Illinois. Univereitu--Dtot of English • • Qu&J'itu Of Students Witintf c URBANA IZe^l^i ■ ibraKY OF THE THE QUALITY OF STUDENTS' WRITING aS REVEALED BY FINAL EXaiIIHATIOU PaPERS A Summary * *rHE*BRAfrOF% * * P 2 1940 UNIVERSITY Or English. Department Harold N. Hillebrand, Head Vllllaa F. Ekstrom, Assistant Julius N. Hook, Assistant Office of the Provost Jessie Howard, Research Assistant Edward F. Potthoff, Educational Consultant # # « « * it <* University of Illinois Urbana, Illinois April, 19 lR) ■'■ ' •' ' r ■ '- V ■ •"■ . ■ -'■ \ "> : rji :. ..:■-- ... . ' : . • '.,., ■- • .. . ..-:_..:' ..- ' ' , ■ • .'_.■'..!' .' • THE QUALITY OF STUDENTS' './RITIIJG aS REVEALED BY FINAL EXAMINATION PAPERS INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY This report presents a survey of the quality of expression found in final examination papers written by upperclassmen in the eight undergraduate divisions and by students in the College of Law and in the Library School of the University of Illinois. The study represents a cooperative venture between the Office of the Provost and the English Department, both of these divisions of the Univer- sity participating in the planning, financing, and conducting of the study and in the preparation of this report. The Office of the Provost supervised the study and assumed responsibility for collect- ing and tabulating the statistical data. Two well-qualified assistants in English, each with several years of experience in teaching rhetoric in the University, performed the task of reading and evaluating almost two thousand essay examination papers which had been written in nearly fifty courses at the close of the second semester of I93S-39. The general purpose of the survey was to determine the quality of the writing produced in final examination papers by various groups of students in the University, and to study briefly the nature and development of their powers of written expression, including some analysis of the shortcomings which appeared most fre- quently. The study was purely factual in character; that is, it was designed to throw light on the existing situation rather than to propose a program of action, Furthermore, the papers were considere only from the point of view of the ability of students to express themselves under the pressure of examinations and without knowledge that this survey was to be made. It should be emphasized that the study does not necessar- ily reveal the quality of the best or most careful writing the students were capable of producing. A complete survey should include an analysis of materials such as term papers and other reports which presumably are prepared more deliberately and therefore should re- flect a higher grade of written expression than is the case with answers to examination questions. Unfortunately, the present 6tudy was undertaken too late in the semester to extend it to these other types of material. This survey, however, should be valuable in in- dicating the habits of writing which have become ingrained in students and the quality of expression which they exhibit when working under considerable pressure. The examination papers were rated with respect to each of four general elements of rhetoric — namely, grammar and mechanics, sentence structure, organization, and fluency, a separate rating being assigned to each. The ratings were made in terms of five categories representing different levels or grades of quality — ■- . . . • . ; ■■■"' ■. • • ■ ... ■■ . - „ . • . • ■ .. - ■ .-"■':...'"'- ... . ...';. ' " -" "■ '." : ' . . ; v'.. :. '"*' \"'\ : ■ • \ /• ■■ ■ ' ■ • ; - • • ' • .• - ■" . • •" ' ' : ..', -" ". , '.'. ■' '" ' ' '■■■■ '■' ■ -'. '''.*'" "' ' ' ' - ; • ' •' '■ •■ M ■''".'■■:':-.'■.:■: - . .-. -■■ '■■ ' ••'.." "" '. ' . .' .' ' " • • '' ■' : - • ; ■■ • ■ '■ 2' ■ -" I .'■ .:: .; ; . ' .'..-/"" ... ••■'•'-' • ■ a ■■ ■■ ; •' ■'.'/ .; ,: .'. .6 . . ; ' / ; ; ~' : : .■ " • ; ■ :'■" vi'i\ : .-,- d I ... . .,.'.. : ' \ .":" , '■'• H ■' ''■-'■ ' ■ ■■' - ■ ■ ' ■ ' t V' ■•■ -■ ■ ■ ■ • •■-'.. • . .. ■ .•_■... i : . ■ . . ■■ ... •■ . . • - •■.. ■ ., . • . • ' . ■ • • • ■ ■ . v. ■ . ■ * . i .• ■ " : v-j i a- ■ : ■ '■■ . •• ' .:'.:■ • ■ . - "' " .' : ■ •. " i ■"'■ '■ . ' ■*. ..' ,• ; ' ';.;■' '. .' ' : '/. ,-' .. ■ ' ■ ■ • ■ i ■ . r.' ■ -.. . ■ " ■ '...'"■ ' ' '■'. ' ■' ■ ' ' • • • ■',-'•'■' ' ■' '■ ' • .'■'.:• • .'- -■ '• --;'■:■ ;. . ■ . ... , i „".' .' : '' : ! ; ' ; ' ; - : ■•■'• : ■ ■ • ■ i ■■ ■ _ ■ ,'■■','■' ..': '■;••'''.' ■ " • ;.' i - -' ' \ ' ' ■' ' } ' • 3 • ■■ ■ si ' .-' •.' . . ■ ■ " ' .-.. ' " " . ■' \ ' ■' : • ' " ,,? • '- ; ' ' ' '• ' "■ ' " ■•' ■ . 3 ... • ' : .' ' '/ ■''■'■ ■ ■' ■ - I . • • "7 ! '. ' "' '' •'■ ■' : ' • : ■'.-./. ■. .,.:"'-'; ' . ''''■•'. '•' ''-''''- " - : ■- -. - '■ ■ ; --' ■ ■■ ' i ■ ' •.:•. •■ : •. -2- namely, good, above average, average, below average, and poor. A preliminary evaluation of about two hundred papers was carried out in order to arrive at the standards for these categories. Conse- quently these standards were based upon the quality of expression found in the papers themselves rather than upon any preconceived notions of the readers. The ratings assigned on this basis in each of the four elements of rhetoric were given numerical values and the latter wore combined to arrive at a single measure, called a com- posite rating, for each paper. A detailed analysis was made of a group of about three hundred papers to discover specifically the principal weaknesses characteristic of students 1 writing in examinations. The items included in this analysis represent fundamental details included under the four elements of rhetoric already mentioned. The study showed that the element of organization in the papers of undergraduates was somewhat superior to the other elements, v/ith the fundamentals of grammar and mechanics rating lowest. Al- most one-third of these papers received a composite rating of good or above average, but practically one-fourth were poor or definitely below average. Unsatisfactory written expression on examinations, therefore, is not at all uncommon among our upperclassmen. Some of the weaknesses found in students' papers were apparently due to general carelessness and to a lack of concern over the quality of writing produced. Consequently, if in all classes a premium were placed upon good writing and students were made to realize that poor expression in examinations is a definite hindrance and may lead to low grades, the quality of written work should under go improvement. There was considerable tendency for students who were rated low in grammar and mechanics to be low also in the other 'chree elements of rhetoric, rather than to be faulty only in this one respect* This general deficiency in much of the writing which was mechanically poor is significant because it indicates that the stu- dents concerned were severely handicapped and that the task of rem- edying their deficiencies would be difficult. A comparison of the grades earned by students in Rhetoric 1 and 2 with the composite ratings assigned to their ex- amination papers revealed that while many received higher marks on me students whose expression in the papers was either poor or definitel; below average had made grades higher than this in rhetoric A U C" average in the rhetoric courses, for example, did not necessarily insure writing of average quality on the examination papers — the latter may even have been rated poor in some instances. The occurrence of such retrogressions, of course, serves to complicate the problem of Improving the writing produced by upperclassmen. • . ; . . , ■ : . -v. . ■■ ,'.■ ■•-■-,.- .• - -• '• ••■ '■' ■- ■•' - '• •■'■' •'■' I ■•'■'"■ f\ : - {^ ; '• '■' ■■'■'' ' : ■: - ( ■ i^j ■ ' ■ ■■>■'■ '•;■ hv9-H2 v; •"'■' • ' : • tii '• 'JtS i ■ ■" '• "■ "■ ■' ' • ■"■' -' ; ' ; ; ■'•'". ■"'■'" '■ '• ■'• ' ■ . .•. .. ■ . jjy .. . ■■■-. - , -i • • :■ .v <' > .-..' '•;..: . '.-■•■. "" ■ ■ • .' - ' ' . ' '■' ■ ■' '■ "■ • ■' i "'■' s ''' ' if' h ■' ■ ■■-' '■ ■ '■:- ' '" ;; .".• ... - : _ . . •< ; ■ ■; 'I' •.. | ;.....: ; ' . /.' " :! ." . •■ ■ .. s. .V s s. ; .'.• •>■;. (£■. - ' ■ • ■ : ■ ' . ' ' : ■"',■■"'''.'"'' ;'" : " ? '- ' ■- ■ . .. .■..■.=■■ . ' : ■: ■: . r.^.r ■■ • . ■ ' - ' ' '"'''', ' '. ' ;; ' ' ' ' '"' '"'' " :: ' " ' '■' ' ' ■.'■-:. . /''■■■''■'- ■■■'-■' ■ '• ■■ •'■ :■ '-■ '■'■■'■"■ '■■■■' ' f ... , . , ■. . . . ............ ^ • ; . • • • B .-''.-.' :■• - ■[■:■■ .,. I ...' • ■ :■■'.• * '• ' : ■' *"' : ' " ' : J ' ■ " ' *'' :' . : , ' • • ■ ' : '' '" ' ■ ■ ■ ■ :■■ ■ ■ ;•:•'■ . . ;•'•' : i ;. :. ■ ' ■: : ■ , - ■ •" fp ■ ■ ■',"■. • - . ' -■ .: ', . ' : ■ ■ . ■ . - ..' ' ; . ■.. ■-. ■ .:':■•■• • j.;!|. . ■ ■ . ■■• *'•'-'■ . ' ' ' ' ' '■■'•' " : • ' ' ■■■•'• ■ = _ ' - .'■'■■ "■■' ■ •■' '''.■'■■' ■'':. " ' ' ' ' ' ' '' ' .' '' ' "' ' ^ " " '■'•.• ' .' ' .-■■.■■■ ■_ ..'•:,• : ■■. : : •' ■' ■' ;• " . r -■ ■ - . :: : - ; ' :''- ■ ;' ' f ■ " :-;■•. • .; . . . ^_: .' :■..-. ■ . - ■■ . ■■..^ '• • - ■ ' '• '' •' ..'..■•:': : . ■-. . • ' , v .i . ' : . ' ; '-;'■■ ■' , ■ ■ ' ; '' '. • ; ■ ■ ' •' - ■' •; : -' ■ • '• ' ■ " - : - ' ' ' '■ ' ' .' '' . '' V'. '' ' "' ' .' " . ' '" -^ •" • ' - v ' ' ; ' _ • ' ; - "".••■■ "' ' / ■ . : '-- ; ; ;■ ;■'• " io ; ' ■ / : '"*- '. ■ ■ } ' ■' ;■ ' ' : ' { " ■ ■■ / '- ' " : " : ■■'" . •' ■ '' ' • ' ■ , • ■ : ■ . ■ ' - •■• : ■ ' ' ~3- Sorae of these instances of retrogression, however, are probably due to carelessness on the part of students, so that here again em- phasis throughout the University on good writing should result in some improvement. The quality of students 1 writing Increased slightly from the sophomore to the junior and from the junior to the senior groups. But even among the latter, more than one-fifth had com- posite ratings of poor or definitely below average. In other words, if these papers may be used as a criterion, some students continued all the way through the University without acquiring a satisfactory command of written expression. The writing produced by the women was definitely superior to that of the men, the latter having a lower average composite rating and producing a much larger percentage of unsatisfactory papers. This fact agrees with a superiority on the part of women over men both in the work in rhetoric courses and in general Univer- sity averages. The study also revealed that students who had taken their rhetoric in other institutions produced slightly better writing in the examination papers than those who had received this instruction at the University of Illinois. The differences between these two groups of students, however, are not statistically significant. The data for students from the various divisions of the University showed that in general the journalism group ranked high- est, students from the college of liberal arts and sciences came next, and the engineering group was third. Because of the nature of the data, however, all comparisons among students from the various schools and colleges of the University are very unreliable and probably therefore should not be made . The results of the detailed analysis of selected papers gave further evidences of carelessness, though not all of the weaknesses found should be attributed to this cause. The data showed that many of the specific shortcomings which were frequent in occurrence related to relatively simple fundamentals, such as errors in verb forms, mistakes in the use of the comma and other punctuation marks, faulty references of pronouns, illogical omissions in sentence construction, etc., and that these elementary weaknesses appeared even among large numbers of seniors included in this part of the study. Many students would probably avoid or correct such errors if a premium were placed upon good expression by all instructors in the University. The data relative to these de- tailed faults are significant also, however, in that they would be useful in any effort to set up a program for the improvement of stu- dents' writing. The data for the law and library students show that their average composite ratings were practically equal and were higher than those of any undergraduate school or college group except journalism. Furthermore, the data show that the average composite •- .'• •' -■■' i i" ■'.'•• :'-: ' "■ '■■■■■ ■ '■'''■ '■' • -:' ■•.•■ ioim - •; 11 ■"■•'.• ■ ' -' ,; ' : ■ : ' : ' ; , ' '- ■■■■ : ' ' ■ •■' '-' ■■ ' :"/ ; .; V: .. ■ . ■•'■■■ " : ■ ■ . . ' •■ fi -, ■■.'.:■ ' ' " ' ■ ' ' : ' ; '■". . • ' .' . ■ ■ ■'. : ' ' '■ . - : ■ . -It- rating b increased from the firBt-year to the second-year, and from the cecond-year to the third-year law students, and that all of these classes exceeded the average for the total undergraduate group. Nevertheless, the detailed analysis of a selectee group of law and library papers revealed in general a frequent appearance of many of the same faults noted among the undergraduates; that is, certain elementary weaknesses in written expression persisted even among individuals who had gone beyond their undergraduate work. CONCLUSION In conclusion, it should be reiterated that the survey v/as purely factual, and that there was no intention to present a detailed program for dealing with the conditions which might be revealed. It seems clear from some of the facts which have been uncovered in this survey that the whole problem of the quality of students' writing might well be made the subject of further study, and that eventually some remedial program should be considered. The latter, however, was not contemplated as a part of the present survey. Consequently this report has "jocn confined to a presenta- tion of the factual data and of certain explanatory materials necessary for their interpretation. . .. ■ . - ' ■ * ■ \ •■•->■■■■ '-' - .- . , . . ' . ■; fi . • !■ •■ ; - '■"'"-' ■ ' ' ' • ~ "' ■'.' ' ' ' , ' ' ' '"