Skip to main content

Table 11 Correction Scheme adapted from Hedgcock and Lefkowitz (1992)

From: The effect of structured versus unstructured collaborative pre-writing task on writing skills of the Iranian EFL students

  Score Criteria
Content 27–30 Excellent to very good: knowledgeable; substantive, thorough development of thesis; relevant to topic assigned 22–26 Good to average: some knowledge of subject; adequate range; limited thematic development; mostly relevant to topic, but lacks detail 17–21 Fair to poor: limited knowledge of subject; minimal substance; poor thematic development 13–16 Very poor: shows little or no knowledge of subject; inadequate quantity; not relevant, or not enough to rate
Organization 18–20 Excellent to very good: fluent expression; clear statement of ideas; solid support; clear organization; logical and cohesive sequencing 14–17 Good to average: adequate fluency; main ideas clear but loosely organized; supporting material limited; sequencing logical but incomplete 10–13 Fair to poor: low fluency; ideas not well connected; logical sequencing and development lacking 7–9 Very poor: ideas not communicated; organization lacking, or not enough to rate
Grammar 22–25 Excellent to very good: accurate use of relatively complex structures; few errors in agreement, number, tense, word order, articles, pronouns, prepositions 18–21 Good to average: simple constructions used effectively; some problems in use of complex constructions; errors in agreement, number, tense, word order, articles, pronouns, prepositions 11–17 Fair to poor: significant defects in use of complex constructions; frequent errors in agreement, number, tense, negation, word order, articles, pronouns, prepositions; fragments and deletions; lack of accuracy interferes with meaning 5–10 Very poor: no mastery of simple sentence construction; text dominated by errors; does not communicate, or not enough to rate
Vocabulary 18–20 Excellent to very good: complex range; accurate word/idiom choice; mastery of word forms; appropriate register 14–17 Good to average: adequate range; errors of word/idiom choice; effective transmission of meaning 10–13 Fair to poor: limited range; frequent word/idiom errors; inappropriate choice, usage; meaning not effectively communicated 7–9 Very poor: translation-based errors; little knowledge of target language vocabulary, or not enough to rate
Mechanics 5 Excellent to very good: masters conventions of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraph indentation, etc. 4 Good to average: occasional errors in spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraph indentation, etc., which do not interfere with meaning 3 Fair to poor: frequent spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing errors; meaning disrupted by formal problems 2 Very poor: no mastery of conventions due to frequency of mechanical errors, or not enough to rate