>I just finished reading a short article by Liz Hamp-Lyons, called "Rating
>Nonnative Writing: The Trouble with Holistic Scoring" TESOL QUARTERLY 29:4
>(1995):759-762.  Ms. Hamp-Lyons, I think, hits the nail on the head when she
>says that this kind of rating system fails to provide "knowledge about what
>weaknesses and problems need to be worked on or what strengths illuminate
>the writing" of students (761).
>
>One area of writing which is not assessed by a holistic score is the
>question of grammatical competence or the application of grammar to
>composition.  We have a series of tests in my state (CT) which assesses
>reader responses to literature with a holistic grade.  Grammar and spelling
>are not assessed in this score.
>
 
 
I agree w/ you about this limitation of holistic scoring--it gives little
feedback on what needs to be improved.  I think it just goes to show that
any assessment tool has to be chosen based on the purpose for doing the
assessment.  For instance, most placement tests (or systems for
administering them anyhow) seem to allow little opportunity to give
feedback to students or teachers; students and simply placed.  In such a
case, I can see that holistic scoring is ok--giving an overall indication
of aperson's writing skills.  But when students and teachers can receive
feedback from the test, analytic scoring seems best (though separate
scoring of different skills often makes it hard to get an idea of the
student's overall ability).
 
 
Larry Beason,Director
English Composition Program
Dept. of English
Eastern Washington University
Cheney WA 99004
[log in to unmask]
 
WAC Page: http://ewu66649.ewu.edu/WAC.html