The impact of task duration on the scoring of independent writing responses of adult L2-English writers

IF 4.2 1区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Assessing Writing Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2024.100895
{"title":"The impact of task duration on the scoring of independent writing responses of adult L2-English writers","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.asw.2024.100895","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In writing assessment, there is inherently a tension between authenticity and practicality: tasks with longer durations may more closely reflect real-life writing processes but are less feasible to administer and score. What is more, given total testing time, there is necessarily a trade-off between task duration and number of tasks. Traditionally, high-stakes assessments have managed this trade-off by administering one or two writing tasks each test, allowing 20–40 minutes per task. However, research on second language (L2) English writing has not found longer task durations to significantly improve score validity or reliability. Importantly, very few studies have compared much shorter durations for writing tasks to more traditional allotments. To explore this issue, we asked adult L2-English test takers to respond to two writing prompts with either 5-minute or 20-minute time limits. Responses were then evaluated by expert human raters and an automated writing evaluation tool. Regardless of scoring method, short duration scores evidenced equally high test-retest reliability and criterion validity as long duration scores. As expected, longer task duration yielded higher scores, but regardless of duration, test takers demonstrated the entire spectrum of writing proficiency. Implications for writing assessment are discussed in relation to scoring practices and task design.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46865,"journal":{"name":"Assessing Writing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessing Writing","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1075293524000886","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

In writing assessment, there is inherently a tension between authenticity and practicality: tasks with longer durations may more closely reflect real-life writing processes but are less feasible to administer and score. What is more, given total testing time, there is necessarily a trade-off between task duration and number of tasks. Traditionally, high-stakes assessments have managed this trade-off by administering one or two writing tasks each test, allowing 20–40 minutes per task. However, research on second language (L2) English writing has not found longer task durations to significantly improve score validity or reliability. Importantly, very few studies have compared much shorter durations for writing tasks to more traditional allotments. To explore this issue, we asked adult L2-English test takers to respond to two writing prompts with either 5-minute or 20-minute time limits. Responses were then evaluated by expert human raters and an automated writing evaluation tool. Regardless of scoring method, short duration scores evidenced equally high test-retest reliability and criterion validity as long duration scores. As expected, longer task duration yielded higher scores, but regardless of duration, test takers demonstrated the entire spectrum of writing proficiency. Implications for writing assessment are discussed in relation to scoring practices and task design.
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
任务持续时间对英语为第二语言的成年写作者独立写作回答评分的影响
在写作评估中,真实性和实用性之间存在着内在的矛盾:持续时间较长的任务可能更能反映真实的写作过程,但在实施和评分方面却不太可行。更重要的是,考虑到总的测试时间,必须在任务持续时间和任务数量之间做出权衡。传统上,高风险评估都是通过每次测试一到两个写作任务,每个任务 20-40 分钟的时间来实现这种权衡的。然而,对第二语言(L2)英语写作的研究并未发现较长的任务持续时间能显著提高分数的有效性或可靠性。重要的是,很少有研究将更短的写作任务时间与更传统的任务分配时间进行比较。为了探究这个问题,我们要求英语为第二语言的成年应试者在 5 分钟或 20 分钟的时间限制内回答两个写作提示。然后由人类专家评分员和自动写作评估工具对回答进行评估。无论采用哪种评分方法,短时段得分与长时段得分一样,都具有很高的测试再测可靠性和标准效度。正如预期的那样,任务持续时间越长,得分越高,但无论持续时间长短,应试者都能表现出全面的写作能力。本文讨论了评分方法和任务设计对写作评估的影响。
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 Validating an integrated reading-into-writing scale with trained university students Understanding the SSARC model of task sequencing: Assessing L2 writing development
×
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