The Effects of Pre-exam Instruction on Students' Performance on an Effective Writing Exam

Paula Saunders University of Calgary ; Charles T. Scialfa University of Calgary

Abstract

The purpose of Study 1a was to determine the criteria that differentiate students who perform well and those who perform poorly on a standardized test of university-level writing. Discriminant function analysis revealed that measures of structure, sentencing, paragraphing, and grammar play the most important role in separating these two groups. These results were used in Study 1b to develop a tutorial attended by an independent group of students preparing to write a standardized writing exam. The intervention had a positive effect on their test performance. Participants reported the tutorial to be useful, committed fewer errors on most of the criteria, and had a higher probability of passing the exam. It was concluded that this type of tutorial is beneficial to students who are preparing for such exams and may have wider educational use for those seeking assistance with their writing skills.

Journal
Written Communication
Published
2003-04-01
DOI
10.1177/0741088303020002004
CompPile
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. Assessing Writing

References (36) · 4 in this index

  1. 10.1080/1057356980140303
     ↗
  2. 10.1080/00140137808931764
     ↗
  3. 10.1002/hrdq.3920020106
     ↗
  4. College Composition and Communication
  5. Cascio, W. F. (1998) Applied psychology on human resource management (5th ed.). New Jersey: Simon & Schuster.
Show all 36 →
  1. 10.1177/108056999605900411
     ↗
  2. 10.2307/375750
     ↗
  3. Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, …
     ↗
  4. Research in the Teaching of English
  5. Goldberg, G. L., Roswell, B. S. & Michaels, H. (1996). Empirical investigations: Can assessment mirror instru…
     ↗
  6. Hayes, J. R. (1990). Individuals and environments in writing instruction. In, B. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dime…
  7. Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy et al. …
  8. 10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1106
     ↗
  9. Hayes, J. & Flower, L. (1987). On the structure of the writing process. Topics in language disorders, 7, 19-30.
     ↗
  10. Hayes, J. R. & Nash, J. G. (1996). On the nature of planning in writing. In C. M. Levy et al. (Eds.), The Sci…
  11. 10.1086/443789
     ↗
  12. 10.1080/00220973.1954.11010477
     ↗
  13. 10.1093/elt/44.4.279
     ↗
  14. 10.1080/01638539409544893
     ↗
  15. 10.1093/elt/44.4.294
     ↗
  16. 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772989
     ↗
  17. 10.1080/08832323.1992.10117585
     ↗
  18. 10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.241
     ↗
  19. 10.1016/0749-5978(89)90034-4
     ↗
  20. 10.1177/108056999706000210
     ↗
  21. College Composition and Communication
  22. 10.2466/pms.1996.83.1.176
     ↗
  23. 10.1518/001872098779480424
     ↗
  24. Written Communication
  25. Strand, S. E. (1997). Reporting writing center successes: Authentic assessment in the w…
  26. Tindal, G. & Parker, R. (1991). Identifying measures for evaluating written expression. Learning Disabilities…
  27. Van Peer, W. (1990). Writing as an institutional practice. In W. Nash (Ed.), The writing scholar: Studies in …
  28. Wallace, D. L. & Hayes, J. R. (1992). Redefining revision for freshmen. In J. R. Hayes, R. E. Young, et al. (…
     ↗
  29. 10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.682
     ↗
  30. Winter, J. K., Neal, J. C. & Warner, K. K. (1996). Student and instructor use of comments on business communi…
     ↗
  31. Wunsch, D. R. (1982). The effects of written feedback, rewriting and group oral feedback on business letter w…