Assessing Writing最新文献

Comparative judgement (CJ) is a method of assessment in which judges perform paired comparisons of pieces of student work and decide which one is “better”. CJ has many potential benefits for the writing assessment community, including its reliability, flexibility, and efficiency. However, by reviewing the literature on CJ’s application to L2 writing assessment, we find that while existing studies have established the plausibility of using CJ in this context, they provide little indication of the conditions under which the method is most likely to prove useful. In particular, by focusing on the assessment of relatively short texts, covering a wide proficiency range, and using a single essay prompt, they leave unresolved the question of how such textual factors affect CJ’s reliability and validity. To address this, we conduct two studies exploring the reliability and validity of a community-driven form of CJ for evaluating L2 texts which were longer, featured a narrower proficiency range, and were more topically diverse than earlier studies. Our results suggest that CJ remains reliable under these conditions. In addition, comparison with rubric-based assessment using CEFR scales suggests that the CJ approach also has an acceptable level of validity.

This study has explored the syntactic complexity features of English learners at the B1 Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) (CoE, 2001) level from both Pakistan and Finland. The learners in question were taught English as a Foreign Language (EFL) using different pedagogical methods. This study took into account various factors including the learners' proficiency level, age, and grade, as well as variations in their native language. To assess the impact of the learners' native language and pedagogical methods on syntactic complexity features, twelfth grade EFL students from Upper-Secondary schools in both nations were given identical instructions and time limits to complete an English academic essay on the same topic. The study utilized L2 syntactic complexity analyzer (L2SCA) to extract fourteen syntactic complexity features, and Mann-Whitney U Tests were used to analyze the differences in the syntactic complexity features between the two groups. The study has revealed significant differences between Finnish and Pakistani EFL learners due to variations in their native language and the effects of pedagogical methods on syntactic complexity features. The implications of this study extend to language testing and assessment, the CEFR framework, and pedagogy in both Finland and Pakistan.

Task representation denotes students’ interpretation in which what a learning or assessment task required them to do. An argumentative integrated writing task which involves the use of reading materials as claims or evidences for composing an essay, makes the role of task representation more critical than others, as writers may be confused with whether their task is to focus on synthesizing the reading materials that they comprehend, or expressing their own views. With the aim of exploring the characteristics of task representation and its association with integrated writing, this study invited 474 secondary four students from Hong Kong to participate in think aloud writing protocol followed by stimulated recall interview (36 participants), and complete an integrated writing task and a questionnaire (438 participants). Three factors of the task representation were identified as source use, rhetorical purpose and text format, and significant positive correlations were found between the three factors and integrated writing performance. Theoretical and pedagogical implications are discussed.

Although research on student engagement with peer feedback in second and foreign language (L2) writing has attracted some attention in recent years, there has been little emphasis on the dynamic changes in and factors influencing student engagement. Drawing on multiple data sources, we explored how six undergraduate students affectively, cognitively, and behaviorally engaged with receiving peer feedback across three writing cycles in an online TOEFL writing course. The findings revealed that L2 students’ engagement with peer feedback was complex, dynamic, and nonlinear. Affectively, the students experienced fluctuating emotions across tasks, which directly contributed to changes in their behaviors, as positive emotions promoted feedback implementation, while negative emotions hampered it. Cognitively, the students showed dynamic difficulties in understanding peer feedback across tasks, which triggered negative emotions and inappropriate revisions, and noticing/understanding feedback did not guarantee the use of cognitive strategies. Behaviorally, the students manifested different trends of implementing peer feedback and deployed a variety of observable revision strategies across the three writing cycles. Overall, the dynamics of student engagement with receiving peer feedback were found to be influenced by a number of individual and contextual factors, indicating the malleability of L2 students’ engagement with peer feedback.

Task-based language teaching (TBLT) has generally been reported to enhance second language (L2) writing on linguistic features such as complexity, accuracy, and fluency. The research on how it influences pragmatic dimensions, however, has been scarce. Drawing upon a pretest-posttest design, this study investigates the potential of TBLT in pragmatic development in Chinese high school students’ English writing. Eighty Chinese senior high school students from two parallel classes participated in this study over four weeks. One class as the experimental group received TBLT writing instruction while the other class as the control group maintained the traditional product approach of writing teaching. Pragmatic outcomes were assessed in terms of functional adequacy (i.e., content, task requirements, comprehensibility, and coherence/cohesion) with functional adequacy rating scales. Results showed the salient effects of TBLT in helping students become more functionally adequate in English writing. In particular, it promoted the content, task requirements, and comprehensibility of students’ writing. The coherence and cohesion performance in writing, however, did not demonstrate considerable improvement. Intriguingly, a significant correlation was identified between students’ English proficiency and the coherence/cohesion dimension in their written texts. The study highlights the effectiveness of TBLT in facilitating L2 writing performance from the perspective of pragmatic dimensions and emphasizes the importance of developing students’ pragmatic writing ability. These findings have significant implications for Chinese high school English writing instruction.

The ability to produce fluent and coherent written text impacts learning and attainments. Valid and reliable assessments of writing are needed to monitor progression, develop goals for writing and identify struggling writers. In order to inform practice and research a systematic review was conducted to investigate which writing productivity measures captured writing development and identified struggling writers in elementary school. Sixty-seven empirical studies were identified for inclusion, appraised, and their data extracted under the themes of writing genre, duration of writing task, use of priming of topic knowledge prior to the writing assessment, use of planning time, writing modality, gender, age of participants and learning difficulties. Total Number of Words and Correct Word Sequences were the most common means of measuring productivity. Productivity varied significantly between genres and durations of writing tasks and was higher in girls than boys. Students with learning difficulties scored significantly lower in writing productivity when compared to typically developing peers. Insufficient research was available to draw conclusions regarding the effects of priming of topic knowledge, planning and modality on writing productivity. Study limitations, links to the assessment of writing and recommended further research are discussed.

Comparing trained L2 writing student reviewers’ feedback behaviors as well as examining the extent to which their claims are aligned with their actual evaluation practices have received limited scholarly attention. Employing think-aloud protocols, one cause and one effect essays evaluated by five upper-intermediate L2 learners, and follow-up semi-structured interviews, this case study research aimed to explore trained L2 peer reviewers’ feedback behaviors and the matches and mismatches between their claims and evaluation practices. While the first and the second data source compared the participants’ actual feedback practices in terms of nature, type, and validity, the last source probed their claims on peer evaluation. The findings contribute to peer feedback research by emphasizing on the need for individual, customized, and constant peer review training sessions rather than general, all-purpose, and decontextualized instructions which can consequently improve peer feedback quality in L2 writing contexts.