Claims

Developmental writing students' rubric-scored drafts improved significantly from first to revised draft across all feedback groups

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i3 The within-subjects comparison of pre- and post-raters' scores was statistically significant with a large effect size of .903. → Gulley 2012

Evidence

Gulley 2012

Gulley, B. (2012). Feedback on developmental writing students' first drafts. Journal of Developmental Education, 36(1). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1035676

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Mixed design ANCOVA of two raters' averaged scores on pre- and postfeedback drafts of 70 students; raters achieved "92% inter-rater reliability" and agreed within one point on each item.

"The within subjects comparison for preraters' scores and postraters' scores indicated statistically significant results with F = 10.922, p < .002. This comparison had a large effect size of .903."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.