The article presents the cultural background, methodological design, theory, and results of a comprehensive research project where the doxa and textual norms of the judges at the national writing exam in Norway were studied. The background of the study is the quite comprehensive reforms in Norway of the way writing is taught in the upper secondary schools, the kind of writing that is encouraged in the schools, the kind of tasks that are used at the national writing exam, and how writing should be assessed in the Norwegian upper secondary schools, as well as the national writing exam. The study is related to comparable studies internationally, first and foremost the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievements (IEA) study of writing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Berge, K. L. (1990). Conflicts and changes in textual norms. In A. C. Lindeberg, N. E. Enkvist, & K. Wikberg (Eds.), Nordic research on text and discourse (pp. 129-138). Åbo, Finland: Åbo Academy Press.
2.
Berge, K. L. (1996). Norsksensorenes tekstnormer og doxa: En kultursemiotisk og sosiotekstologisk analyse [The mother tongue examiner’s textual norms and doxa: A culture semiotic and sociotextological analysis]. Trondheim, Norway: NTNU.
3.
Berge, K. L. (2001). From utterance to text, again: Theoretical reflections on the notion of “text” based on empirical studies in different contexts. In P. Coppock (Ed.), The semiotics of writing (pp. 157-182). Bologna, Italy: Brepols.
4.
Björnsson, C. H. (1960). Uppsatsbedömning och uppsatsskrivning [Essay assessment and essay writing]. Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksell.
5.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Breland, H. M., Camp, R., Jones, R. J., Morris, M. M., & Rock, D. A. (1987). Assessing writing skill. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
7.
Coffman, W. E. (1971). Essay examination. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 71-302). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
8.
Diederich, P. (1974). Measuring growth in English. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
9.
Diederich, P., French, J., & Carlton, S. (1961). Factors in the judgment of written composition (Research Bulletin No. RB61-15). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
10.
Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
11.
Eco, U. (1984). The role of the reader. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
12.
Eco, U. (1988). Horns, hooves, insteps: Some hypotheses on three types of abduction. In U. Eco & T. Sebeok (Eds.), The sign of three (pp. 198-220). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
13.
Eneskär, B. (1990). Forskning kring treåriga centrala prov i svenska under åren 1984-1989 [Research on 3-year national tests in Swedish for the years 1984-1989] (Pedagogiskpsykologiska problem, nr 545). Malmö, Sweden: Institutionen för pedagogik. Lärarhögskolan i Malmö.
14.
Gorman, T. P., Purves, A. C., & Degenhart, R. E. (1988). The IEA study of written composition I: The international writing tasks and scoring scales. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
15.
Hout, B. (1990). The literature of direct writing assessment: Major concerns and prevailing trends. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 237-263.
16.
Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350-377). New York: John Wiley.
17.
Johnsen, E. B. (1995). Oppgavetekst og dannelse. Artiumsstilens emner, formuleringer og forvaltning 1880-1991 [Assignment text and cultivation: The mother tongue examination essays’ topics, formulations, and administration 1880-1991]. Oslo, Norway: Acta Humaniora.
18.
Kuhn, H. (1968). The phenomenological concept of horizon. In M. Farber (Ed.), Philosophical essays in memory of Edmund Husserl (pp. 106-123). New York: Greenwood.
19.
Larsson, K. (1984). Skrivförmåga. Studier i svenskt elevspråk [Writing ability. Studies in Swedish pupils’ language]. Lund, Sweden: Liber.
20.
Lehmann, R. (1993). Rating the quality of student writing: Findings from the IEA study of achievement in written composition. In A. Huhta, K. Sajavaara, & S. Takala (Eds.), Language testing: New openings (pp. 186-204). Jyväskylä, Finland: Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä.
21.
Lehmann, R. (1994). Essays, scoring of. In T. Husén & T. Neville Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 2018-2025). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
22.
Lehmann, R., & Törmäkangas, K. (1992). Exploring the causal background of achievement in argument writing. In A. Purves (Ed.), The IEA study of written composition II (pp. 169-198). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
23.
Löfqvist, G. (1990). The IEA study of written composition in Sweden. Lund, Sweden: Liber.
24.
Lotman, J. (1990). Universe of the mind: A semiotic theory of culture. London: Tauris.
25.
Ongstad, S. (2002). Positioning early research on writing in Norway. Written Communication, 19(3), 345-381.
26.
Ongstad, S., & Smidt, J. (1995). Norwegian—A dynamic battlefield. In R. Delnoy, W. Herrlitz, & S. Kroon (Eds.), Studies in mother tongue education: Vol. 6. European education in mother tongue. A second survey of standard language teaching in eight European countries (pp. 7-30). Nijmegen, the Netherlands: International Mother Tongue Education Network.
27.
Posner, R. (1989). What is culture? Toward a semiotic explication of anthropological concepts. In W. A. Koch (Ed.), The nature of culture (pp. 240-295). Bochum, Germany: Brochmeyer.
28.
Purves, A. (Ed.). (1992). The IEA study of written composition II: Education and performance in fourteen countries. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
29.
Purves, A. (1994). Writing and composition instruction. In T. Husén & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 6775-6778). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
30.
Purves, A., Gorman, T. P., & Takala, S. (1988). The development of the scoring scheme and the scales. In T. P. Gorman, A. Purves, & R. E. Degenhart (Eds.), The IEA study of written composition I (pp. 41-58). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
31.
Saari, H., & Purves, A. (1992). The curriculum in mother-tongue and written composition. In A. Purves (Ed.), The IEA study of written composition II (pp. 37-86). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
32.
Schick, R., DeMasi, M., & Green M. (1992). Factors predicting writing performance. In A. Purves (Ed.), The IEA study of written composition II (pp. 153-168). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
33.
Smagorinsky, P., & Smith, M. (1992). The nature of knowledge in composition and literary understanding: The question of specificity. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 279-306.
34.
Stalnaker, J. M. (1951). The essay type of examination. In E. F. Lindquist (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 495-530). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
35.
Statsoft. (1991). Tulsa, OK: Statistica/Mac.
36.
Vähäpassi, A. (1988). The domain of the school writing and the development of the writing tasks. In T. P. Gorman, A. Purves, & R. E. Degenhart (Eds.), The IEA study of written composition I (pp. 15-40). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
37.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
38.
Westman, M. (1974). Bruksprosa [Practical user-oriented prose]. Lund, Sweden: Liber.
39.
White, E. M. (1988). Teaching and assessing writing. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
