Product assessment is often equated with a grade, yet this type of assessment attends only to the students' cognitive domain. "Teachers, raised and educated in the old tradition, do not easily let go of the belief that they must correct and grade each piece of writing that their students do" (Crowhurst, 1988, p. 8). This overriding obsession with correction, often narrowly focused on mechanics, actually undermines the more fundamental aspect of composing--content and clarity. Intensively marked papers give too many details, overwhelming and demoralizing the students in addition to overloading the teacher. Researchers have found that constructive, encouraging, and frequent feedback, as well as responses that emphasize content and process rather than just conventions, lead to improved competency and positive attitudes to writing. Praising what students do well improves their writing more than mere correction of what they do badly. Intensive correction actually does more damage than moderate correction. Focusing students' attention on one or two areas for concentration and improvement is more helpful.

When students use the writing process, intensive correction is not as likely to be required because students usually write more carefully considered and crafted compositions. They have gone through several revisions. They often reflect a more thorough understanding of the assignment's nature. They require, therefore, a thoughtful response from teachers. Too often teachers revert to reacting and evaluating papers only in terms of mechanics.

If students are to grow as writers they deserve regular feedback. In addition to noting errors with mechanics, teachers can respond with appropriate comments. Comments such as the following can help students grow and can validate them as writers.

General

• Strong writing voice--I can hear someone behind those words.
• I can picture this.
• I know just what you mean. I've felt this way too.
• You are losing my attention--make this part a little more specific.

Beginnings and Endings

• Strong introduction--it makes me want to read this paper.
• Your ending came so quickly that I felt I missed something.
• Your wrap-up really captured the whole mood of the paper.
• The conclusions seemed a little weak--I felt let down.

Organization

• This was very well organized. I could follow it easily.
• I am confused about how this fits.
• I am not sure what the focus of the paper is.
• How is this connected to the sentence or idea before it?
• This sentence or paragraph seems overloaded--too much happens too fast and I cannot follow.

Clarity

• Can you add detail here? I cannot see the whole picture.
• Good description--I could make a movie of this.
• Adding some physical description would help me see this more clearly.
• Tell me more about this--I need more information.
• An example here would help us support your case more willingly.
• The use of dialogue here would help me see this person more vividly.
• I am not sure what you mean. Let's talk.

Structure and Language

• Notice that you have a number of short sentences here--can you combine them to smooth the flow?
• This sentence is a whopper! Break it up, please.
• Good word choice--it really captures the essence of what you are saying.
• Your language seems a bit overblown; I do not hear you talking and that distracts me.

Usage and Mechanics

• Oops--you changed tenses and confused me.
• You switched from the third person to the first. I can understand it, but it does distract.
• You capitalize words randomly. Let me sit down with you in workshop and show you some things.
• Break your work into sentences so I can more clearly see which ideas are related.

  (Tchudi & Mitchell, 1989, pp. 231-232. Used with permission of Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc.)

By responding to more than surface mistakes, teachers become more comfortable articulating what makes one piece of writing more effective than another. They gain confidence in their own ability to evaluate writing.

Forms of product assessment include both holistic and analytic scoring.

Holistic Scoring

Teachers read the compositions for a general impression and, according to this impression, award a numerical score or letter grade. All aspects of the composition--content and conventions--affect the teacher's response, but none of them is specifically identified or directly addressed using a checklist. This approach is rapid and efficient in judging overall performance. It may, however, be inappropriate for judging how well students applied a specific criterion or developed a particular form. A sample holistic scoring guide follows, with scores ranging from 5 to 1.

Sample Writing Rubric

Score	Description
5/5	This writing has a strong central focus and is well organized. The organizational pattern is interesting, perhaps original, and provides the piece with an introduction which hooks the reader and carries the piece through to a satisfying conclusion. The writer has chosen appropriate details and established a definite point of view. Sentences are clear and varied. Word choice is appropriate. If there are errors in mechanics, they are the result of the student taking a risk with more complex or original aspects of writing.
4/5	This writing has a clear and recognizable focus. A standard organizational pattern is used, with clear introduction, transitions, and conclusion. A point of view is established and a sense of audience is clear. The writer has used appropriate details, clear and correct sentence structures, and specific word choices. The few errors in mechanics do not impede communication or annoy the reader unduly.
3/5	This piece of writing has a recognizable focus, though there may be superfluous information provided. The organizational pattern used is formulaic, and may be repetitive, but is clear and includes a basic introduction and conclusion. The point of view is clear and consistent. The word choices and sentence structures are clear but not imaginative. The mechanics show less effort and attention to proofreading than in the high levels.
2/5	This piece of writing has an inconsistent or meandering focus. It is underdeveloped and lacks a clear organization. Incorrect or missing transitions make it difficult to follow. There may be an introduction without a conclusion, or the reverse, a conclusion with no introduction. The point of view is unclear and there are frequent shifts in tense and person. Mechanical errors interfere with the reader's understanding and pleasure.
1/5	This piece of writing lacks focus and coherence. No organizational pattern has been chosen and there is little development of the topic. Point of view may shift in a confusing way. Mechanical errors are abundant and interfere with understanding. The piece must be read several times to make sense of it. It is not apparent that the writer has cared to communicate his or her message.

Holistic scores often emphasize creativity and overall effect.

It is important for students to be given evaluation criteria before they begin writing. A covering letter and résumé could be evaluated using the following criteria:

Score	Description
5/5	Letter and résumé are complete, succinct, neat, free of mechanical errors, and properly formatted.
4/5	Letter and résumé are generally complete but wording and formatting could be improved. There may be details missing and a mechanical error or two.
3/5	Letter and résumé are adequate but appearance could be improved. There may be several mechanical errors. Information may be missing or unnecessary information may be included.
2/5	Letter and résumé do not make a good impression on the reader. Important facts have been left out or are disorganized. There are a number of mechanical errors.
1/5	Back to the drawing board. The letter and résumé are incomplete, unclear, and contain numerous mistakes.

Analytic Scoring

In analytic scoring, teachers read compositions focusing on a pre-determined list of criteria. Compositions can be compared to a set standard and teachers can diagnose to determine needed instruction. Although this type of analysis is more time consuming than other measures, it does provide detailed feedback. Diederich's Scale (1974) is the most widely used analytic measure but it must be used cautiously in order to reflect the instructional focus. It is easy to adapt the scale for specific purposes. The following is an example:

http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/xla/ela15c4.html

Saskatchewan Education. (1997).
English Language Arts 10: A Curriculum Guide for the Secondary Level.
Regina, SK: Saskatchewan Education.