3-4-2-3 Writing Test Scoring

Since scoring students’ written text is potentially

subjective that may lead to low scorer reliability, the
researcher spent a very long time planning to adopt fairer
and suitable scoring technique.
Gay (1985 .P: 226) explains that a rater can reduce
the degree of marking subjectivity by careful planning
and scoring.
Thus, the researcher consulted some experts in the
field of language testing from Ahfaad and Nyala
universities about the most suitable scoring scale. They
gave worth full ideas and advices about writing scoring
techniques.
As a result, The “Analytical Scoring Approach” was
seemed to be suitable and promising way to overcome
the problem of low scorer reliability. This approach
provides the rater with detailed criteria that lead his
attention to some common standards in scoring process,
which may reduce subjectivity.
Hughes (1989.P:94) supports this idea, he explains
that when the scorer adopts analytical approach, he has
to give a number of separate scores, which make the
process of marking more reliable.

1
 The analytical scale used in this study is modified
from that of Jacob el al. (1981) ESL composition profile.
The scale is divided into five major components: content,
organization, vocabulary, language use, and
punctuations. In this study, the scores in each component
were measured on a four-point scale, as follows: very
poor (0-2 points), fair to poor (3-5 points), good to
average (6-8 points), excellent to very good (9-10
points). The maximum points of each component equal
(10 points) and the total is (50 points). See the appendix
( ).

Appendix
Evaluation form, adopted by Jacobs et al (1981.P:30)
CONTENT RANGE
EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: knowledgeable • substantive • 9-10
thorough development of thesis • relevant to assigned topic.
GOOD TO AVERAGE: some knowledge of subject • adequate 6-8
range • limited development of thesis • mostly relevant to topic, but

2
lacks detail.
FAIR TO POOR: limited knowledge of subject • little substance • 3-5
inadequate development of topic.
VERY POOR: does not show knowledge of subject • non- 0-2
substantive • not pertinent •OR not enough to evaluate.

ORGANIZATION RANGE
EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: fluent expression • ideas clearly 9-10
stated/ supported •succinct • well organized • logical sequencing •
cohesive.
GOOD TO AVERAGE: somewhat choppy • loosely organized but 6-8
main ideas stand out •limited support • logical but incomplete
sequencing.
FAIR TO POOR: non-fluent • ideas confused or disconnected • 3-5
lacks logical sequencing and development.
VERY POOR: does not communicate • no organization • OR not 0-2
enough to evaluate.

VOCABULARY RANGE
EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: sophisticated range • effective 9-10
word/idiom choice and usage • word form mastery • appropriate
register.
GOOD TO AVERAGE: adequate range • occasional errors of 6-8
word/idiom form, choice, usage but meaning not obscured.
FAIR TO POOR: limited range • frequent errors of word/idiom 3-5
form, choice, usage • meaning confused or obscured.
VERY POOR: essentially translation • little knowledge of 0-2
English vocabulary, idioms, word form • OR not enough to
evaluate.

3
 LANGUAGE RANGE
EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: effective complex constructions 9-10
• few errors of agreement, tense, number, word order/function,
articles, pronouns, prepositions
GOOD TO AVERAGE: effective but simple constructions • minor 6-8
problems in complex constructions • several errors of agreement,
tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions
but meaning seldom obscured.
FAIR TO POOR: major problems in simple/complex constructions 3-5
• frequent errors of negation, agreement, tense, number, word
order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions And/or fragments,
run-ons, deletions • meaning confused or obscured.
VERY POOR: virtually no mastery of sentence construction rules • 0-2
dominated by errors •does not communicate • OR not enough to
evaluate.

MECHANICS Range
EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: demonstrates mastery 9-10
of conventions • few errors of spelling, punctuation,
capitalization, paragraphing.
GOOD TO AVERAGE: occasional errors of spelling, 6-8
punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing but meaning not
obscured.
FAIR TO POOR: frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, 3-5
capitalization, paragraphing • poor handwriting • meaning
confused or obscured.
VERY POOR: no mastery of conventions • dominated by 0-2
errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing
• handwriting illegible • OR not enough to evaluate.