t a s k must be r e a l i s t i c and i n t e r e s t i n g ( M u l l i s , 1980). 7. The t a s k must be s t r u c t u r e d so t h a t i t can be c l e a r l y e v a l u a t e d i n terms o f t h e s p e c i f i c assignment (Monson, 1971). 8. Where more than one t a s k i s p r e s e n t e d w i t h i n a s i n g l e t e s t i n g s e s s i o n , t h e r e s h o u l d be t h e m a t i c a s s o c i a t i o n among the e x e r c i s e s (Conry & J e r o s k i , 1980). 9. The t a s k must be w i t h i n t h e l e g i t i m a t e range o f knowledge of the w r i t e r ( L l o y d - J o n e s , 1977). M e l l o n (1975),. r e v i e w i n g t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f NAEP f i n d i n g s , contended t h a t : One can never o v e r e s t i m a t e the importance o f the e x e r c i s e i n the t e a c h i n g o r a s s e s s i n g o f w r i t i n g . A n swering m u l t i p l e c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s w i t h o u t reward i n a mathematics assessment o r a s c i e n c e l e s s o n may be one t h i n g . G i v i n g o f t h e s e l f what one must g i v e t o produce an e f f e c t i v e p r o s e d i s c o u r s e , e s p e c i a l l y i f i t i s r e q u i r e d f o r purposes of mea-surement and e v a l u a t i o n i s q u i t e a n o t h e r . (p. 34) 15. V a l i d i t y of s c o r i n g p r o c e d u r e s . W h i l e p r o c e d u r e s f o r s c o r i n g w r i t i n g performance measures o c c u r w i t h almost i n f i n i t e v a r i e t y , t h ey can g e n e r a l l y be c l a s s i f i e d as: 1. H o l i s t i c , c a l l i n g f o r the r a t e r t o r e a d r a p i d l y f o r t o t a l i m p r e s s i o n and a s s i g n a s i n g l e s c o r e t o each paper by e i t h e r m a t c h i n g i t w i t h a sample, e v a l u a t i n g t h e p r o m i n -ence of c e r t a i n f e a t u r e s o r a s s i g n i n g a n u m b e r / l e t t e r grade (Cooper, 1977, p. 3 ) , 2. P r i m a r y t r a i t (PTS), where r e s p o n s e s a r e judged a c c o r d i n g t o how w e l l t h e y s a t i s f y c r i t e r i a r e l e v a n t t o s p e c i f i c a l l y d e l i n e a t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r each o b j e c t i v e ( M u l l i s , u ndated, p. 2 ) , 3. A n a l y t i c ( s i m u l t a n e o u s ) , i n v o l v i n g the c o n c u r r e n t r a t i n g of more th a n one d i m e n s i o n o f a w r i t i n g sample by u s i n g d e t a i l e d g u i d e s o r c h e c k l i s t s , w e i g h t i n g f o r each e l e -ment, and summing over elements t o produce a s c o r e , 4. A n a l y t i c ( i n d e p e n d e n t ) , where papers a re i n d e p e n d e n t l y r a t e d f o r each of a s e r i e s of g e n e r a l w r i t i n g s k i l l s — such as sent e n c e s t r u c t u r e , o r g a n i z a t i o n o r usage -- w i t h a r a t e r b e i n g concerned w i t h o n l y one s k i l l a t each r e a d i n g . No attempt i s made t o produce a t o t a l s c o r e ; r a t h e r , a s e p a r a t e s c o r e i s r e p o r t e d f o r each element thus examined (Conry & J e r o s k i , 1980; Tamore, 1981), 5. D i r e c t e d W r i t i n g s c a l e s (DWS), where r e a d e r s e v a l u a t e r e s p o n s e s t o c a r e f u l l y f o c u s s e d e x e r c i s e s i n terms o f a s p e c i f i c w r i t i n g s k i l l — f o r example, a b i l i t y t o des-c r i b e human p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s — by u s i n g exemplar-anchored s c a l e s (Conry & Rodgers, 1978; Conry & J e r o s k i , 1980) , 6. E r r o r a n a l y s e s , where f r e q u e n c y c o u n t s of v a r i o u s t y p e s of e r r o r s i n usage, s p e l l i n g , p u n c t u a t i o n , s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e a re e f f e c t e d (Braddock e t a l , 196 3 ) , and 7. S y n t a c t i c a n a l y s e s — sometimes e x e c u t e d by computer programs -- where q u a n t i t a t i v e i n d i c e s of such s y n t a c t i c f e a t u r e s as l e n g t h of T - u n i t , r a t i o o f s u b o r d i n a t e t o a l l c l a u s e s , i n t r a - T - u n i t c o o r d i n a t i o n , f r e q u e n c y and t y p e of c o h e s v i e s , and f r e q u e n c y o f f r e e m o d i f i e r s ( C h r i s t e n s e n , 1968; H a l l i d a y & Hasan, 1976; Hunt, 1966; Marzano, 1978; Page & P a u l u s , 1968; S l o t n i c k & Knapp, 1971) a r e c a l c u -l a t e d . Coffman (1971) presents the rationale for h o l i s t i c scoring on the basis of i t s superior v a l i d i t y , claiming: A composition often achieves i t s e f f e c t by a unique combination of elements. The e f f e c -t i v e weights of the elements vary depending on the nature of the communication, and i t i s impossible to assign weights appropriately independently of some judgement about the na-ture of the communication ... To the extent that a unique communication has been created ... the evaluation of the part cannot be made apart from i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to the whole. (p. 292-293) While h o l i s t i c scoring invariably requires rapid reading for one "general impression" score per paper, both the number of scale points and the r i g i d i t y of the c r i t e r i a vary. Godshalk et a l (1966) worked with f i r s t a three, and then a four-point scale — "demonstrates competence", "suggests competence", "suggests i n -competence, "demonstrates incompetence" — i n grading the Advanced Placement Test i n English, and obtained an estimated i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of .82 for two ratings. The scale was l a t e r modified to nine points. Scales reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e have included as many as ten points (Evans, 1978), but the mode appears to be four points (NAEP, 1969, 1974, 1979; Townsend, 1974; Godshalk et at, 1966). Reported i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t i e s ranging from .52 to .98 do not appear to be a function of the number of scale points. Coffman (1971) suggests that the optimal number of points for a h o l i s t i c scale should maximize the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s that raters are able to make, but minimize the amount of time required for judgements. W h i l e many r e s e a r c h e r s have employed a "match-to-sample" method f o r t r a i n i n g r e a d e r s and s c o r i n g papers (Godshalk e t a l , 1966; Myers e t a l , 1966; V e a l & B i e s b r o c k , 1971), o t h e r s have m o d i f i e d t h e approach by p r o v i d i n g o r e s t a b l i s h i n g d e s c r i p t i v e anchors as w e l l (Conry & J e r o s k i , 1980; Law, 1975; Townsend, -1974). V e a l (1973) compared the i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of the " c r i t e r i a " method w i t h the "comparison" method and found s i m i l a r r e l i a b i l i t i e s — above .70 — f o r the two methods, b u t n o t e d t h a t r a t i n g s o b t a i n e d by t h e comparison method were g e n e r a l l y h i g h e r . C o r r e l a t i o n s between methods ranged from .49 t o .86, and where the same r a t e r s c o r e d the same papers once a c c o r d i n g t o each method, w i t h a two-year i n t e r v a l , c o r r e l a t i o n s ranged from .52 t o .80. Smith (1966), who p r o v i d e d n e i t h e r c r i t e r i a nor samples t o groups o f " e x p e r t s " , t e a c h e r s , p r o s p e c t i v e t e a c h e r s and l a y r e a d -e r s , found t h a t t h e r e was c l o s e agreement among " e x p e r t s " , and t h a t the consensus o f o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s i n the sample agreed w i t h t h a t judgement, a l t h o u g h wide i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n s were apparent. Owens (19 72), on t h e o t h e r hand, r e p o r t e d t h a t s i x " a u t h o r i t i e s " used d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a i n r a t i n g c h i l d r e n ' s s t o r i e s ; he recommended t h e d e l i n e a t i o n of c r i t e r i a t o ensure i n t e r r a t e r c o n s i s t e n c y . Where h o l i s t i c r a t i n g s have been used, t h e t r e n d has been toward m u l t i p l e independent r e a d i n g s o f the same paper, summing over r a t e r s (Coffman, 1971 ; Conry & J e r o s k i , 1980; Godshalk e t a l , 1966; Law, 1975; NAEP, 1969, 1974) and a p p l y i n g t h e Spearman-Brown 18. prophesy formula to estimate r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the summed scores (Coffman, 1971; Conry & Jeroski, 1980). R e l i a b i l i t y estimates greater than .70 are commonly reported. Freedman (1981) examined e f f e c t s of variables within the essay, within the reader and within the r a t i n g environment on h o l i s t i c scores awarded to sixty-four expository essays on four topics written by students i n four colleges. Four readers em-ployed a h o l i s t i c scale; two readers used an analytic scale, simultaneously rating content, organization, sentence structure and mechanics. Analysis of variance revealed within-essay char-a c t e r i s t i c s to have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on scores, as did two of the environmental factors: trainer and topic. The c o r r e l a -tion between h o l i s t i c and t o t a l analytic ratings was .76. Results of a factor analysis suggested that h o l i s t i c and t o t a l analytic scores represented a single t r a i t of compositions, and that a s t y l i s t i c category can be separated from a content category, with usage probably dominating the separation (1981, p. 1 3 ) . In a related, study, Freedman (1979) rewrote the essays, sys-tematically varying the q u a l i t y of content, organization, sen-tence structure, and mechanics. Twelve raters used a four-point h o l i s t i c scale to judge essay q u a l i t y , and then rated each paper as "strong" or "weak" for each of the four rewriting categories. Analyses of variance revealed the content and organization v a r i a -tions s i g n i f i c a n t l y affected ratings; e f f e c t s for sentence structure and q u a l i t y of mechanics suggested that raters did not d i s t i n g u i s h between these two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . In d i s -cussing the pedagogical s i g n i f i c a n c e of these r e s u l t s , Freedman commented: I f s o c i e t y values content and o r g a n i z a t i o n as much as r a t e r s i n t h i s p r o j e c t ... a pedagogy f o r teaching w r i t i n g should aim f i r s t t o help students develop t h e i r ideas l o g i c a l l y ... At the very l e a s t , teachers should not value content and o r g a n i z a t i o n w h i l e commenting to students mostly on mechanics as those i n the H a r r i s (1977) study d i d . (1979, p. 336) Primary t r a i t s c o r i n g (PTS) -- oft e n considered a s p e c i f i c type of h o l i s t i c r a t i n g — was developed f o r the 197 4 NAEP Wri-t i n g Assessment and has since enjoyed wide usage, although i t has a l s o been the t a r g e t of much c r i t i c i s m . This method was developed, i n p a r t , as a response t o r e p o r t i n g problems encoun-tered by NAEP f o l l o w i n g h o l i s t i c s c o r i n g e f f o r t s i n 1969 and 1974: i t was d i f f i c u l t to s t a t e p r e c i s e l y why a paper r e c e i v e d the r a t i n g i t d i d , or to re p o r t more than that some p r o p o r t i o n papers were b e t t e r than others. M u l l i s (1980) has o u t l i n e d the bas i s f o r PTS: The r a t i o n a l e underlying primary t r a i t s c o r i n g i s t h a t w r i t i n g i s done i n terms of an audience and can be judged i n view of i t s e f f e c t s upon that audience. P a r t i c u l a r w r i t i n g tasks r e q u i r e p a r t i c u l a r approaches i f they are to be success-f u l . The approach used by the w r i t e r t o reach and a f f e c t h i s audience w i l l be the most impor-t a n t — the primary — t r a i t of a piece of w r i -t i n g , (p. 2) and o f f e r s an example of i t s a p p l i c a t i o n : For example, the w r i t e r of a set of d i r e c t i o n s must present things i n a l o g i c a l and unambiguous •manner i f he expects readers to f o l l o w h i s d i r e c -t i o n s . Therefore, the primary t r a i t of a w r i t t e n set of d i r e c t i o n s would be an unambiguous, sequen-t i a l and l o g i c a l progression of i n s t r u c -tions. Successful papers w i l l have that t r a i t , unsuccessful papers w i l l not, re-gardless of how clever or well-written they may be i n other respects. (p. 2) The NAEP procedure, outlined by Lloyd-Jones (1977), involves the use of scoring guides which consist of seven facets: 1. the focused exercise, 2. a statement of the primary r h e t o r i c a l t r a i t expected, 3. an interpretation of the exercise, 4. an interpretation of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the exercise and the primary t r a i t , 5. a d e f i n i t i o n of the shorthand to be used i n reporting, 6. samples of papers which have been scored, and 7. discussion of why each paper received the score i n d i -cated. Because any writing sample can be characterized i n a number of ways, evaluation i s not necessarily r e s t r i c t e d to a single t r a i t A d d i t i o n a l l y , secondary t r a i t s may be defined to provide further description of the writing samples. Generally, where PTS has been employed, a four-point scale has been applied. C r i t i c i s m s l e v e l l e d at PTS have focused on the v a l i d i t y of the scores produced. Neuberger (1978) summarized these: 1. the danger of o v e r - p a r t i c u l a r i z i n g scoring so that the o v e r a l l worth of a piece of writing i s neglected, 2. the limited number of t r a i t s which can be considered i n any given evaluation of student writing, 3. a lack of convergence over both the d e f i n i t i o n and the selection of t r a i t s , 4. concern over the inherent "formula" approach to writing and 5. the limited perspective on writing a b i l i t i e s . (p. 4) L l o y d - J o n e s (1977) n o t e d t h a t r e s t r i c t i o n s p l a c e d on t h e d e v e l -opment of " m o t i v a t i n g " t a s k s are a f u r t h e r weakness of PTS. A n a l y t i c s c o r i n g has t r a d i t i o n a l l y employed a s e r i e s o f r a t i n g s c a l e s o r c h e c k l i s t s , w i t h a w e i g h t e d s c o r e a s s i g n e d t o each s p e c i f i e d element of t h e c o m p o s i t i o n . The s p e c i f i c i t y and c h e c k l i s t format are c o n s i d e r e d by p roponents of the method t o reduce s c o r i n g v a r i a b i l i t y and t o p r o v i d e d a t a more r i c h l y des-c r i p t i v e o f the w r i t i n g than t h a t produced by h o l i s t i c methods. Rese a r c h has g e n e r a l l y f a i l e d t o s u p p o r t t h e f i r s t r a t i o n a l e . Coffman and Kurfman (1968), i n two r e l a t e d e x p e r i m e n t s , found t h a t w h i l e "method" ( a n a l y t i c v e r s u s h o l i s t i c ) was a s i g n i f i c a n t s o u r c e of v a r i a n c e i n t h e f i r s t e x p e r i m e n t , i t was n o t i n t h e second, and s u g g e s t e d t h a t the s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t i n the f i r s t e x p e r i m e n t may have been a t t r i b u t a b l e t o the o r d e r i n which r e a d -e r s were a s s i g n e d t o method, r a t h e r t h a n t o any i n h e r e n t l y g r e a t -e r u n r e l i a b i l i t y i n the h o l i s t i c method (p. 105). They c o n c l u d e d I f i t i s d e s i r a b l e t o reduce the e r r o r due t o the i n t e r a c t i o n o f r e a d e r s and p a p e r s , t h e o n l y f e a s i b l e method would be t o have s c o r e s based on the sum o f s e v e r a l r a t e r s . There appears t o be no j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r compounding e r r o r by h a v i n g a s i n g l e r a t e r a s s i g n t h r e e d i f f e r e n t s c o r e s . (p. 106) The second r a t i o n a l e has a l s o been d i s p u t e d , most s e v e r e l y by Coffman (1971) who c a u t i o n e d t h a t f o c u s i n g on d i s c r e t e elements of a response may cause the e s s e n t i a l v a l u e of t h e work t o be o v e r l o o k e d . Analytic scales of almost i n f i n i t e variety of format have been reported: the number of elements to be•scored ranges from two to twenty (Burns, 1976); scoring ranges from dichotomous (Cohen, 1973; Berse, 1974; Edwards, 1975) — to five-point scales for each element (Deiderich, 1974; H i l l e r i c h , 1971; NCTE, 1965) through variable weighting of elements (Fortner, 1973; Deiderich, 1974). Scales have appeared for a l l ages, grades and discourse models: examples include the Sager Writing Scale (1973) for assessing creative writing at the junior high school l e v e l ; the Glazer Narrative Composition Scale (1971) for elementary and junior secondary school; Cohen's (1973) Schedule for junior college; the Literacy Rating Scale (Tway, 1970) for children's f i c t i o n ; the St. /Amant (1976) Key for upper secondary grades; the Center for the Study of Evaluation Analytic Scale (Quellmalz et a l , 1979), a criterion-referenced scale for expository prose; and the English Placement Test (Educational Research Inst i t u t e of B.C., 1980) for placement i n f i r s t year college courses. Typical elements considered are content, organization, mechanics, and vocabulary. Reported interjudge r e l i a b i l i t i e s range from .39 (Schippers, 1974) to .97 (Sager, 1973). Analytic scales where ratings on a number of elements occur concurrently appear to be more appropriate as diagnostic or feed-back tools than as outcome measures, p a r t i c u l a r l y since the v a l i d i t y of the scores produced i s suspect. R e c e n t l y , a d i s t i n c t t y p e of a n a l y t i c s c a l e which combines h o l i s t i c s c o r i n g p r o c e d u r e s w i t h a n a l y t i c c o n c e r n s has been used (Conry & J e r o s k i , 1980; Conry & Rodgers, 1978; Tamor, 1981). Papers a r e r e a d r a p i d l y , matched w i t h c r i t e r i a o r samples, and a s i n g l e s c o r e a s s i g n e d , as i n the case of h o l i s t i c s c o r i n g . Rather t h a n r e a d i n g f o r " o v e r a l l i m p r e s s i o n " , however, r e a d e r s a t t e n d e x c l u s i v e l y t o one c a r e f u l l y d e f i n e d f e a t u r e o f t h e w r i -t i n g , such as v o c a b u l a r y , sentence s t r u c t u r e , p u n c t u a t i o n , o r i -g i n a l i t y , o r g a n i z a t i o n , o r s p e l l i n g . A l t h o u g h t h i s p r o c e d u r e e x h i b i t s s i m i l a r i t i e s t o PTS, i t can be e a s i l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d : f e a t u r e s examined t h r o u g h a p p l i c a t i o n of a n a l y t i c s c a l e s a r e g e n e r a l w r i t i n g s k i l l s which can be observed i n v i r t u a l l y a l l forms o f w r i t t e n d i s c o u r s e . Where a paper i s t o be r a t e d f o r more than one " a n a l y t i c " f e a t u r e , independent r a t i n g s a re r e -q u i r e d , u s i n g a d i f f e r e n t s c a l e f o r each r a t i n g . I n t h i s way --as l o n g as t h e r e a d e r p o o l i s n o t ex h a u s t e d — a paper can be r a t e d f o r a number of t h e s e g e n e r a l s k i l l s w i t h o u t r i s k i n g a h a l o e f f e c t . Each a n a l y t i c s c o r e produced i s i n t e r p r e t e d as a d i s -c r e t e s c o r e — no attempt i s made t o w e i g h t o r combine t h e s e i n t o an " o v e r a l l " r a t i n g o f q u a l i t y . Thus, p r o v i d e d t h a t each s c o r e i s i n t e r p r e t e d o n l y w i t h i n the range o f the s k i l l s p e c i f i e d , t h e s e a n a l y t i c r a t i n g s a re l e s s prone t o charges of i n v a l i d i t y ; t h e y cannot, however, be c o n s i d e r e d s u r r o g a t e s f o r h o l i s t i c s c o r e s . The B.C. Assessment o f W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n employed b o t h h o l i s t i c and a n a l y t i c s c a l e s i n a s s e s s i n g g l o b a l n a r r a t i v e and g l o b a l ex-p o s i t o r y e s s a y s . A t grade f o u r , c o r r e l a t i o n s between f i v e a n a l y -t i c s c o r e s and the h o l i s t i c s c o r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h an extended n a r r a t i v e , ranged from .13 (sentence s t r u c t u r e ) t o .50 ( o r i g i n -a l i t y ) . When the f i v e a n a l y t i c s c a l e s were e n t e r e d i n a m u l t i -p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s , t h e y p r e d i c t e d o n l y 33 p e r c e n t of the v a r i a n c e i n h o l i s t i c s c o r e s . F o r grade e i g h t s t u d e n t s , c o r r e l -a t i o n s of a n a l y t i c s c o r e s w i t h t h e h o l i s t i c n a r r a t i v e s c o r e ranged from .25 ( h a n d w r i t i n g ) t o .57 ( v o c a b u l a r y ) ; analagous c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r grade t w e l v e n a r r a t i v e s were .19 ( p u n c t u a t i o n ) t o .30 ( v o c a b u l a r y ) . When m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s were p e r f o r m e d , a n a l y t i c s c o r e s p r e d i c t e d 43 p e r c e n t of the v a r i a n c e i n grade e i g h t n a r r a t i v e h o l i s t i c s c o r e s ; 17 p e r c e n t i n grade t w e l v e n a r r a t i v e s c o r e s . The s t r o n g e s t p a t t e r n of a s s o c i a t i o n appeared between grade e i g h t a n a l y t i c a n d . h o l i s t i c e x p o s i t o r y s c o r e s , where o r g a n i z a t i o n , v o c a b u l a r y , s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e , h a n d w r i t i n g and s p e l l i n g a c c o u n t e d f o r 53 p e r c e n t of t h e v a r i a -b i l i t y i n h o l i s t i c s c o r e s , w i t h o r g a n i z a t i o n showing the s t r o n g -e s t degree o f a s s o c i a t i o n -- a c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of .52. At grade t w e l v e as w e l l , p r e d i c t i o n was s t r o n g e r f o r e x p o s i t i o n t h a n had been t h e case f o r n a r r a t i o n — t h e c u m u l a t i v e R-squared f o r s i x p r e d i c t o r s was .43, where the h o l i s t i c s c o r e was t h e dependent v a r i a b l e . Conry & J e r o s k i (1980) c a u t i o n t h a t t h e s e a n a l y s e s were based on u n c o r r e c t e d c o r r e l a t i o n s , and o f f e r an example o f the e f f e c t s of a t t e n u a t i o n (p. 357-359). The grade e i g h t m a t r i x f o r the n a r r a t i v e e x e r c i s e was d i s a t t e n u a t e d and s u b j e c t e d t o f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s ; p r e d i c t i o n improved from 43 p e r -c e n t of the v a r i a n c e i n h o l i s t i c s c o r e s t o 63 p e r c e n t . I n d i -v i d u a l " c o r r e c t e d " c o r r e l a t i o n s ranged from .35 t o .72, one of which exceeded .60. These r e s u l t s , t h e n , o f f e r e d l i t t l e s u p p o r t for the use of such analytic scores as proxies for h o l i s t i c scores. Tamor (1981) reported a study where h o l i s t i c scales, analy-t i c scales, and elemental error and syntactic analyses were com-pared using responses from a r e l a t i v e l y b r i e f , c a r e f u l l y struc-tured l e t t e r - w r i t i n g task completed by grades four and six stu-dents. She reported correlations ranging from .45 (penmanship) to .85 (organization and persuasiveness), with a median of .73, between h o l i s t i c scores and analytic scores. When grade four results were submitted to factor analyses, two factors emerged: the f i r s t comprised the h o l i s t i c and a l l analytic ratings save s p e l l i n g and penmanship. The results at grade six were somewhat d i f f e r e n t , with three factors apparent: h o l i s t i c scores, syn-tax, ideas, organization, persuasiveness and c r e a t i v i t y comprised the f i r s t . The second accounted for s p e l l i n g , punctuation, pen-manship and l e t t e r format, while the t h i r d incorporated two syntactic indices — length of M-unit (a v a r i a t i o n on Hunt's T-unit), and fluency. Tamor cautioned that the results had been obtained from very b r i e f , structured samples of writing, and questioned whether they could be re p l i c a t e d for extended, complex essays, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f more mature students provided the writing s ample s . Analytic scales such as those used i n the B.C. Assessment have proven useful i n terms of reporting — they allow the des-c r i p t i o n of general writing s k i l l s i n s p e c i f i c terms, within the context of the task provided. Directed Writing exercises and accompanying scales (DWS) were introduced i n the 1978 B.C. Assessment of Written Expres-sion to permit assessment of the degree of mastery for s p e c i f i c writing s k i l l s . The application of the rating scales i s simi-l a r to that employed i n t r a d i t i o n a l h o l i s t i c scales: markers read papers rapidly and employ a match-to-sample-and-criteria method for assigning a single rating to each paper. The Direc-ted Writing approach demands unity of purpose i n development of the objective, the exercise and the scale. The f i r s t step i n using a Directed Writing approach i s the careful delineation of the s p e c i f i c writing s k i l l s of i n t e r e s t . In the case of the B.C. Assessment, a r o l e - d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n approach was used to i d e n t i f y the forms of writing a competent high school graduate -- as student, worker, c i t i z e n and creative adult -- might be expected to produce. The range of writing a c t i v i t i e s thus i d e n t i f i e d was submitted to l o g i c a l task analysis which r e s u l t -ed i n the s p e c i f i c a t i o n of exhaustive l i s t s of writing s k i l l s . These l i s t s were then reviewed and ranked i n order of perceived importance. Ultimately, twenty-three Directed Writing s k i l l s were selected for the assessment. These included such s k i l l s as: 1. Use correct mechanisms of l e t t e r format, 2. Use correct mechanics i n completing printed forms, 3. Use telegraphic, terse, speech s t y l e , 4. Describe human physical features and d e t a i l s of clothing, 5. Select words to reinforce a s p e c i f i c mood or impression, 6. Observe d e t a i l i n places and events, 7. A d j u s t tone t o a u d i e n c e , 8. E l a b o r a t e an o p i n i o n , 9. Summarize a main i d e a i n one s e n t e n c e , 10. O r g a n i z e d e t a i l s and i d e a s , 11. Convey p e r s o n a l i t y t h r o u g h s e l e c t e d d e t a i l s , and 12. O r g a n i z e e v e n t s i n a p l a u s i b l e sequence. (Conry & J e r -o s k i , 1980, p. 29-30, 34) T h i s approach t o s k i l l s p e c i f i c a t i o n i s o f f e r e d as an example; D i r e c t e d W r i t i n g s c a l e s may be e f f e c t i v e l y employed r e g a r d l e s s of the s o u r c e o f the l i s t s o f s k i l l s . They are c o n t i n g e n t , how-e v e r , upon the a p r i o r i i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the s k i l l ( s ) of i n t e r -e s t . Once a s k i l l has been s e l e c t e d , an e x e r c i s e i s f o r m u l a t e d t o e l i c i t r a t h e r b r i e f and s p e c i f i c a l l y t a r g e t e d samples of s t u d e n t w r i t i n g . E x e r c i s e s a re s t r u c t u r e d t o ensure t h a t , i n f o r m u l a t i n g a r e s p o n s e , s t u d e n t s w i l l be r e q u i r e d t o demonstrate the s k i l l i n q u e s t i o n . G e n e r a l l y , no more than two s k i l l s a r e a s s e s s e d u s i n g the same e x e r c i s e . Once the s k i l l - e x e r c i s e com-b i n a t i o n has been d e v e l o p e d , h i g h v a r i a n c e samples o f s t u d e n t w r i t i n g a re sought, and s c a l e s are d e v e l o p e d t h r o u g h a " s o r t i n g " p r o c e d u r e ( s c a l e development p r o c e d u r e s a r e d e t a i l e d i n Chapter T h r e e ) . Each s c a l e i s s k i l l - e x e r c i s e s p e c i f i c ; c r i t e r i a a r e s p e c i f i e d i n terms of a c t u a l r e s p o n s e s t o t h e e x e r c i s e , and w i t h c o n c e r n f o r o n l y one s k i l l . The number o f s c a l e p o i n t s i s a l l o w e d t o v a r y a c c o r d i n g t o the number o f c a t e g o r i e s which r a t e r s a r e a b l e t o q u i c k l y and r e l i a b l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e . I n the B.C. Assessment, s c a l e s v a r i e d from t h r e e t o s i x p o i n t s . No attempt i s made t o approximate a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n . D e s c r i p -2 8 . t i v e anchors are r i g o r o u s and s p e c i f i c . For example, i n the B.C. Assessment "Describe a s e t t i n g as a p l a n " was assessed u s i n g an e x e r c i s e which i n c l u d e d a p i c t u r e of a p l a n t which had grown w i l d l y i n a k i t c h e n ; the d e s c r i p t i v e anchors f o r s c a l e p o i n t s one and four -- the lowest and h i g h e s t p o i n t s on the s c a l e — are given below: Scale P o i n t 1: No more than two accurate p o s i t i o n a l terms. Contains a g r e a t d e a l of i n a c c u r a t e or i r r e l e v a n t m a t e r i a l -- o f t e n f a n t a s i z i n g . S c a l e P o i n t 4: Nine or more p o s i t i o n a l terms without r e -p e t i t i o n s . No i n a c c u r a c i e s . L o c a t i o n of o b j e c t s and e x t e n s i o n of p l a n t should be c l e a r . C l e a r l y , t h i s s c a l e c o u l d not be used with any other s k i l l - e x e r -c i s e combination. Nor c o u l d r e s u l t s be v a l i d l y i n t e r p r e t e d as r e p r e s e n t i n g anything other than a measure of the s k i l l of i n t e r -e s t . In f a c t , t h e r e i s no l o g i c i n i n t e r p r e t i n g r e s u l t s without r e f e r e n c e t o the s c a l e and e x e r c i s e . A r a t i n g of "4" has no i n -t r i n s i c meaning; i t i s necessary t o examine c r i t e r i a and samples atta c h e d to s c a l e p o i n t 4 to i n t e r p r e t the sc o r e . D i r e c t e d W r i t i n g s c a l e s are d e s c r i p t i v e r a t h e r than e v a l u a t i v e i n nature. When r a t i n g s have been completed, r i c h , d e s c r i p t i v e data are a v a i l a b l e which i l l u s t r a t e student performance on a s p e c i f i c s k i l l of i n t e r e s t . The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of r e s u l t s as " S a t i s f a c -t o r y " , " U n s a t i s f a c t o r y " , and so on, c a l l s f o r the s e t t i n g of a standard — t h a t i s , making a judgement about which s c a l e p o i n t r e p r e s e n t s "minimal competence", " e x c e l l e n c e " , and so on, i n the l i g h t of the purposes and valu e s h e l d f o r the w r i t i n g program. DWS, then, offers descriptive d e t a i l and examples of stu-dents' l e v e l of competence for a given s k i l l . H o l i s t i c scoring procedures are combined with r e s t r i c t i v e , highly s k i l l - s p e c i f i c scales to describe performance on s k i l l s of i n t e r e s t . Generally, the scales developed for the B.C. Assessment were received favourably by markers, teachers and inter p r e t a t i o n panels. Because student responses are targetted and thus homo-geneous as to purposes and content, and scales are narrowly fo-cused with points c l e a r l y defined, readers were able to deal with papers quickly — often as many as 200 i n a 90-minute session — and r e l i a b l y . F i f t y - f i v e DWS were employed with a median estimated r e l i a b i l i t y for a single rating calculated as .66. Had i t been possible to sum scores over two independent raters, the median would have improved to .80, and 38 of the scales would have had associated i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t i e s greater than .75. A question of some int e r e s t i n the B.C. Assessment involved i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s among DWS scores, and between DWS and both h o l i s t i c and analytic ratings. Correlations estimated between DWS scores were sur p r i s i n g l y low. At grade eight, for example, only three of these exceeded .50; i n two cases, these involved s k i l l s assigned to the same exercise, and were thus p a r t i a l l y explicable as method covariance. At grade twelve, only one of the correlations exceeded .50, and i t too was associated with s k i l l s assessed by the same exercise. 30. When corre la t ions were estimated between DWS and h o l i s t i c and ana ly t i c rat ings associated with the g loba l exerc i ses , they not only f a i l e d to demonstrate the magnitude which had been ant i c ipa ted , but a l so f a i l e d frequently to ind icate the d i r ec t i on expected. Corre lat ions were pervas ively low at both grades eight and twelve, and many of them were negative. At grade e ight, the ca lcu lated c o e f f i c i e n t s ranged from -0.27 to 0.42; at grade twelve, from -0.12 to 0.43. Conry & Jerosk i (1980) concluded: Perhaps the most i n te res t ing empir ica l r e su l t regarding wr i t ing s k i l l s in the assessment i s that there i s no evidence to support the hypo-thes is that there i s a unitary wr i t ing s k i l l ; "g" i n wr i t ten composition cannot be seen to ex i s t in these data . . . The impl icat ions of th i s are severa l , but ce r t a in l y important among them i s that any e f f o r t to develop w r i -t ing c u r r i c u l a may be best designed i f separ-ate approaches were taken to separate s k i l l s — or at least to separate c lus ters of s k i l l s . It seems l i k e l y that we ought not assume that t ra in ing in one s k i l l or c lu s te r of s k i l l s w i l l lead to a general ized and pervasive im-provement in wr i t ing . (p. 353) In recent years, a great deal of research attent ion has been focused on the development of quant i tat ive indices which might be used as surrogates for more subject ive qua l i t a t i ve evaluations of wr i t ing samples. These analyses - - general ly of er ror frequency or syntact ic features — can be loosely grouped as "elemental" (Tamor, 1981). A body of experimental work deals with the u t i l i t y of the computer in descr ib ing or evaluating wr i t ing . Page and Paulus (1968) i n te rcor re l a ted 30 computer-generated indices with mean human judgement of content, o r g a n i z a t i o n , s t y l e , mechanics and c r e a t i v i t y , o b t a i n i n g a cumulative R-squared approaching 0 . 5 0 . C r i t i c s were unconvinced, Macrorie (1968) c l a i m i n g : Rating t h i s w r i t i n g i n v o l v e d making d i s t i n c -t i o n s between papers without d i s t i n c t i o n . /And no one has ever done w e l l at th a t job. The teachers d i d badly, and Page and Paulus t a l k e d the computer i n t o doing j u s t as badly, (p. 232) Coombs (1969) r e j e c t e d the research as an a d d i t i o n to knowledge about student w r i t i n g , d e c l a r i n g : Rather than an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of how students' essays can be adequately graded as p a r t of an on-going i n s t r u c t i o n a l program, t h i s i s a study of the c o g n i t i v e processes of experienced essay graders. (p. 236) Others (Janzen, 1968; S l o t n i c k , 1972; S l o t n i c k & Knapp, 1971) attempted t o r e f i n e and improve the p r e d i c t i o n w i t h l i m i t e d success. S l o t n i c k and Knapp i d e n t i f i e d the c e n t r a l problem as the d e l i n e a t i o n of q u a l i t i e s i n content and s t y l e which the com-puter could be programmed t o i d e n t i f y and contended t h a t c o n t i n -ued research would uncover i n d i c a t o r s which would f i r s t , d i s t i n -guish "good" from "poor" papers, and then i d e n t i f y v a r y i n g de-grees of "good" and "poor" (p. 7 8 ) . Perhaps the most i n f l u e n t i a l body of work i n the use of s y n t a c t i c i n d i c a t o r s has been th a t of Hunt (1966, 1970, 1977) who examined a v a r i e t y of i n d i c e s f o r s y n t a c t i c "maturity", and con-cluded t h a t three of these — mean clause length, r a t i o of sub-ordinate to a l l c l a u s e s , and mean T-unit (main clause and i t s subordinated elements) length -- were r e l i a b l e and v a l i d i n d i -c a t o r s . Although Hunt's work has been i n f l u e n t i a l , other r e -searchers have expressed r e s e r v a t i o n s , and "maturity of syntax" as measured using these i n d i c e s has not always c o r r e l a t e d h i g h l y w i t h h o l i s t i c r a t i n g s ( E l l e y , 1976; M a r t i n e z , 1972; M e l l o n , 1969; S u l l i v a n , 1977). C h r i s t e n s e n (1968) took i s s u e with Hunt's de-f i n i t i o n of a mature s t y l e , n o t i n g t h a t only one of Hunt's v a r i a -b l e s — c l a u s e l e n g t h — a f f e c t s r e a d a b i l i t y , and " i t a f f e c t s i t a d v e r s e l y ... A mature s t y l e must be easy t o decode" (p. 596). A f t e r a n a l y z i n g prose of "good" a d u l t w r i t e r s , he concluded t h a t a mature s t y l e c o u l d b e t t e r be i d e n t i f i e d by n o t i n g the frequency of " f r e e m o d i f i e r s " and i n t r a - T - u n i t c o o r d i n a t i o n . Recent work has tended to i n c o r p o r a t e the i n d i c e s suggested by both Hunt and C h r i s t e n s e n . Marzano (1978), b e g i n n i n g with a s e t of 43 s y n t a c t i c and e r r o r i n d i c e s , found f i v e of these use-f u l i n terms of p r e d i c t i o n of q u a l i t y and e f f i c i e n c y of measure-ment: 1. r a t i o of words to T - u n i t s , 2. r a t i o of t o t a l sentence weight to t o t a l sentences, 3. r a t i o of sentence fragments to T - u n i t s , 4. r a t i o of t o t a l s p e l l i n g , agreement and tense e r r o r s to t o t a l words, and 5. type-token r a t i o . Tamor (1981) i n c l u d e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n df s e v e r a l s y n t a c t i c and e r r o r i n d i c e s i n her examination of a s s o c i a t i o n s among measures. She found no evidence t h a t M-unit l e n g t h — a d e r i v a t i v e of Hunt's T - u n i t — and f l u e n c y were a s s o c i a t e d with q u a l i t y of w r i -t i n g as judged on h o l i s t i c or a n a l y t i c s c a l e s . As noted e a r l i e r , when data for fourth graders were factor analyzed, the syntactic indices were associated with factor 2, along with s p e l l i n g and penmanship. At grade six, where three factors emerged, the syn-t a c t i c indices alone had strong loadings on the t h i r d factor. Tamor was mildly surprised by the r e s u l t s , and suggested that the structured nature of the task and the brevity of the writing samples may have suppressed v a r i a b i l i t y i n length, accounting for the f a i l u r e to fi n d an association between fluency and qual i t y . Recently, attention has been directed to cohesion as an i n -dicator of qua l i t y and maturity of prose, with the Halliday & Hasan (1976) taxonomy used i n content analyses of writing sam-ples. T y p i c a l l y , indices are derived by c a l c u l a t i n g the propor-tion of cohesive t i e s to t o t a l words, within T-unit, and across two or more T-units. Cohesive t i e s are c l a s s i f i e d , and frequen-cies or proportions of various kinds of t i e s are calculated. Analyses of cohesives are most often undertaken where further understanding of the writing process i s sought (see, for example, Bracewell et a l , 198 0; Crowhurst, 1981), and to amplify other ratings (see, for example, the NAEP reports for 1974 and 1979). It appears that, where a general rating of writing s k i l l s i s desired, h o l i s t i c scales are most useful, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f they are amplified by data produced by independent analytic scales and elemental analyses of errors and syntactic features. One of the major weaknesses of such h o l i s t i c measurement l i e s not i n the procedure i t s e l f , but i n the misconceptions which often attend interpretation of r e s u l t s . There has been a ten-dency — probably because of the h o l i s t i c nature of the evalua-t i o n — to interpret a given h o l i s t i c score as a general or ov e r a l l estimate of a child' s t o t a l writing s k i l l , rather than as an assessment of the o v e r a l l q u a l i t y of a given writing pro-duct produced by a s p e c i f i c stimulus under given conditions. Where writing s t i m u l i and administrative conditions are appro-pri a t e , h o l i s t i c scales appear to produce v a l i d information about the general s k i l l l e v e l of defined populations of students responding to a defined task. They do not, however, seem to be p a r t i c u l a r l y sensitive to fine d i s t i n c t i o n s among levels of s k i l l s -- p a r t i c u l a r l y when combined with exercises c a l l i n g for extended and complex responses. Thus, they pose d i f f i c u l t i e s when employed to estimate change. A d d i t i o n a l l y , because they derive from o v e r a l l impression rather than s p e c i f i c features of the writing, they cause problems i n interpretation. Primary T r a i t Scoring (PTS) and Directed Writing Scaling (DWS) are attempts to retain some of the desirable features of h o l i s t i c scoring, while at the same time providing more sensi-t i v e and descriptive measurement. Both techniques require the careful delineation of the t r a i t or s k i l l under consideration, and allow for estimation of performance l e v e l i n that s k i l l alone, without regard to other features of the discourse. Both PTS and DWS appear to be p a r t i c u l a r l y amenable to classroom s i t u a t i o n s where they can be used i n a d i a g n o s t i c , f o r m a t i v e or summative sense t o p r o v i d e e m p i r i c a l d a t a on s t u d e n t c a p a b i l i -t i e s . C l e a r l y , t h e t r e n d i s toward d i r e c t measurement o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n t h r o u g h the use of h o l i s t i c s c o r i n g , a n a l y t i c s c o r i n g , PTS o r DWS. S u r r o g a t e s such as o b j e c t i v e t e s t s c o r e s o r i n d i c e s r e p r e s e n t i n g s y n t a c t i c f e a t u r e s e n j o y l i t t l e s u p p o r t as s u c h , w i t h t h e i r a p p r o p r i a t e f u n c t i o n now seen t o be t h e p r o v i s i o n of d e t a i l i n s u p p o r t of r a t i n g s c a l e s , or as r e s e a r c h t o o l s . R e l i a b i l i t y . The s o u r c e s of e r r o r i n the measurement of w r i t i n g a r e v a r i e d and complex. E m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e has been o f f e r e d f o r many of t h e s e : 1. s a m p l i n g e r r o r i n t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s s e l e c t i o n of t e c h -n i q u e s o r response f e a t u r e s (Coffman, 1971), 2. s t u d e n t by t a s k i n t e r a c t i o n (Godshalk e t a l , 1966; G o s l i n g , 1966; Young, 1962), 3. v a r i a b i l i t y o f r a t e r judgement over time ( V e a l , 1973), 4. r a t e r d i f f e r e n c e s (Coffman & Kurfman, 1968; Owens, 1972; V e a l , 1973), 5. o r d e r o f r e a d i n g papers (Coffman & Kurfman, 1968; God-s h a l k , 1966), 6. v a r i a b i l i t y o f s t u d e n t response over time (Tamor, 1981), 7. r a t e r - b y - q u a l i t y o f h a n d w r i t i n g ( B r i g g s , 1972), 8. t o p i c - b y - r a t e r i n t e r a c t i o n (Carey, 1981), 9. v a r i a t i o n s i n i n s t r u c t i o n s t o w r i t e r s (Keech, 1980), and 10. s t u d e n t - b y - p e r f o r m a n c e - c o n t e x t i n t e r a c t i o n ( B i o l a , 1979). To t h e s e , of c o u r s e , must be added demonstrated s o u r c e s o f e r r o r i n t e s t i n g which i n c l u d e s : v a r i a b i l i t y i n s t u d e n t temporary and p e r v a s i v e a t t r i b u t e s , v a r i a b i l i t y i n e x t e r n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , e x c e s s i v e t e s t l e n g t h , a m b i g u i t y o f i t e m s , h a l o e f f e c t s , Hawthorne e f f e c t s , and r e a c t i v i t y where t e s t - r e t e s t i s employed. Coffman (1971, 1972), s y n t h e s i z i n g t h e l i t e r a t u r e on r e l i a -b i l i t y , found r e p o r t e d e s t i m a t e s t o range from .39 t o .98. He n o t e d t h a t f a c t o r s d e p r e s s i n g such e s t i m a t e s i n c l u d e d homogene-i t y o f s u b j e c t s , m u l t i p l i c i t y of r a t e r s t o be t r a i n e d and more d i s c u r s i v e w r i t i n g modes. He o f f e r e d f o u r s t r a t e g i e s f o r r e -d u c i n g r a t e r e r r o r : 1. use a s u f f i c i e n t l y f i n e s c a l e t o r e c o r d t h e r a t i n g s , 2. d e v e l o p c l e a r r e f e r e n c e p o i n t s t o anchor the s c a l e , 3. d i s t r i b u t e t h e e r r o r randomly r a t h e r t h a n s y s t e m a t i c a l l y — f o r example, r a t h e r t h a n by s t u d e n t where more th a n one e x e r c i s e i s employed — by e x e r c i s e , and 4. i n c l u d e m u l t i p l e r a t i n g s whenever f e a s i b l e (1972, p. 29) E s t i m a t i o n o f i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s has been accom-p l i s h e d by a v a r i e t y o f s t a t i s t i c a l p r o c e d u r e s , w i t h P earson's P r o d u c t Moment C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t , Spearman's Rho, K e n d a l l ' s Tau, and the c o e f f i c i e n t o f concordance (W) f r e q u e n t l y employed. The t r e n d , however, has been t o use E b e l ' s i n t r a - c l a s s c o r r e l a -t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t — c a l c u l a t e d i n the same manner as Hoy 11 ANOVA — t o e s t i m a t e v a r i a n c e components and t h e i r p r o p o r t i o n a l e f f e c t s U s i n g t h i s p r o c e d u r e , i t i s p o s s i b l e s i m u l t a n e o u s l y t o c o n s i d e r more th a n one s o u r c e of v a r i a n c e , and t o reduce th e e r r o r term by i d e n t i f y i n g and p a r t i a l l i n g o ut s y s t e m a t i c e f f e c t s such as r a t e r b i a s . The p r o c e d u r e may be used t o e s t i m a t e a g e n e r a l i z a -b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t (Cronbach e t a l , 1972; G l e s e r e t a l , 1965; S t a n l e y , 1962). T y p i c a l l y , the Spearman Brown prophesy f o r m u l a i s used t o e s t i m a t e r e l i a b i l i t i e s o f s c o r e s summed a c r o s s r a t e r s (see, f o r example, Conry & J e r o s k i , 1980). I n c r e a s e d a t t e n t i o n t o r a t i n g t e c h n i q u e s f o r w r i t i n g samples has been accompanied by i n c r e a s e s i n the magnitude o f i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t i e s r e p o r t e d , w i t h t h e s e c o e f f i c i e n t s t y p i c a l l y r a n g i n g above .75 i n r e c e n t y e a r s , p r o v i d i n g s u p p o r t f o r the c o n t e n t i o n s o f Coffman (1971, 1972) and D e l l a - P i a n a e t a l (1976) t h a t where s c o r i n g p r o c e d u r e s a r e c a r e f u l l y d e v i s e d and r a t e r s a p p r o p r i a t e l y t r a i n e d , r e l i a b i l i t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h d i r e c t measurement of w r i t i n g w i l l be s u f f i c i e n t l y h i g h as t o negate th e use of i n d i r e c t measures on t h e grounds o f enhanced r e l i a b i l i t i e s . E x t e n s i v e r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s and p r o f e s s i o n a l o p i n i o n s con-c e r n i n g measurement o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n a r e a v a i l a b l e . W h i l e some g u i d e l i n e s have emerged, c o m p l e x i t y o f the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s and p r o d u c t s p r e v e n t s s i m p l i s t i c s o l u t i o n s t o problems o f e v a l -u a t i o n . C e r t a i n l y , no s i n g l e measure or s e t o f measures, no m a t t e r how c l e v e r l y d e v i s e d , w i l l be l i k e l y t o y i e l d a d e f i n i t i v e r e s p onse t o the query "How w e l l do s t u d e n t s w r i t e ? " As Brown (1979) r e f l e c t e d : P e o p l e who a r e l o o k i n g f o r s i m p l e answers must be p o l i t e l y b u t f i r m l y encouraged t o ask more s o p h i s t i c a t e d q u e s t i o n s . (p. 9) 38. R e l a t i o n s h i p s between w r i t i n g and o t h e r v a r i a b l e s . Fewer e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s t h a n might be e x p e c t e d r e p o r t d a t a on a s s o c i a t i o n s between d i r e c t measures o f w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n and b i o d e m o g r a p h i c , a f f e c t i v e , c o g n i t i v e , and p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a -b l e s . I t appears t h a t d i f f i c u l t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s e l e c t i n g a v a l i d measure of w r i t i n g and t h e r e l a t i v e l y h i g h c o s t o f such measures have m i t i g a t e d a g a i n s t the i n c l u s i o n of w r i t t e n e x p r e s -s i o n i n c o r r e l a t i o n a l s t u d i e s . The r e s e a r c h r e v i e w e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n f a l l s i n t o two broad c a t e g o r i e s : 1. a s s o c i a t i o n s w i t h biodemographic v a r i a b l e s u s i n g s e l f -r e p o r t o r g e o g r a p h i c d e s i g n a t i o n d a t a o b t a i n e d i n w i d e - s c a l e assessment e f f o r t s , and 2. a s s o c i a t i o n s w i t h a m y r i a d of v a r i a b l e s d emonstrated f o r u n d e r g r a d u a t e , e l e m e n t a r y and high: s c h o o l p o p u l a -t i o n s -- o f t e n r e l y i n g on r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l samples o f c o n v e n i e n c e . A number o f c a u t i o n s s h o u l d a t t e n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e r e l a -t i o n s h i p s d e s c r i b e d . F i r s t , t h e c o n s t r u c t " q u a l i t y o f w r i t i n g " i s n o t c o n s i s t e n t l y i n d e x e d a c r o s s s t u d i e s : i t may d e s i g n a t e any of the w r i t i n g s k i l l s o r c o n s t r u c t s d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r , and may have been measured i n any one o f a v a r i e t y o f ways. Re-s e a r c h r e p o r t s f a l l i n g i n t o the second c a t e g o r y above r a r e l y de-t a i l t h e w r i t i n g t a s k p r e s e n t e d , o r o f f e r r e l i a b i l i t y d a t a f o r the s c o r e s employed. I t has been demonstrated t h a t even when the same w r i t i n g samples a r e r e l i a b l y e v a l u a t e d , r e s u l t s v a r y a c c o r d i n g t o the s c o r i n g p r o c e d u r e used (Tamor, 1981). I n the r e s e a r c h examined h e r e , " q u a l i t y of w r i t i n g " must be c a u t i o u s l y v iewed as one q u a l i t a t i v e d i m e n s i o n of one w r i t i n g sample, o f t e n e l i c i t e d under unspecified conditions, and scored by one method I t i s important to bear i n mind, for example, that had a d i f -ferent stimulus been presented, the pattern of associations might have been d i f f e r e n t . Wide-scale assessments. The 19 78 B.C. Assessment of Written Expression estimated associations between each of the writing s k i l l s / s c a l e s used, and sex, language background — English as f i r s t versus second language -- and "writing involve ment" — "... a score produced by summing across a series of questions about the frequency with which the student engaged i n writing a c t i v i t i e s ranging from sending a greeting card to sub-mitting manuscripts for publication" (p. 57). P o i n t - b i s e r i a l correlations calculated between sex and the h o l i s t i c , a n a l y t i c , directed writing and i n d i r e c t writing variables at both grades eight and twelve were consistently p o s i t i v e , i n d i c a t i n g that g i r l s tended to perform better on the exercises i n question. While the d i r e c t i o n of the c o e f f i c i e n t s was consistent, t h e i r magnitude was not, ranging from zero to 0.3 8 at grade eight (median 0.16) and from 0.03 to 0.32 at grade twelve (median 0.17). At both grade l e v e l s , handwriting was the only writing variable to exhibit an association greater than 0.30 with sex. The minimum number of cases included i n these analyses was 700; thus, most of the associations, while weak, were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . At grade twelve, correlations based on the global narrative exercise were generally larger than those for the global expository exercise; at grade eight, no such difference appeared. Generally, association between sex and writing s k i l l was weakest where the s k i l l could be demonstrated through b r i e f or outline format responses, and stronger where the exercise demanded discursive response. An extremely weak pattern of associations was evident for "language", where high scores represented English as a second language. At grade eight, no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t associa-tions emerged. The co r r e l a t i o n between language background and s k i l l i n selecting words to reinforce a mood or impression was estimated as 0 . 2 1 , i n d i c a t i n g that students who spoke English as a second language (ESL) tended to receive higher ratings. Conversely, a b i l i t y to describe a setting as a plan demonstrated a c o r r e l a t i o n of - 0 . 4 2 , i n d i c a t i n g that ESL students had gener-a l l y received lower scores. Correlations between writing involvement scores and writing performance scores were almost invariably p o s i t i v e . At grade eight, these c o e f f i c i e n t s ranged from - 0 . 0 2 to 0 . 2 4 , with a median of 0 . 1 0 ; at grade twelve, the range was - 0 . 0 1 to 0 . 3 0 , median 0 . 1 2 . At grade eight, the highest c o r r e l a t i o n was for the analytic vocabulary scale applied to the expository exercise at grade twelve, the strongest association appeared for the analy t i c vocabulary scale on the narrative exercise. While a large proportion of these correlations were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g -n i f i c a n t , generally, the pattern of association was weaker than expected: writing involvement and writing performance scores shared, t y p i c a l l y , between 0 and 4 percent of t h e i r variances. NAEP has now completed three assessments of w r i t i n g — 1969, 1974 and 1979 — w i t h e x e r c i s e s administered to n a t i o n a l p r o b a b i l i t y samples of nine, t h i r t e e n and seventeen-year-olds. Each assessment has employed a s t r a t i f i e d , m u l t i - s t a g e proba-b i l i t y sample, w i t h between 2400 and 2600 responses t o each e x e r c i s e c o l l e c t e d , enabling g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s by sex, race, geographic r e g i o n , p a r e n t a l education, type of community, and grade i n school. A number of questions r e l a t i n g t o a f f e c t i v e dimensions and e x p e r e n t i a l background are constant across the three age groups, p e r m i t t i n g g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s about a s s o c i a t i o n s with age as w e l l . While the purpose of i d e n t i f y i n g these sub-populations has not been to demonstrate a s s o c i a t i o n s w i t h b i o -demographic v a r i a b l e s , the data do permit such c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . At each of the age l e v e l s considered, and f o r each of the NAEP assessments completed, females have outperformed males on a l l w r i t i n g t a s k s . Black c h i l d r e n have c o n s i s t e n t l y performed below the n a t i o n as a whole while white c h i l d r e n have performed above the n a t i o n ; black teenagers, however, narrowed the gap from 1969 to 1979, performing a t n a t i o n a l l e v e l on a number of items i n 1979, and showing gains on almost a l l w r i t i n g tasks ( M u l l i s , 1981). While students from economically disadvantaged urban areas c o n s i s t e n t l y performed below the n a t i o n a l sample, 1979 r e s u l t s f o r seventeen-year-olds from these areas i n d i c a t e d gains r e l a t i v e to the population (NAEP, 1980). The high s o c i o -economic-urban group has c o n s i s t e n t l y been the best performing group by s i z e and type of community. At age t h i r t e e n , performance has been d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o l e v e l o f p a r e n t a l e d u c a t i o n ; a t age s e v e n t e e n , some i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s appeared, w i t h t h e "no h i g h s c h o o l " f o r p a r e n t s and "some h i g h s c h o o l " groups d e m o n s t r a t i n g s i m i l a r l e v e l s of performance (NAEP, 1977, p. 1 2 ) . When r e -s u l t s were broken down by r e g i o n , S o u t h e a s t e r n s t u d e n t s demon-s t r a t e d t h e weakest performance a t a l l age l e v e l s . T h i r t e e n and s e v e n t e e n y e a r o l d s i n C e n t r a l and N o r t h e a s t e r n r e g i o n s performed above the n a t i o n a l sample w h i l e Western t e e n a g e r s ' performance was r o u g h l y e q u i v a l e n t t o t h a t of the n a t i o n (NAEP, 1977; 1980b; 1980c). R e s u l t s of t h e 1979 assessment showed a d e c l i n e i n enjoyment of w r i t i n g by age, w i t h 66 p e r c e n t o f n i n e y e a r o l d s i n d i c a t i n g t h e y e n j o y e d w r i t i n g compared w i t h 59 p e r -c e n t of t h i r t e e n y e a r o l d s and 53 p e r c e n t o f sevent e e n y e a r o l d s (NAEP, 1980-81, p. 1 ) . G e n e r a l l y , e x e r c i s e s which o v e r l a p p e d the t h r e e i n - s c h o o l age l e v e l s — n i n e , t h i r t e e n and sevent e e n — showed s t r o n g e s t g a i n s between n i n e and t h i r t e e n , a l t h o u g h c o n s i s t e n t g a i n s were a l s o demonstrated from ages t h i r t e e n t o se v e n t e e n . None of the NAEP s u b p o p u l a t i o n r e s u l t s f o r w r i t i n g has been s u r p r i s i n g ; a d d i t i o n a l l y , v i r t u a l l y a l l o f t h e s e r e s u l t s -- save those f o r sex — are c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h o s e e n c o u n t e r e d f o r r e a d -i n g , s c i e n c e , c i t i z e n s h i p , l i t e r a t u r e , a n d mathematics. A c h i e v e -ment on w r i t i n g t a s k s d i s p l a y s no unique p a t t e r n o f a s s o c i a t i o n s w i t h biodemographic v a r i a b l e s , e x c e p t i n the case o f sex. School-based studies. Where biodemographic data have been co l l ec ted in school set t ings , and associat ions sought with s k i l l i n wr i t i ng , re su l t s have been convergent with those r e -ported by the B.C. Assessment and NAEP: females at a l l ages demonstrate both greater competence (Barbig, 1968; I l l o , 1976; Maloney, 1967; Wi l l iams, 1972) and more pos i t i ve at t i tudes (Barbig, 1968; King, 1980) toward wr i t ing . Socioeconomic i n d i -cators are general ly corre lated p o s i t i v e l y with wr i t ing pe r f o r -mance (Barbig, 1968; Bergman, 1966; Maloney, 1967), although I l l o (1976) found no assoc iat ion between parenta l education and col lege composition grades. In the United States, where race has been considered in studies of wr i t ing s k i l l in elementary and high school, whites have performed better than non-whites (Barbig, 1968; Maloney, 1967; Wi l l iams, 1972). A number of studies have focused on associat ions between general a b i l i t y , or I.Q. scores, and wr i t ing s k i l l s . I l l o (1976) examined permanent records of a random sample (n = 125) of co l lege undergraduates, and found SAT-verbal scores to be the best s ing le pred ictor of col lege composition grades, with a zero-order co r re l a t i on of .35. The cor re l a t i on between SAT-mathematical scores and composition grade was appreciably lower, at .14. Maloney (1967) c l a s s i f i e d ninth-graders as " super ior " or "poor" wr i ters on the basis of rat ings of organ izat ion, maturity of i n s i gh t , word choice, and s t y l e , and found the "super ior " group character ized by high i n te l l i gence test scores and high v e r b a l reasoning s c o r e s . Bergman (1966) and Hulewicz (1974) examined a s s o c i a t i o n s between the Composition Adequacy P r o f i l e (CAP) -- a two-part instrument c o n s i s t i n g of a s e r i e s of s h o r t w r i t i n g tasks f o l l o w e d by o b j e c t i v e items -- and measures of a b i l i t y . For samples of j u n i o r secondary students, Bergman r e -ported a c o r r e l a t i o n of .63 with I.Q. while Hulewicz r e p o r t e d .42 f o r I.Q., and .50 f o r D i f f e r e n t i a l A p t i t u d e T e s t s c o r e s . A number of s t u d i e s have examined r e l a t i o n s h i p s among read-ing and w r i t i n g s k i l l s . Simmons (1978) c l a s s i f i e d 100 h i g h s c h o o l students as "high" (n = 17), "medium" (n = 66), or "low" (n = 17), on the b a s i s of scores on the Iowa S i l e n t Reading T e s t . Student compositions were then r a t e d f o r ten mechanical and f i v e r h e t o r i c a l f e a t u r e s , and a s e r i e s of one-way ANOVA's and post hoc comparisons performed. D i f f e r e n c e s between each p a i r of the r e a d i n g a b i l i t y groups were s i g n i f i c a n t f o r t o t a l w r i t i n g score and f o r t o t a l r h e t o r i c a l score; the "high" r e a d i n g group was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from each of the others f o r t o t a l mechanical s c o r e , but the "medium" and "low" groups d i d not d i f f e r on t h i s v a r i a b l e . Because both the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n procedure and the analyses were u n s o p h i s t i c a t e d , the c o r r e l a t i o n s r e p o r t e d between t o t a l r e a d i n g score and the composition scores a r e , perhaps, more i n t e r e s t i n g : the c o r r e l a t i o n between mechan-i c a l w r i t i n g score and r e a d i n g scores was r e p o r t e d as .61, while the c o r r e l a t i o n between r h e t o r i c a l score and r e a d i n g was .82. These exceed s i m i l a r s t a t i s t i c s r e p o r t e d elsewhere. Thomas (1977) used a sample of 405 c o l l e g e freshmen, and found c o r r e l a -t i o n s r a n g i n g from .06 t o .18 between r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g achievement v a r i a b l e s . A s s o c i a t i o n s were somewhat s t r o n g e r — r a n g i n g up t o .30 — between r e p o r t e d e x t e n t of r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g achievement. H a m i l l & McNutt (19 80) s y n t h e s i z e d r e -s e a r c h f i n d i n g s on language a b i l i t i e s and r e a d i n g completed from 1950 t o 1978, and found d a t a w h i c h s a t i s f i e d t h e i r r e q u i r e ments o f r i g o u r f o r o n l y s p e l l i n g and mechanics: r e a d i n g c o r r e l a t e d h i g h l y w i t h t h e s e c o n s t r u c t s . W h i l e t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e a s s o c i a t i o n v a r i e s from one s t u d y t o a n o t h e r , t e s t s o f r e a d i n g s k i l l s , l i k e t h o s e of g e n e r a l a b i l i t y -- w i t h which t h e y a r e s t r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e d -- a r e c o n s i s t e n t l y among t h e s t r o n g e s t p r e d i c t o r s of s c o r e s f o r w r i t i n g s k i l l s ( B a r b i g , 1968; B e l a n g e r , 1978; H u l e w i c z , 1974; Maloney, 1967). Two s t u d i e s have attempted t o i n v e s t i g a t e a s s o c i a t i o n s be-tween W i t k i n ' s (1964) c o n s t r u c t o f f i e l d independence (FI) and w r i t i n g s k i l l s . F i e l d independence i s g e n e r a l l y r e p r e s e n t e d by s c o r e s on Embedded or Hidden F i g u r e s t e s t s , o r on performance t e s t s such as Rod and Frame. A s u b j e c t who can l o c a t e a s i m p l e f i g u r e , o r p o s i t i o n an i l l u m i n a t e d l i n e i n a complex c o n t e x t i s s a i d t o be f i e l d - i n d e p e n d e n t o r a n a l y t i c ; one who cannot i s de-s i g n a t e d as f i e l d dependent o r g l o b a l . W i t k i n (1964) has des-c r i b e d the u n d e r l y i n g c o n s t r u c t : The f i e l d dependence-independence d i m e n s i o n cannot be i n t e r p r e t e d i n terms o f g e n e r a l c a p a c i t y f o r f i g u r e - g r o u n d s e p a r a t i o n . R a t h e r , i t i n v o l v e s , q u i t e s p e c i f i c a l l y , a b i l i t y t o overcome an embedding c o n t e x t , and i t i s mani-f e s t e d i n t a s k s which r e q u i r e t h e b r e a k i n g - u p o f an o r g a n i z e d c o n t e x t o r f i e l d . (p. 176) F i e l d independence appears to be cl o s e l y associated with f l u i d a b i l i t y : the Wechsler factor component centred on Block Design, Object Assembly and Picture Completion i s " e s s e n t i a l l y i d e n t i c a l with the field-dependence-independence continuum" (Witkin, 1973, p. 7). Although designated a cognitive " s t y l e " , the tendency to f i e l d independence would seem more appropriately considered an a b i l i t y (Cronbach & Snow, 1977, p. 382). Both Boyd (1980) and Cooper (1980) examined relationships between Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) scores and writing attributes of freshmen enrolled i n college composition courses. Boyd de-signated those below the f i r s t q u a r t i l e as f i e l d dependent (raw scores 0 - 6 ) and those above the t h i r d q u a r t i l e as f i e l d inde-pendent (raw scores 15 - 18): he then compared scores of the 5 8 students on three writing tasks — one r e f e r e n t i a l , one ex-pressive, and one persuasive — scored using four-point Primary T r a i t Scoring (PTS). Revision s k i l l s , a major concern of the study, were examined using schedules developed by NAEP. Analy-ses revealed that F l subjects: 1. received higher — by .6 grade points — composition course grades than FD subjects, 2. attended class less frequently than FD's, 3. obtained higher PTS ratings for the r e f e r e n t i a l writing task than did FD's, and 4. were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from FD's for PTS ratings of expressive or persuasive writing, or i n terms of number or extent of revisions. Boyd concluded that f i e l d independence deserves study as a pre-d i c t o r of composition achievement, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n view of the college emphasis on r e f e r e n t i a l writing. Cooper's study focused on errors i n standard usage. Ten FD and ten FI subjects were selected from 194 students at the Uni-v e r s i t y of the D i s t r i c t of Columbia, and t h e i r essays analyzed for nonstandard d i a l e c t interference and t r a n s i t i o n a l features -- hypothesized to occur more often for FD subjects — and for c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , distancing and constrastive features -- hypothe-sized to occur more often for FI subjects. A series of one-way ANOVA's resulted i n findings of s t a t i s t i c a l s ignificance for distance and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n favour of FI subjects, and for t r a n s i t i o n a l features i n favour of FD subjects. No differences were found for nonstandard d i a l e c t interference or contrast. Recently, concern for the contribution of audience awareness to composing s k i l l has aroused i n t e r e s t i n s o c i a l cognitive a b i l -i t y -- c l o s e l y related to cognitive complexity (Beieri, 1971; K e l l y , 1955) -- as i t i s related to and demonstrated i n the wri-ting of children: Competent writers engage i n s o c i a l cognition, representing themselves to t h e i r audience's .' i n t e r e s t s , values, p r i o r knowledge, experien-t i a l associations, l i n g u i s t i c s k i l l , and on-going information processing a c t i v i t i e s . (Rubin, 1981, p. 1) A number of studies have attempted to l i n k s o c i a l cognition — often, unfortunately, measured by indices derived from the writing product employed as c r i t e r i o n (Higgins, -1977; K r o l l , 1978) --with s p e c i f i c syntactic and strategic discourse features (O'Keefe & Delia, 1979; Rubin & Piche, 1979). Only one study has examined the r e l a t i o n s h i p of s o c i a l cognition to o v e r a l l quality of 48. writing. Rubin (1981) randomly selected nineteen fourth-graders previously screened by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test to f a l l within .25 standard deviations of the l o c a l mean ( i . e . , scoring between 100 and 109) of the fourth-grade population of a suburban school. Subjects were administered four measures of s o c i a l cognition, intended to assess: 1. accuracy in taking the perspective of others (a word association measure), 2. accuracy i n predicting episodic i n t e r n a l states of face-to-face interactions (an "empathy" t e s t ) , and 3. accuracy i n perspective taking (two role taking tasks). Overall q u a l i t y of writing was determined using the mean of 13 independent ratings on a 10-point h o l i s t i c scale. Fluency and error rate were also calculated. The zero-order c o r r e l a t i o n matrix revealed only one s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n , that of 0.54 between h o l i s t i c writing score and accuracy i n taking the per-, spective of others as measured by the Concrete/Abstract Word Association Test (Milgram & Goodglass, 1961) where children are asked to respond as adults for one-half of the stimulus words, and as younger children for the remainder. Although there were no s i g n i f i c a n t correlations between any pair of s o c i a l cognition measures, a composite s o c i a l cognitive variable was created, with a canonical c o r r e l a t i o n of .60 with composition q u a l i t y . Results of t h i s study are unique: the s i g n i f i c a n t association of s o c i a l cognition with h o l i s t i c ratings i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r -esting, when accompanied by i n s i g n i f i c a n t associations for f l u -ency or error rate, which t y p i c a l l y emerge as strong predictors. Unfortunately, the sample was extremely small and no r e l i a b i l i t y data were presented. Writ ing apprehension — a term coined by Daly & M i l l e r (1975a) - - has been the focus of a number of invest igat ions con-cerned with assoc iat ions. It re fers to: a s i tua t ion and sub jec t - spec i f i c i nd i v i dua l d i f ference associated with a person's tenden-c ies to approach or avoid s i tuat ions per -ceived to require wr i t ing accompanied by some amount of perceived evaluat ion. (Daly & W i l -son, 1981, p. 1) The Writ ing Apprehension Measure (WAT) (Daly & M i l l e r , 1975a) cons ists of twenty-six statements about writing" — th i r teen pos i t i ve and th i r teen negative - - accompanied by a L iker t - type response sca le . Low scores are interpreted as ind i ca t ing low degrees of apprehension. S p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y has been e s t i -mated as 0.91; t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y , 0.92. The instrument was i n i t i a l l y developed for and f i e l d - t e s t e d with undergraduate students (Daly & M i l l e r , 1975a); research has since focused a l -most exc lus ive ly on such populat ions. Daly and his colleagues have demonstrated s i g n i f i c a n t associat ions between wr i t ing ap-prehension and sex (Daly & M i l l e r , 1975b; Dickson, 1978), SAT-verbal scores (Daly & M i l l e r , 1975b), academic decis ions (Daly & M i l l e r , 1975b; Daly & Shamo, 1978), and occupational choices (Daly & M i l l e r , 1975a; Daly & Shamo, 1976). More relevant to the research problems under considerat ion here are the studies which have invest igated re la t ionsh ips be-tween wr i t ing apprehension and a number of ind icators of wr i t ing 50. competence. Daly and his colleagues have examined associat ions between WAT scores and "wr i t ing i n tens i t y " (Daly & M i l l e r , 1975c), s t r u c t u r a l , r eadab i l i t y and qua l i t y ind icators of com-pos i t ions (Daly, 1977) and scores on a mul t ip le choice tes t de-signed to measure wr i t ing competence (Daly, 1978). In each of these studies, undergraduate students were c l a s s i f i e d as high apprehensives or low apprehensives, i f t he i r WAT scores were one standard dev iat ion above or below the mean, re spect i ve ly . "Moderates" — scoring within one standard deviat ion of the mean — were included for some analyses in the 1978 study. S i g n i f i -cant d i f ferences favouring low apprehensives were reported for wr i t ing i n ten s i t y , for f luency, for measures of verba l q u a l i f i -ca t ion, for h o l i s t i c rat ings of qua l i t y and for object ive compe-tence tes t scores. The cons istent f ind ing in favour of low apprehensives i s impressive; unfortunately, these studies su f fer from a number of methodological weaknesses, and — perhaps even more d i s turb ing - - in terpretat ions of fered in the reports cannot be substantiated by the data presented. While i n i t i a l sample pools tended to be large, e l iminat ion of two-thirds of the d i s -t r i bu t i on resu l ted i n comparisons between eleven high apprehen-sives and twelve low apprehensives in the 1975 study; between 22 and 21 in the 1977 study. Because c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are based on the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s , designation as "high" or "low" i s sample dependent. Further, there has been a tendency to ove r -pa r t i t i on the variance by applying several mul t i var ia te analyses to the same data. Interpret ing resu l t s of these stud-^-i e s , the invest igators d isp lay a tendency to impute cause where none has been demonstrated; for example, Daly (1977) concluded that his study had provided: substantial v a l i d a t i o n for the proposition that writing apprehension affects message construction ... the attitude an i n d i v i d u a l holds toward the act of writing c l e a r l y a f f e c t s both how he or she w i l l write, and how others w i l l evaluate that writing, (p. 571-572) The causative i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s u n j u s t i f i e d ; the evidence pre-sented merely supports an association. A recent study (Faigley et a l , 1981) included eight stan-dardized objective measures of writing competence along with three scores for each of two essays. F i f t y - f i v e undergraduates were designated "high" apprehensives, and f i f t y - f i v e "low", by dividing the WAT score d i s t r i b u t i o n into t h i r d s . Again, several consecutive analyses were applied to the same data with apparent disregard for increases i n the p r o b a b i l i t y of chance r e s u l t s . A number of s i g n i f i c a n t differences favouring low apprehensives were reported, including those for fluency, for syntactic i n -dices and for h o l i s t i c scores. When interactions between WAT c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and essay-type were examined, high apprehensives scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower on two of the syntactic measures when narrative/descriptive h o l i s t i c scores were examined, but not for argumentative essay scores. Multiple correlations be-tween the group of quality indicators and WAT scores were e s t i -mated as .41 for narrative/descriptive essays, and .12 for argu-mentative essays. The researchers state that the data: suggest that apprehension accounts for about 12 percent more variance i n the narrative/descriptive than i n the argu-mentative essays (p. 1 1 ) , an i n t e r e s t i n g observation, given that — apparently — WAT scores were the dependent variable i n t h i s phase of the analysis. A f i n a l group of twelve studies which looked at associa-tions among writing apprehension, self-esteem and personality has recently been reported (Daly & Wilson, 1981). Correlations between WAT scores and Rosenberg's (1965) measure of self-esteem were estimated at -0.31 and -0.11 for two successive samples of undergraduates; WAT scores and L i l l y & Purvin's (1976) s e l f -esteem measures were estimated for one undergraduate sample as -0.23. A succeeding study looked at self-perceptions of w r i -ting ;:ind-ivi'duaT correlations between WAT scores and each of the fourteen dimensions of self-perception of writing were a l l nega-ti v e and s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , for an undergraduate sample. The multiple c o r r e l a t i o n was estimated at -0.73. Further inves-tigations attempted to expand the range of personality correlates and looked variously at associations with t r a i t - a n x i e t y , oral communication anxiety, receiver apprehension, tolerance for am-biguity, locus of control, dogmatism, Machiavellianism, achieve-ment need, s o c i a l approval seeking, anomie and a l i e n a t i o n . Sam-ples for each study consisted of undergraduate or graduate stu-dents. S i g n i f i c a n t correlations, although not large i n magni-tude, were found for oral communication anxiety ( 0 . 2 8 ) , receiver anxiety ( 0 . 1 9 ) , tolerance for ambiguity (-0.21), and a l i e n a t i o n (-0.12). Daly & M i l l e r concluded that writing apprehension r e p r e s e n t s a s u b j e c t - s p e c i f i c d i s p o s i t i o n . In an attempt t o d e l i n e a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p of w r i t i n g apprehension t o other s u b j e c t - s p e c i f i c a n x i e t i e s and a t t i t u d e s , Daly & M i l l e r a dministered two measures of re a d i n g a t t i t u d e s , t h r e e of mathematics a n x i e t y , three of o r a l communication appre-hension, three of s c i e n c e a t t i t u d e s and two of a t t i t u d e s toward w r i t i n g along with the WAT to 116 undergraduates. The mean c o r -r e l a t i o n with mathematics a t t i t u d e s was -0.33, with s c i e n c e a t t i t u d e s , 0.02, with o r a l communication a n x i e t y , 0.40, wit h r e a d i n g a t t i t u d e s , 0.45, and wit h w r i t i n g a t t i t u d e s , 0.83. Daly & M i l l e r conclude t h a t people who enjoy w r i t i n g may f i n d mathe-matics u n i n v i t i n g and reading and speech a t t r a c t i v e , and comment T h i s p a t t e r n f i t s the o f t e n drawn, but per-haps l e s s t h e o r e t i c a l l y c l e a r , dichotomy between v e r b a l and math a t t i t u d e s . (p. 6) T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n i s a t v a r i a n c e with accumulated r e s e a r c h on human a b i l i t i e s which suggests no such dichotomy. A d d i t i o n a l l y , they s t a t e t h a t , i n view of the high e r mean c o r r e l a t i o n between WAT scores and measures of o r a l communication a n x i e t y than t h a t f o r WAT scores and r e a d i n g a t t i t u d e s c o r e s , a s t r o n g e r r e l a t i o n -s h i p i s demonstrated between aspects of sending messages than between aspects of one medium ( p r i n t ) . T h i s c o n c l u s i o n must be viewed with some r e s e r v a t i o n , g i v e n the r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l magni-tude of the d i f f e r e n c e s i n these c o r r e l a t i o n s , the f a i l u r e t o co n s i d e r a t t e n u a t i o n , and the technique of t a k i n g the mean as an i n d i c a t i o n of c e n t r a l tendency f o r v a r i a b l e s — c o r r e l a t i o n co-e f f i c i e n t s -- which are o r d i n a l i n nature. While the preceding d i s c u s s i o n i s e x t e n s i v e , i t i s not ex-h a u s t i v e of s t u d i e s of w r i t i n g apprehension. A search of e m p i r i -c a l s t u d i e s r e p o r t e d i n the open l i t e r a t u r e s i n c e 1975 r e v e a l s t h a t w r i t i n g apprehension s t u d i e s are more f r e q u e n t l y encountered than those d e a l i n g with any other s i n g l e aspect of w r i t i n g . I t i s debatable whether r e s e a r c h r e l a t i n g t o w r i t i n g apprehension deserves the a t t e n t i o n i t r e c e i v e s . In comparing r e s e a r c h on w r i t i n g v a r i a b l e s r e p o r t e d i n D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a - t i o n a l (DAI) to t h a t found i n r e f e r e e d j o u r n a l s , i t becomes ap-parent t h a t only a f r a c t i o n of s t u d i e s of w r i t i n g appear i n the open l i t e r a t u r e . P e r u s a l of the DAI e n t r i e s suggests t h a t a lack of m e t h o d o l o g i c a l r i g o u r may account f o r the f a i l u r e of such s t u d i e s t o appear. The work of Daly and h i s c o l l e a g u e s may w e l l r e p r e s e n t the s t a t e - o f - t h e - a r t i n r e s e a r c h on a s s o c i a t i o n s among w r i t i n g - r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s , even though t h e i r samples are c o n s i s -t e n t l y "grab-group" samples of undergraduates i n composition or communication courses. S e l e c t i o n b i a s and corresponding dimin-ishment of power may a l s o be a problem; while i n i t i a l sample pools are g e n e r a l l y l a r g e , s c r e e n i n g procedures f o r i d e n t i f y i n g "low" and "high" apprehensives f r e q u e n t l y r e s u l t i n sample s i z e s j u s t m a r g i n a l or i n s u f f i c i e n t f o r the subsequent a n a l y s e s . Fur-t h e r , standards f o r d e s i g n a t i n g "high" and "low" apprehensives vary from study t o study, although r e s u l t s are f r e q u e n t l y gener-a l i z e d a c r o s s s t u d i e s . Complete c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i c e s and r e g r e s -s i o n analyses which would al l o w examination of the r e l a t i v e or j o i n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o w r i t i n g apprehension scores are r a r e l y r e p o r t e d . F i n a l l y , w r i t i n g apprehension i s p e r s i s t e n t l y viewed as a dependent measure, w i t h i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s f o c u s i n g on causal l i n k s w i t h other v a r i a b l e s — p a r t i c u l a r l y w r i t i n g competence — r a t h e r than on a s s o c i a t i o n s . Although the e a r l i e s t research by Daly and h i s colleagues i n d i c a t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t f o r sex on WAT scores, and previous research has c o n s i s t e n t l y i n d i c a t e d sex to be a strong p r e d i c t o r of w r i t i n g competence, reading a t t i t u d e s , mathematics a n x i e t y , communications anxiety and occu-p a t i o n a l and academic choices, no attempt appears to have been made t o p a r t i a l out the c o n t r i b u t i o n of sex when these v a r i a b l e s are c o r r e l a t e d w i t h w r i t i n g apprehension. In s t u d i e s where sub-j e c t s have been c l a s s i f i e d as "high" and "low" apprehensives, the number of males and females assigned to each group has not been reported, suggesting t h a t a dramatic sex imbalance may have occurred between apprehension groups. The WAT appears to be a h i g h l y r e l i a b l e and p r a c t i c a b l e measure of an a f f e c t i v e dimension of w r i t i n g f o r undergraduate populations. I t c l e a r l y taps a s u b j e c t - s p e c i f i c dimension; given the high a s s o c i a t i o n s i t demonstrates with other more g e n e r a l l y l a b e l l e d w r i t i n g a t t i t u d e s c a l e s — f o r example, 0.92 w i t h the Thompson (197 8) s c a l e w i t h no c o r r e c t i o n f o r a t t e n t u a t i o n -- no d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y can be claimed. There i s no evidence t h a t i t v a l i d l y measures an a f f e c t i v e component •— f e a r or a n x i e t y — d i s c r e t e from general a t t i t u d e toward w r i t i n g . I n s t r u c t i o n i n w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n Current p r a c t i c e s . To p l a c e i n t o p e r s p e c t i v e the r e s e a r c h on v a r i o u s i n s t r u c t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s , i t i s worth examining r e c e n t d e s c r i p t i o n s of c u r r e n t p r a c t i c e s (Applebee, 1980; Applebee e t a l , 1980). While the N a t i o n a l Study of Secondary School W r i t i n g d e a l s e x c l u s i v e l y with p r a c t i c e s i n American s c h o o l s , there i s no evidence to i n d i c a t e t h a t r e s u l t s do not apply t o Canadian s e t t i n g s , where p r a c t i t i o n e r s are exposed t o the same p r o f e s s i o n -a l l i t e r a t u r e , use "Canadianized" v e r s i o n s of many of the same textbooks and t e s t s , belong to the same p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a -t i o n s and appear t o have s i m i l a r -- extremely s m a l l -- propor-t i o n s of t h e i r t r a i n i n g devoted t o s t r a t e g i e s f o r t e a c h i n g w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n . The N a t i o n a l Study was composed of two r e l a t e d strands of r e s e a r c h : classroom o b s e r v a t i o n s i n two h i g h schools over a f u l l academic year, and a n a t i o n a l survey q u e s t i o n n a i r e of t e a c h e r s i n s i x s u b j e c t areas, each of whom had been nominated by a p r i n c i p a l as a "good" teacher. Applebee and h i s c o l l e a g u e s (1980) comment: Because of the method used t o s e l e c t these t e a c h e r s , the"sample as a whole was skewed toward b e t t e r teachers and c l a s s e s ; the t e a -chers responding had more experience and more s u p e r v i s o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s than the t y p i c a l teacher, and students of below aver-age a b i l i t i e s are underrepresented i n the c l a s s e s on which the teachers r e p o r t e d . T h e r e f o r e , the p i c t u r e of student w r i t i n g r e p r e s e n t s what might be termed a "best case" v e r s i o n of i n s t r u c t i o n i n American s c h o o l s , (p. 2) W r i t i n g observed was c a t e g o r i z e d by f u n c t i o n — w r i t i n g without composing, i n f o r m a t i o n a l , p e r s o n a l or i m a g i n a t i v e -- and by audience -- no c l e a r audience, w r i t e r o n l y , teacher as examiner, te a c h e r i n d i a l o g u e , or wider audience, known or unknown. The study examined s i x s u b j e c t areas; only those r e s u l t s r e l a t i n g t o the E n g l i s h classroom w i l l be d e s c r i b e d here. W r i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s accounted f o r 41 p e r c e n t of observed c l a s s time, w i t h 16 p e r c e n t of t o t a l E n g l i s h c l a s s time devoted t o p u r e l y mechanical a c t i v i -t i e s — w r i t i n g without composing — such as copying or f i l l i n g i n b l a n k s , and 16 percent to n o t e - t a k i n g , l e a v i n g 8 percent f o r other i n f o r m a t i o n a l tasks -- r e c o r d s , summaries, an a l y s e s , e t c e t e r a — and l e s s than 2 percent f o r p e r s o n a l and i m a g i n a t i v e w r i t i n g combined. Approximately 10 percent of c l a s s time was spent i n completing compositions of a t l e a s t one paragraph i n l e n g t h . The emphasis on w r i t i n g f o r the teacher as examiner was most p r e v a l e n t , with such t y p i c a l assignments as "In a w e l l -organized essay of 150-200 words, e x p l a i n how Odysseus i s a model f o r youth of a l l time", and "Define p o e t r y " (p. 5-6). When s t u -dents were asked about classroom w r i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s , i n f o r m a t i o n -a l uses were most o f t e n c i t e d . Imaginative uses were i n f r e q u e n t -l y r e p o r t e d , and p e r s o n a l uses of w r i t i n g were not r e p o r t e d at  a l l . Teaching techniques were a l s o examined i n terms of the i n -s t r u c t i o n a l support they p r o v i d e d f o r p r e w r i t i n g , w r i t i n g and e d i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s . Applebee (1981) observed: The time devoted to p r e p a r a t i o n f o r w r i t i n g averaged j u s t over three minutes ... T y p i -c a l l y , t h a t three minutes was devoted t o r e a d i n g the assignment, p a s s i n g out m a t e r i a l s , and answering p r o c e d u r a l q u e s t i o n s about length and due date. Except for occasional brainstorming sessions reported by about a f i f t h of the teachers, there i s no systema-t i c attempt to provide students with s t r a t e -gies for recognizing what information might be relevant, or assessing the extent to which more information might be needed before be-ginning to write. (p. 13) He described the t y p i c a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l pattern as one of write/ react, "the f i r s t phase involving only the student, and the se-cond involving only the teacher" (p. 1 3 ) . The major vehicle for writing i n s t r u c t i o n was seen to be the teacher's comments on and corrections of completed works, focusing on improvements i n s t y l e , l o g i c , organization and writing mechanics, and placing l i t t l e emphasis on development of ideas: When the teacher acts i n the role of examiner, what the student writes about becomes (within cer t a i n limits) i r r e l e v a n t : the task becomes one of demonstrating language s k i l l s rather than extending a shared knowledge base. The kind of writing Ken Macrorie (1976) has c a l l e d "Engfish" i s the natural r e s u l t — writing i n which there i s no commitment from the writer, no purpose or d i r e c t i o n to bring the writing to l i f e ... Though "Engfish" i s easy to r i d i c u l e ... the pressure toward such writing within the school s i t u a t i o n i s a powerful one. It gets i n s t i t u -t i o n a l i z e d i n a concern with mechanical s k i l l s and "correctness" and has recently received added impetus from the competency movement. (1981, p. 21-22) Applebee and his colleagues o f f e r three suggestions for improving the writing of secondary school students: 1. Provide more situations where writing can serve as a t o o l for learning rather than a means to display acquired knowledge, 2. Provide teachers with a framework drawn from research on the nature of the composing process to f a c i l i t a t e t h e i r analyses of contexts within which they require student writing, and 3. Create contexts where writing serves natural purposes, motivated by a need to communicate and valued as an expression of the writer. (p. 11) In his analyses of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l implications, Applebee (1981a) contends: Simply asking for more writing i s not enough ... Neither w i l l i t be productive to place more emphasis d i r e c t l y on writing s k i l l s ; we w i l l produce an epidemic of Engfish such as that now threatening New York. We have to broaden the range of r h e t o r i c a l s i t uations, to ask students to share information which they possess with others who need to be con-vinced of i t s inte r e s t and importance. And at that point we w i l l have altered the nature of subject area learning as well as broadened our. teaching of writing. (p. 27) Graves (1978a, 1978b) examined the status of writing through on-site v i s i t s i n four regions of the United States, i n England and i n Scotland, through interviews with more than 150 i n d i v i d -uals, and by-examining Post Office data, l i b r a r y c i r c u l a t i o n s , reading, school supply sales, textbook contents, national assess-ment data, teacher preparation and c e r t i f i c a t i o n and federal, state and l o c a l expenditures. He concluded that: Writing i s extolled, worried over, c i t e d as a national p r i o r i t y , but seldom practiced. The problem with writing i s not poor spel-l i n g , punctuation, grammar and handwriting. The problem with writing i s no writing. (1978b, p. 636) 60. Graves contended that reading — the reception of information --has been stressed at the expense of writing -- the sending of information — c i t i n g evidence that for every 100 d o l l a r s spent for reading materials, one d o l l a r i s spent for writing; that for every two hours spent on teaching reading, f i v e minutes are spent on teaching writing; that while 5 percent of research a r t i -cles i n education dealt with reading, writing was not even a category i n a 1969 analysis; that for every 1000 d o l l a r s spent on reading research, one d o l l a r i s spent on writing research; that examination of teacher preparatory courses at 36 u n i v e r s i -t i e s found 169 on reading, 30 on children's l i t e r a t u r e , 21 i n language arts and 2 on the teaching of writing. Graves did see some hope, and delineated c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i n s t r u c t i o n a l situations i n which children's writing appeared to f l o u r i s h : 1. Teachers had high personal standards of craftsmanship, and an artisan's view of the universe where composi-tions or other e f f o r t s were not wrong, merely unfinished; 2. Teachers knew t h e i r students' inter e s t s , learning f o i b l e s and personal struggles, but rarely employed che c k l i s t s , behavioural objectives or detailed plans; 3. A l l forms of expression were valued; 4. Teachers provided other audiences than themselves, and children frequently wrote for each other; 5. Teachers provided time for both the children and them-selves to pa r t i c i p a t e i n the writing process; 6. The teacher's f i r s t response was to content, and re-writing came f i r s t at the point of information. Lang-uage conventions were dealt with only when the f i n a l d raft was ready for an audience; and 7. Writing occurred with a strong sense of community, (p. 642) Graves c o n c l u d e d t h a t c h i l d r e n w i l l w r i t e i f we l e t them, and was adamant t h a t the imbalance between r e c e i v i n g and s e n d i n g messages be r e c t i f i e d . Koops (1978), persuaded t h a t c o m p o s i t i o n " i s t a u g h t w i t h l e s s c o n f i d e n c e and sense of d i r e c t i o n than any o t h e r p a r t of t h e E n g l i s h c u r r i c u l u m " , undertook a s u r v e y o f c o m p o s i t i o n t e x t -books "approved" f o r use by each s t a t e , and by t h e f i f t y l a r g e s t American s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s , on the premise t h a t : Inadequate t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n , i n f r e q u e n t r e - e d u c a t i o n and t h e d a i l y h a s s l e s of t e a -c h i n g encourage many t e a c h e r s t o f o l l o w t e x t b o o k s u n q u e s t i o n i n g l y . And when t e a -c h e r s " t e a c h " t e x t b o o k s ... t h e t e x t b o o k s t h e n d e t e r m i n e the t h e o r e t i c a l a s s u m p t i o n s , the broad s t r a t e g i e s and t h e day-to-day t a c t i c s . (p. 17) G e n e r a l l y , Koops found t h e t e x t b o o k market t o be even more con-s e r v a t i v e t h a n he had h y p o t h e s i z e d , and t h a t t h e g r e a t e s t p r o -p o r t i o n of w i d e l y used t e x t s tended t o p e r p e t u a t e " t r a d i t i o n a l " approaches t o c o m p o s i t i o n . He n o t e d t h a t two of t h e f i v e most f r e q u e n t l y a p p e a r i n g t i t l e s had been i n p r i n t f o r s i x t e e n y e a r s or more i n a t l e a s t f i v e e d i t i o n s , and t h a t f i v e of the s i x most f r e q u e n t l y l i s t e d t i t l e s were grammar/language and composi-t i o n s e r i e s . Koops c o n c l u d e d , based on v i s i t s t o s e v e r a l dozen c l a s s r o o m s , t h a t w r i t i n g . m a t e r i a l s and i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods had not changed s i g n i f i c a n t l y over the p a s t twenty y e a r s , i n s p i t e of s u b s t a n t i a l i n n o v a t i o n s i n o t h e r a r e a s of the c u r r i c u l u m . Hoetker & Brossel (1979), expressing skepticism about con-tentions that English teachers have, i n recent years, "turned away from teaching writing", administered a 41-item Writing Autobiography Questionnaire to 1129 F l o r i d a college and univer-s i t y freshman composition students. They suggest that t h e i r sample was "reasonably representative of the more successful half of students" attending high school during 197 4 through 1977. T h i r t y - s i x percent of students reported writing at least once a week i n high school and a further 3 8 percent "once or twice a month" with the modal assignment length two pages. Thirty-two percent stated topics were usually l i t e r a r y ; 40 per-cent usually chose th e i r own topics. While 75 percent had writ-ten at least one research paper i n high school, only 25 percent had ever been required to keep a journal. Ninety percent report-ed that teachers usually graded t h e i r papers, but less than 25 percent were regularly asked to revise; further, more than 80 percent had never had a conference with a teacher to discuss t h e i r writing, and 92 percent had seldom, i f ever, shared t h e i r work with classmates or other readers. Hoetker & Brossel con-cluded that the students i n t h e i r sample "wrote and wrote rather frequently" (p. 20), a conclusion open to some question, given than 25 percent of the sample reported writing less than once a month as college-bound high school students, and a s i m i l a r pro-portion had not written a research paper during high school. The authors did voice concern about i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods, point-ing p a r t i c u l a r l y to the lack of i n d i v i d u a l i z e d c r i t i c i s m , shared experience and directed r e v i s i o n , and suggested that teachers may not be "laboring i n the ways research and common sense suggest w i l l contribute most to improviing students' writing s k i l l s " (p. 21). Overview of research on i n s t r u c t i o n a l e f f i c a c y When reports of the effects — as opposed to the extent or nature — of variations i n writing i n s t r u c t i o n are sought, i t i s r e a d i l y apparent that few of these have appeared. In a 1979 bibliography of "research and writing about the teaching of com-position" ( Larson, 1979 ) , only 11 of 28 entries reported empir-i c a l data; three of these were reviews. Of the eight reports of o r i g i n a l research, four dealt with i n s t r u c t i o n , three i n the context of college composition courses. For the 1977-78 period, then, with the e x p l i c i t goal to " i d e n t i f y writings that c o n t r i -bute durably to our knowledge about the teaching of composition", one empirical study of i n s t r u c t i o n i n the secondary school q u a l i f i e d ; more than ten offered suggestions or advocated var-ious approaches. This imbalance appears to be t y p i c a l of the li t e r a t u r e on written expression. Empirical studies of instruc-t i o n a l e f f i c a c y appear most frequently i n Dissertation Abstracts  International; few of these studies f i n d t h e i r way into the open l i t e r a t u r e . Haynes (1978), noting that a large proportion of teachers adhere to the b e l i e f that the learning of formal grammar results i n improved writing or that "the only way to teach good writing i s to mark a l l the corrections" (p. 82), undertook to delineate research f i n d i n g s which might e f f e c t changes i n teaching pro-cedures. She examined e i g h t means which have been used i n attempts t o improve composition: 1. t r a d i t i o n a l grammar, 2. s t r u c t u r a l l i n g u i s t i c s , 3. t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar, 4. sentence-combining p r a c t i c e , 5. frequency of w r i t i n g , 6. i n t e n s i v e c o r r e c t i o n , 7. increased reading, and 8. precomposition experiences. The ensuing d i s c u s s i o n of research f i n d i n g s has been organized to accommodate Haynes 1 c a t e g o r i e s as w e l l as more recent d i r e c -t i o n s i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l research, w i t h methods or techniques presented i n the f o l l o w i n g order: 1. grammar and l i n g u i s t i c s , 2. sentence-combining p r a c t i c e , 3. frequency of w r i t i n g , 4. teacher feedback, 5. increased reading, 6. p r e w r i t i n g experiences, 7. classroom o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , 8. workshop and c o l l a b o r a t i v e approaches, 9. peer feedback, and 10. f r e e or personal w r i t i n g . I t should be re c o g n i z e d t h a t these c a t e g o r i e s are not d i s c r e t e , and t h a t placement of some s t u d i e s i s n e c e s s a r i l y somewhat a r -b i t r a r y , although a l l placements are based on the apparent cen-t r a l focus of the r e s e a r c h . G e n e r a l l y , o n l y those s t u d i e s r e l e -vant to high s c h o o l p o p u l a t i o n s or to the problems addressed i n the c u r r e n t study w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n any d e t a i l . Grammar and l i n g u i s t i c s . No r e s e a r c h support e x i s t s f o r the c o n t e n t i o n t h a t study of t r a d i t i o n a l grammar improves s k i l l i n w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n (Haynes, 1978; Sherwin, 1969; Strom, 1960) The most i n f l u e n t i a l — and m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y r i g o r o u s -- study was completed by H a r r i s , and summarized by Braddock e t a l (196 3) F o l l o w i n g a two-year l o n g i t u d i n a l study of twelve to f o u r t e e n -y e a r - o l d s , H a r r i s r e p o r t e d t h a t : The study of E n g l i s h grammatical terminology had a n e g l i g i b l e , or even a r e l a t i v e l y harm-f u l e f f e c t upon the c o r r e c t n e s s of c h i l d r e n ' s w r i t i n g . (Braddock e t a l , 1963, p. 83) More r e c e n t l y , Bowden (197 9) p r o v i d e d evidence t h a t study of formal grammar has no p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on student w r i t i n g s k i l l s or a t t i t u d e s i n the secondary grades. I n t e r e s t i n t r a d i t i o n a l grammar has waned — among r e s e a r c h e r s , i f not p r a c t i t i o n e r s -- with a concomitant waxing of i n t e r -e s t i n s t r u c t u r a l l i n g u i s t i c s and t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar. Sherwin (1969), r e v i e w i n g s e v e r a l s t u d i e s , concluded t h a t " l i n -g u i s t i c s i s about as e f f e c t i v e as t r a d i t i o n a l grammar i n impro-v i n g w r i t i n g " . Subsequent s t u d i e s ( E l l e y , 1976; Meade & Haynes, 1975) demonstrated r e s p e c t i v e l y t h a t t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar had no e f f e c t on w r i t i n g and t h a t a h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of s t u d e n t s have d i f f i c u l t y l e a r n i n g i t s p r i n c i p l e s . Haynes (1978) warned t h a t : W h i l e t h e r e may be l e g i t i m a t e reasons f o r t h e t e a c h i n g of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l o r s t r u c -t u r a l grammar, t e a c h e r s s h o u l d be v e r y c a u t i o u s about th e i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f t h i s s u b j e c t m a t t e r i n t o the c u r r i c u l u m on the grounds t h a t i t w i l l improve w r i t i n g , (p. 87) S e ntence-combining p r a c t i c e . M e l l o n (1969) d e v e l o p e d e x e r -c i s e s w h i c h p r o v i d e d graded e x p e r i e n c e w i t h a v a r i e t y of E n g l i s h s entence p a t t e r n s — t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l s e n t e n c e - c o m b i n i n g — and d emonstrated t h a t such p r a c t i c e i n c r e a s e s s t u d e n t f l u e n c y and m a t u r i t y . W h i l e s t u d e n t s i n M e l l o n ' s s t u d y a l s o r e c e i v e d gram-mar s t u d y , t h o s e i n a r e p l i c a t i o n by O'Hare (1973) d i d n o t ; he, t o o , r e p o r t e d i n c r e a s e s i n s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y t h a t were c o r r e l a -t e d w i t h judged w r i t i n g q u a l i t y . Combs (1976) c i t e d problems i n i n t e r p r e t i n g p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h on e f f e c t s o f s e n t e n c e - c o m b i n i n g and d e s i g n e d a s t u d y t o c l a r i f y p r e v i o u s f i n d i n g s . S t u d e n t s i n f o u r grade seven c l a s s r o o m s wrote c o m p o s i t i o n s p r e - , p o s t - and d e l a y e d p o s t t r e a t m e n t which were a n a l y z e d f o r words p e r T - u n i t , words p e r c l a u s e , and q u a l i t y . S t u d e n t s exposed t o t h e f o u r t e e n s e n t e n c e - c o m b i n i n g e x e r c i s e s e x h i b i t e d g r e a t e r s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y and q u a l i t y of w r i t i n g a t p o s t t e s t i n g and a t d e l a y e d (8 weeks) p o s t t e s t i n g t h a n d i d c o n t r o l s . S u l l i v a n (1977), u s i n g a sample of grade e l e v e n s t u d e n t s , found t h a t exposure t o sentence-com-b i n i n g e x e r c i s e s enhanced s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y , a l t h o u g h t h e r e were no d i f f e r e n c e s between s t u d e n t s exposed t o 15 l e s s o n s and t h o s e who completed 30. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s appeared f o r w r i t i n g q u a l i t y or f o r r e a d i n g achievement s c o r e s . Haswell (1981) r e p o r t e d s i g n i f i c a n t gains — c o n f i n e d l a r g e l y t o s t u -dents with low p r e t e s t scores — i n words-per-clause, and words-p e r - T - u n i t f o l l o w i n g twelve sentence-combining lessons g i v e n t o c o l l e g e freshmen. I t seems c l e a r t h a t p r a c t i c e i n sentence-combining r e s u l t s i n a t l e a s t s h o r t term gains i n s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y as measured by T - u n i t and c l a u s e l e n g t h . I t s e f f e c t on q u a l i t y of w r i t i n g , however, r e q u i r e s f u r t h e r documentation. Frequency of p r a c t i c e . The i d e a t h a t frequency of p r a c t i c e w i l l r e s u l t i n improved w r i t i n g s k i l l s has s t r o n g i n t u i t i v e ap-p e a l , but enjoys no support from r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s when such p r a c t i c e i s unaccompanied by i n s t r u c t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n (Arnold, 1964; C h r i s t i a n s o n , 1965; Heys, 1962; McColly & Remstad, 1963). No r e c e n t r e s e a r c h has been r e p o r t e d which examines simple f r e -quency of w r i t i n g as a s t r a t e g y f o r improving w r i t i n g . Haynes (1978), summarizing t h i s body of r e s e a r c h , concluded t h a t w h i l e r e s u l t s of some s t u d i e s are i n c o n s i s t e n t , "most of them p o i n t to the c o n t e n t i o n t h a t mere w r i t i n g does not improve w r i t i n g " (p. 85). Teacher feedback. While many teachers of composition — p a r t i c u l a r l y those with l i t t l e experience (Deaux, 1981) --attempt t o m a i n t a i n r i g o r o u s c o r r e c t i o n of student e r r o r s , Haynes suggested t h a t " i n t e n s i v e c o r r e c t i o n of e r r o r s i s f u t i l e " (p. 85), c i t i n g s t u d i e s by Adams (1971), A r n o l d (1964), and Buxton (1958) . Other r e s e a r c h has compared a v a r i e t y of methods o f t e a c h e r e v a l u a t i o n . C l a r k (1969), u s i n g a sample o f 141 e l e v e n t h grade s t u d e n t s , found t h a t the number of comments had no e f f e c t , but n e g a t i v e comments were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h lower s t u d e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n and c o n f i d e n c e s c o r e s t h a t were p o s i t i v e comments. Gee (1972) r e p o r t e d t h a t s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e d p o s i -t i v e comments on t h e i r c o m p o s i t i o n s demonstrated g r e a t e r s y n -t a c t i c m a t u r i t y t h a n those who r e c e i v e d no comments or n e g a t i v e comments. Stevens (1973), however, c o n c l u d e d t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the tone o f comments had no e f f e c t on q u a l i t y of c o m p o s i t i o n , a l t h o u g h p o s i t i v e comments were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s toward c o m p o s i t i o n i t s e l f , i n a ten-week s t u d y o f 12 t e n and e l e v e n t h grade c l a s s e s . K e l l e y (1974) l o o k e d a t t h e e f f e c t s of d i r e c t i v e v e r s u s c l a r i f y i n g r e s p o n s e s w i t h s t u d e n t s i n one o f h e r own grade t w e l v e c l a s s e s randomly a s s i g n e d t o t r e a t m e n t f o r one semester. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n p o s t -t e s t e s s a y s , s c o r e d u s i n g an a n a l y t i c r a t i n g s c a l e , were observed. Recent r e s e a r c h has f o c u s e d on n e i t h e r e f f e c t s o f i n t e n s i v e c o r r e c t i o n n or tone o f t e a c h e r r e a c t i o n ; t h e s e do n o t appear t o be c o n t e n t i o u s i s s u e s . The n a t u r e of t e a c h e r - s t u d e n t i n t e r a c -t i o n , however, c o n t i n u e s t o come under s c r u t i n y . Sommers (1981) r e p o r t e d t h a t most t e a c h e r comments f o c u s on m e c h a n i c a l i s s u e s , and t h a t comments are t y p i c a l l y vague, p r o v i d i n g c o n f u s i n g o r c o n t r a d i c t o r y messages. Freedman (1980; 1981) has examined i n t e r a c t i o n i n the w r i t i n g c o n f e r e n c e u s i n g a n a t u r a l i s t i c a p p roach, b u t , t o d a t e , has n o t examined the e f f e c t o f the con-f e r e n c e i n t e r a c t i o n on q u a l i t y o f w r i t i n g . I n c r e a s e d r e a d i n g . W h i l e a p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n between r e a d i n g s k i l l s and w r i t i n g a b i l i t y has c o n s i s t e n t l y been demon-s t r a t e d , and t h e r e i s s t r o n g i n t u i t i v e a p p e a l i n t h e n o t i o n t h a t p r a c t i c e i n r e a d i n g w i l l l e a d t o improved w r i t i n g , l i t t l e e x p e r -i m e n t a l r e s e a r c h on t h i s s t r a t e g y has appeared. Haynes (1978) r e p o r t e d two such s t u d i e s , b o t h completed b e f o r e 19 40 and sug-f e s t e d , i n t h e l i g h t of t h e s e and of o t h e r s t u d i e s where " r e a d -i n g o n l y " was a c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n ( C h r i s t e n s o n , 1965; Heys, 1962), t h a t t e a c h e r s i n c o r p o r a t e a g r e a t e r number of r e a d i n g e x p e r i e n c e s i n t o t h e program. B e l a n g e r (1978), u s i n g e i g h t c l a s s e s of grade n i n e and t e n s t u d e n t s , found no e v i d e n c e o f a c a u s a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e a d i n g p r a c t i c e and improvement i n w r i t i n g s k i l l s . Over a four-month e x p e r i m e n t a l p e r i o d , s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n r e a d i n g achievement were not accompanied by changes i n w r i t i n g p e r f o r -mance. Other e f f o r t s t o enhance s k i l l i n w r i t i n g by i m p r o v i n g r e a d i n g have met w i t h l i t t l e o r no s u c c e s s (Campbell, 1976; M a t t , 1977; O'Donnell, 1974; S c h n e i d e r , 1971). However, as no t e d by F e r r i s (1981), many of t h e s e s t u d i e s have been unsuc-c e s s f u l i n i m p r o v i n g r e a d i n g s k i l l s as w e l l . P r e w r i t i n g e x p e r i e n c e s . The e f f e c t s of p r e w r i t i n g e x p e r -i e n c e s have been the f o c u s o f a number of p e d a g o g i c a l and r e -s e a r c h r e p o r t s . P e t r o s k y & B r o z i c k (1979), f o r example, propose a t h r e e - s t a g e model t o g u i d e i n s t r u c t i o n of w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n , w i t h the f i r s t s t a g e , c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n , i n c o r p o r a t i n g e x p l o r a -t i o n of the r t h e s i s o r t o p i c , g e n e r a l d i s c u s s i o n , and c o n s i d e r a -70. tion of options i n r h e t o r i c a l strategies. Macrorie (1968) ad-vocated group discussions, r e f l e c t i o n s , dramatics, brainstorm-ing, use of media, research, and reading as alternatives i n preparing to write. Murray (1978) has deplored the product-oriented view of writing which, he contends, ignores the more important process. He c a l l e d for increased attention to the stage he termed "prevision", with accompanying tolerance and encouragement for students engaged i n t h i s process. He ex-pressed serious concern for what he viewed as widespread rejec-t i o n of the writing process i n classroom situations: We command our students to write and grow frustrated when our bad students hesitate, stare out the window, dawdle over blank paper, give up and say "I can't write", while good students smugly pass th e i r pa-pers i n before the end of the period. When publishing writers v i s i t such c l a s s -rooms, they are astonished at students who can write on command, ejaculating correct l i t t l e essays without thought, for writers have to think before writing. The writers were the students who dawdled, stared out windows, and, more often than we would l i k e to admit, didn't do well i n English ... or i n school. (1978, p. 92) Research has tended to support his contentions that prewriting i s t y p i c a l l y ignored (Applebee et a l , 1980; Emig, 1971) and that strategies that focus on prewriting lead to improved written expression (Odell, 1970; Meyers, 1980; Pisano, 1980; R a d c l i f f e , 1972; Widvey, 1971). The "workshop" approach, to be discussed in a subsequent section, invariably includes a major prewriting component. A few studies have focused on observational/sensory s t r a t e -gies, executed during the prewriting phase. Trageser (1979) i n -vestigated whether v i s u a l perception t r a i n i n g and practice would sharpen students' perceptions and lead to increased s p e c i f i c i t y i n t h e i r writing. She matched 15 grade eleven and 15 grade twelve experimental students with controls on the basis of grade, sex and I.Q. The " v i s u a l " group responded to writing tasks which stressed substance of ideas rather than form, were loosely structured, and offered several ideas to choose from. Assign-ments, generally, c a l l e d for open-ended language production as a r e s u l t of guided observation. Controls were presented with model texts, required to adhere to a given format, and selected topics from t h e i r own memories. S i g n i f i c a n t treatment e f f e c t s are re-ported for self-assessment of writing, for reasons for writing, for Primary T r a i t rating of a posttest essay and for category scores for vocabulary, elaboration, word usage, f i g u r a t i v e lang-uage, dialogue, emotional quali t y , supportive d e t a i l s and focus. No differences were found on apprehension scores, or on organiza-t i o n and structure ratings. Serious methodological flaws, p a r t i -c u l a r l y i n terms of design and analyses -- a series of univariate ANOVA's with no attempt to account for i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the large number of dependent variables — suggest that r e s u l t s of t h i s study be viewed'with reservation. Wilson (1976) used two treatment groups — one wrote from d i r e c t contact sensory s t i m u l i , the other from pictures of sen-sory stimuli — and a control group i n a f i f t e e n week study of e f f e c t s of sensory experience on student perception as demonstra-ted i n written composition. Treatments were r i g i d l y structured: within a 50-minute class, the f i r s t 5 minutes were spent exposing the group to a writing stimulus, the next 15 minutes were spent discussing perceptions of the stimulus, and the f i n a l 30 compos-ing. Two pretreatment and two posttreatment writing samples for each student were analyzed for "descriptiveness" and "i n t e r e s t " a f t e r being corrected for mechanics, coded and typed. The Wil-coxin Matched-Pairs Signed Ranks Test indicated that the experi-mental students had demonstrated greater gains i n ratings than the controls, but no differences emerged between the two experi-mental groups. Wilson concluded that practice i n writing enabled students i n the treatment groups to write more d e s c r i p t i v e l y , but that f i r s t hand sensory experience did not enhance the descrip-tiveness or the i n t e r e s t of t h e i r writing. Wilson's r e s u l t s , too, must be received with caution, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n view of pro-cedures he used i n determining which data would be analyzed: although the o r i g i n a l sample was one of convenience and involved fewer than 40 students, "only the scores of the more descriptive pre- and post-samples were compared". No attempt was made to control for i n d i v i d u a l differences, or, indeed, even to describe the sample on dimensions other than "descriptiveness" and " i n t e r -est" of written compositions. The finding of no difference be-tween the two "sensory" groups was based on Sign Test analysis of only eight pairs of themes. Sjostrum (1976) and H i l l o c k s (1979) r e p o r t e d gains i n both degree of s p e c i f i c i t y and q u a l i t y of o v e r a l l w r i t i n g f o l l o w i n g exposure to i n s t r u c t i o n a l u n i t s based on o b s e r v a t i o n a l a c t i v i -t i e s . An e x t e n s i v e s e t of e x e r c i s e s was developed which moved from c l o s e o b s e r v a t i o n , through r e c o r d i n g , to s h a r i n g r e p o r t s of experiences ( H i l l o c k s , 1974). Three s t u d i e s w i t h high s c h o o l samples were r e p o r t e d . Experimental c l a s s e s spent t h e i r time almost e x c l u s i v e l y i n o b s e r v a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s , r e c o r d i n g v i s u a l , t a c t i l e , a u d i t o r y , o l f a c t o r y and i n t e r n a l sensory p e r c e p t i o n s . Each a c t i v i t y i n c l u d e d o r a l responses, n o t e t a k i n g or w r i t i n g s h o r t compositions. Students i n c o n t r o l c l a s s e s r e c e i v e d i n s t r u c t i o n i n p a r a -graph s t r u c t u r e , which t y p i c a l l y i n v o l v e d work wit h t o p i c sen-tences, s u p p o r t i n g d e t a i l s , c o n c l u d i n g sentences, d e l i n e a t i o n of purpose, and u n i t y . They used models w r i t t e n by p r o f e s s i o n a l w r i t e r s . Students were gi v e n o p p o r t u n i t i e s to read and comment on each o t h e r s ' work. A number of elements were h e l d constant across treatments: the number of models examined f o r use of sensory d e t a i l s , the number of small group work and peer e v a l u -a t i o n s e s s i o n s , the number of n o t e t a k i n g a c t i v i t i e s , and the num-ber of compositions. Two compositions were c o l l e c t e d from each student a t p r e - and p o s t t e s t i n g ; one a t each t e s t i n g p e r i o d was w r i t t e n i n c l a s s , the other o u t s i d e c l a s s . One i n v o l v e d d e s c r i p -t i o n of a person or p l a c e of the student's c h o i c e , the second, an event and i t s consequences. Papers were r a t e d u s i n g a 5-point s c a l e , developed u s i n g papers from a p i l o t study, which p r o v i d e d both d e s c r i p t i v e and exemplary anchors. I n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t i e s ranged from .85 to .93. The two pretest scores were summed, as were the two posttest scores, and a two-way ANCOVA by teacher and method effected, covarying on pretest scores. S i g n i f i c a n t main ef f e c t s for both teacher and method appeared, but there was no teacher-by-method in t e r a c t i o n . Samples of pre- and posttests selected on the basis of extreme gains i n s p e c i f i c i t y over time were also examined for c r e a t i v i t y . The c o r r e l a t i o n between s p e c i f i c i t y rating and c r e a t i v i t y r ating was estimated at 0.83. A separate sample was rated for organization/support of general-iz a t i o n s ; the r e s u l t i n g c o r r e l a t i o n with s p e c i f i c i t y was .85. When mean gain scores for organization were analyzed using a t - t e s t , a s i g n i f i c a n t treatment e f f e c t favoured the observa-t i o n a l group. H i l l o c k s , seeking explanation of the marked changes i n the observation, notes that comparison of student writing from pre- to post-treatment: suggests that the observing a c t i v i t i e s did prompt students f i r s t , i n Gestalt terms, to examine parts of larger segregated shapes (and thus, f i n d new ones) and second, to re-organize to f i n d new r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The most common s h i f t i s that of focusing down on parts of larger wholes. In pretest com-positions, students tend to record the l a r -ger shapes of what they have seen. In the posttest compositions, they tend to focus on the parts of the larger experience so that those detailed shapes become s i g n i f i -cant, (p. 33) Hi l l o c k s observed that, i f t h i s explanation of re s u l t s proves v a l i d , the t r a d i t i o n a l emphasis on verbal models i n learning to write may be inappropriate, and that the examination of exper-ience from a variety of perspectives might be more e f f e c t i v e i n improving student writing. C l a s s r o o m o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Recent concerns w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n a l c o s t s , and the r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a number o f f e d e r a l l y funded p r o j e c t s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s be e v a l u a t e d , have g i v e n r i s e t o a number o f s t u d i e s o f c l a s s s i z e and r e -so u r c e a l l o c a t i o n e f f e c t s . Smith (1974) compared grade e l e v e n s t u d e n t s ' s c o r e s on a s t a n d a r d i z e d language a r t s t e s t , an a n a l y -t i c a l l y r a t e d e s s a y and a measure of p r e f e r e n c e t o a s s e s s e f f e c t s of l a r g e group, s m a l l group, and i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n . She r e p o r t e d t h a t s t u d e n t s p r e f e r r e d s m a l l group o r i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n t o t r a d i t i o n a l l a r g e c l a s s i n s t r u c t i o n , and t h a t t h e y demonstrated g r e a t e r g a i n s i n knowledge o r w r i t i n g s k i l l s and i n w r i t i n g performance. D a v i s (1979) a s s e s s e d t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f a T i t l e I program which p r o v i d e d f o r d e c r e a s e s i n c l a s s s i z e and i n s t r u c t i o n a l a i d e h e l p . She compared h o l i s t i c r a t i n g s o f t h r e e w r i t i n g samples and s c o r e s on a s t a n d a r d i z e d language t e s t f o r T i t l e I s u p p o r t e d E n g l i s h / w r i t i n g c l a s s e s w h i c h c o n t a i n e d 10 t o 15 s t u d e n t s w i t h an a i d e a s s i g n e d , and f o r d i s t r i c t - s u p p o r t e d c l a s s e s w h i c h c o n t a i n e d 20 t o 25 s t u d e n t s and no i n s t r u c t i o n a l a i d e . She r e p o r t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r g a i n s i n knowledge and performance f o r t h e T i t l e I s t u d e n t s . W h i l e i t i s t e m p t i n g t o c o n c l u d e t h a t s i m p l y r e d u c i n g c l a s s s i z e w i l l l e a d t o improved w r i t i n g performance, s u c c e s s e s demonstrated f o r o t h e r i n t e r a c t i v e workshop programs suggest t h a t e x t e n t o f i n t e r a c t i o n r a t h e r t h a n number o f s t u d e n t s may be a c r i t i c a l v a r i a b l e . Workshop and collaborative approaches. A variety of i n -st r u c t i o n a l approaches have appeared under the "workshop" appel-ation i n recent years. These, often l a b e l l e d "collaborative", maintain some common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : dyadic and small group interactions predominate; personal goal setting i s encouraged; writing i s viewed as a "sharing" a c t i v i t y ; and a supportive environment > conducive to exploration and risk-taking i s sought. On other dimensions, such as c u r r i c u l a r content, degree of structure writing assignments and evaluation methods, they vary considerably. Fox (1980) compared " t r a d i t i o n a l " i n s t r u c t i o n — writing exercises, lectures, discussion, and question-answer sessions about t r a d i t i o n a l r h e t o r i c a l modes with writing exclusively instructor-evaluated — with a workshop approach using six i n -tact classes of freshman composition. He detailed s a l i e n t fea-tures of the workshop approach as follows: 1. Introductory large group a c t i v i t i e s , 2. Paired-student language problem-solving a c t i v i t i e s , 3. Small-group language problem-solving a c t i v i t i e s , 4. Instruction i n the peer evaluation process, 5. Introductory large-group "what-to-look-for" practice, 6. Small groups for sustained peer evaluation, 7. Sp e c i f i c objectives for each essay, and 8. Instructional sequence preceding each essay: a) Large-group c l a r i f i c a t i o n of objectives, b) Large-group o r a l and written practice of objectives sessions, c) I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and discussion of superior and i n f e r -i o r use of "objectives within students' own past writing, d) A c t u a l w r i t i n g of essay, e) Peer group e v a l u a t i o n s e s s i o n s , and f) I n d i v i d u a l r e v i s i o n of w r i t i n g . (p. 49-51) Both workshop and t r a d i t i o n a l c l a s s e s met f o r f i f t y minutes, three times a week over a sixteen-week p e r i o d . Amount of w r i t i n g was held constant, as were essay t o p i c s and assignment of mid-term and f i n a l grades. The WAT was administered pre- and post-treatment, and a two-hour essay, h o l i s t i c a l l y scored, post-treatment only. Analyses of variance revealed no pretreatment d i f f e r e n c e s on WAT scores f o r treatment groups. At p o s t t e s t i n g , both groups demonstrated decreased w r i t i n g apprehension; the ex-perimental group mean was, however, s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than th a t of the t r a d i t i o n a l group. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s by treatment group appeared f o r fluency or f o r h o l i s t i c r a t i n g of essays. Ten "high" apprehensives i n each treatment group were s e l e c t e d on the b a s i s of p r e t e s t WAT scores. At p o s t t e s t i n g , they d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y only on WAT performance. Fox, p r i -m a r i l y i n t e r e s t e d i n the r e d u c t i o n of w r i t i n g apprehension, con-cluded: Experimental students 1 r e d u c t i o n of w r i t i n g apprehension and t h e i r comparable o v e r a l l q u a l i t y of w r i t i n g , c o n s t i t u t e yet another piece of e m p i r i c a l support f o r s t r u c t u r e d student-centred methods of teaching w r i t i n g , (p. 54-55) C l i f f o r d (1975; 1981) found a c o l l a b o r a t i v e method, where s t u -dents wrote f r e e l y on assigned t o p i c s and then, i n small groups, read and commented on t h e i r work, to be more e f f e c t i v e than a " t r a d i t i o n a l " text-based, teacher-centred approach i n improving h o l i s t i c r a t i n g s of e x p e r i e n t i a l w r i t i n g of c o l l e g e freshmen. 78. No differences i n performance on a standardized language te s t or in frequency of errors per 100 words occurred. Salvner (1977) tested e f f e c t s of a six-week collaborative writing unit on attitudes, writing behaviour, and writing a b i l i t y of ninth and tenth grade students. Increases i n prewriting and in writing time were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t for the experi-mental classes while control classes exhibited declines. No s i g -n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on h o l i s t i c ratings of writing performance could be demonstrated. Salvner presents three arguments for collabora-t i v e techniques: 1. They increase classroom i n t e r a c t i o n , o f f e r i n g humanizing influences and peer teaching advantages, 2. They are e f f e c t i v e i n teaching aspects of rhet o r i c , p a r t i c u l a r l y invention techniques and the concept of audience, and 3. They acquaint students with the dynamics of the writing process. Gauntlett (1978) evaluated the ef f e c t s of Project WRITE (Writing Requires Individualized Teaching of English), a T i t l e III pro-ject which provided for the implementation of a workshop teaching environment incorporating personal goal setting, and the encour-agement of peer and in d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n and evaluation. Twenty Project WRITE classes were compared with 20 designated control classes. H o l i s t i c scores were obtained for writing sam-ples completed pre- and posttreatment, but stimulated by the same topic, and scored i n the same session with raters b l i n d to both time and treatment l e v e l . Regression analyses using treatment, sex, language a b i l i t y , grade, class size and pretreatment h o l i s -t i c score as independent variables demonstrated an e f f e c t for treatment a t p = .08 when other i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s had been p a r t i a l l e d out. While language a b i l i t y , c l a s s s i z e and grade had no i n t e r a c t i v e e f f e c t with treatment, sex d i d : male students i n P r o j e c t WRITE s i g n i f i c a n t l y outperformed both male students i n the c o n t r o l group and female students i n the P r o j e c t , w h i l e f e -male students d i s p l a y e d no d i f f e r e n c e s a t t r i b u t a b l e t o treatment, and outperformed males w i t h i n the c o n t r o l group. G a u n t l e t t ad-v i s e d c a u t i o n i n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n , but suggests t h a t workshop approaches o f f e r a promising s t r a t e g y f o r those con-cerned with w r i t i n g s k i l l s of male high s c h o o l students. C o l l a b o r a t i v e or workshop s t r a t e g i e s can c l a i m both i n t u i -t i v e appeal and some r e s e a r c h support. To date, i n v e s t i g a t o r s have c o n s i s t e n t l y demonstrated e f f e c t s on only a f f e c t i v e v a r i a -b l e s ; evidence of performance gains i s tenuous. The l a r g e number of dimensions over which c o n t r o l and experimental treatments have been v a r i e d make g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s d i f f i c u l t . Peer feedback. Karegianes e t a l (1980), n o t i n g t h a t s i g n i -f i c a n t e f f e c t s a t t r i b u t e d to peer e d i t i n g i n p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h were confounded by a v a r i e t y of other i n s t r u c t i o n a l f a c t o r s , de-signed a q u a s i - e x p e r i m e n t a l study to i s o l a t e the e f f e c t s of a h i g h l y - s t r u c t u r e d peer e d i t i n g treatment on e s s a y - w r i t i n g pro-f i c i e n c y of t e n t h grade students. Both p e e r - e d i t and te a c h e r -e d i t groups were exposed to the same i n s t r u c t i o n over a ten-week p e r i o d . In the p e e r - e d i t c o n d i t i o n , however, p a r t i c i p a n t s were p a i r e d weekly by the teacher, read themes w r i t t e n by t h e i r p a r t -ners, and responded u s i n g the same e d i t i n g / r a t i n g sheet as t h a t 80 • used by teacher i n the< other treatment condition. Writing pro-f i c i e n c y of the 49 students was assessed using an an a l y t i c scale with raters b l i n d to time and treatment l e v e l . Multiple l i n e a r regression analysis with treatment l e v e l and pretreatment scores as predictors and pretreatment reading scores and sex as covariates, indicated that treatment l e v e l accounted for 4 percent of the variance when pretest scores (13 percent), reading scores (11 percent), and sex (3 percent) had been p a r t i a l l e d out (p = 0.089). Because a d i r e c t i o n a l hypo-thesis guided the study, the corresponding t - t e s t was conducted and was s i g n i f i c a n t (p < .05). Karegianes and her colleagues concluded that with e f f e c t s of pretreatment reading and writing performance, and sex controlled, peer edit students had s i g n i f i -cantly higher posttest essay achievement than did the teacher edit group. They suggested: Under conditions where students are care-f u l l y taught procedures for editing and assessing each others' work, they can e f f e c t i v e l y function as editors. This i s not to say that teachers should abdicate r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for grading student essays; rather, i t suggests that the procedure for grading essays need not take as much time reading as i s the usual practice. (p. 206) The preceding study, although hampered by a r e l a t i v e l y small sample size, deserves comment for a number of aspects: i t i s a rare attempt to execute a f i e l d study of i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e -gies while maintaining control over variables which have t y p i -c a l l y confounded e f f e c t s demonstrated i n other studies (see, for example, F a r r e l l , 1977). Add i t i o n a l l y , i t i s one of the few s t u d i e s r e v i e w e d i n which r e g r e s s i o n p r o c e d u r e s were employed, p e r m i t t i n g e x a m i n a t i o n o f unique c o n t r i b u t i o n s i n a s i n g l e e q u a t i o n . ( U n f o r t u n a t e l y , s e r i e s o f one- and two-way ANOVA's are more commonly used i n s t u d i e s o f w r i t i n g e m ploying s i m i l a r r e s e a r c h d e s i g n s . ) A d d i t i o n a l l y , i n t e r a c t i o n s between t h e c o -v a r i a t e s and the main e f f e c t were c o n s i d e r e d -- a l t h o u g h t h e purpose was t o de t e r m i n e whether v a r i a n c e due t o c r o s s - p r o d u c t terms c o u l d a p p r o p r i a t e l y be a s s i g n e d t o the r e s i d u a l term, r a t h e r t h a n t o i d e n t i f y h y p o t h e s i z e d i n t e r a c t i o n s . I t s h o u l d be noted t h a t the a n a l y s i s f o l l o w e d O v e r a l l and S p i e g e l ' s (1969) e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n approach, w i t h each c o v a r i a t e a d j u s t e d f o r the o t h e r c o v a r i a t e s . Benson (1979) a l s o examined e f f e c t s o f peer feedback u s i n g d a t a f o r 288 j u n i o r secondary s t u d e n t s c o l l e c t e d b e f o r e and a f t e r a ten-week program w i t h t h r e e t r e a t m e n t l e v e l s : peer i n f o r m a t i o n feedback, peer r e i n f o r c e m e n t feedback, and c o n t r o l — t e a c h e r d i r e c t e d r e v i s i o n . A s e r i e s o f ANCOVA's and ANOVA's performed f o r n i n e dependent measures demonstrated s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s f o r the e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s o v er the c o n t r o l c o n d i -t i o n on q u a l i t y o f w r i t i n g , p a r a g r a p h r e v i s i o n , word r e v i s i o n and t o t a l r e v i s i o n . A s i g n i f i c a n t t r e a t m e n t - b y - s e x i n t e r a c t i o n emerged f o r a t t i t u d e toward w r i t i n g . 8 2. F r e e o r p e r s o n a l w r i t i n g . A f i n a l group of i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t u d i e s d e a l w i t h the e f f e c t s o f e x p r e s s i v e o r p e r s o n a l w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e . D r e u s s i (1976) i n v e s t i g a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s between two c o n t r o l c l a s s e s and two e x p e r i m e n t a l c l a s s e s t o s t u d y t h e e f f e c t s o f e x p r e s s i v e j o u r n a l w r i t i n g on c o l l e g e freshmen. Both groups r e c e i v e d the same c o n t e n t m a t e r i a l and completed the same number o f p a p e r s . I n a d d i t i o n , the e x p e r i m e n t a l group completed j o u r -n a l e n t r i e s which t e a c h e r s responded t o w i t h p e r s o n a l comments, but d i d n o t grade. A t t i t u d e toward E n g l i s h as a s u b j e c t d e c l i n e d f o r b o t h groups. E x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward w r i t i n g improved s i g n i f i c a n t l y , w h i l e t h o s e f o r c o n t r o l s improved f o r s e l f - c o n c e p t and b e l i e f i n a b i l i t y t o e x p r e s s s e l f . No s i g n i f i -c a n t t r e a t m e n t e f f e c t s emerged f o r w r i t i n g q u a l i t y . A p p a r e n t l y , j o u r n a l w r i t i n g was completed i n a d d i t i o n t o " r e g u l a r " i n s t r u c -t i o n , p e r m i t t i n g the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t r e s u l t s were a f f e c t e d by s i m p l e t i m e - o n - t a s k . L i n n (1976) compared e f f e c t s o f (1) a t r a d i t i o n a l approach which emphasized f o r m a l grammar, p u n c t u a t i o n and p a r a g r a p h o r -g a n i z a t i o n , (2) a f r e e w r i t i n g approach where time was d i v i d e d between d i s c u s s i o n o f o r g a n i z a t i o n , tone and p o i n t of v i e w , and i n - c l a s s a ssignments -- most o f t e n u n d i r e c t e d — and, (3) a sim-p l i s t i c s t r u c t u r a l approach, a " l o g i c a l , q u a s i - l i n g u i s t i c and diagrammatic approach t o m a n i p u l a t i n g s y n t a c t i c a l u n i t s " (p. 145). One s e c t i o n o f .a freshman c o m p o s i t i o n c o u r s e was a s s i g n e d t o each t r e a t m e n t f o r one semester. Three i n - c l a s s e s s a y s were c o l l e c t e d , as was a s i m i l a r e n d-of-term e s s a y . R e s u l t s o f each a d m i n i s t r a t i o n a r e d e s c r i b e d i n a n e c d o t a l form. L i n n c o n c l u d e d 8 3. that, although the free-form method had a number of advantages, the lack of concern for grammar "although i n i t i a l l y l i b e r a t i n g , proved i n the long run to be negative" (p. 151). He found the " t r a d i t i o n a l " approach to be most e f f e c t i v e o v e r a l l , and ob-served, concerning the s t r u c t u r a l method, that: The general malaise and confusion which the imposition of l i n g u i s t i c s on the com-posi t i o n course caused i n th i s instance i s a frequent r e s u l t of such attempts, regardless of the p a r t i c u l a r school of l i n g u i s t i c thought one i s using. (p. 152) What Linn offers i s , e s s e n t i a l l y , a s i m p l i f i e d case study of three i n s t r u c t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n s . While one might decry the ab-sence of objective data, many of his insights into student pro-gress through the courses o f f e r d e t a i l missing from other ac-counts of writing experiments. Brand (1977) reported p o s i t i v e changes i n self-concept and problem perception i n a study of the therapeutic benefits of free writing; writing competence was not measured. Self (1979), however, concluded that composition for personal growth was i n -compatible with the values of many Americans, and, thus, ought not be included as a compulsory segment of any curriculum. Advocates of personal writing include those such as Judy (1974), Squire & Applebee (1969), and Murray (1978a) who contend that imagination, involvement and i n d i v i d u a l i t y are the key e l e -ments i n the process of writing, and that teacher intervention i s detrimental more often than not. Summary. The preceding discussion provides some basis for the design of experimental studies of i n s t r u c t i o n . F i r s t , i n -st r u c t i o n a l methods which incorporate prewriting experiences and guided practice i n composing, with peer or teacher feedback throughout the writing process show promise. Given the presence of these features, both the nature and degree of structure asso-ciated with prewriting and writing practice may be varied to pro-duce competing but equally defensible treatments.- Previous success with observational a c t i v i t i e s suggests that a similar approach might p r o f i t a b l y form the basis for one treatment l e v e l . The strong advocacy for increased personal and expressive writing accompanied by the low classroom incidence reported for such a c t i v i t i e s suggests that they might provide the, basis for a second l e v e l . It i s inter e s t i n g to note that the research described did not consider the role of i n d i v i d u a l differences i n moderating i n s t r u c t i o n a l e f f e c t s . An alarming number of studies do not even acknowledge the potential effects of such variables as sex, writing a b i l i t y and attitude, or general a b i l i t y . Where such effects are recognized, they are t y p i c a l l y "controlled" through s t r a t i f i c a t i o n or analysis of covariance. Two studies did look for sex-by-treatment e f f e c t s ; s i g n i f i c a n t interactions appeared i n both (Benson, 1979; Gauntlett, 1978). The f a i l u r e of previous research i n w r i t i n g to simultan-eously consider i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s and experimental manipu-l a t i o n of i n s t r u c t i o n i s s t r i k i n g . The r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l propor-t i o n of variance t y p i c a l l y explained by e i t h e r p e r s o n a l o g i c a l or treatment v a r i a b l e s suggests t h a t t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s might pro-f i t a b l y be examined. The f i n a l s e c t i o n of t h i s review examines previous research which has addressed .Aptitude-Treatment-Inter-a c t i o n s (ATI) i n other c u r r i c u l a r areas, i n order to develop the background necessary f o r design of an ATI study i n w r i t t e n ex-pr e s s i o n . Aptitude-Treatment-Interactions An Aptitude-Treatment-Interaction (ATI) i s considered to be demonstrated whenever the r e g r e s s i o n of outcome from one t r e a t -ment d i f f e r s i n slope from the r e g r e s s i o n of outcome from anoth-er upon a measure of some pretreatment c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the le a r n e r . The aptitude may be any c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of an i n d i v i d u a l which f o r e c a s t s p r o b a b i l i t y of success under a given treatment. C o r r e l a t i o n a l s t u d i e s of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s t r e a t s i t u a t i o n -a l variance as " e r r o r " , while experimental s t u d i e s of manipulated s i t u a t i o n s consider i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s "sampling e r r o r " (Cronbach, 1957; 1975). ATI research simultaneously examines both i n d i v i d u a l and s i t u a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s . Cronbach & Snow (1977) observed: The volume of research on l e a r n i n g , i n s t r u c -t i o n , and i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i s enormous; but only l i m i t e d progress has been made t o -ward an i n t e g r a t e d understanding of the na-ture of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n a b i l i t y t o l e a r n ... 8 6 . I n t u i t i v e adaptations, guided by the tea-cher's experience and his impressions of each student, take place continually i n the classroom. The task for research i s to formulate p r i n c i p l e s by which the adaptation of i n s t r u c t i o n can be made systematical and productive. (p. 1) Snow (1977) warned that general i n s t r u c t i o n a l theory incorpora-ting ATI might be unattainable, and urged that researchers focus on developing s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n a l theories, concerned: with narrowly circumscribed l o c a l i n s t r u c -t i o n a l s i t u ations, r e l a t i v e l y small chunks of curriculum for r e l a t i v e l y small segments of the educational population. Such theor-ies would be intended more to generalize across time i n one place than across places, (p. 12) Following review of ATI research, Cronbach & Snow (1977) con-cluded that ATI do exis t , noting: Even the most commonplace adaptation of i n -struction, such as choosing d i f f e r e n t books for more and less capable readers of a given age, rests on an assumption of ATI that seems f o o l i s h to challenge. (p. 492) They defined the substantive research problem as that of discov-ering which c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the person i n t e r a c t dependably with which features of i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods, and elucidated p r i n c i p l e s for the design, execution and interpretation of ATI studies, as well as reviewing and synthesizing previous research. Exploratory nature of ATI research. Cronbach & Snow des-cribe t h e i r synthesis as "only s t a r t i n g toward the high ground from which perspective may be gained" (p. 493), and warn that among ATI hypotheses that might be tested, i t i s l i k e l y that a majority w i l l be f a l s e : Learner x Treatment int e r a c t i o n i s an es s e n t i a l l y new s c i e n t i f i c problem, and reaching consolidated understanding i n such matters often requires decades, (p. 494) While discounting " s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s seined out of a teeming swamp of a p r i o r i speculations" (p. 5 4 ) , Cronbach & Snow are adamant that unanticipated findings be allowed to emerge: The problem i s to f i n d a reporting s t y l e that gives due weight to observations and does not trim the image of r e a l i t y to con-form to the published pattern of asterisks, (p. 55) They c i t e Cohen's (1968) paper on regression analyses i n support of t h e i r point of view. Cohen advocated organizing a hierarchy of "sets" of independent variables, ordered according to a p r i o r i judgement. He contended that the f i r s t such "set", representing the central issue of the research, should contain the indepen-dent variables considered most l i k e l y to be relevant to the de-pendent variable: "These may be thought of as the hypotheses of the research, and the fewer the better" (p. 442). A second set ought then to consist of next order p o s s i b i l i t i e s , variables to be viewed "less as hypotheses and more as exploratory issues". A t h i r d set might be included, to permit "unqualifiedly explora-tory" consideration of further variables — for example, higher 88. o r d e r i n t e r a c t i o n s : I t i s not a m e c h a n i c a l o r d e r i n g t h a t i s i n t e n d e d . I n any g i v e n r e s e a r c h , a cen-t r a l i s s u e may be c a r r i e d by an i n t e r a c -t i o n o r a p o l y n o m i a l a s p e c t w h i l e some main e f f e c t may be q u i t e secondary, (p. 442) A p p l y i n g t h i s s t r a t e g y , i t becomes f e a s i b l e , w i t h i n a s i n g l e s t u d y , b o t h t o examine hypotheses which may l e a d t o the f o r m u l a -t i o n of c o n c l u s i o n s — the u l t i m a t e g o a l o f r e s e a r c h — and t o e x p l o r e i s s u e s which may l e a d t o t h e f o r m u l a t i o n of hy p o t h e s e s . Where p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h has n o t p r o v i d e d a b a s i s f o r the formu-l a t i o n o f h y p o t h e s e s , i n i t i a l work l o g i c a l l y w i l l be e x p l o r a t o r y i n n a t u r e , w i t h f i n d i n g s s u g g e s t i n g hypotheses r a t h e r t h a n con-c l u s i o n s . S e l e c t i o n of a p t i t u d e s . Cronbach & Snow su g g e s t t h a t r e l a -t i o n s of outcomes t o a p t i t u d e p r e t e s t s may be somewhat d i f f e r e n t f o r : 1. t e s t s o f a b s t r a c t , a d a p t i v e p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g w i t h m i n i m a l v e r b a l l o a d i n g , 2. t e s t s o f g e n e r a l i n t e l l e c t u a l development i n c l u d i n g mea-s u r e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n and v e r b a l r e a s o n i n g , 3. t e s t s o f e d u c a t i o n a l development, such as r e a d i n g and study s k i l l s , and 4. p a r t i c u l a r s k i l l s and c o n c e p t s o r s p e c i f i c c o n t e n t of th e l e s s o n s t o be t a u g h t . (p. 497) and d e c r y t h e i n f r e q u e n c y w i t h which measures of g e n e r a l as w e l l as s p e c i f i c a p t i t u d e have been i n c o r p o r a t e d i n a s i n g l e ATI st u d y . I n summarizing p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h , t h e y r e f e r t o t h e f i r s t t h r e e as measures o f " g e n e r a l a b i l i t y " , o f f e r i n g r e a d i n g t e s t s , 89 . g e n e r a l a p t i t u d e b a t t e r i e s , the Hidden F i g u r e s T e s t , and s c h o o l achievement as examples, and r e p o r t t h a t A p t i t u d e - w i t h i n - T r e a t -ment (AT) r e g r e s s i o n slopes t h a t d i f f e r by treatment "are more probable f o r g e n e r a l a b i l i t i e s than f o r any other a p t i t u d e con-s i d e r e d i n the ATI l i t e r a t u r e " (p. 500). Consequently, t e s t s of g e n e r a l a b i l i t y should be a d m i n i s t e r e d i n order to permit c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the hypotheses t h a t g e n e r a l a b i l i t y e x p l a i n s AT r e g r e s s i o n found f o r more s p e c i f i c t e s t s . A s i m i l a r argument i s presented f o r i n c l u s i o n of p r e t e s t s of the content t o be taught. Tobias (1976) argues f o r a focus on Achievement Treatment I n t e r a t i o n s , p r e s e n t s the case a g a i n s t the " a l t e r n a t i v e a b i l i -t i e s " model f o r i n t e r a c t i o n r e s e a r c h , and contends t h a t : 1. i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods cannot be designed to r e l y e x c l u s i v e l y on one s e t of a b i l i t i e s , 2. a b i l i t i e s r e q u i r e d by a g i v e n task are not t e m p o r a l l y c o n s i s t e n t , 3. a b i l i t i e s do not g e n e r a l i z e from one c u r r i c u l a r area t o another, and 4. i t i s not p r a c t i c a b l e t o prepare completely a l t e r n a t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l t r a c k s . (p. 62) He suggests t h a t where p r i o r achievement i s the " a p t i t u d e " v a r -i a b l e i n an ATI study, g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s t o guide r e s e a r c h and i n s t r u c t i o n can be formulated, and o f f e r s , as an example, f i n d -ings of s e v e r a l s t u d i e s t h a t the h i g h e r the l e v e l of p r i o r achievement, the lower the l e v e l of i n s t r u c t i o n a l support r e -q u i r e d t o accomplish i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s (p. 6 7 ) . The im-l i c a t i o n s of a c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g i n v o l v i n g achievement — r a t h e r 90 . than alternate a b i l i t i e s — he sees as: 1. Laborious analysis of psychological processes required by a task become less important. Detailed pretesting would e f f e c t i v e l y be an operational d e f i n i t i o n of the students' readiness to cope with the content, 2. Findings may transfer from task to task i n predicting optimal i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategy, and 3. ATI's involving p r i o r achievement can be e a s i l y studied. S p e c i f i c aptitudes, i n Cronbach & Snow's terms, include those variables which provide information d i s t i n c t -- although often related -- to general a b i l i t i e s . Pretests of unit content are subsumed i n thi s category, along with tests of motivational variables, measures of s p a t i a l and mathematical a b i l i t y , memory tests and p r i o r learning experience. Regardless of the aptitude measures selected, u n r e l i a b i l i t y must be taken into account. Snow (1978) contends that disatten-uation i s indispensable where the development of theory i s i n -volved, and Cronbach & Snow observe that when two treatment groups are sampled from the same population, "the point at which the AT regressions cross w i l l s h i f t as the r e l i a b i l i t y of the aptitude measure i s changed" (p. 33). They also point out that while u n r e l i a b i l i t y of the outcome measure does not bias i n t e r -pretation of ATI -- the regression of the observed Y onto X has the same equation as the regression of true Y onto X — an un-r e l i a b l e outcome measure may a f f e c t significance tests by increa-sing the error term (p. 34) . 91. Treatments. Cronbach and Snow suggest that aptitudes and treatments can be matched to c a p i t a l i z e on strengths, to compen-sate for weaknesses or to remediate. They may occur simultan-eously i n an ATI study. Where competing methods of i n s t r u c t i o n e x i s t i n the f i e l d , the investigator may accept "treatment" as fixed, and select aptitudes on the basis of learner s k i l l s , s t y l e s , processes and prerequisite information implied by each treatment. In examining previous research, Cronbach and Snow found that treatments generally "suffered from brevity and a r t i -f i c i a l i t y " , stating: The question before us i s how students respond to i n s t r u c t i o n a l treatments. We are not going to learn-this from studies that, mimicking l a -boratory experiments, present a single b r i e f lesson r e p e t i t i v e l y u n t i l i t i s mastered, or confine i n s t r u c t i o n to a d r i l l - a n d - p r a c t i c e mode with no explanation, or introduce a r t i -f i c i a l l y motivating procedures. We w i l l need to c o l l e c t data from i n s t r u c t i o n a l procedures that r e a l i s t i c a l l y progress through a body of material. The procedures should be good i n -struction, insofar as one can judge a p r i o r i or by tryouts. The in s t r u c t i o n should be con-tinued long enough that the student i s thor-oughly f a m i l i a r with the style of the ins t r u c -t i o n ; educational p o l i c y cannot be based on what the student does i n his f i r s t encounter with an i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t y l e . (p. 509) Where g e n e r a l a b i l i t i e s a r e the d e s i g n a t e d a p t i t u d e s , t r e a t m e n t s which v a r y i n degree of i n s t r u c t i o n a l s u p p o r t have c o n s i s t e n t l y demonstrated i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s : "When one t r e a t m e n t i s f u l l y e l a b o r a t e d w h i l e the o t h e r l e a v e s much o f the burden o f o r g a n i -z a t i o n and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t o the l e a r n e r , t he r e g r e s s i o n s l o p e f o r the former tends to be l e s s steep" (p. 5 0 0 ) . Tobias ( 1 9 7 6 ) examining i n t e r a c t i o n s of achievement and treatment, reached a l i k e c o n c l u s i o n . Results of recent ATI research (Corno e t a l , 1 9 8 1 ; J a n i c k i & Peterson, 1 9 8 1 ; Peterson, 1 9 7 7 ) are c o n s i s t e n t . When Cronbach and Snow examined ATI research by content area, they found " v i r t u a l l y no research on productive kinds of thought ... (such as) w r i t t e n expression as d i s t i n c t from gram-mar ... " (p. 5 0 9 ) , and suggested the d i f f i c u l t i e s i n v o l v e d i n designing and a p p r a i s i n g experimental i n s t r u c t i o n i n the "highe forms of l e a r n i n g " as a probable cause. The l i t e r a t u r e search conducted f o r the present study confirmed the absence of ATI research i n w r i t i n g . Summary Grave concern has been expressed about the s t a t u s of student performance and i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r a c t i c e s i n w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n . R e s u l t s of performance t e s t s and o b s e r v a t i o n a l s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e p e r v a s i v e weaknesses i n student w r i t i n g s k i l l s , p a r t i c u l a r l y among high s c h o o l students, and p o i n t to a l a c k of i n s t r u c t i o n and w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e i n hig h school classrooms. L i t e r a t u r e reviewed p o i n t e d to the importance of d e f i n i t i o n i n the development of v a l i d measures of w r i t i n g performance. H o l i s t i c s c a l e s , i n c l u d i n g Primary T r a i t S c o r i n g employed by NAEP and the D i r e c t e d W r i t i n g s c a l e s developed f o r the B.C. Assessment have demonstrated r e l i a b i l i t y f o r t r a i n e d r a t e r s , and where accompanied by c a r e f u l d e l i n e a t i o n of the tasks and s c o r i n g c r i t e r i a , p r o v i d e v a l i d estimates of s p e c i f i e d w r i t i n g s k i l l s . A number of a s s o c i a t i o n s have been demonstrated between w r i t i n g performance and other v a r i a b l e s . These i n c l u d e sex, language background, geographic l o c a t i o n , p a r e n t a l e d u c a t i o n and socio-economic s t a t u s . W r i t i n g a l s o c o r r e l a t e s p o s i t i v e l y --but not always s t r o n g l y — with g e n e r a l a b i l i t y measures such as I.Q. and readi n g comprehension. Few s t u d i e s have examined asso-c i a t i o n s between w r i t i n g and c o g n i t i v e s t y l e ; those completed are i n c o n c l u s i v e , but appear to support a p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n between w r i t i n g and f i e l d independence. A f f e c t i v e dimensions, i n c l u d i n g w r i t i n g apprehension, are p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to performance, to 9 4 . general a b i l i t y and to a f f e c t i v e components of other verbal s k i l l s , but negatively associated with attitudes toward quanti-t a t i v e areas such as mathematics. Research findings on the e f f i c a c y of i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e -gies include few replicated e f f e c t s . While sentence-combining practice has consistently been associated with increased syn-t a c t i c maturity, i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to judged qu a l i t y of writing i s less c l e a r . The most promising research findings are asso-ciated with prewriting a c t i v i t i e s , with collaborative and work-shop approaches, with t r a i n i n g i n observations, and with peer feedback. These, too, are less than s a t i s f y i n g to the c r i t i c a l reader of research. They tend to be based on small samples, reports f a i l to specify how quality of writing was determined, and analyses tend to be unsophisticated, often f a i l i n g to control for associations with potent "nuisance" variables. No research on aptitude-treatment-interactions i n written expression could be located. Guidelines for conducting ATI studies developed by Cronbach and Snow i n th e i r synthesis of ATI research were reviewed, and the observation noted that, where general a b i l i t i e s are the designated aptitudes, treatments which vary i n degree of i n s t r u c t i o n a l support have consistently demon-strated a steeper regression slope for the less f u l l y elaborated treatment. The g e n e r a l and s p e c i f i c r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s d e v e l o p e d i n r e s p o n s e t o the problem r a i s e d a t the b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s c hapte and s u b s t a n t i a t e d t h r o u g h the l i t e r a t u r e r e v i e w a r e p r e s e n t e d i n the s u c c e e d i n g c h a p t e r . CHAPTER II RESEARCH OBJECTIVES This study was designed to permit consideration of the following broad research questions: 1. What associations e x i s t among student biodemographic, a b i l i t y , achievement and attitude variables within the context of written expression? 2. Do d i f f e r e n t i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies lead to d i f f e r -e n t i a l student development in writing s k i l l s and a t t i -tudes? 3. Do certain student c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s — cognitive, a f f e c -t i v e and biodemographic — intera c t with d i f f e r e n t approaches to enhance student achievement or s a t i s f a c -t i o n i n written expression? This study responds to Recommendation 2 8 of the B.C. Writ-ten Expression Summary Report: It i s recommended that educational research-ers conduct research into various methods of teaching written expression to determine which i n s t r u c t i o n a l systems are most e f f i c a c i o u s . Such studies should be designed to provide information to a s s i s t teachers and adminis-trators i n selecting teaching methods, i n man-aging marking loads, i n arranging timetables and class groupings, and ultimately, i n im-proving the quality of writing i n classrooms. (Conry & Rodgers, 1978, p. 68) The study i s regarded as exploratory and descriptive, re-f l e c t i n g the nature of the extant information base and the var-i e t y and complexity of the questions that can be asked about both Aptitude-Treatment-Interactions and written expression. The e x p l o r a t o r y n a t u r e o f t h e r e s e a r c h m i t i g a t e d a g a i n s t e s t a -b l i s h i n g h y p o t h e s e s t o be t e s t e d i n o r d e r t o v a l i d a t e t h e o r y . A s e r i e s o f s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s a r e p r e s e n t e d below, g r o u p e d by b r o a d r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n . A s s o c i a t i o n o f b i o d e m o g r a p h i c , c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e v a r i a b l e s The f i r s t s e t o f s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s r e l a t e t o t h e m e a s u r e -ment o f e n t r y - l e v e l b e h a v i o u r s on t h e v a r i a b l e s o f i n t e r e s t : 1. What a r e t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e s a m p l e s i n t e r m s o f se x , g r a d e and l a n g u a g e b a c k g r o u n d ? 2. What i s t h e p e r f o r m a n c e l e v e l o f t h e sample on m e a s u r e s o f g e n e r a l a b i l i t y — s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e S t a n f o r d A c h i e v e -ment T e s t : R e a d i n g C o m p r e h e n s i o n , and t h e H i d d e n F i g u r e s T e s t (ETS, 1962)? 3. What d e g r e e o f c o g n i t i v e c o m p l e x i t y i s d i s p l a y e d by t h e s a m p l e ? 4 . What d e g r e e o f competence i s d i s p l a y e d by t h e sample on n a r r a t i v e h o l i s t i c , and d e s c r i p t i v e D i r e c t e d W r i t i n g t a s k s ? 5. I n g l o b a l t e r m s , what i s t h e n a t u r e o f s t u d e n t s ' a t t i -t u d e t o w a r d w r i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s ? 6. What i s t h e p a t t e r n o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s among w r i t i n g p e r -f o r m a n c e s c o r e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h an e x t e n d e d n a r r a t i v e e x e r c i s e and t h o s e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h d e s c r i p t i v e D i r e c t e d W r i t i n g e x e r c i s e s ? 7. F o r G l o b a l and f o r D i r e c t e d W r i t i n g p e r f o r m a n c e s c o r e s , what p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e v a r i a n c e c an be a t t r i b u t e d t o i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b l e s r e p r e s e n t i n g b i o d e m o g r a p h i c , c o g -n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e v a r i a b l e s ? 8. What d e g r e e o f a s s o c i a t i o n s e x i s t between a t t i t u d e t o -ward w r i t i n g s c o r e s and b i o d e m o g r a p h i c , g e n e r a l a b i l i t y and w r i t i n g p e r f o r m a n c e m e a s u r e s ? D i f f e r e n t i a l e f f i c a c y of treatments To examine the second research question, i t was necessary to apply two experimental conditions and a control condition. The experimental conditions were varied i n the nature of the prewriting experiences provided, and i n the degree of i n s t r u c -t i o n a l support offered. These treatments are described i n de-t a i l i n Chapter Three, and i n s t r u c t i o n a l materials are provided in Appendix A. Two s p e c i f i c research questions were enabled by these conditions: 1. Given experimental and control conditions for written expression, are there experimental e f f e c t s for global writing s k i l l s , directed writing s k i l l s or attitude toward writing? 2. Given two experimental i n s t r u c t i o n a l conditions, are there outcome differences on student writing s k i l l s as measured by global and directed writing tasks, on stu-dent attitude toward writing, or on student s a t i s f a c -t i o n with instruction? Aptitude-treatment-interactions Given the number of variables under consideration, i t was important to select from the possible interactions those which would be considered. While some could be selected a p r i o r i , f i n a l s election required examination of the variance-covariance matrix produced for the biodemographic, cognitive and a f f e c t i v e variables measured. The a b i l i t y and performance variables were selected to permit consideration of the following questions: 1 . Does e n t r y - l e v e l w r i t i n g p e r f o r m a n c e d i f f e r e n t i a l l y a f f e c t s t u d e n t g r o w t h and r e s p o n s e t o t r e a t m e n t ? 2. I s t h e r e an i d e n t i f i a b l e i n t e r a c t i o n between sex and a s s i g n m e n t t o t r e a t m e n t ? 3. Can r e a d i n g c o m p r e h e n s i o n o r f i e l d i n d e p e n d e n c e (HFT) s c o r e s be u s e d t o p r e d i c t d i f f e r e n t i a l g r o w t h o r s a t i s -f a c t i o n due t o a s s i g n m e n t t o t r e a t m e n t ? 4. I s t h e r e an i n t e r a c t i o n between a t t i t u d e t o w a r d w r i t i n g and n a t u r e o f i n s t r u c t i o n ? 5. A r e t h e r e s e c o n d - o r d e r i n t e r a c t i o n s between s e x , a s s i g n ment t o t r e a t m e n t , and t h e v a r i a b l e s i d e n t i f i e d above? A g a i n , i t was r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e n a t u r e and d e g r e e o f a s s o c i a t i o n s among t h e v a r i a b l e s m e a s u r e d would a f f e c t d e c i s i o n s r e -g a r d i n g t h e i n t e r a c t i o n a n a l y s e s . I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n The e x t e n t o f i n s t r u m e n t d e v e l o p m e n t r e q u i r e d i n e x e c u t i o n o f t h e s t u d y n e c e s s i t a t e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f some s u b s i d i a r y q u e s -t i o n s : 1 . What i s t h e e f f e c t o f v a r y i n g (a) p i c t o r a l , (b) g r a p h i c o r (c) t e x t u a l m a t e r i a l i n w r i t i n g t a s k s d e s i g n e d t o be n o m i n a l l y p a r a l l e l ? 2. Can a t t i t u d e t o w a r d w r i t i n g r e l i a b l y be a s s e s s e d u s i n g a p r a c t i c a b l e i n s t r u m e n t ? 3. Can c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r s o f d i v e r g e n t b a c k g r o u n d s and i n g e o g r a p h i c d i v e r s e l o c a t i o n s be t r a i n e d t o u s e t h e same s c o r i n g p r o c e d u r e s r e l i a b l y ? I n summary, two i n s t r u c t i o n a l a p p r o a c h e s f o r w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n were d e f i n e d , and a s e t o f v a r i a b l e s c o n s i d e r e d r e l e v a n t t o w r i t i n g p e r f o r m a n c e and s a t i s f a c t i o n i d e n t i f i e d . P e r f o r m a n c e 1 0 0 . l e v e l and patterns of association among these variables were considered. Comparative e f f e c t s of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l approaches and a control (no instruction) condition were assessed. Possible aptitude-treatment-interactions were sought between various bio-demographic, general a b i l i t y and writing performance variables, and treatment l e v e l . A d d i t i o n a l l y , psychometric issues related to the measurement of writing performance and attitudes were addressed. 101. CHAPTER I I I PROCEDURES T h i s study was designed t o permit the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of A p t i t u d e - T r e a t m e n t - I n t e r a c t i o n s i n w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n . Proced-ures were developed i n accordance with p r i n c i p l e s e l u c i d a t e d by Cronbach & Snow (1977) i n t h e i r comprehensive review of ATI r e -search, s u b t i t l e d A handbook f o r r e s e a r c h on i n t e r a c t i o n s : 1. ATI r e s e a r c h should be c h a r a c t e r i z e d by an e x p l o r a t o r y a t t i t u d e . 2. Treatments must be e q u a l l y d e f e n s i b l e and r e q u i r e com-par a b l e r e s o u r c e s . 3. Measures of g e n e r a l a b i l i t y and of the content t o be taught should be i n c l u d e d as a p t i t u d e v a r i a b l e s . 4. E f f o r t should be made to c o l l e c t m u l t i p l e outcome data. 5. Large samples are e s s e n t i a l t o d e t e c t ATI. 6 . Treatment must be monitored. 7. Data should be analyzed u s i n g g e n e r a l i z e d r e g r e s s i o n procedures. The design of t h i s study employed three treatment l e v e l s i n two geographic l o c a t i o n s with treatment and l o c a t i o n f u l l y c r o s s e d , and s u b j e c t s nested w i t h i n t r e a t m e n t / l o c a t i o n c e l l s . S ubjects completed a s e t of pretreatment a b i l i t y , performance and a f f e c t i v e measures, then were taught by d i f f e r e n t methods, and then were p o s t t e s t e d f o r performance and a t t i t u d e outcomes. The 1 0 2 . design was quasi-experimental, with English classes randomly assigned to treatment within d i s t r i c t . Procedures which were followed i n executing t h i s design w i l l be described i n the following sections: 1. Development of i n s t r u c t i o n a l conditions, 2. Selection and development of instruments for measuring biodemographic, general a b i l i t y , performance and af f e c -t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of students, 3. Recruitment and tr a i n i n g of f i e l d personnel, 4. F i e l d execution, 5. Scoring of writing performance measures, and 6. Data analyses. Treatment conditions Two ten-week units of i n s t r u c t i o n i n writing (see Appendix A) were developed for use i n this study. A t h i r d (control) con-d i t i o n , "no d i r e c t writing i n s t r u c t i o n " , was included to permit i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of r e a c t i v i t y e f f e c t s which might mask treatment e f f e c t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the r e p e t i t i o n of writing tasks. The i n s t r u c t i o n a l units — hereafter designated "A" and "B" -- were designed to represent competing approaches to the i n -struction of written expression- i n the junior secondary school. Care was taken that both be i n s t r u c t i o n a l l y sound, free from geographic constraints, practicable within the context of English i n s t r u c t i o n by regular classroom teachers, and compatible with B.C. English c u r r i c u l a . While s p e c i f i c objectives within the 103. two u n i t s were not i d e n t i c a l , they were not c o n f l i c t i n g : each was designed to f a c i l i t a t e development of competence i n a v a r i -ety of w r i t i n g s k i l l s . The experimental treatments are most l o g i c a l l y thought of as c u r r i c u l a which d i f f e r i n content. Broad l e v e l goals — although not n e c e s s a r i l y s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c -t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s — are i d e n t i c a l . The i n t e n t of t h i s study was to d e f i n e c u r r i c u l a r u n i t s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of c u r r e n t p r a c t i c e and to d e s c r i b e t h e i r d i f f e r e n t i a l main and i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s . Treatment A, a " s k i l l s - b a s e d " approach, was designed, i n p a r t , as a r e a c t i o n to the f i n d i n g s of the 1978 B.C. Assessment of W r i t t e n E x p r e s s i o n (Conry & Rodgers, 1978; Conry & J e r o s k i , 1980) t h a t students d i d not appear t o e n t e r secondary s c h o o l with a s a t i s f a c t o r y l e v e l of s k i l l development f o r b a s i c obser-v a t i o n and r e c o r d i n g , and showed no evidence of compensation f o r t h i s d e f i c i t d u r i n g the high s c h o o l y e a r s . For Treatment A, a s e t of e i g h t " l e s s o n s " was developed t o enhance student a b i l i t y to p r o v i d e a c c u r a t e , w e l l - o r g a n i z e d des-c r i p t i o n s with a high degree of s p e c i f i c i t y and o b j e c t i v i t y . The focus of t h i s u n i t was t r a n s a c t i o n a l w r i t i n g of a r e f e r e n -t i a l nature: t h a t i s , w r i t i n g intended t o convey i n f o r m a t i o n . The Treatment A u n i t was developed to enhance student a b i l i t y t o : 1. d e s c r i b e human p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s , 2. convey p e r s o n a l i t y through s e l e c t e d d e t a i l s , and 3. observe and d e s c r i b e d e t a i l i n o b j e c t s or s e t t i n g s . 104. Each lesson included: 1. introductory material to est a b l i s h the role and impor-tance of the s k i l l i n question, 2. outlines for prewriting a c t i v i t i e s , 3. stimulus materials for writing practice, and 4. quidelines for r e v i s i o n and evaluation. Prewriting a c t i v i t i e s focused on d i r e c t observation with both group and i n d i v i d u a l reporting/recording a c t i v i t i e s . Wri-ting a c t i v i t i e s were c a r e f u l l y structured to e l i c i t one or two of the s k i l l s i d e n t i f i e d , and to permit evaluation i n terms of those s p e c i f i c s k i l l s . Evaluation guides for teachers, intended to be shared with students, were included. Treatment B was characterized as an "expressive" unit where-in students were expected to increase t h e i r awareness of the pos-s i b l e range of writing a c t i v i t i e s and experiences, to develop s a t i s f a c t i o n i n writing as a form of personal expression, and to be able to draw on personal experience i n the production of com-position. The intent of th i s Treatment was to operational!ze the view that imagination, involvement and i n d i v i d u a l i t y are key elements i n the writing process and that teacher intervention i s as often detrimental as b e n e f i c i a l (see, for example, Judy, 1974; Murray, 1978a; 1978b). In Treatment B, the teacher was regarded as a resource person whose role was to f a c i l i t a t e and stimulate student explorations and to encourage the practice of writing i n a workshop setting. Exercises focused on expressive and personal writing. 105. Eleven "lessons" were provided; f i v e were designated "re-quired", and teachers were to select three of the remaining six according to the interests of the i r students. Generally, lessons provided discussion topics and suggested stimuli for writing a c t i v i t i e s within a broad "topic" area. One of these, for exam-ple, was "Problems"; another dealt with "Fantasy". A c t i v i t i e s were designed to stimulate students to define t h e i r own writing tasks, drawing from th e i r experience and imagination. Emphasis throughout the unit was on sharing and exploring ideas. A pre-writing record (see Appendix A) was provided for each student to complete following each writing a c t i v i t y , i n order to emphasize the-importance of the prewriting process and reinforce the idea that a variety of prewriting a c t i v i t i e s and processes are both possible and acceptable. Evaluation guides focused on h o l i s t i c impact of the compositions produced, rather than on mechanical competence or evidence of s p e c i f i c s k i l l s . The basic v a r i a t i o n i n the units involved the focus of prewriting a c t i v i t i e s and the degree of d i r e c t i o n offered for s p e c i f i c writing practice. Classroom organization for both prewriting and writing a c t i v i t i e s was held constant. Both treatments required extensive prewriting experiences.and provided for variations among i n d i v i d u a l , partner, small group, andiiclass execution. The amount of writing and the amount of time spent writing were comparable, and both treatment condi-tions viewed proofreading/editing as a writer (student) role rather than a teacher r o l e . Proofreading/editing records 106. were included for a l l writing a c t i v i t i e s to encourage and monitor peer p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the editing process. The units were developed by the researcher following review of current i n s t r u c t i o n a l materials and i n consultation with a panel of three experienced teachers of English. Units were also reviewed by teachers and supervisory personnel i n the two p a r t i -cipating d i s t r i c t s . No major revisions were occasioned by these reviews: teachers and supervisors found them to be stimulating and practicable, and foresaw no d i f f i c u l t i e s i n t h e i r delivery by competent junior secondary school teachers. A l i s t of consul-tants and reviewers i s provided i n Appendix B. Selection and development of instruments The following aptitude variables were selected for i n c l u s i o n in this study: -- reading comprehension, — f i e l d dependence-independence, — cognitive complexity, -- directed writing s k i l l performance, -- narrative writing performance, -- attitude toward writing, — sex, and — language background. Copies of the instruments used may be found i n Appendices C and D. 107. Reading comprehension. The measure of "general verbal a b i l -i t y " included was the Stanford Achievement Test: Reading Compre-hension subtest (Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich, 1972). I t was chosen i n consultation with school d i s t r i c t personnel to comple-ment d i s t r i c t - l e v e l t esting. Reading comprehension i s p a r t i c u -l a r l y a t t r a c t i v e as a poten t i a l aptitude i n ATI research because i t s widespread acceptance i n the f i e l d enhances the p r o b a b i l i t y of p r a c t i c a l applications of the findings, should an inte r a c t i o n be evidenced between reading comprehension and the treatment l e v e l s . A d d itionally, the p o s s i b i l i t y of d i f f e r e n t i a l associa-tions between reading comprehension and the various writing mea-sures was of in t e r e s t . The inc l u s i o n of this measure permitted consideration of the hypothesis that general a b i l i t y e f f e c t s may account for effects found for other, more s p e c i f i c , aptitude mea-sures; the t y p i c a l high association between reading comprehension and other general a b i l i t y measures made i t valuable as a "proxy" for these measures. Cognitive s t y l e . As Cronbach & Snow (1977) note, "Studies of cognitive style (are) ... at th e i r best, attempts to understand aptitude as a process of attacking tasks". They found, however, that previous work i n t h i s area has f a i l e d to enable generaliza-tions about i n s t r u c t i o n , because the studies have been too b r i e f , unrepresentative of school situations, and have r e l i e d on small samples of students (p. 341). 108. The term "cognitive s t y l e " implies a habitual pattern of preferred strategy of information processing. B i e r i (1971) re-fers to a "central or core structure thought to mediate aspects of personality functioning with i t s influence apparent i n a wide variety of behaviours or tasks" (p. 182). Witkin and his co-workers (1962; 1977) describe such styles as " c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , s e lf-consistent ways of functioning shown by the person i n the cognitive sphere". There i s strong appeal i n the p o s s i b i l i t y of matching " s t y l e " with " i n s t r u c t i o n " . i n such a way that student s a t i s f a c t i o n and achievement are enhanced. Two measures of cog-n i t i v e style were included as aptitudes i n this study to permit examination of (1) t h e i r c o r r e l a t i o n with each other and other aptitude and outcome variables, and (2) t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n with treatment differences. The two cognitive style variables chosen are those which have shown the most promise as mediators of i n s t r u c t i o n i n pre-vious research (Cronbach & Snow, 1977, Ch. 12): f i e l d dependence/ independence and cognitive complexity/simplicity (conceptual level) . The Hidden Figures Test (ETS, 1962) was developed by Witkin and his colleagues at Educational Testing Service to y i e l d a measure of psychological d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , or f i e l d dependence/ independence. A subject who i s able to disembed a geometric figure from i t s context i s said to be " f i e l d independent" or "ana-l y t i c " . Witkin recognizes the strong c o r r e l a t i o n of f i e l d inde-pendence with f l u i d a b i l i t y (as measured, for example, by the 109. Block Design, Picture Completion and Object Assembly subtests of the Wechsler scales) but rejects the notion that f i e l d dependence i s a d e f i c i t rather than a s t y l e . He contends that the f i e l d dependent person has a posi t i v e advantage i n dealing with some kinds of complex situations (Witkin et a l , 1977; Witkin & Good-enough, 1977). A question of in t e r e s t i n the present study was whether i n d i v i d u a l differences on the f i e l d dependent/independent continuum inter a c t with the treatment levels i n producing d i f f e r -e n t i a l gains i n writing achievement or student s a t i s f a c t i o n . The Hidden Figures Test has been widely used as a measure of f i e l d dependence/independence over the past eighteen years, i s both suitable and p r a c t i c a l for use i n junior secondary c l a s s -rooms . The second style considered was cognitive complexity/simpli-c i t y , which derives from Kelly's (1955) theory of personal con-structs ( B i e r i , 1966, p. 185). I t assumes that each person has a "system" for construing his s o c i a l environment: Cognitive complexity i s an information pro-cessing variable ... intended to r e f l e c t the r e l a t i v e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of a person's system of dimensions for construing behaviour. A more cognitively complex person has available a more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d system of dimensions for perceiving others' behaviour than does a less cognitively complex i n d i v i d u a l . (p. 195) The measure of cognitive complexity selected was an adapta-tion of B i e r i ' s Modified Repertory Grid Test ( B i e r i , 1966; 1971). The instrument consists of a l i s t of "role t i t l e s " which repre-sent a sampling of individuals from the subjects' s o c i a l envir-110. onrrtent. The task i s to rate each of these persons on a six-point scale using a series of bi-polar constructs provided. A cogni-t i v e l y "complex" i n d i v i d u a l uses the constructs d i f f e r e n t i a l l y i n judging d i f f e r e n t people; a cogn i t i v e l y "simple" i n d i v i d u a l uses the constructs i n a similar way to construe people i n a l l r o l e s . Complexity may be indexed by the v a r i a b i l i t y of judgements across role t i t l e s within a construct l a b e l . The adaptation of the Repertory Grid (see Appendix C) used i n t h i s study was adapted for use with adolescents: role t i t l e s were selected to represent the adolescent's rather than the adult's s o c i a l world, and "constructs" offered are those f a m i l i a r to adolescents. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the o r i g i n a l format — a one-page ten-by-ten g r i d — was both shortened and s i m p l i f i e d , with a separate page containing eight anchored dimensions for each of the eight role t i t l e s s p e c i f i e d (see Figure 1 ) . Measures of writing performance. Two types of writing': performance measures were developed (see Appendix D). The f i r s t of these -- Directed Writing exercises — were modelled on assignments developed for the B.C. Assessment of Written Expres-sion. Structured to e l i c i t performance r e f l e c t i n g s p e c i f i c writing s k i l l s , they permit evaluation of writing i n terms of those s k i l l s , using anchored rating scales. Markers are thus able to focus on a s p e c i f i c s k i l l i n evaluating the writing product. The second type of writing task used was a Global Narrative exercise — a more loosely structured, extended wri-ting exercise which permits consideration of both the o v e r a l l impact of the composition, and the degree of competence 1 1 1 . R o l e s C o n s t r u c t s 1. A c l o s e f r i e n d . 2. Someone who has h e l p e d y o u w i t h s o m e t h i n g . 3. Someone y o u have t r o u b l e g e t t i n g a l o n g w i t h . Someone y o u s h a r e a s p o r t , hobby o r a c t i v i t y w i t h . Someone who s i t s n e a r y o u i n one o f y o u r c l a s s e s . Someone you u s u a l l y t r y t o a v o i d . Someone you e a t l u n c h w i t h . Someone y o u w o u l d l i k e t o s p end more t i m e w i t h . a. e x c i t a b l e - c a l m b. s e l f i s h - g e n e r o u s c. s u s p i c i o u s - t r u s t i n g d. c o l d - a f f e c t i o n a t e e. i n d i f f e r e n t - s y m p a t h e t i c f . moody - e v e n - t e m p e r e d g. d a r i n g - c a u t i o u s h. shy - o u t g o i n g ( R o l e s and c o n s t r u c t s a r e f u l l y c r o s s e d . ) F i g u r e 1. R o l e and c o n s t r u c t d i m e n s i o n s o f t h e a d a p t e d R e p e r t o r y G r i d . 112. displayed i n certain s p e c i f i c aspects of the writing such as vo-cabulary or sentence structure. Writing tasks were designed to assess those s k i l l s at which program i n s t r u c t i o n was aimed. A number of basic decisions guided exercise development: 1. Two d i s t i n c t types of exercises would be used. Directed  Writing exercises would be formulated to e l i c i t short samples of student writing which could be evaluated for the degree of mastery of s p e c i f i c s k i l l s which formed the basis of the "descriptive s k i l l s " program. A Global Narrative exercise, designed to evoke longer samples of student writing and to encourage expression of more complex a b i l i t i e s such as s k i l l i n thematic development or consistent characterization would be i n -cluded which could be rated both for o v e r a l l impact, and for s k i l l s i n the use of sentence structure and of vocabulary. This exercise would be r e l a t i v e l y unstruc-tured to allow those students who had received the "ex-pressive" treatment freedom to define a writing task which they perceived as engaging, and to draw on exper-ience or imagination i n i t s execution. 2. Writing performance tests would take two class sessions of one hour each to complete. One hour, would be^devoted to Directed Writing exercises; one hour to the Global Narrative-exercise. 3. Students would be encouraged to engage i n the various prewriting a c t i v i t i e s which each perceived as most use-f u l for the production of the extended narrative. Thus, while the writing a c t i v i t y would be completed within one supervised class session, students would be provided with stimulus materials at the end of the previous class session, and be informed that they were free to engage i n any planning a c t i v i t i e s — including discussions with others — they wished, although they would not be per-mitted to bring notes or rough copies to c l a s s . 4. There should be a thematic association among the Directed Writing exercises to be written i n a single session to avoid a "disjointed" f e e l i n g on the part.of students facing a series of short tasks. 113. 5. Four Directed Writing s k i l l s would be assessed: - Describe human physical features and d e t a i l s of clothing, - Organize d e t a i l s , as i n a single paragraph, - Describe d e t a i l i n places, and - Convey personality through selected d e t a i l . These were considered representative rather than exhaus-t i v e of the s k i l l s toward which i n s t r u c t i o n was directed. Each of these provided the basis for at least one i n -s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t y of two or three hours i n the Treat-ment A classes. 6 . P a r a l l e l forms of the exercises and p i c t o r a l s timuli should be developed so that no student would face the i d e n t i c a l writing task twice: students who wrote one form of the exercise as a pretest would receive the other form as a posttest. Test forms should be randomly di s t r i b u t e d to students at pretesting, with one-half of the sample completing each form. This counterbalancing would permit estimation of any differences between forms of the same exercise. Samples of the exercises developed are provided i n Appendix D. The narrative exercises consisted of two pictures — one of a landscape, and the other of people engaged i n an outdoor a c t i v i t y . Instructions indicated that the student was to write a story, either stimulated by one of the pictures, or drawn from exper-ience or imagination. The two forms of the narrative exercise varied only i n the pictures provided. Each set of Directed Writing exercises included three tasks: description of a person whose picture was provided; description of a l