ASSESSMENT OF SECONDARY …pustaka2.upsi.edu.my/eprints/585/1/Assessment of Secondary...
Transcript of ASSESSMENT OF SECONDARY …pustaka2.upsi.edu.my/eprints/585/1/Assessment of Secondary...
,). '<-: �-"'j
ASSESSMENT OF SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS' WRITING BYUPSI TESL UNDERGRADUATES
NORMAHBINTIOTHMANFACULTY OF LANGUAGES
UPSI RESEARCH CODE: 01-03-09-02UPSI RESEARCH ACCOUNT: 050525
2003
TABLE OF CONTENT
Table ofContent 1Abstract 2Abstrak 3
1.1 Introduction 51.2 Background of Study 61.3 Statement ofProblem 81.4 Objectives 11l.5 Literature Review 12l.6 Research Questions 17l.7 Methodology and Design 181.8 Sample Selection 18l.9 Instrumentation 19l.10 Data Collection 20l.11 The Result 20
l.1l.1 The Result of the Assessment ofEssayWriting 201.1l.2 The Salient Features Verbalised by the Subjects 26
l.12 Discussion 311.13 Recommendation 32
References 33
2
Assessment ofSecondary School Students' Writing by UPSI TESLUndergraduates
Abstract
Fourteen TESL undergraduates in UPSI were chosen as subjects in this research.Each of them was given a task to assess seventy samples of essays written byForm Four ESL secondary school students. Three scoring methods were devisedfor the subjects to refer to when assessing the essay samples and each of them was
given one type of scoring method. Three of the subjects were given the holistic
scoring method; six of them were given the analytic scoring method; and five ofthem were given the primary trait scoring method. They were told to assess the
essay samples individually and each of them was required to record down theirsalient features of assessment (verbal protocol). The scores that the subjects gaveto the essay samples were correlated to find the relationship; and the salientfeatures ofassessment were analysed descriptively. The findings of the researchshowed that the scoring methods could not be used to generalize the overall resultof the students' performance in writing. This was because each scoring methodfocused on different aspects or features ofwriting. There was also a significantdifference between the marks given by the subjects even though they were usingthe same scoring method. The salient features of assessment that the subjectsrecorded showed that they focused their attention on the students' performance in
language.
3
Penilaian Karangan Pelajar Sekolah Menengah Oleh Pelajar TESL UPSI
Abstrak
Empat belas pelajar TESL di UPSI telah dipilih sebagai subjek dalam kajian ini.Mereka ditugaskan menilai tujuh-puluh karangan tulisan pelajar Tingkatan Empatsekolah menengah. Tiga skema pemarkahan telah dibina untuk rujukan empatbelas subjek tersebut semasa mereka menilai karangan. Tiga dari subjek tersebuttelah diberi skema pemarkahan holistik; enam diberi skema pemarkahan analitik;dan lima diberi skema pemarkahan tret prima. Mereka ditugaskan menilaikarangan tersebut secara individu dan mereka juga ditugaskan untuk melaporkanprotokollisan mereka. Skor yang diperoleh dari subjek telah dikorelasi untukdilihat hubungkaitnya; dan protokollisan telah dianalisa secara deskriptif.Dapatan kajian menunjukkan bahawa ketiga-tiga kaedah pemarkahan tidakmencerminkan keseluruhan keputusan kemampuan pelajar dalam penulisankarangan.Ini disebabkan setiap skema pemarkahan memberi fokus pada aspekyang berlainan dalam penulisan karangan. Terdapat perbezaan yang signifikanantara markah yang diberi oleh semua subjek walau pun mereka menggunakanskema permarkahan yang sarna. Protokol lisan mereka pula menunjukkan merekahanya memberi fokus pada kemampuan pelajar dalam bahasa.
4
1.1 Introduction
ESL teachers' assessment of students' writing plays an important part in the
process of teaching their students to write. This is because their assessment on
students' writing contributes much to students' motivation to write. It is also
important that the assessment given by the ESL teachers provides confidence and
motivation for students to excel in their examinations. So the assessment ESL
teachers' assessment in schools should not be so different from the national raters'
assessment who are assigned to rate the school students' national examination
questions. This is because school students' writing in school based tests,
examinations and everyday written exercises are providing practices for them to
excel in national examination. Thus ESL teachers' assessment on their writing
product should be a mirror to the students' actual performance in the national
examinations.
Teachers normally adopt certain sets of scoring methods to assess their students'
writing. And there are many types of scoring methods available for teachers to
refer when assessing their students' writing tasks. Each scoring method is
different from another in the sense that each has different criteria of looking at
students' writing product. For example, one scoring method looks at a student's
writing product generally and does not go into detail about analyzing the student's
grammar performance, whereas another scoring method may look into details the
grammar performance. No matter what kind of criteria each scoring method has,
the ultimate aim is the same that is to give grades to students' writing. Thus it is
important to make sure that the marks given to students' writing, regardless of
5
what kind of scoring methods used, do not differ. Otherwise it defeats the purpose
of assessment, which plays an important role in determining the students' future.
The International Association for the Evaluation ofEducational Achievement
(IEA) has carried out several studies on writing tasks and scoring scale. The IEA,
which was founded in 1959, had done many researches to compare the
educational performance of school students in various countries and systems of
education around the world (Gorman, 1988: vii). The IEA's study ofwritten
composition began in 1980 and the findings were published in several volumes.
The writing tasks studied were pragmatic writing, letter writing, summary writing,
descriptive writing, narrative writing, open writing, argumentative/persuasive
writing and reflective writing. There are also studies conducted to investigate the
effectiveness of some scoring methods used to assess students' writing tasks.
However not many studies have been done especially in Malaysia to investigate
ESL teachers' assessment of students' writing.
1.2 Background ofStudy
English Language is offered as a subject in all the examinations at secondary
school level. At the PMR and the SPM level, English is compulsory for all
students to take, but not compulsory for them to pass. At the STPM level, the
subject is offered as an elective where the literature elements are also included.
However, since 1999, a new subject known as MUET (Malaysian University
English Test) is offered as a compulsory subject to all Form Six students. In this
6
subject, four skills are tested in separate examinations: listening skills in Paper
One, speaking skills in Paper Two, reading comprehension skills in Paper Three,
and writing skills in Paper Four. Starting from the year 2001 onwards, students
who wish to continue their studies at the tertiary level will have to takeMUET as
a prerequisite.
English Language is a compulsory subject in the SPM examination. However, at
the time this study is done, it is not compulsory for the students to pass the subject
in the examination. Even though it is not compulsory for the students to pass the
subject in the SPM examination, it is crucial for them to do well in the subject due
the importance ofthe language. There are three major components tested in the
English SPM examination: Oral English, Paper One and Paper Two. ill Paper
Two of this subject's examination, the students are tested to write continuously.
Among them are directed writing, summary writing and essay writing. These
three types ofwriting tasks are very important for ESL students at the secondary
school level in Malaysia. As much as it is important for the students to do well in
the writing tasks, it is also equally important for ESL teachers to assess their
students' writing well enough to ensure that the marks given really depict the
students' actual performance in writing.
1.3 Statement ofProblem
Writing is commonly used to assess students' language skills and their learning in
many academic content-areas. The ability to provide students with fair and
7
supportable assessment approaches is very important.. Many decisions rest with
writing assessment, and assessment processes have a great impact on students'
attitudes and their motivation for future work. So it is important that decision
makers, national examiners, national raters and schoolteachers who assess
students' writing provide confidence about the marks that they give to the
students. The marks given determine the students' future undertakings and even
future career.
Writing assessment can greatly influence students' attitudes to their motivation
for future learning and confidence to pass through their examinations. Students
can be easily confused by unclear, vague or ambiguous responses and can become
frustrated with their writing progress and hopes for the results in their
examination. Alternatively, students can be positively motivated if the assessment
given to their written work reflects their actual performance in the national level
examination. Unfortunately, there is no clear set of universal guidelines that will
guarantee such a supportive and positive experience for all students. In a given
context for writing instruction, students will differ, and tasks, topics, and
responses will differ (Grabe and Kaplan, 1996: 377).
In the Malaysian secondary schools, teachers adopt different ways and methods of
assessing their students' writing tasks, depending on how they were instructed
during their teacher-training program. Students will not able to predict their actual.
performance in the national examination if the marking system adopted by their
ESL teachers may not be the same as the national examiners' marking system.
8
Normally, ESL teachers in secondary schools invite the national examiners to
come to their schools to conduct seminars and workshops for their students before
the students sit for the national examination. This is to ensure that their students
get some exposure about the national raters' expectation when assessing their
writing product in the national level examination.
Each scoring method used to assess students' writing tasks has its own unique
ways of looking into the details of the writing pieces. However the ultimate aim is
the same that is to give marks to the writing pieces. The problem is whether the
marks given by one examiner differ from the marks given by another examiner
who uses different scoring method, ifboth of them are assigned to rate the same
writing task.
There are also similarities and differences in the scoring methods available for
examiners and raters to refer to when assessing students' writing. The similarities
will not cause problems for examiners to give marks if they refer to different
scoring methods. The problem lies in the differences because it might cause
differences in marks given to the students' writing. Ifwe look into two scoring
methods and compare the elements that each look into, we will see some
differences in their focus. For example holistic scoring method looks into one
single integrated score ofwriting behavior. It is interested in responding to the
writing as a whole and respondents are unlikely to be penalized for poor
performance on one lesser aspect, for example grammatical ability (Cohen,
9
1994:314). On the other hand, primary trait scoring method narrows its focus on a
specific aspect of the writing piece. So if two ESL teachers assess the same
writing piece, one with the holistic scoring method and the other with primary
trait scoring method, their focus while assessing the writing piece is definitely not
the same. The problem is whether the range ofmarks that they give to the same
writing piece differs or not.
Cohen (1994:312) stated that writers and teachers or raters differ in so many
aspects related to the assessment ofwriting. He quoted Ruth and Murphy as
saying that:
1. Writers will differ in their notions about the significance ofparticular
features of the topic.
2. Students and their teachers (raters) differ in their recognition and
interpretation of salient points in a writing topic (with teachers having a
wealth ofprofessional experience in the evaluation ofwriting while
students have only their own experience as test takers).
3. Student writers may construct different writing tasks for themselves at
different stages in their development.
The quotation above tells us that it is universally accepted that writers and their
raters differ in some ways or other. Even if two raters are given the same scoring
method to assess the same writing piece, there are bound to be differences in their
10
judgment. However it is crucial to minimize the range ofmarks given by them. It
is the concern of this study to find out whether there is a little or large difference
in the range ofmarking given by the three groups ofESL teachers selected as
subjects for this study who will be given different scoring methods to assess
secondary school students' writing samples.
1.4 Objectives
The main objective of this research was to look at a group ofTESL undergraduate
teacher trainees' assessment of essay writin�. These teacher trainees were doing
their bachelor degree program in TESL atUniversiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris. All
these teacher trainees were given some samples ofwriting product and were
required to assess these writing samples using the scoring methods given to them
as a guideline to assess. The total marks for EssayWriting was forty.
The specific objectives of this study were:
1. To design rating scales for assessing essay writing using the holistic, primary
trait and analytic scoring method.
2. To analyze the teacher trainees' assessment of essay writing using the rating
scales given to them.
3. To record and analyze the subjects' verbal reactions (salient features of
assessment) towards assessing the writing product.
11
1.5 Literature Review
Assessment procedures in schools depict the truth about the educational system in
the schools. This is because assessment plays a very important role in determining
the students' future, after they leave schools. The spirit and sty Ie of students'
assessment defines the deJacto curriculum (Rowntree, 1987). That is why
students spend a lot of their time concentrating on how to excel in examinations,
which is associated with assessment. Many courses, seminars, motivational talks
and tuitions are conducted for school students to excel in examinations. Teachers,
students andparents know very well that passing the examination is a ticket to get
good jobs and thus excel in career.
There are many possible means ofassessment. Assessment can be descriptive,
interpretive, qualitative and quantitative. Assessment can even be without being
judgmental (Rowntree, 1987). Just as tests and examinations are possible means
of assessment, so grades and marks are also possible outcomes, but they are not
the only ones possible. No matter how the assessment is, the effect of it is great to
students.
There is a difference between assessment and evaluation. According to Sommer
(1989: 48), "Assessment is the process of finding out who the students are, what
their abilities are, what they need to know, and how they perceive the learning
will affect them. Assessment takes place at the outset of the writing course; it is
distinct from evaluation, which describes ongoing activities that eventually
12
provide closure in the writing course. Assessment places the needs of the students
at the center of the teacher's planning."
Kaczmarek has also stated in the report that "teachers have long felt that essays
are reasonable sorts of tasks to require of students who will have to do a great deal
ofwriting in order to complete just about any educational program" (pg. 151).
Apart from Kaczmarek's findings, there is another one from Long and Richards
(1987: 259) who believe that "writing remains the commonest way of examining
student performance in English. Virtually all public examinations include a
composition, while even gap-filling tests require some competence in the written
language." Long and Richards also believe that assessing students' writing "can
provide useful evidence of successes and failures in learning, of confusions, and
errors, and the teacher can diagnose individual as well as general problems on the
basis of such written work."
Besides serving as good examination purpose, Long and Richards also stated that
successful writing abilities among students serves high face validity since writing
is tangible, and that parents and students can see what has been done and what has
been achieved. They feel that both parents and students will feel contented with
success in writing because this success may be associated with evidence ofhaving
learned the language (pg. 259).
Since the lEA Study ofWritten Composition has brought out a strong criterion for
validity and reliability of scoring students' writing, this study intends to make use
13
of several scoring methods to assess the three different writing tasks. This is to
ensure that result ofthe scoring is highly reliable and valid. The scoring methods
involved are the holistic scoring method, analytic scoring method, primary trait
scoring method and multi-trait scoring method. These methods involved
qualitative and quantitative measures.
It was discovered that scoring schemes in several countries/school systems
employed similar aspects. This means that all these school systems were
interested in evaluating the same elements in students' writing. That was why the
kinds ofwriting offered to students in almost all schools in this world were more
or less the same form and served the same function. There were researchers who
felt that subjective methods ofassessing language performance in students'
writing tasks did not produce as good result as the objective methods. However,
Kaczmarek in Oller and Perkins (1980: 151) reported a study of two writing tasks
and two scoring methods for each. The results showed that subjective methods of
evaluating essays worked as well as the objective scoring methods. Writing
assessment, whether as in-class assessment of student progress or as standardized
proficiency assessment was major determinant of students' future academic
careers. Apart from that, not only do many decisions rested with writing
assessment, but assessment processes had a great impact on student attitudes and
their motivation for future work.
Holistic scoring was normally used in large-scale writing assessment. In holistic
scoring method examiners or raters need not go into details like correcting
14
grammatical errors. This scoring method solved the problem of time consuming
marking in large-scale writing assessment. Holistic scoring was achieved by
reading a written text and then deciding on a general score based on a numerical
scale ranging anywhere from 1-4 to 1-9. The numbers on the scale were often
described briefly as specifications on a scoring rubric.
There were several advantages in the holistic scoring method. Among the
advantages given by Cohen (1994: 315) was that holistic scoring method
generally placed the emphasis on what was done well and not on deficiencies. The
approach allowed teachers to explicitly assign extra or exclusive weight to certain
assessment criteria. Since holistic scoring required a response to the writing as a
whole, respondents did not run the risk ofbeing assessed solely on the basis of
one lesser aspect (e.g. grammatical ability).
Apart from the advantages given, Cohen (1994:315) had also pointed out some
disadvantages ofholistic scoring. In this kind of scoring, raters might overlook
one or two aspects ofwriting performance, and thus produce unfair results. In the
case ofL2 writing, the rating scale might confound writing ability with language
proficiency.
This kind of scoring method looked at writing product generally. The examiners
or raters assessed and ranked the writing product in a graded series. The
examiners who ranked the writing product were guided by a holistic scoring
guide, which described each feature and identifies high, middle and low quality
15
levels for each feature. The marks given to the writing product were based on the
rank levels decided by the raters (Cooper and Odeli, 1977). The holistic scoring
method given in appendix was designed to assess essay writing in this research.
Cohen (1994:317) stated that the advantages of analytic scales were that it
guarded against the collapsing of categories, and training of raters was easier
when there was an explicit set ofanalytic scales. Analytic scoring called for the
use of separate scales, each assessing a different aspect ofwriting, for example,
content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics. This scoring method
used separate scales and each scale assesses' a different aspect ofwriting. The
elements assessed in this method were normally content, organization,
vocabulary, grammar and mechanics. A scale for cohesion was normally
subsumed within organization, but sometimes it stood as a separate scale.
The disadvantage ofanalytic scoring was that the scales might not be helpful to
respondents, especially if the scales they were concerned about were somewhat
neglected by the raters. For example, the writers might wish to receive feedback
on their ideas and organization, but actually find their grammar and mechanics
receive more attention by the teachers/raters. For the purpose of this research, an
analytic scoring method was designed to assess essay writing.
Primary-trait scoring was a grading scheme that was not a so commonly used in
either in-class or large-scale writing assessments (except in experimental studies).
The use of primary-trait scoring was not a very economical approach since
16
primary-trait guidelines should be re-written for every writing task (White 1993).
The National Assessment ofEducational Progress (NAEP) first developed
primary trait scoring method in the mid 1970s (Cohen, 1994). This scoring
method was developed to obtain more information and to clearly define the
features ofwriting being judged, rather than just a single holistic score in the
holistic scoring method. Three different primary-trait scoring methods were given
to assess the essays in this study. Three different aspects of the writing products
were taken into consideration for assessment. The aspects chosen were
vocabulary, grammar and content. Each TESL teacher trainee involved in this
research who was chosen to assess students '. writing using this scoring method
was given one aspect to concentrate on.
1.6 Research Questions
1. Was there any significant difference between the marks given by subjects
using the primary trait scoring method, and the holistic scoring method,
and the analytic scoring method to assess essay writing?
2. What were the salient features of assessment verbalized by the subjects as
they reacted to the writing product (essay writing) during the act of
assessment?
1.7 Methodology and Design
This research was a case study that involved a small group ofTESL
undergraduates. These subjects were given seventy essays written by Form Four
ESL students, and were told to assess the essays with the given scoring method.
17
The marks given by them were analyzed to find out whether there was any
significant difference. Apart from that the subjects were told to record down their
verbal reactions towards assessing these essays.
Essay writing was also known as continuous writing in Malaysian schools. This
writing task included short stories, letter writing and report writing. It was given
in Section C ofPaper Two in the English SPM examination. Five topics were
given and students were required to choose only one to write. The length of the
essay was three hundred and fifty words. The total marks given to this writing
task were forty.
For the purpose ofthis study, essay-writing tasks were given to Form Four
students in a few selected Malaysian Secondary Schools in Malaysia. These
writing tasks were then given to the teacher trainees chosen as subjects in this
study, and they assessed the writing product using the scoring methods given to
them.
1.8 Sample Selection
This research focused on TESL teacher trainees who were doing their Bachelor
Degree in TESL at Faculty ofLanguage in Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris and
their assessment on sixty nine secondary school students' essay writing samples.
One student wrote two essays. So there were seventy samples of essay writing.
The TESL teacher trainees were the subjects in this study. Fourteen subjects were
involved. They were named GAl to GA14 in this case study. These subjects were
18
given seventy essays (see appendix) to assess. Out of fourteen subjects, three of
them (GAll, GAl, GA8) were given the holistic scoring method to assess the
essay writing; six of them (GAl 0, GA2, GA9, GA13, GA7, GAl 4) were given
the analytic scoring method; and five of them (GA5, GA3, GAI2, GA6, GA4)
were given the primary trait scoring method. The subjects who got the primary
trait scoring method were given three different aspects ofwriting to focus on: two
of them (GA5, GA3) focused on grammar; two of them (GAl 2, GA4) focused on
content; and one of them (GA6) focused on vocabulary. All the subjects who were
given the essays were told to record down their verbal protocols while assessing
the essays.
1.9 Instrumentation
Seventy essays written by sixty-nine Form Four ESL students were used as
samples for the teacher trainees to assess in this research. The essays were named
as EI to E69, each representing one essay from one Form Four student, except
E22, where two essays were written by one student. So the essays were named as
E22/1 and E22/2. Three scoring methods were designed for the teacher trainees
to refer to while assessing the students' essay writing. The scoring methods were
the holistic scoring method, the analytic scoring method and the primary trait
scoring method.
1.10 Data Collection
The data collected for this research were the scores given by the subjects to the
essay samples and their salient features of assessment that they wrote down while
19
and after assessing the essay samples. The scores were analysed by the SPSS
program to find out the correlation coefficient; and the salient features of
assessment were analysed descriptively.
1.11 The Result
The result ofthe data analysis was as given below.
1.11.1 The Result of the Assessment ofEssayWriting
Table 1.1 showed the scores given by the subjects who assessed the essay
samples. The scores were tabulated according to five bands: excellent scores,
good scores, average scores, below average scores, and poor scores. The tabulated
scores were shown in Table 1.2; Table 1.3; and Table 1.4.
20
Table 1.1: Marks of the essays given by subjects
E E22 E22Code 1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 ElO Ell El2 E13 E14 ElS E16 E17 E18 E19 E20 E2l 11 12
GAlO 25 22 15 16 35 30 19 23 26 18 8 19 12 21 15 15 12 25 14 25 16 10 12
GAll 24 26 28 22 34 35 22 20 28 22 12 19 12 19 18 20 18 28 19 35 14 20
GAS 1925 23 19 39 38 29 19 29 30 9 19 9 14 9 15 27 40 19 39 20 30 31
GA2 29 22 14 22 38 38 16 26 35 27 7 23 6 28 9 8 13 31 8 38 19 9 23
GAl 19 18 19 19 29 28 18 12 20 18 5 9 5 10 10 15 9 21 9 24 12 9 15
GA9 25 20 15 24 32 36 16 18 27 25 6 11 6 17 15 12 9 25 9 19 13 9 20
GA3 19 19 10 19 30 30 29 10 29 20 5 19 5 10 10 10 10 20 10 19 10 9 9
GA12 34 26 20 28 32 34 14 20 32 28 6 10 8 22 8 10 14 28 12 32 8 4 12
GA8 27 19 22 10 38 39 22 18 36 35 4 9 6 21 19 18 20 34 16 39 18 10 30
GA13 37 21 30 22 35 32 10 11 31 25 6 15 11 15 12 13 14 23 18 23 17 11 9
GA7 21 16 20 12 30 31 16 15 30 26 9 10 14 15 10 18 15 29 13 30 13 11 12
GA6 30 29 22 20 24 36 19 15 32 22 6 9 6 26 16 19 22 25 16 26 12 7 13
GA4 31 22 14 22 26 38 20 27 27 16 5 15 6 19 6 9 6 28 8 22 12 6 13
GA14 9 5 7 4 19 37 1 4 12 10 2 2 1 5 1 1 1 10 1 14 2 2 4
21
Table 1.1: Marks of the essays given by subjects (contd)
CODE E23 E24 E25 E26 E27 E28 E29 E30 E31 E32 E33 E34 E35 E36 E37 E38 E39 E40
GAIO 30 20 13 11 19 20 22 25 16 16 22 20 16 29 17 19 21 20
GAll 24 18 22 10 26 22 28 22 15 19 24 19 18 20 40 28 12 10
GA5 29 33 19 16 39 39 40 39 30 29 39 29 27 39 19 19 19 9
GA2 34 13 13 10 24 18 25 22 8 10 24 26 15 36 22 27 25 24
GAl 19 20 18 12 21 21 18 19 9 17 20 15 14 22 9 20 8 10
GA9 33 23 9 7 26 18 26 23 17 17 25 19 16 26 9 23 19 23
GA3 19 10 5 5 19 10 19 19 5 5 10 10 5 29 10 0 10 19
GAl2 32 20 6 10 18 20 26 30 14 20 24 30 22 32 20 18 30 30
GA8 37 28 15 12 29 29 19 29' 16 18 29 28 10 29 9 30 14 12
GAl3 22 18 17 9 21 17 22 20 19 17 18 16 17 20 12 18 11 17
GA7 30 30 17 12 29 23 26 24 14 19 31 18 18 23 7 19 18 17
GA6 25 22 12 10 16 23 25 28 6 10 9 11 12 28 15 18 14 23
GA4 31 18 8 9 16 21 18 17 8 8 11 17 15 18 9 8 23 23
GAl4 23 1 3 2 1 1 3 1 4 1 15 7 4 1 1 5 5 4
22
Table 1.1: Marks of the essays given by subjects (contd)
CODE E41 E42 E43 E44 E45 E46 E47 E48 E49 E50 E51 E52 E53 E54 E55 E56 E57 E58 E59
GAIO 21 20 22 25 25 22 23 27 14 18 20 25 24 23 23 23 21 17 22
GAll 12 18 20 25 19 12 10 24 20 19 19 22 19 35 18 11 12 10 15
GA5 12 19 20 29 19 18 19 14 15 29 26 26 23 29 25 19 19 18 19
GA2 21 26 31 34 28 28 22 37 23 27 30 27 30 30 28 18 22 24 21
GAl 13 10 14 18 14 10 9 19 9 10 12 9 9 20 10 8 18 9 17
GA9 16 19 18 25 19 20 21 30 19 24 28 20 24 28 19 17 19 14 18
GA3 10 10 10 19 10 10 10 19 5 10 19 10 19 20 19 10 19 10 20
GAl2 26 26 10 30 20 17 28 30 16 20 15 26 30 30 20 15 32 10 20
GA8 19 21 17 31 18 9 18 28 25 16 31 18 14 30 19 9 17 18 25
GAl3 11 21 15 22 20 13 15 19 21 23 20 19 20 20 19 14 22 16 21
GA7 16 22 16 17 18 15 17 31 24 16 19 25 17 22 18 13 18 16 19
GA6 20 22 26 28 18 20 19 18 26 29 19 25 22 18 26 22 20 20 15
GA4 17 15 22 22 24 18 14 22 17 21 16 20 21 19 20 9 7 6 10
GAl4 3 2 2 5 1 2 6 19 2 5 4 4 4 19 3 2 2 2 2
23
Table 1.1: Marks of the essays given by subjects (contd)
CODE E60 E61 E62 E63 E64 E65 E66 E67 E68 E69
GAI0 22 20 20 22 20 25 26 24 19 25
GAll 12 12 12 14 13 22 16 10 17 20
GA5 25 28 22 23 20 29 38 24 21 33
GA2 24 21 25 24 26 26 30 29 21 25
GAl 10 10 10 10 18 20 20 15 12 19
GA9 26 16 16 15 16 18 32 20 22 25
GA3 19 10 10 10 10 19 30 19 19
GA12 28 26 26 28 26 36 34 30 30 34
GA8 19 18 17 11 15 28 20 19 11
GA13 21 14 18 13 11 21 21 21 19 22
GA7 19 15 17 17 18 17 24 22 17 16
GA6 22 18 16 12 18 19 20 22 18 26
GA4 24 18 14 9 8
GA14 2 2 2 2 2 4 8 2 2 3
Table 1.2: Essays marked by subjects using the holistic scoring method
Scoring Holistic scoring methodmethod
Subiects GAll GAl GA830- 40 E5, E6, E20, E54, E5, E6, E9, EI 0, E18, E20, E22/2,Excellent E23, E38, E44, E51, E54,20-29 El, E2, E3, E4, E7, E8, E9, EI0, E5, E6, E9, E18, E20, E24, E27, El, E3, E7, E14, E20, E24, E27, E28,Good E16, E18, E22/1, E23, E25, E27, E28, E33, E36, E38, E54, E65, E30, E33, E34, E36, E42, E48, E49,
E28, E29, E30, E33, E36, E38, E66, E59, E66, E67,E43, E44, E48, E49, E52, E65,E69,
10-19 Ell, E12, E13, E14, E15, E17, El, E2, E3, E4, E7, E8, EI0, E2, E4, E8, E15, E16, E19, E21,Average E19, E21, E24, E26, E31, E32, E14, E15, E16, E21, E2212, E22/1, E25, E26, E29, E31, E32,
E34, E35, E37, E39, E40, E41, E23, E25, £26, E29, £30, E32, E35, E39, E40, £41, E43, E45, E47,E42, E45, E46, E47, E50, E51, E34, E35, E40, E41, E42, E43, E50, E52, E53, E55, E57, E58, E60,E53, E55, E56, E57, E58, E59, E44, E45, E46, E48, E50, E51, E61, E62, E63, E64, E68, E69,E60, E61, E62, E63, E54, E66, E55, E57, E59, E60, E61, E62,E,E68, E63, E64, E67, E68, E69,
05-09 Ell, El2, E13, E17, E19, E22/2 E12, E13, E37, E46, E56,Below E31, E37, E39, £47, E49, £52,averaee E53, E56, E58,0-04 EllPoor
24