,). '<-: �-"'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