Teaching second-grade students to write science expository text: Does a holistic or analytic rubric provide more meaningful results?

Abstract

In this quasi-experimental study, the expository writing of students before and after they received integrated science and literacy instruction was compared using two different rubrics. Measures included a holistic rubric and an analytic rubric. Participants were 2nd grade students (N = 71) attending a Title I elementary school. First, a Wilcoxon signed-ranks test was used to examine student writing performance on both rubrics. All rubric elements showed statistically significant improvement except for three elements (topic introduction, concluding statement, and spelling). Next, a paired-samples t–test comparing the total scores from both rubrics showed statistically significant improvement from pre- to post-instruction. Finally, the ranks of scores for each rubric were examined to see how the scores varied based on the rubric used. The holistic rubric had fewer positive and negative ranks than the analytic rubric, while the holistic rubric had more tied ranks than the analytic rubric. Thus, the holistic rubric provided only an overall impression of student writing while the analytic rubric allowed the scorer to specify strengths and weaknesses. To support young writers, teachers should consider their purposes for scoring writing and use the rubric that will fulfill that purpose most appropriately. • Analytic and holistic rubrics produce different information and outcomes. • Analytic rubrics produced more specific detail about student writing ability. • Holistic rubrics provide only an overall assessment of student writing ability. • Teachers should consider learning goals and use rubric to match these goals.