An Analysis of the Planning, Writing and Editing Skills used in a NEMP
Three Stage Writing Task by year 4 and year 8 students.
RESULTS
-Part C: Comparisons of writing ability between year 4 and year 8 students

This study used the same ability groups as the initial NEMP 1999 study. The criteria used to place the scripts into the three ability groups (low, medium and high) is outlined under ‘Defining the Ability Groups’ on Page 7.
 
-1. Planning

Themes: At year 4, the main themes each group planned to write about were their own home environment (L-42%, M-35%, H-37%) or a combination of several special places (L-24%, M-25%, H-29%). Leisure and sport featured with the mid group (15%) and the outdoors with the high group (12%). In their actual writing around half of the sample wrote about their own home (L-53%, M- 52%, H-50%) while the rest were spread over each of the remaining themes. The high achieving group chose to write about the outdoors in significant numbers (17%).

Year 8 planning was similar, with ‘own home’ (L-28%, M-29%, H-21%) and a combination (L-24%, M-53%, H-36%) scoring highly. In the low ability group 20% planned to write about their own room, while the high ability group indicated that 14% would write about their own room and 14% about the outdoors. In their actual writing, 48% of the low ability group wrote about their room or house, and 24% about a combination of places. In the mid ability group 43% wrote about their room or home, and 21% about the outdoors. In the high ability group, 48% wrote about their own room or home, followed by 19% writing about the outdoors.

Planning Strategy: Most students of all ability groupings showed evidence of using a planning strategy in their writing.

Table 32: Percentage of students using a planning strategy by ability group

  year 4 year 8
  low mid high low mid high
No Strategy 6 5 4 0 0 3
Some 76 65 33 72 45 36
Substantial 18 30 63 28 55 61
 

Type of Planning: At year 4, lists dominated the low and mid ability groupings while there was an even spread of brainstorming, lists and first drafts with the high ability group. The high ability group was more likely to use a first draft for planning. However, by year 8 fewer high ability students used a first draft for planning; they were more likely to use brainstorming and lists for planning.

Table 33: Percentage of students using specific planning strategies by ability group

  year 4 year 8
  low medium high low medium high
Brainstorm 18 20 30 28 42 36
Mind Map 3 15 9 4 8 7
List 44 50 31 44 37 43
First Draft 20 5 30 12 8 11
Other 15 10 0 12 5 3
 
-2. Composing and Drafting

Evidence of Planning on Day Two: Planning was used to some extent or substantially by all ability groups at both levels.

Table 34: Percentage of students’ planning evident on Day Two by ability group

  year 4 year 8
  low mid high low mid high
No Use 12 14 8 4 3 0
Some Use 65 43 50 76 74 54
Substantial 23 43 42 20 23 46
 
Amount of Writing: As could be expected, the high ability groups at both levels wrote more than their peers in other ability groupings. The one area of note is at year 4 where the mid ability sample wrote considerably less than the low ability group.
year 4 low Minimum: 25 words Maximum: 232 words Mean: 108 words
mid Minimum: 32 words Maximum: 167 words Mean: 99 words
high Minimum: 50 words Maximum: 283 words Mean: 125 words
year 8 low Minimum: 49 words Maximum: 290 words Mean: 150 words
mid Minimum: 87 words Maximum: 454 words Mean: 214 words
high Minimum:168 words Maximum: 476 words Mean: 285 words
 

Evidence of Proofing: During the Day Two writing process there was evidence of proofing in the majority of ability groupings. Year 8 students of all ability groups were more likely to proof their work than were any of the year 4 ability groupings.

Table 35: Percentage of evidence of proofing by ability group

  year 4 year 8
  low mid high low mid high
Yes 47 63 67 76 68 86
No 53 37 33 24 32 14
 

Keeping to the Topic The year 8 sample all kept to their chosen topic, either completely as in the case of the high ability group, or a combination of completely or partially with the other two groups. The high and mid groups in the year 4 sample were able to maintain their chosen topic, but the lower group experienced some difficulties with this.

Table 36: Percentage of students keeping to the topic by ability group

  year 4 year 8
  low mid high low mid high
Yes 47 85 96 80 84 100
Partially 35 15 4 20 16 0
No 18 0 0 0 0 0
 

Factual Content: The instruction that the writing should be ‘true, not make-believe’ on Day One and Day Two was very clear. This was followed 100% by the mid ability group at Year 4 and the high ability group at Year 8.

Table 37: Percentage of students maintaining factual content by ability group

  year 4 year 8
  low mid high low mid high
Yes 89 100 92 92 90 100
Partially 8 0 4 8 5 0
No 3 0 4 0 5 0
 

Completion of the Task in the Time Available: It is interesting to note in Table 38, that the mid ability group were the highest group for completion of the task at both levels.

Table 38: Completion of task in time available (percent by ability group)

  year 4 year 8
  low medium high low medium high
Barely Started 6 0 0 0 0 0
Partially Completed 9 5 0 0 0 0
Nearly Completed 15 14 42 16 8 11
Completed 56 52 42 60 61 46
Well Completed 14 29 16 24 31 43
 
Completion of Task 70% 81% 58% 84% 92% 89%
 

Relationship between planning and writing themes:

Table 39: Relationship between planning and writing (percent by ability group)

year 4 low low mid mid high high
  Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual
THEME            
Own Room 6 3 10 10 4 8
Own House 42 52 35 52 38 50
Relative/Friend’s House 6 6 0 10 0 0
Outdoors 3 6 0 0 13 17
Farm 6 6 10 10 0 0
Holidays 0 0 0 4 8 8
Leisure/Sport/Entertain/Retail 3 6 15 10 4 4
Combination 24 12 25 4 29 13
NEMP Video Ref. 10 3 0 0 0 0
School 0 0 0 0 0 0
No Record 0 6 5 0 4 0
year 8 low low mid mid high high
  Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual
THEME            
Own Room 20 24 3 11 14 15
Own House 28 24 28 32 21 33
Relative/Friend’s House 0 0 0 5 4 7
Outdoors 8 4 3 21 14 19
Farm 4 4 3 5 0 0
Holidays 8 12 8 5 4 11
Leisure/Sport/Entertain/Retail 8 4 3 13 7 11
Combination 24 24 52 8 36 0
NEMP Video Ref. 0 0 0 0 0 0
School 0 4 0 0 0 4
No Record 0 0 0 0 0 0
 
-3. Writing accuracy

Spelling: Table 40 highlights the increased frequency of the high ability grouping of year 8 students to identify and correct spelling mistakes.

Table 40: Average number of spelling errors and corrections by ability group

  year 4 year 8
  low mid high low mid high
Day 2 Writing            
Numbers of Errors 10.0 10.5 8.0 9.1 6.9 5.8
Day 3 Proofing            
Missed Errors 8.8 9.7 7.0 8.4 6.2 5.0
Corrections 2.4 2.0 2.6 2.0 3.0 3.8
Incorrect Corrections 1.3 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7
 

Punctuation: The difference in appropriate or satisfactory usage of simple punctuation when divided into ability groups is notable. At year 4 the low ability group performs particularly well (100%), but this drops away markedly at year 8 (64%). The mid ability group also decreased from year 4 (81%) to 76% at year 8. At year 4, the high ability group performed worst in their use of punctuation. Overall fewer students at year 8 achieved appropriate use of punctuation, than those at year 4 level.

Table 41: Student punctuation (percent by ability group)

  year 4 year 8
  low mid high low mid high
Appropriate 48 48 25 16 26 28
Satisfactory 52 33 50 48 50 61
Poor 0 19 25 36 24 11

Sentence Structure: The students’ writing showed a steady increase between ability groups and year levels for composing simple sentences

Table 42: Student use of simple sentences (percent by ability group)

  year 4 year 8
  low mid high low mid high
Appropriate 9 19 27 20 42 57
Satisfactory 53 48 50 40 42 39
Poor 38 33 23 40 16 4
Appropriate/ Satisfactory 62% 67% 77% 60% 84% 96%
 

Table 43, below, reveals a surprise with the year 4 mid ability group dropping below the low ability group in their appropriate or satisfactory use of compound sentences and creating a wide gap between the mid and high ability groups (28%).

Table 43: Student use of compound sentences (percent by ability group)

  year 4 year 8
  low mid high low mid high
Appropriate 6 10 9 16 33 36
Satisfactory 47 38 68 36 43 50
Poor 47 52 23 48 24 14
Appropriate/ Satisfactory 53% 48% 77% 52% 76% 86%

Non-Sentences: The use of non-sentences was high across all ability groupings. This use of non-sentences is disappointing, particularly when the definition of a sentence – an understandable sequence of words - is adhered to. It links closely to limited proof reading at both levels and at every ability level.

Table 44: Student use of non-sentences(percent by ability group)

  year 4 year 8
  low mid high low mid high
Nil 36 25 29 20 35 25
Some 39 55 63 60 51 71
Substantial 25 20 8 20 14 4
Nil Use of Non-Sentences 36% 25% 29% 20% 35% 25%
Some/Substantial Use of Non-Sentences 64% 75% 71% 80% 65% 75%
 

Sentence Length: Table 45 highlights the year 4 mid ability group, with only 57% writing appropriate or satisfactory sentences.

Table 45: Student use of sentence length (percent by ability group)

  year 4 year 8
  low mid high low mid high
Appropriate 15 5 17 16 30 43
Satisfactory 50 52 54 44 51 46
Poor 35 43 29 40 19 11
Appropriate/ Satisfactory 65% 57% 71% 60% 81% 89%
 

Proofing for Sense: Spelling was the most commonly used method of proofing at each level and ability grouping. It is notable that the year 4 low ability group and the year 8 middle ability group were the most diligent overall with proofing their work. The relatively low levels of proofing for sense at every level, but particularly with the high ability groups, is a concern.

Table 46: Student proofing for sense(percent by ability group)

  year 4 year 8
  low mid high low mid high
Nil 3 5 8 0 8 7
Some 79 81 83 92 84 82
Substantial 18 14 9 8 8 11
 
Table 47: Percentage of types of proofing by ability group
  year 4 year 8
  low mid high low mid high
Sense 32% 24% 17% 58% 54% 54%
Spelling 85% 81% 87% 68% 84% 68%
Punctuation 35% 29% 21% 52% 62% 54%
 
-Summary

The difference in appropriate or satisfactory usage of simple punctuation when divided into ability groups is notable. Overall fewer students at year 8 achieved appropriate use of punctuation, than those at year 4 level.

Spelling was the most commonly used method of proofing at each level and ability grouping. It is notable that the year 4 low ability group and the year 8 middle ability group were the most diligent overall with proofing their work. The relatively low levels of proofing for sense at every level, but particularly with the high ability groups, is a concern.

The use of non-sentences was also high across all ability groupings. This use of non-sentences is disappointing, particularly when the definition of a sentence (an understandable sequence of words) is adhered to, and can be linked to limited proof reading at both levels and at every ability level.

In the low ability grouping, students’ use of lists dominated planning at both levels. Although the low ability group rated highly (100%) in their use of punctuation at year 4 level, it dropped to 64% at year 8. Students in the low ability year 4 and year 8 had difficulty in keeping to a topic.

In the mid ability grouping most students at year 4 used lists for planning, and either lists or brainstorming at year 8. Both levels were the highest in completing the task competently in the time available but it is notable that compared to the other groups the year 4 mid ability group completed the least amount of writing. The mid ability group’s use of appropriate punctuation decreased from 81% at year 4 to 76% at year 8. They also achieved a lower rating for appropriate sentence construction than their peers in the low ability group with only 57% writing appropriate or satisfactory sentences.

The high ability groupings used more planning strategies and were more competent in sentence structure at both year 4 and year 8 levels. They wrote significantly more than the other two groups. However, at year 4, the high ability group performed worst in their use of punctuation.

cont.

previous page | next page
top of page    |    return to Probe Studies - INDEX   |    return to Other Studies menu
For further information and contact details for the Author    |    Contact USEE