Amplifying test-taker voices in the validation of L2 writing assessment tasks

IF 4.2 1区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Assessing Writing Pub Date : 2023-11-30 DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2023.100790
Kerry Pusey , Yuko Goto Butler
{"title":"Amplifying test-taker voices in the validation of L2 writing assessment tasks","authors":"Kerry Pusey ,&nbsp;Yuko Goto Butler","doi":"10.1016/j.asw.2023.100790","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Studies have documented how L2 writers utilize digital tools to mediate the process of writing, yet little is known about test-takers’ perceptions of the utility of digital tools in writing assessment tasks. In a previous investigation (Pusey &amp; Butler, in press), we found that international graduate students’ writing performance was different on assessment tasks that varied in terms of access to external writing resources (e.g., spell-check, dictionaries, internet content searches). To better understand the mechanisms underlying these different outcomes, participants’ (<em>n</em> = 20) perceptions of the two task conditions (with or without access to external resources) were examined based on a questionnaire. Results indicated that participants tended to perceive writing tasks that permit access to external resources as more similar to university writing and as better vehicles for demonstrating their academic writing ability. However, they also perceived this task condition as more difficult than the one which disallowed use of external resources. Regarding enjoyment, test-takers’ perceptions were almost evenly divided. Moreover, additional construct-irrelevant factors (e.g., topic, time, task characteristics and processes) appeared to influence perceptions of the tasks. The findings demonstrate the value of listening to test-taker voices to identify construct-irrelevant factors in writing assessments within the context of an increasingly digitalized world.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46865,"journal":{"name":"Assessing Writing","volume":"59 ","pages":"Article 100790"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1075293523000983/pdfft?md5=426de2220969551add9c17563933a8cb&pid=1-s2.0-S1075293523000983-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessing Writing","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1075293523000983","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Studies have documented how L2 writers utilize digital tools to mediate the process of writing, yet little is known about test-takers’ perceptions of the utility of digital tools in writing assessment tasks. In a previous investigation (Pusey & Butler, in press), we found that international graduate students’ writing performance was different on assessment tasks that varied in terms of access to external writing resources (e.g., spell-check, dictionaries, internet content searches). To better understand the mechanisms underlying these different outcomes, participants’ (n = 20) perceptions of the two task conditions (with or without access to external resources) were examined based on a questionnaire. Results indicated that participants tended to perceive writing tasks that permit access to external resources as more similar to university writing and as better vehicles for demonstrating their academic writing ability. However, they also perceived this task condition as more difficult than the one which disallowed use of external resources. Regarding enjoyment, test-takers’ perceptions were almost evenly divided. Moreover, additional construct-irrelevant factors (e.g., topic, time, task characteristics and processes) appeared to influence perceptions of the tasks. The findings demonstrate the value of listening to test-taker voices to identify construct-irrelevant factors in writing assessments within the context of an increasingly digitalized world.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在第二语言写作评估任务的验证中放大考生的声音
研究记录了第二语言写作者如何利用数字工具来调节写作过程,但很少有人知道考生对数字工具在写作评估任务中的效用的看法。在之前的调查中(Pusey &Butler,在出版中),我们发现国际研究生的写作表现在评估任务上是不同的,这些任务在获取外部写作资源(例如,拼写检查,字典,互联网内容搜索)方面是不同的。为了更好地理解这些不同结果背后的机制,参与者(n = 20)对两种任务条件(有或没有获得外部资源)的看法进行了问卷调查。结果表明,参与者倾向于认为允许访问外部资源的写作任务与大学写作更相似,并且是展示其学术写作能力的更好工具。但是,他们也认为这种任务条件比不允许使用外部资源的任务条件更困难。在享受方面,考生的看法几乎平分秋色。此外,其他与构念无关的因素(如主题、时间、任务特征和过程)似乎也会影响对任务的感知。研究结果表明,在一个日益数字化的世界中,倾听考生的声音,在写作评估中识别与结构无关的因素是有价值的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Assessing Writing
Assessing Writing Multiple-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
17.90%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: Assessing Writing is a refereed international journal providing a forum for ideas, research and practice on the assessment of written language. Assessing Writing publishes articles, book reviews, conference reports, and academic exchanges concerning writing assessments of all kinds, including traditional (direct and standardised forms of) testing of writing, alternative performance assessments (such as portfolios), workplace sampling and classroom assessment. The journal focuses on all stages of the writing assessment process, including needs evaluation, assessment creation, implementation, and validation, and test development.
期刊最新文献
A comparative study of voice in Chinese English-major undergraduates’ timed and untimed argument writing The impact of task duration on the scoring of independent writing responses of adult L2-English writers A structural equation investigation of linguistic features as indices of writing quality in assessed secondary-level EMI learners’ scientific reports Detecting and assessing AI-generated and human-produced texts: The case of second language writing teachers Validating an integrated reading-into-writing scale with trained university students
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1