Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 739–770 | Cite as

Predicting students’ writing performance on the NAEP from student- and state-level variables

  • Ya Mo
  • Gary A. Troia
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between students’ demographic background and their experiences with writing at school, the alignment between state and National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) direct writing assessments, and students’ NAEP writing performance. The study utilizes primary data collection via content analysis of writing assessment prompts and rubrics and secondary analysis with NAEP data through hierarchical linear modeling. Results indicate students from states with writing tests more similar to the NAEP do not perform significantly better than students from states with writing tests less similar to the NAEP. Rather, student demographic characteristics, including gender, ethnicity, SES, disability status, and English learner status significantly predict NAEP writing performance, as do factors related to frequency of writing across subject areas, frequency of writing for varied purposes, frequency of writing process use, and computer use in writing. The implications of the findings for writing instruction are discussed.

Keywords

State test NAEP Writing Large-scale assessment 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by Grant #R305A100040 from the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, to Michigan State University. Statements do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of this agency, and no official endorsement by it should be inferred.

References

  1. Abedi, J. (2002). Standardized achievement tests and English language learners: Psychometrics issues. Educational Assessment, 8(3), 231–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, A. F. (1999). Evaluating the writing of culturally and linguistically diverse students: The case of the African American vernacular English speaker. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing (pp. 225–248). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  3. Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 69–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boslaugh, S. (2007). Secondary analysis for public health: A practical guide. Cambridge: New York, NY.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Darling-Hammond. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.Google Scholar
  6. Dean, D. (2008). Genre theory: Teaching, writing, and being. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  7. Department for Education. (2012). The research evidence on writing. London, England: Department for Education. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/183479/what_is_the_research_evidence_on_writing.pdf.
  8. Faigley, L., & Witte, S. P. (1981). Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. College Composition and Communication, 32(2), 2–11.Google Scholar
  9. Ferris, D. (1994). Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 414–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). Plans that guide the composing process. In C. H. Friderksen & J. F. Dominic (Eds.), Writing: The nature, development, and teaching of written communication (pp. 39–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Gabrielson, S., Gordon, B., & Engelhard, G. (1995). The effects of task choice on the quality of writing obtained in a statewide assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 8, 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gilliam, R. & Johnson, J. (1992). Spoken and written language relationships in language/learning children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 1303–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2, 1–51.Google Scholar
  14. Goldstein, H. (1987). Multilevel models in educational and social research. London: Griffin.Google Scholar
  15. Gomez, R., Parker, R., Lara-Alecio, R., & Gomez, L. (1996). Process versus product writing with limited English proficient students. The Bilingual Research Journal, 20(2), 209–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Graham, S., Collins, A., & Rigby-Wills, H. (2016). A meta-analysis examining the writing characteristics of students with learning disabilities and normally achieving peers. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  17. Graham, S., Fishman, E. J., Reid, R., & Hebert, M. (2016b). Writing characteristics of students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31, 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Graham, S. & Harris, K. (2005). Improving the writing performance of young struggling writers-theoretical and programmatic research from the center on accelerating student learning. Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S. A., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 879–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Graham, S., & Sandmel, K. (2011). The process writing approach: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Research, 104(6), 396–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new model of cognition and affect in writing. In M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 1–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Hillocks, G. (2002). The testing trap: How state writing assessments control learning. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  24. Jeffery, J. (2009). Constructs of writing proficiency in US state and national writing assessments: Exploring variability. Assessing Writing, 14, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kanaris, A. (1999). Gendered journeys: Children’s writing and the construction of gender. Language and Education, 13(4), 254–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee, J., Grigg, W. S., & Donahue, P. L. (2007). The nation’s report card: Reading 2007 (No. NCES 2007496). Washington, DC: US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  27. Linn, R., Baker, E., & Betebenner, D. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31(6), 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lubienski, S. T., & Lubienski, C. (2006). School sector and academic achievement: A multilevel analysis of NAEP Mathematics Data. American Educational Research Journal, 43(4), 651–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement: Research on what works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  30. Masters, G. N., & Forster, M. (1997). Literacy standards in Australia. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/monitoring_learning/6.
  31. Moss, P. (1994). Validity in high stakes writing assessment: Problems and possibilities. Assessing Writing, 1(1), 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. National Assessment Governing Board. (2007). Writing framework and specifications for the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  33. National Commission on Writing. (2003). The neglected R: The need for a writing revolution. Retrieved from http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/writingcom/neglectedr.pdf.
  34. National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The Nation’s report card: Writing 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  35. Parr, J. (2010). Exploring the potential of interrogating a mediated corpus of data from a national representative sampling of student writing. Journal of Writing Research, 2(2), 129–150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 54–66). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  37. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Resta, S. P. & Eliot, J. (1994). Written expression in boys with attention deficit disorder. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79(3), 1131–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rogers, L., & Graham, S. (2008). A meta-analysis of single subject design writing intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 879–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Salahu-Din, D., Persky, H., & Miller, J. (2008). The nation’s report card: Writing 2007. U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  41. Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 657–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Troia, G. A. (2006). Writing instruction for students with learning disabilities. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.) Handbook of writing research (pp. 324–336). New York: Guiford Press.Google Scholar
  43. Troia, G. A., Lin, S. C., Monroe, B. W., & Cohen, S. (2009). The effects of writing workshop instruction on the performance and motivation of good and poor writers. In G. A. Troia (Ed.), Instruction and assessment for struggling writers: Evidence-based practices (pp. 77–104). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  44. Troia, G. A., & Olinghouse, N. (2010–2014). K-12 Writing Alignment Project. IES funded.Google Scholar
  45. Troia, G. A., Shankland, R. K., & Wolbers, K. A. (2012). Motivation research in writing: Theoretical and empirical considerations. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 28, 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Charting the course: States decide major provisions under No Child Left Behind. Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/html/Document.asp?chouseid=4982.
  47. Wharton-McDonald, R., Pressley, M., & Hampston, J. (1998). Literacy Instruction in nine first-grade classrooms: Teacher characteristics and student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 99(2), 101–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Become a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of Statistical SciencesWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options