Comparing and Validating Four Methods for Scoring Mathematics Writing

Autor/inn/en	Namkung, Jessica M.; Hebert, Michael; Powell, Sarah R.; Hoins, Marisa; Bricko, Nicole; Torchia, Meghann
Titel	Comparing and Validating Four Methods for Scoring Mathematics Writing
Quelle	In: Reading & Writing Quarterly, 36 (2020) 2, S.157-175 (19 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1057-3569
DOI	10.1080/10573569.2019.1700858
Schlagwörter	Mathematics Instruction; Writing Skills; Writing Evaluation; Content Area Writing; Scoring Rubrics; Vocabulary; Grammar; Curriculum Based Assessment; Grade 3; Grade 4; Grade 5; Elementary School Students; Correlation; Wechsler Individual Achievement Test; Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement; National Assessment of Educational Progress + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Mathematics lessons; Mathematikunterricht; Writing skill; Schreibfertigkeit; Schriftliche Übung; Scoring formulas; Auswertungsbogen; Wortschatz; Grammatik; School year 03; 3. Schuljahr; Schuljahr 03; School year 04; 4. Schuljahr; Schuljahr 04; School year 05; 5. Schuljahr; Schuljahr 05; Korrelation; WIAT; Eignungsprüfung; Eignungstest
Abstract	Current mathematics curricula and assessments emphasize students' ability to communicate mathematical reasoning in writing. Limited research exists, however, on what mathematics writing (MW) is and how to assess the quality of MW. Therefore, based on our definition of MW construct, we explored 4 approaches to scoring MW: (a) holistic rubric scoring for overall quality of explanation; (b) analytical rubric scoring across 4 components (i.e., mathematics content, mathematics vocabulary, writing organization, writing grammar); (c) genre-based elements scoring (modified from the scoring form used for the Essay Composition subtest of the Wechsler Individualized Achievement Test); and (d) curriculum-based measurement mathematics-writing sequences (MWS) scoring, including rules for scoring numbers and symbols. Students from 6 classrooms in 3rd-grade, 4th grade, and 5th grade (2 classrooms at each grade level; N = 122) were recruited for the current study. Results indicated all 4 scoring methods were moderately correlated with measures of writing and mathematics. Holistic, analytic, and elements scoring were strongly correlated with each other, with slightly lower correlations for the MWS scoring. Confirmatory factor analysis further demonstrated adequate construct validity. All 4 scoring methods were reliable with an exception of lower reliability for writing components assessed by analytic scoring. Based on the validity, reliability, efficiency, and information provided by each scoring method, we recommend holistic scoring for summative assessments and elements scoring for formative assessments. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01