Reading Comprehension and Expository Writing Skills of Elementary School Students: A Barrett Taxonomy Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51278/bse.v6i1.1954Keywords:
Barrett's Taxonomy, Reading Comprehension, Expository Writing, Elementary School; Literacy MovementAbstract
Reading comprehension and expository writing are the twin pillars of literacy that determine how far elementary students can learn from text, yet national and international assessments consistently place Indonesian learners well below expected levels. This study aimed to describe and analyze the initial profile of fifth-grade students' reading comprehension based on Barrett's taxonomy and their expository writing skills based on six assessment aspects, as an empirical foundation for designing literacy instruction that moves beyond literal reading. A quantitative descriptive approach was employed with 224 fifth-grade students from eight elementary schools in Purwakarta Regency, West Java, Indonesia, comprising public, private, and Islamic schools that had implemented the School Literacy Movement. Reading comprehension was measured using an eight-item essay test representing four levels of Barrett's taxonomy, while expository writing was assessed using a six-aspect analytic rubric. The data were analyzed descriptively through means, percentages, and category distributions. The findings show that reading comprehension reached a mean score of 47.8 on a 0 to 100 scale, classified in the poor category, with a declining pattern from literal comprehension (72.5%) to reorganization (56.3%), inferential (33.8%), and evaluative comprehension (28.8%). Expository writing reached a mean of 49.2, also in the poor category, with text structure (40.0%) and argumentation (37.5%) as the weakest aspects. A total of 78.1% of students were in the poor category for reading comprehension and 81.3% for expository writing, with no student reaching the very good category in either competency. These findings imply that literacy instruction in Indonesian elementary schools must shift from reading habits toward comprehension instruction that explicitly targets higher order thinking and provides modeling and guided practice of text structure and argumentation in expository writing.
References
Adachi, C., Tai, J., & Dawson, P. (2018a). Academics’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges of self and peer assessment in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(2), 294–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1339775
Corder, G. W., & Foreman, D. I. (2009). Nonparametric statistics for non-statisticians: A step-by-step approach. New Jersey, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Double, K. S., McGrane, J. A., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2020). The impact of peer assessment on academic performance: A meta-analysis of control group studies. Educational Psychology Review, 32(2), 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3
Fleckney, P., Thompson, J., & Vaz-Serra, P. (2024). Designing effective peer assessment processes in higher education: a systematic review. Higher Education Research & Development, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.2407083
Gupta, S. D., Abdullah, F., Li, G., & Xueshuang, Y. (2019). Peer Assessment in Writing: A Critical Review of Previous Studies. Journal of Advances in Linguistics, 10, 1478–1487. https://doi.org/10.24297/jal.v10i0.7992
Halim, S.W. (2021). Peer Assessment in University Level: A Preliminary Study on the Reliability. CaLLs, 7(1), pp 1-14.
Intellectus Consulting. (n.d.). Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient: A Comprehensive Overview. https://www.statisticssolutions.com/free-resources/directory-of-statistical-analyses/pearsons-correlation-coefficient/
Jongsma, M. V., Scholten, D. J., van Muijlwijk-Koezen, J. E., & Meeter, M. (2023). Online versus offline peer feedback in higher education: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(2), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221114181
Li, H. L., Xiong, Y., Hunte, C. V., Guo, X. Y., & Tywoniw, R. (2020). Does peer assessment promote student learning? A meta-analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(2), 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1620679
Meletiadou, E. & Tsagari, D. (2014). An Exploration of the Reliability and Validity of Peer Assessment of Writing in Secondary Education. Language Learning/Teaching - Education. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.2478/9788376560915.p14/pdf?srsltid=AfmBOoqA2fhFFl2-d0iYl50OTWThcoIdPXUtm6iXxhoDS_eaNv6br7XM
Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
Poverjuc, O., Brooks, V., & Wray, D. (2012). Using peer feedback in a master's programme: A multiple case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(4), 465–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.641008
Raharjo, S. (2014-2025). Panduan Lengkap Cara Melakukan Uji Wilcoxon dengan SPSS. SPSS Indonesia: Olah Data Statistik dengan SPSS. https://www.spssindonesia.com/2017/04/cara-uji-wilcoxon-spss.html
Reddy, K., Harland, T., Wass, R., & Wald, N. (2021). Student peer review as a process of knowledge creation through dialogue. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(4), 825–837. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1781797
Salehi, Mohammad & Sayyar, Zahra. (2017). An investigation of the reliability and validity of peer, self-, and teacher assessment. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies. 35. 1-15. 10.2989/16073614.2016.1267577.
Wagner, S. M. (2016) “Peer feedback: moving from assessment of learning to assessment for learning”, Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. doi: 10.47408/jldhe.v0i0.335.
Wilson, M. J., Diao, M. M., & Huang, L. (2015). ‘I’m not here to learn how to mark someone else’s stuff’: An investigation of an online peer-to-peer review workshop tool. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.881980
Yin, S., Chen, F., & Chang, H. (2022). Assessment as Learning: How Does Peer Assessment Function in Students’ Learning? Frontiers in Psychology. 13 (912568), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.912568
Yucel, R., Bird, F. L., Young, J., & Blanksby, T. (2014). The road to self-assessment: Exemplar marking before peer review develops first-year students’ capacity to judge the quality of a scientific report. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(8), 971–986. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.880400
Zhang, F., Schunn, C., Li, W., & Long, M. (2020). Changes in the reliability and validity of peer assessment across the college years. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(8), 1073–1087. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1724260
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Asep Nurhuda, Dadang Sunendar, Wahyu Sopandi

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
