Abstract
Researchers have theorized that although US students are writing more, classroom writing experiences are not highly authentic to students, especially for urban, minority students who are economically disadvantaged. One tool for investigating student perceptions of authenticity is the Perceived Authenticity in Writing (PAW) Scale that was designed to measure perceived authenticity in writing instruction for adolescents for a specific task. However, there is a need for a similar scale to the PAW Scale, but one that could be used to examine students’ general impression of their writing instruction as a whole and allow researchers, educators, and policymakers to identify schools or districts with high or low authenticity for deeper qualitative examination and analyze correlations among authenticity and other variables, such as socioeconomic status. In particular, this last function would allow researchers to identify differential access to authentic writing instruction and explore issues related to social justice in writing assessment. This chapter examines the psychometric properties of a new tool, the Modified Perceived Authenticity in Writing (MPAW) Scale, for use in a larger study of perceived authenticity among urban students of color in the United States.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in middle schools and high schools. English Journal, 100(6), 14–27.
Ashton, S. (2010). Authenticity in adult learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 29(1), 3–19.
Au, W., & Gourd, K. (2013). Asinine assessment: Why high-stakes testing is bad for everyone, including English teachers. English Journal, 103(1), 14–19.
Ball, A. F., & Ellis, P. (2008). Identity and the writing of culturally and linguistically diverse students. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 499–513). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Behizadeh, N. (2014). Adolescent perspectives on authentic writing. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 10(1), 27–44. Retrieved from http://jolle.coe.uga.edu.
Behizadeh, N. (2015). Engaging students through authentic and effective literacy instruction. Voices from the Middle, 23(1), 40–50.
Behizadeh, N., & Engelhard, G. (2014). Development and validation of a scale to measure perceived authenticity in writing. Assessing Writing, 21, 18–26.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2015). English language arts standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011). InTASC model core standards at a glance. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/InTASC_Standards_At_a_Glance_2011.html.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Dyson, A. H., & Freedman, S. W. (2003). Writing. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 967–992). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Engelhard, G. (2013). Invariant measurement: Using Rasch in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
Engelhard, G., & Chang, M. (2015). Examining the teachers’ sense of efficacy scale at the item level with Rasch measurement model. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 1–15.
Fisher, M. T. (2007). Writing in rhythm: Spoken word poetry in urban classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Freire, P. (1970/2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York, NY: Continuum. (Original work published 1970).
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Haertel, E. H., Moss, P. A., Pullin, D. C., & Gee, J. P. (2008). Introduction. In P. A. Moss, D. C. Pullin, J. P. Gee, E. H. Haertel, & L. J. Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn (pp. 1–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hillocks, G, Jr. (2011). Commentary on “Research in secondary English, 1912–2011: Historical continuities and discontinuities in the NCTE imprint”. Research in the Teaching of English, 46(2), 187–192.
Kane, M. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73.
Linacre, J. M. (1989). Many-facet Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA Press.
Luna, C., & Turner, C. L. (2001). The impact of the MCAS: Teachers talk about high-stakes testing. English Journal, 91(1), 79–87.
Madaus, G. F. (1994). A technological and historical consideration of equity issues associated with proposals to change the nation’s testing policy. Harvard Educational Review, 64(1), 76–95.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749.
Morrell, E. (2008). Critical literacy and urban youth: Pedagogies of access, dissent, and liberation. New York, NY: Routledge.
National Council of Teachers of English and International Reading Association. (2012). Standards for the English language arts. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/standards/ncte-ira.
Newmann, F. M., Marks, H. M., & Gamoran, A. (1996). Authentic pedagogy and student performance. American Journal of Education, 104(4), 280–312.
Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (n.d.) Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework.
Purcell-Gates, V., Anderson, J., Gagne, M., Jang, K., Lenters, K. A., & McTavish, M. (2012). Measuring situated literacy activity: Challenges and promises. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(4), 396–425.
Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N. K., & Martineau, J. A. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-specific text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 8–45.
Sisserson, K., Manning, C. K., Knepler, A., & Jolliffe, D. A. (2002). Authentic intellectual achievement in writing. English Journal, 91(6), 63–69.
Seunarinesingh, K. (2010). Primary teachers’ explorations of authentic texts in Trinidad and Tobago. Journal of Language and Literacy Education [Online], 6(1), 40–57.
Slomp, D. H., Corrigan, J. A., & Sugimoto, T. (2014). A framework for using consequential validity evidence in evaluating large-scale writing assessments: A Canadian study. Research in the Teaching of English, 48(3), 276–302.
Splitter, L. J. (2009). Authenticity and constructivism in education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 28, 135–151.
Rasch, G. (1960/1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1960).
Watanabe, M. (2007). Displaced teaching and state priorities in a high-stakes accountability context. Educational Policy, 21(2), 311–368.
Winn, M. T., & Johnson, L. (2011). Writing instruction in the culturally relevant classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Wright, B. D., & Linacre, J. M. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch measurement transactions, 8(3), 370.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Comparison of PAW Scale and MPAW Scale
PAW Scale | Modified PAW Scale |
|---|---|
1. This writing assignment was relevant and/or meaningful to my life outside of class | 1. The writing I do in my English language arts class is related to my life outside of class |
2. People other than my teacher will want to read the paper I wrote | 4. People other than my English teacher read the papers I write for school |
3. Writing this paper was a good learning experience | 15. Writing in my English language arts class is making me a better writer |
4. I can make connections between this paper and events or issues in the world that I care about | 3. English language arts writing assignments relate to topics I care about in the world |
6. I will use what I learned writing this paper to write other papers | 5. I will use what I am learning about writing to write other papers in the future |
7. I have discussed or will discuss the topic of this paper with family members | 6. I discuss the topics of my English language arts writing assignments with my family |
8. I enjoyed writing this paper | 2. I enjoy writing in my English language arts class |
9. I think knowing how to write a paper like this one will be important to know in my life | 7. What I am learning about writing is important to know in my life |
10. Writing this paper was important to me | 8. English language arts writing assignments are important to me |
11. This paper connects to my personal interests | 9. Writing in my English language arts class connects to my personal interests |
12. People who read this paper will change their opinions, actions, or feelings | 10. People who read my English language arts writing assignments will change their opinions, actions, or feelings |
13. I am proud of what I wrote | 11. I am proud of what I write in my English language arts class |
14. Writing this paper helped me to understand the topic better | 16. Writing in my English language arts class helps me to understand topics better |
15. I have discussed or will discuss the topic of this paper with friends | 12. I discuss the topics of my writing assignments with friends |
16. I will use the skills that I learned writing this paper later in my life | 13. I am gaining writing skills that I will use later in my life in my English language arts class |
17. Writing this paper helped me to develop my thoughts, opinions, or beliefs | 14. Writing in my English language arts class helps me develop my thoughts, opinions, or beliefs |
5. This paper connected to something I recently saw on TV or the internet* | Â |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this paper
Cite this paper
Behizadeh, N., Engelhard, G. (2016). Examining the Psychometric Quality of a Modified Perceived Authenticity in Writing Scale with Rasch Measurement Theory. In: Zhang, Q. (eds) Pacific Rim Objective Measurement Symposium (PROMS) 2015 Conference Proceedings. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1687-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1687-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-1686-8
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-1687-5
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)