Written Feedback and Scoring of Sixth-Grade Girls’ and ...



Written Feedback and Scoring of Sixth-Grade Girls’ and Boys’ Narrative and Persuasive Writing

Abstract

This study examined the possible gender differences in teachers' scoring and written feedback on two narrative and two persuasive writing samples sent to 108 grade six teachers throughout one Canadian province. Participating teachers read a narrative and a persuasive piece of writing from one boy, and a narrative and persuasive piece written by one girl. The four papers were credited to a male author for some teachers and to a female author for others. The teachers evaluated the writing using the provincial scoring guides for narrative and persuasive writing. They also wrote comments and/or indicated needed edits and revisions on the piece of writing, providing the same kind of feedback to the student writers that they would provide to their own students. A two-way ANOVA was used to compare the scores by the teacher’s gender and the identified gender of the writer for each of the four papers.

There were significant differences between scores assigned to female and male writers on particular papers within specific scoring categories. Nevertheless, teachers’ ratings of the writing showed no consistent patterns privileging female or male writers. Additionally, female and male teachers’ scores were not significantly different for three of the four writing samples. The persuasive papers overall were scored higher than the narrative papers. With one exception, the highest scores within each of the four scoring categories were assigned to papers whose writers were identified as boys. Teachers scored two papers higher when the student writer’s perceived gender matched their own (same-sex appreciation). Their scoring demonstrated the opposite effect (same-sex depreciation) for the other two papers.

Teachers wrote extensive comments to the student writers. The greatest percentage of their comments to the narrative writers were editive and the greatest percentage of comments about the persuasive papers were revisional in nature. Girls received approximately the same quantity of comments as boys did by female and male teachers. Of the comments directed to male student authors, the greatest percentage were editive in nature. Female and male student authors received relatively equal numbers of verdictive (praising) and revisional comments.

Key Words: assessment, elementary, writing, gender, narrative, per suasive

In Canada, Great Britain and the United States, girls on overage outperform boys in writing on large-scale writing tests (Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, 1998; Education Quality and Accountability Office, 2000; Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1995; Ohio Department of Education, 2000; Stobart, Elwood & Quinlan, 1992). In an effort to understand factors contributing to the gender disparity in large-scale writing assessments, this study examined possible gender differences in grade six teachers’ evaluation of students’ narrative and persuasive writing and in their evaluative feedback on the two types of writing. The design of the study and the examination of the results were guided by two key research questions:

(a) What are the possible influences of the teacher’s gender, the student writer’s gender, and the discourse mode (narrative or persuasive writing) on the teacher’s scoring of sixth-grade writing?

(b) What types of evaluative feedback do female and male teachers provide to girls and boys on their narrative and persuasive writing?

Review of the Literature

Previous research examined gender characteristics within elementary children’s narrative and persuasive writing and gender differences in the scoring of their writing. Research examining gender characteristics of student writing provided a framework for selecting the writing samples. Studies examining teachers’ gender perceptions and the influence of those perceptions on the evaluation of cross-gendered student writing (writing that has some stylistic characteristics traditionally attributed to writers of the opposite gender to that of the writer and some characteristics that are expected of writers of the same gender) provide a point of comparison for the results of this study.

Gender Differences in Student Writing

In studies of gender differences in students’ writing, gender is defined as a set of social and cultural expectations for talking, thinking and acting that are associated with being a girl or a boy. Researchers who assessed gender differences in elementary students’ narrative writing found in boys’ writing a limited offering of roles for female characters. They also found that student writers positioned male characters in powerful roles that required independent problem solving to overcome obstacles, often in violent ways (Gray-Schlegel & Gray-Schlegel, 1995-96; Trepanier-Street & Romatowski, 1991; Tuck, Bayliss & Bell, 1985). Female characters in girls’ narratives tended to play powerful roles. Although violence was an element in some girls’ stories, characters were more likely to resolve conflicts through the creation of alliances with others than through independent, aggressive action.

In Knudson’s (1992a) study of students’ persuasive writing at grades three, five, ten, and twelve, no gender differences were found in terms of norm invocations (appeals to rules, fair play and reason), positive sanctions (offers of gifts, bargaining, and politeness), requests, and assertions.

Teachers’ Perceptions of Gender and their Evaluation of Writing

When asked to identify the gender of writers of cross-gendered papers, sixth-grade teachers in a Canadian study (Peterson, 1998), and secondary and post secondary English teachers in American studies (Barnes, 1990; Earl-Novell, 2001; Graham, 1996; Haswell & Haswell, 1995; Roulis, 1995) were not always accurate. Their perception of the quality of the writing was often influenced by their perception of the writer’s gender.

Peterson (1998) found that sixth-grade teachers viewed girls’ writing as being organized, detailed, descriptive, and showing a sophisticated use of sentence structure and vocabulary. In contrast, they identified writing that lacked in detail and was poorly developed, in terms of characters, plots and the use of language, as boys’ writing. Although teachers’ descriptions of girls’ and boys’ writing indicated their perceptions of girls as better writers than boys, the scores that they assigned to four of the five papers were not significantly higher if the teachers perceived the papers to have been written by girls. There was a significant difference in the scoring of a fifth paper, however. Teachers who felt that a boy had written the paper assigned significantly lower scores to the paper than did teachers who identified the writer as a girl.

The results of research examining teachers’ gender perceptions of cross-gendered writing at the secondary and postsecondary levels showed a bias against female writers (Barnes, 1990; Earl-Novell, 2001; Graham, 1996; Haswell & Haswell, 1995; Roulis, 1995). Participating teachers privileged the linear, impersonal style traditionally attributed to men’s persuasive writing over the contextual style typically attributed to women’s persuasive writing. Barnes (1990) found that male teachers were critical of emotional writing, particularly that written by female writers. Female teachers in her study were more concerned than male teachers about the form of the writing and the author’s use of writing conventions.

Haswell and Haswell (1995) found that male teachers tended to rate male writers’ papers lower than female teachers did, and that female teachers tended to rate female writers’ papers lower than their male counterparts did. Haswell and Haswell termed this phenomenon “same-sex depreciation” and explained that their findings corroborated those of Etaugh, Houtler, and Ptasnik (1988), but did not support Roen’s (1992) findings. In Roen’s study, same-sex appreciation was found, as male high school teachers favored the writing of male students and female teachers privileged girls’ writing.

Methods

Materials: Writing Samples

Two narrative papers and two persuasive papers served as the sample materials for this study. We selected papers from the assigned writing of sixth-grade students in one urban elementary classroom of 22 students. The narratives were about a dream and the persuasive papers considered the ongoing value of the Reserve system for First Nations people in Canada. The four selected papers exhibited characteristics of both boys’ and girls’ writing, as observed in research studies (Gray-Schlegel & Gray-Schlegel, 1995-96; Knudson, 1992a; Trepanier-Street & Romatowski, 1991; Tuck, Bayliss & Bell, 1985). We selected a paper from each mode of discourse written by one boy and one girl in order to compare the scores and evaluative comments given to two types of writing composed by one student. Although we did not edit the papers, we did have them type-written to control for the influence of girls’ and boys’ handwriting styles and the neatness of the writing on teachers’ assessment.

To verify the cross-gendered nature of the writing samples, 11 classroom teachers from a graduate course on literacy read and "identified" the gender of the writers of five narrative and persuasive papers from the selected grade six class. In addition, these same teachers identified gender markers within the narrative writing. The two narrative papers we selected to include in the study were the ones for which most teachers showed great uncertainty in identifying the writer’s gender and/or for which there were very mixed perceptions of the writer’s gender. We then added the persuasive writing samples from the same two students to our research sample. Teachers found it difficult to determine the gender of the writers of all of the persuasive papers.

The girl’s untitled narrative is about a dream in which the first person narrator plays on a school soccer team in a metal uniform. The inevitable injuries that result convince the coach that new uniforms are in order. Her persuasive paper is entitled, “Home Sweet Home First Nations.” The boy’s narrative, entitled “The Dream,” is about a group of children who win environmental awards on the last day of school. The next day they clean up a polluted creek, restoring the habitat of a family of ducks. His persuasive paper is entitled, “Native Case.”

Procedure

We recruited sixth-grade teachers in schools from 17 public and Catholic school districts in one Canadian province. After contacting principals to explain the project and to request the names of grade six teachers in their school, we telephoned teachers from each school, inviting their participation in the study. We sent packages containing the two narrative and two persuasive papers, the provincial scoring guides for narrative and persuasive writing (Ontario Ministry of Education and Training, 1999) and a feedback form that included a space for a numerical evaluation of the writing samples as well as space for further evaluative comments to the students. The form also requested demographic information on the gender of the teachers and the number of years they had taught sixth-grade writing. Teachers were asked to score all four papers using the provincial scoring guide appropriate to the mode of discourse of each paper and to mark or comment on them as they would had a student in their own class submitted the writing to them. They were not told whether the students would actually receive the feedback, however. The overall response rate was 52%. Of the 108 participants, 76 were female (70.4%) and 32 were male (29.6%). Almost a third (29.6%) had taught for less than five years, 39.8% had taught between five and 15 years, and 30.6% had taught for 15 years or more.

We assigned pseudonyms to the writers of each paper. Half of the participating teachers received a set of papers in which Melissa had written the soccer story and Andrew had written the environmental story. The other half of the teachers received surveys in which the two names had been reversed. Similarly, half of the teachers received surveys in which Jeremy had written “Home Sweet Home First Nations” and Kathryn had written “Native Case” and vice versa.

There were four conditions in this study. In Condition 1, for example, the gender of the name assigned to each piece of writing matched the gender of the student who actually wrote the piece: that is, the pieces were identified as female-male-female-male. Condition 2 alternated the genders of the persuasive papers while Condition 3 also switched the narrative papers so that none of the papers were identified by their correct gender. Finally, in Condition 4 the persuasive papers were changed back so that both the assigned and actual gender of the persuasive papes matched. This condition and the number of participants in each condition are summarized in Table 1.

_____________________

Insert Table 1 about here

____________________

We used provincial scoring guides for narrative and persuasive writing (Ontario Ministry of Education and Training, 1999) because teachers have access to them and are familiar with their use. Within the two scoring guides, there are four separate categories for consideration : (1) reasoning (complexity of ideas and number and relevance of supporting details), (2) communication (establishing and achieving the purpose of the writing, vocabulary, sentence variety, and evidence of the writer’s voice), (3) organization (overall structure and paragraph structure), and (4) conventions (refers to mechanics, such as spelling, grammar and punctuation). Each scoring guide describes four levels of performance applicable to each of the four categories. Level 1 represents a low, but passing performance. Level 3 is performance at grade level.

Data Analysis

Means, standard deviations, and correlations were computed for teachers' ratings. We used two-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) for each of the writing samples to compare the scores by the identified gender of the writer and the teacher’s gender.

Two raters analyzed the teachers’ written feedback to the student-writers using categories from a previous study (Barnes, 1990, p. 146) of college instructors’ evaluative comments on students’ expository writing as a framework:

1) editive: used when the teacher’s intent is to have the student make lower-order revisions—mechanical, grammatical, lexical, or syntactic changes,

2) revisional: used when the teacher’s intent is to have the student make higher-order revisions—informational, organizational, or holistic alterations,”

3) verdictive: comments used to praise.

Throughout the analysis process, the raters worked independently and then compared their analyses, clarifying rationales for particular categorizations when disagreements arose until they reached consensus. They coded the comments in terms of the identified gender of the writers to which the comments were directed and the mode of discourse of the writing, calculating percentages of comments directed to male and female writers for each of the pieces of writing.

Results

Teacher’s Gender

Table 2 presents the average marks in each category for each writing piece by teachers’ gender. It also presents the correlations among the marks. Only the third writing piece, the persuasive paper “Home Sweet Home”, received significantly different scores from male teachers than it did from female teachers. Male teachers scored the paper significantly higher in Reasoning, F(1,102) = 4.28, p < .05, and Communication, F(1,102) = 4.14, p < .05 .

_____________________________

Insert Table 2 about here

______________________________

Gender and Type of Writing

As shown in Table 3, both male and female teachers tended to give higher marks if they believed that a girl had written narrative #1. These differences were significant for the female teachers in the Conventions category and for male teachers in the Organization category. This paper contains a great number of conventions/mechanics errors. The opposite pattern was apparent for the second narrative. If teachers believed that the narrative was written by a boy, they gave it higher marks.

For each writing sample, a series of ANOVAs were conducted to determine whether teacher gender and perceived student gender affected the marks assigned to the paper. Across both male and female teachers, the following scores were higher if the student was perceived to be a girl: Communication, F(1,102) = 5.71, p < .05, and Organization, F(1,102) = 5.36, p < .05. None of the interaction terms were significant. (Note: All of these statistics must be interpreted cautiously, as many statistical tests were performed, increasing the chance of labeling a difference significant at the .05 level when it is not.)

For narrative 2 (environment), two of the interactions were significant. For Conventions, female teachers gave similar marks to both “Andrew” and “Melissa,” but male teachers gave “Andrew” significantly higher marks than they gave Melissa, F(1,102) = 4.27, p < .05. Similarly, “Andrew” received significantly higher Communication ratings from male teachers than did Melissa, F(1,102) = 8.44, p < .01.

For the third and fourth writing samples, no significant differences were found.

Both writing sample 1 (narrative-Soccer) and writing sample 3 (persuasive-Home Sweet Home) were written by the female student. Significantly higher scores were assigned to this student’s persuasive piece in all four score categories: Reasoning (2.15 vs. 2.92; t(104) = -7.91, p < .001), Communication (2.20 vs. 2.92; t(104) = -7.85, p < .001), Organization (2.14 vs. 2.76; t(105) = -7.29, p < .001), and Conventions (1.88 vs. 3.04; t(105) = -16.86, p < .001) regardless of the perceived writer. Writing Samples 2 (narrative - Environment) and 4 (persuasive - Native Case) were, similarly, written by the same male student. The only significant difference for Writing Samples 2 and 4 was for Conventions (2.60 vs. 3.19; t(104) = -7.86, p < .001), where significantly higher scores were assigned for the persuasive piece regardless of the assigned name.

In a comparison of scores across all four writing samples, the highest scores were assigned in each category to the papers that teachers thought boys had written (except for female teachers’ scores in the Reasoning category—Kathryn received the highest score for persuasive sample #3).

There evidence of same-sex depreciation in teachers’ scores for one narrative and one persuasive paper. For example, male teachers scored persuasive paper #4 lower if they felt Jeremy had written it than if they felt Kathryn had written it. Similarly, female teachers demonstrated same-sex depreciation, as they scored this persuasive paper lower (except in Reasoning) if they were told that Kathryn had written it. Same-sex appreciation was in evidence for teachers of both sexes in the scoring of persuasive paper #3 and in one of the narrative papers. Here, teachers scored papers higher if they were told that the writer’s sex matched their own.

____________________________

Insert Table 3 about here

_________________________

Teachers’ Evaluative Feedback on Narrative and Persuasive Writing

The majority of teachers in this study did not restrict their assessment to the numerical evaluation, but also provided further feedback or comments. Many teachers wrote extensive feedback to the students regarding both types of writing. Most often, teachers corrected the convention errors on the piece of writing itself and then wrote three to five comments to the writer at the end of the paper. Some teachers wrote up to 16 different comments on the writing and at the end of the paper.

Types of Comments by Gender and Type of Writing

Teachers directed similar numbers of comments to girls and boys, as 50.4% of the comments were directed to boys and 49.6% to girls. Teachers wrote more editive comments to the writers of the narratives and more revisional comments to the writers of the persuasive papers. The numbers of comments across the three categories were more evenly distributed for the narrative papers. More than half of the comments directed to the writers of the persuasive papers were revisional in nature. In Table 4, the percentages reflect the proportion of all comments given to each writer by female and male teachers within the three categories: editive, revisional, and verdictive. We calculated percentages since the larger proportion of surveys we received in Condition 4 meant that raw tallies of the types of comments would not have provided a valid comparison.

____________________________

Insert Table 4 about here

_________________________

Overall, boys received more editive comments from both male and female teachers than girls did. Girls received slightly more (less than 1%) revisional and verdictive (praising) comments than boys did.

Narrative writing.

Whether teachers believed that Andrew or Melissa had written the soccer narrative, their comments were directed toward similar problems: the need to edit, the need for more details in order to clear up the reader’s confusion, the need to use quotation marks and indenting for new speakers when writing dialogue, and the need to use consistent verb tenses. Teachers identified the same strengths: the interesting and imaginative ideas in the story, and the use of description and specific vocabulary. Many of the comments to Andrew and Melissa provided suggestions: “Rereading your work will help you check for missing details,” and “Be aware of your audience and give your reader the details he/she needs to make the story ‘flow’.” Often, the verdictive comments included personal pronouns, as teachers wrote, “I like how you experiment with words,” and “Your voice came through clearly.” Teachers’ editive comments often were explanatory in nature: “Use the same verb tense throughout,” and “Try to combine short, simple sentences into longer, more interesting thoughts.” Table 5 shows the most frequent comments, offered by at least five different teachers, that were directed to Andrew and Melissa. Please note that Melissa received revisional comments from a number of teachers, but none of the comments were repeated by five or more teachers.

____________________________

Insert Table 5 about here

_________________________

Teachers’ feedback to Melissa and Andrew on the environmental narrative, “The Dream,” were similar regardless of whether teachers addressed Melissa or Andrew. The most frequently-written comments are in Table 6. Teachers praised the writer’s ideas, organization, use of paragraphs and supporting details. Many teachers commented on the positive theme of the story. For example, one female teacher wrote, “an interesting narrative with an important environmental issue” and another commented, “Your ideas are great and your dream seems more like a look into the future! What a great way to help your community and yourself.” Editive and revisional feedback included requests (“please see me regarding the tense of events in a narrative” and “let’s discuss your beginning”), questions (“what part is the actual dream?”), directions (“when proof reading your work, please be sure to watch run-on sentences” and “please use your thesaurus—you use too many over-used words”), observations (“at times your purpose is unclear” and “some of the details that you give are not directly supporting your main idea”), suggestions (“perhaps try to replace some words like “stuff” with more creative ones”), and explanations (“when the speaker changes, start a new line”).

____________________________

Insert Table 6 about here

_________________________

Persuasive writing.

There are no evident gender patterns in the types of comments that teachers gave to writers of the two persuasive papers. Teachers’ comments to Kathryn and to Jeremy regarding the “Home Sweet Home” persuasive paper, writing sample 3, focused mainly on the organization of ideas and the need to develop one idea before moving on to others. Most frequently, teachers wrote comments about the difficulties that they observed in the writing: “you have two thoughts that are not connected in this paragraph” and “too many issues are mentioned and none are expanded upon.” Teachers also gave many directives: “proofread for spelling and grammar” and “provide proof for your ideas.” The numerous verdictive comments identified specific strengths of the paper, such as: “great summary to conclude the paper” and “your position is well supported with valid and well-explained points.”

As shown in Table 7, there seems to have been a wide range of perspectives on the paper’s strengths and weaknesses. Some teachers’ verdictive comments about the use of facts and other details to support the argument contrast sharply with other teachers’ revisional comments about “little development of ideas—needs supporting evidence.” Similarly, some teachers felt that the writer used “excellent paragraphs,” whereas others felt that the paper “lacks cohesion of ideas [as there are] too many ideas per paragraph.”

____________________________

Insert Table 7 about here

_________________________

Teachers wrote more revisional comments on the “Native Case” persuasive paper, sample 4, regardless of whether Jeremy or Kathryn had written it. None of the editive comments were repeated by five or more teachers. For the most part, teachers identified the need to develop one idea fully with supporting evidence and to avoid contradicting the main point. A few also identified problems in perpetuating stereotypes about natives and substance abuse and problems with the use of words such as “drunks.” In this paper, teachers commented on the writing style and, as in the environmental story, the ideological content of the paper. Whereas comments on the ideological content of "The Dream" were positive, such corollary comments on "Native Case" were not. Teachers asked the writers many questions, such as, “Why is the school system second rate?” and “Are native people like you and me? Do they want to be?”

As in the “Home Sweet Home” persuasive paper, some teachers’ verdictive comments conflicted with other teachers’ revisional comments. Verdictive comments praised the writer on a clearly stated position supported with relevant details, whereas revisional comments suggested developing ideas more fully with facts and examples. Table 8 provides the most frequently-written comments for the “Native Case” persuasive paper.

____________________________

Insert Table 8 about here

_________________________

Conclusions and Implications

Through an examination of the interaction of teachers’ gender, students’ gender and the evaluation of two types of writing, this study attempted to create a greater understanding of the gender disparity favoring female writers in scores of large-scale writing assessments. The results of this study did not show consistent patterns privileging one sex over the other in the scores and feedback that 108 teachers assigned to narrative and persuasive papers written by a sixth-grade girl and boy. Teachers of both sexes scored the narrative paper with the greatest number of conventions/mechanics errors higher in all scoring categories if they perceived the writer to be a girl. The opposite was true of the narrative with far fewer spelling, punctuation and grammar errors, as the male writer received higher ratings in all scoring categories. Only two of the ratings by male teachers were significantly higher for each paper. There were no patterns across male and female teachers in the scores assigned to the two persuasive papers. The absence of consistent gender patterns was also found in the overall quantity of teachers’ feedback to the student writers. It appears that, while other studies have shown that teachers’ rhetoric of gender equality is not always reflected in their behavior (Tater & Emmanuel, 2001), the efforts of teachers in this study to mark and respond to students’ writing in an unbiased way appear to be successful, for the most part. There were patterns that indicate the need for further examination of gender interactions with teachers' evaluation of student writing, however.

A previous study (Peterson, 1998) of sixth-grade teachers’ assessment of narrative writing showed parallel inconsistencies in ratings assigned to students’ cross-gendered narrative writing, with significant differences favoring female writers only in one of the four sample papers. In the previous study, however, teachers’ comments about the writing privileged girls’ writing, in terms of organization, description, sentence structure, vocabulary, and use of writing conventions/mechanics. These results indicated that the gender disparity in scores on large-scale writing assessments might be influenced, in part, by this perception.

Teachers’ perceptions of girls as better writers in terms of organization and writing conventions may be a factor in explaining results of the present study, as well. In comparisons of the types of feedback given to male and female writers, greater percentages directed to male writers were editive in nature. Additionally, a perception of female students as better writers than male students may help to explain the presence of significantly higher scores assigned to Melissa for Conventions by female teachers and for Organization by male teachers in the narrative that contained the greatest number of writing conventions errors and received the greatest number of editive comments. Teachers’ expectations of greater conventions and organizational problems in boys’ writing may result in their identification of greater numbers of these types of weaknesses when evaluating male students’ writing. Teachers may minimize or overlook the same errors in girls’ writing, resulting in higher scores in these two categories and fewer comments directed toward editing the writing to correct such errors.

One additional gender-related pattern in teachers’ evaluation of student writing, found in previous research (Etaugh, Houtler, & Ptasnik, 1988; Haswell & Haswell, 1995), appeared in the results of this study. Teachers demonstrated same-sex depreciation in their scoring of one narrative and one persuasive paper. They demonstrated same-sex appreciation in the scoring of the other narrative and persuasive papers, however. The predominance of female teachers teaching sixth-grade in this Canadian province (as evidenced in the sample of teachers recruited for this study) indicates that a consistent finding of same-sex appreciation might help to explain why boys are not as successful as girls on large-scale writing assessments. Given that both same-sex depreciation (Etaugh, Houtler, & Ptasnik, 1988; Haswell & Haswell, 1995) and same-sex appreciation (Roen, 1992) have been observed in this study and in previous research, further research is needed to make assertions regarding the influence of same-sex appreciation on teachers’ assessment of student writing in large-scale tests, however.

References

Barnes, L. L. (1990). Gender bias in teachers’ written comments. In S. L. Gabriel & I. Smithson (Eds.), Gender in the classroom: Power and pedagogy (pp. 140-159). Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1998). School achievement indicators program: 1998 reading and writing assessment. Toronto, ON: Author.

Earl-Novell, S. (2001). 'Gendered' styles of writing and the 'inequality in assessment' hypothesis: An explanation for gender differentiation in first class academic achievement at university. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 21 (1/2), 160-173.

Education Quality and Accountability Office. (2000). Ontario provincial report on achievement. Toronto, ON: Author.

Etaugh, C. B., Houtler, B., & Ptasnik, P. (1988). Evaluating competence of women and men: Effects of experimenter gender and group gender composition. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 191-200.

Gray-Schlegel, M., & Gray-Schlegel, T. (1995-96). An investigation of gender stereotypes as revealed through children’s creative writing. Reading Research and Instruction, 35(2), 160-170.

Haswell, R. H., & Haswell, J. E. (1995). Gendership and the miswriting of students. College Composition and Communication, 46(2), 223-254.

Knudson, R. E. (1992a). An analysis of persuasive discourse: Learning how to take a stand. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U. S. Department of Education. (1995). Windows into the classroom: NAEP's 1992 writing portfolio study. Washington, DC: Author.

Ohio Department of Education. (2000). Ohio sixth-grade proficiency test results: Gender and ethnic March 2000 test administration. Columbus, OH: Author

Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. (1999). The Ontario curriculum—Exemplars grades 1-8: Writing. Toronto, ON: Author.

Peterson, S. (1998). Evaluation and teachers’ perceptions of gender in sixth-grade student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 33(2), 181-208.

Roen, D. H. (1992). Gender and teacher response to student writing. In N. McCracken & B. Appleby (Eds.), Gender issues in the teaching of writing. (pp. 126-141). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Roulis, E. (1995). Gendered voice in composing, gendered voice in evaluating: Gender and the assessment of writing quality. In D. L. Rubin (Ed.), Composing social identity in written language (pp. 151-185). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Stobart, G., Elwood, J., & Quinlan, M. (1992). Gender bias in examinations: How equal are the opportunities? British Educational Research Journal, 18(3), 261-276.

Tater, M., & Emmanuel, G. (2001). Teachers' perceptions of their students' gender roles. Journal of Educational Research. 94,(4), 215-224.

Trepanier-Street, M., & Romatowski, J. A. (1991). Achieving gender equity goals: Implications from creative writing research. Educational Horizons, 70(1), 34-40.

Tuck, D., Bayliss, V., & Bell, M. (1985). Analysis of gender stereotyping in characters created by young authors. Journal of Educational Research, 78(4), 248-252.

Appendix: Student Writing Used in the Study (typed exactly as students wrote the papers)

Narrative #1 (written by a girl)

Hi, I’m Melissa. I am 11 years old, I have brown hair, brown eyes and I love soccer. I play on a indoor soccer team called West-view. We wear blue shirts and black shorts. We have a well developed team. I casually play forefront. With Vanessa’s hard kicks, Max’s goal saves, plus Mario and Christian’s goals were sure to win the play offs.

A while a go I had a dream. It was so strange, we were playing a hard competitve game of soccer, in METAL!

My Dream Was The Future

We were in a bright yellow gym, it has basket ball nets on each side of the gym. It also contanied a lion print in the middle of the floor. There was a skinny red line at the top and bottom, that went around the walls. The team and I were standing in the far right corner and all you heard was “Haahaa”! “No, no I’m not wearing metal, you can’t make me!” I hollered has our coach was explaining the horafing news. “how are we sposte to run when were wearing gard glothes.””Melissa come down we want you to be saff. “The metal will protect you if you fall.” My coach constencly said. “It’s not going to protect us if it rains, we’ll rust.” Everyone craked up at Mario’s joke. “ Melissa please give it a chance today, PPPPLLLLEEEEAAASSSSEEEE.” My coach was on his knees I had to say yes. I went to the bathroom and changed.

There were four layers of silver armer and to top it off it fit tight. When I got back in the gym I was able to take off two layers. It was lighter.

“Let the Games Begin”

“Melissa, Christian forefront, Vannessa, Mario defence, Max net.” Coach screamed.

The spokes person started speaking and the game began. “Christian kicks the ball it hits the oppiste team Melissa get’s it she shuts and hits the goalies head in goes the ball.” “the new costumes seem to be better than ever!” “Switch!” yelled the coach. The next four went on. “Nice goal.” My friend Vanessa wispered in to my ear. Vannessa’s Portugal she has short brown hair & brown eyes. Her eye’s caputure people’s attention. “Ok” I wispered back.

“Melissa, Vannessa forefront now.” We were back in the game.

The Spokesperson started speaking again.

“Defence kicks it and wait a second he fell, he’s hurt.” “The coach came to the conclusion that the game was over!” “West-view wins a big one to nothing.” “Good bye till next time.” “Don’t say I didn’t but I told you so, does this mean it’s not safe “And we don’t have to wear if anymore? Said Mario in pain. “I guess so said our coach. “YYYYEEESS!” Everyone was happy.

That was the end of my dream. Well that was the future not the present! Gota go I have a big game bye.

Persuasive Paper #1 (written by a girl)

Home Sweet Home First Nations

In today’s world many First Nations people in Canada live on reserves. These First Nations speak different languages. They live in tribes. Each tribe has a different belief. The were the First to live in Canada. When the white Canadians came, the government gave the First Nations a bit of land where they will continue their lives. I believe they should have their own land in order to maintain their lifestyle.

Living on reserves, they experience what their brave, courageous ancestors went through, including the good and bad. They're teaching the young, curious children about their religion. First Nations believe that a religion is what a good, reliable family needs. While being the First on the Canadian land the First nations are used to the food, weather, and fresh air. Many people have questions as to who they are? And where they come from? On reserves the First Nations know the answers. When not on reserves these people are not treated with as much respect as other Canadians. That is wrong. They do this because they stereotype natives. On the other hand, when on reserves they are all treated the same. Being proud of who they are. Also on reserves their family members are buried, which makes it sacred to them. However, another reason reserves are needed is to avoid over modernization of the First Nation’s natural land.

These First Nations fish, hunt, and farm to receive their food. Knowing when it comes and where to get it. The First Nations enjoy fishing and hunting, which they cannot do in the city Because such an environment is not available. These reserves give the First Nations a place where they could be themselves by building a fire during the winter, and masked dancers participate in ceremonial dances. The First Nations should have control over their own affairs. Over 75% of Canadian Indian bands now administer all or parts of their education program. Preserving native language is an essential part of their education. Furthermore, on reserves they are not ridiculed for their beliefs and religion. These people think like us, they might have different beliefs, but they are human. Nothing is wrong with them. This land is, as you know, like a cemetery to them. Their families are buried on the land. Would you like someone to go the cemetery and dig up your family members? I think NOT! Just imagine what would happen to that land if they were to live like us. That land would be dug up and a city would be built. All the trees would be knocked down and the beautiful living land would be destroyed. Why are Canadians intruding in their space?

Never the less, some Canadians stereotype natives thinking all they do is drink and do drugs on the reserves. Furthermore, living in a normal Canadian society will provide greater employment opportunities.

This will lead to higher standards of living as they will be able to provide for and support their families. Moreover, the increased feeling of satisfaction about their lives will lower the suicide rate. With the support of the Canadian society their living conditions will improve to Canadian Public Health standards and decrease such health hazards when not on reserves. Furthermore, the education that all native children receive is and has been second-rate. Most First Nations who utilize Canadian government services should pay taxes like all Canadians and enjoy the benefits of tax programs.

First Nations have a choice to stay on reserves or to live in regular Canadian society. Their decision affects how they live and their desire to govern themselves. By knowing how important the First Nation’s culture is to them, I support the decision of keeping reserves. While staying on reserves they will be able to keep the First Nations’s traditions alive.

With reserves the First Nations’s history may be lost!

Table 1

Study Conditions: Genders of Names Assigned to Writing Pieces

| |Writing Sample (Gender of Actual Author, Discourse Mode) |Number of Participants |

|Condition |1 (Female, Narrative) |2 (Male, Narrative) |3 (Female, Persuasive) |4 (Male, Persuasive) | |

|1 |Female |Male |Female |Male |25 |

|2 |Female |Male |Male |Female |23 |

|3 |Male |Female |Male |Female |25 |

|4 |Male |Female |Female |Male |35 |

Note. Approximately equal numbers of each condition were sent out. Variations in return rates resulted in a slightly greater number of participants in Condition 4.

Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Provincial Scoring Guide Categories by Teacher Gender

|Writing Piece (Gender of |Female Teachers |Male Teachers |Correlations |

|Actual Author, Discourse |M (SD) |M (SD) | |

|Mode) | | | |

| | | |Reason-ing |Commun-ication |Organization |Conventions |

|

|Writing Sample 1 (Female, Narrative) | | | | | |

|Reasoning |2.17 (0.60) |2.10 (0.46) | |0.734 |0.487 |0.195 |

|Communication |2.18 (0.63) |2.23 (0.50) |0.592 | |0.493 |0.152 |

|Organization |2.17 (0.55) |2.06 (0.43) |0.387 |0.437 | |0.285 |

|Conventions |1.90 (0.43) |1.79 (0.65) |0.450 |0.432 |0.280 | |

|Writing Sample 2 (Male, Narrative) | | | | | |

|Reasoning |2.62 (0.59) |2.87 (0.69) | |0.661 |0.693 |0.464 |

|Communication |2.54 (0.57) |2.73 (0.56) |0.679 | |0.524 |0.346 |

|Organization |2.89 (0.61) |3.12 (0.63) |0.569 |0.514 | |0.560 |

|Conventions |2.55 (0.57) |2.70 (0.68) |0.435 |0.514 |0.437 | |

|Writing Sample 3 (Female, Persuasive) | | | | | |

|Reasoning |2.80 (0.81) |3.13 (0.75)* | |0.801 |0.639 |0.508 |

|Communication |2.68 (0.80) |3.02 (0.84)* |0.693 | |0.644 |0.562 |

|Organization |2.68 (0.77) |2.94 (0.73) |0.538 |0.675 | |0.588 |

|Conventions |3.04 (0.68) |3.04 (0.68) |0.431 |0.545 |0.376 | |

|Writing Sample 4 (Male, Persuasive) | | | | | |

|Reasoning |2.71 (0.82) |2.55 (0.66) | |0.796 |0.670 |0.539 |

|Communication |2.65 (0.77) |2.54 (0.77) |0.854 | |0.716 |0.594 |

|Organization |2.89 (0.71) |2.67 (0.71) |0.593 |0.615 | |0.588 |

|Conventions |3.22 (0.57) |3.11 (0.55) |0.272 |0.329 |0.533 | |

Note. * p < .05 for difference between ratings by female and male teachers. The correlations above the diagonal are for ratings by female teachers; those below the diagonal are for ratings by male teachers.

Table 3

Average Category Marks by Teacher Gender and Student Name, Across Writing Samples

|Rating |Teacher Gender |Writing Sample 1 (Female, Narrative)|Writing Sample 2 (Male, Narrative) |Writing Sample 3 (Female, |Writing Sample 4 (Male, Persuasive) |

| | | | |Persuasive) | |

| | |Andrew (Male) |Melissa (Female) |Andrew (Male) |Melissa (Female) |Jeremy (Male) |Kathryn (Female) |Jeremy (Male) |Kathryn (Female) |

|Reasoning |Female |2.07 |2.28 |2.69 |2.57 |2.73 |2.86 |2.69 |2.73 |

| |Male |2.06 |2.16 |2.98 |2.72 |3.29 |3.00 |2.51 |2.60 |

|Communication |Female |2.06 |2.33 |2.66 |2.44 |2.62 |2.73 |2.74 |2.52 |

| |Male |2.09 |2.41 |2.99 |2.53* |3.16 |2.91 |2.50 |2.59 |

|Organization |Female |2.08 |2.28 |2.95 |2.85 |2.49 |2.82 |2.92 |2.86 |

| |Male |1.93 |2.23* |3.18 |3.03 |3.06 |2.85 |2.59 |2.76 |

|Convention |Female |1.80 |2.03* |2.55 |2.54 |2.98 |3.09 |3.25 |3.18 |

| |Male |1.75 |1.84 |3.01 |2.44* |3.29 |2.84 |3.04 |3.20 |

Note. * p < .05, for difference between marks/error counts for male and female student names.

Table 4

Percentages of Types of Evaluative Feedback Provided by Female and Male Teachers to Girls and Boys

| |Editive |Revisional |Verdictive |

| |To girl |To boy |To girl |To boy |To girl |To boy |

|Soccer Narrative |

|Female Teachers |47.8 |45.7 |26.9 |31.5 |25.3 |22.8 |

|Male Teachers |39.4 |52.6 |27.3 |34.1 |33.3 |13.3 |

|“The Dream” Narrative |

|Female Teachers |23.3 |34.5 |46.6 |33.3 |30.0 |32.1 |

|Male Teachers |32.5 |27.5 |49.2 |30.0 |18.3 |42.5 |

|“Home Sweet Home” Persuasive |

|Female Teachers |20.2 |10.9 |44.4 |59.2 |35.4 |29.9 |

|Male Teachers |24.1 |16.9 |41.4 |47.8 |34.5 |35.2 |

|“Native Case” Persuasive |

|Female Teachers |5.9 |3.5 |69.0 |56.0 |25.1 |40.5 |

|Male Teachers |9.1 |0.0 |60.9 |67.8 |30.0 |32.2 |

Table 5

Comments of Each Type that at Least Five Teachers Made about the Soccer Story

|Editive Comments |Revisional Comments |Verdictive Comments |

|Andrew |Melissa |Andrew |Melissa |Andrew |Melissa |

|* You need to edit your|* Review use of |* Add more details so |* Provide more supporting |* Excellent/ |* Interesting and |

|story for punctuation, |quotation marks |your reader can |details (description/ |interesting/great/ |creative story; good|

|spelling and grammar |* You need to edit your |understand what is |examples) |well-thought out |ideas |

|* Start a new paragraph|story for punctuation, |going on. |* Work on your conclusion |ideas |* Good use of |

|when a new person |spelling and grammar |* Think about how you |* Work on the first |* Great use of |vocabulary and |

|starts talking. |* Start a new paragraph |can make this clearer |sentence—try to get the |vocabulary, and |description |

|* See me to review how |when a new person starts|for your reader. |reader interested right |interesting |* Great |

|to use quotation marks.|talking. |* Try staying on topic.|away. |adjectives |introduction! |

|* Watch the verb |* See me to review how |I had problems | | |* Interesting dream |

|tenses. |to use quotation marks |following the plot. | | | |

|* Try to avoid run-on |* Watch the verb tenses |* Your ideas need | | | |

|sentences. They’re | |further development. | | | |

|confusing. | |Many details are left | | | |

| | |out. | | | |

Table 6

Comments of Each Type that at Least Five Teachers Made about “The Dream” Story

|Editive Comments |Revisional Comments |Verdictive Comments |

|Andrew |Melissa |Andrew |Melissa |Andrew |Melissa |

|* When the speaker |* When the speaker |* Find better words |- |* Interesting ideas |* Your story is well |

|changes, start a new |changes, start a new line/|for slang words, | |* Your story is well|organized with good |

|line. |paragraph. |(e.g., “sucks” and | |organized with a |use of paragraphs and |

|* Review the proper use |* There are a few |“Yah”) | |good beginning, |a good introduction. |

|of quotation marks. |punctuation and spelling |* Sentence doesn’t | |middle and end. |* Your story |

|* Watch those run-on |errors that could be |fit well here. | |* Good use of |demonstrates your |

|sentences. |corrected with more |* Some of the | |paragraphs |awareness and |

|* You need to watch your |proofreading. |details don’t | |* Ideas are fairly |sensitivity toward the|

|verb tenses. |* You need to watch your |directly support | |well developed with |environment. |

| |verb tenses. |your main idea. | |supporting details. |* I like the positive |

| |* Watch those run-on |* More details & | | |message. |

| |sentences. |description would | | | |

| | |improve your story. | | | |

Table 7

Comments of Each Type that at Least Five Teachers Made about the “Home Sweet Home” Persuasive Paper

|Editive Comments |Revisional Comments |Verdictive Comments |

|Jeremy |Kathryn |Jeremy |Kathryn |Jeremy |Kathryn |

|* Watch for sentence |* Make sure each |* Lacks cohesion of |* You need to organize |* Very persuasive/ |* Excellent paragraphs! |

|fragments. |paragraph has a central|ideas. Too many ideas|your paper so that |good argument. |* Your introduction and |

|* Be sure you identify|topic with a topic |per paragraph. |similar ideas are |* You make a variety |conclusion are strong and|

|pronouns clearly as |sentence and a |* Ideas are scattered |grouped together. |of excellent/ |convincing. |

|some are vague. |concluding statement. |and argument jumps all|* Provide proof for your|interesting points. |* You show a thorough |

| |* Proofread for |over the place. There|ideas. How do you know |* Facts/details and |understanding of the |

| |spelling and grammar. |are many |this? |statistics seem |issue and have made your |

| |* Check verb tense. |contradictions. |* You make too many |accurate and well |stance very clear. |

| |* Check for incomplete |* Much of your |points and your argument|researched. |* Excellent use of |

| |sentences. |argument is unclear. |is difficult to follow. |* Very well thought |vocabulary |

| | |* Little development |* It sounds like you are|out and organized. |* A good sense of |

| | |of ideas. Needs |contradicting yourself. |* Advanced and |voice—you sound |

| | |supporting evidence. | |relevant vocabulary. |passionate about the |

| | | | | |cause of Native people. |

Table 8

Comments of Each Type that at Least Five Teachers Made about the “Native Case” Persuasive Paper

|Editive Comments |Revisional Comments |Verdictive Comments |

|Jeremy |Kathryn |Jeremy |Kathryn |Jeremy |Kathryn |

|(None) |(None) |* Try to develop your ideas|* Try to develop your ideas|* You clearly state your |You stated your case |

| | |more fully with facts and |more fully by adding |position in the |clearly and support it with|

| | |examples. |evidence/facts to support |introduction |relevant details. |

| | |* Try being more consistent|your opinions. |* Good effort to organize |* Well organized with |

| | |with ideas—this contradicts|* One paragraph seems to go|your thoughts into |paragraphs. |

| | |your first argument |against your argument. |paragraphs |* There are few spelling |

| | |* Can you think of another |* Be specific and avoid |* Your points are well |and grammar errors which |

| | |word for “stuff,” and |using slang. |organized and supported. |shows evidence of |

| | |“drunks”? |* You seem to be using a |* Very well written! |proofreading. |

| | |* You are stereotyping |stereotype (re: drunks). | | |

| | |natives. This may affect |How does this support your | | |

| | |your ability to persuade |opinion? | | |

| | |people to your point of | | | |

| | |view. | | | |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download