Assessing Writing最新文献

Studies examining peer review demonstrate that students can learn from giving feedback to and receiving feedback from their peers, especially when they utilize information gained from the review process to revise. However, much of the research on peer review is situated within the literature regarding how students learn to write. With an increasing use of writing-to-learn in STEM classrooms, it is important to study how students engage in peer review for these types of writing assignments. This study sought to better understand how peer review and revision can support student learning for writing-to-learn specifically, using the lenses of cognitive perspectives of writing and engagement with written corrective feedback. Using a case study approach, we provide a detailed analysis of six students’ written artifacts in response to a writing-to-learn assignment that incorporated peer review and revision implemented in an organic chemistry course. Students demonstrated a range in the types of revisions they made and the extent to which the peer review process informed their revisions. Additionally, students exhibited surface, mid-level, and active engagement with the peer review and revision process. Considering the different engagement levels can inform how we frame peer review to students when using it as an instructional practice.

The study reported in the paper starts with a hypothesis that errors observable in writing performances can account for much of the variability of the ratings awarded to them. The assertion is that this may be the case even when prescribed rating criteria explicitly direct rater focus towards successfully performed aspects of a writing performance rather than towards errors. The hypothesis is tested on a sample of texts rated independently of the study, using a five-point analytic rating scale involving ‘Can do’-like descriptors. The correlation between errors and ratings is ascertained using ordinal logistic regression, with Pseudo R² of 0.51 discerned overall. Thus, with roughly 50% of score variability explainable by error occurrences, the stated hypothesis is considered confirmed. The study goes on to discuss the consequences of the findings and their potential employ in assessment of writing beyond the local assessment context.

As a prerequisite for effective teaching and learning outcomes, assessment literacy (AL) is imperative for both writing teachers and students. Although previous research has stressed the importance of AL in effective writing instruction, few studies have designed or explored interventions that can improve teachers' and students' AL. These interventions play a crucial role in equipping writing teachers with the necessary skills to effectively comprehend, apply, interpret, and critique assessments. Likewise, AL interventions are essential for writing students, as they enhance their knowledge, attitudes, actions, and critique of assessments, enabling them to understand assessment purposes, utilize feedback constructively, and critically evaluate assessment practices. In order to address this gap in the literature, the researchers employed a mixed-method approach, which included pre- and post-tests, as well as semistructured interviews, to design and investigate effective interventions for enhancing AL. For the purpose of this study, we incorporated a four-dimensional conceptual framework for teachers' intervention and a four-phase AL framework for students' intervention as the basis for our investigation. According to the study findings, there were significant disparities between students' writing skills and their writing abilities while also substantial improvements in teachers' writing abilities following intervention. A positive perception of the intervention was also reported by both students and teachers. Thus, these interventions were able to assist students in better understanding assessment criteria and help teachers provide feedback in an effective manner. By implementing effective interventions, students, as well as teachers, will be equipped with the necessary tools to support writing instruction and ultimately achieve higher levels of achievement.

The present study used the Mixed Rasch Model (MRM) to identify multiple profiles in L2 students’ writing with regard to several linguistic features, including content, organization, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics. To this end, a pool of 500 essays written by English as a foreign language (EFL) students were rated by four experienced EFL teachers using the Empirically-derived Descriptor-based Diagnostic (EDD) checklist. The ratings were subjected to MRM analysis. Two distinct profiles of L2 writers emerged from the sample analyzed including: (a) Sentence-Oriented and (b) Paragraph-Oriented L2 Writers. Sentence-Oriented L2 Writers tend to focus more on linguistic features, such as grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics, at the sentence level and try to utilize these subskills to generate a written text. However, Paragraph-Oriented Writers are inclined to move beyond the boundaries of a sentence and attend to the structure of a whole paragraph using higher-order features such as content and organization subskills. The two profiles were further examined to capture their unique features. Finally, the theoretical and pedagogical implications of the identification of L2 writing profiles and suggestions for further research are discussed.

With the growing body of research on writing feedback and the recognition of the critical role of writing motivation, controversy has emerged over the motivational function of feedback in second language (L2) writing contexts. To provide further evidence for the impact of different feedback practices on L2 learners’ writing motivation, the present meta-analysis synthesizes the results of 13 quantitative studies on the relationship between feedback and L2 writing motivation. It examines the effect of different feedback practices on L2 learners’ writing motivation and the variables moderating the effectiveness of those feedback practices. The results show that feedback generated from multiple sources has the greatest motivational function in L2 writing, followed by single-source feedback, including peer feedback, teacher feedback, and automated feedback. Moderator analysis indicates that feedback type is a statistically significant variable moderating the effectiveness of feedback. In light of the findings, implications for L2 writing instruction and future L2 writing research are discussed.

Whether second or foreign (L2) writing self-efficacy predicts feedback-seeking behavior (FSB) positively or negatively remains unresolved. Moreover, empirical research regarding the influence of shyness on FSB is lacking. The investigation of self-efficacy, shyness, and FSB addresses how efficacious and shy individuals seek feedback and provides implications for overcoming shyness and recognizing the need to seek feedback for academic growth. Thus, the aim of the present study is to explore the impact of L2 writing self-efficacy and shyness on FSB. A battery of questionnaires was administered to 606 Chinese participants and six L2 learners’ writing experiences were elicited in relation to the three concepts. The quantitative results revealed that linguistic self-efficacy negatively impacted feedback inquiry, whereas performance self-efficacy positively impacted it. Further, self-regulatory self-efficacy had a positive impact on both feedback monitoring and inquiry. Shyness had a positive impact on feedback monitoring. Interviews revealed that L2 learners were confident about grammar and vocabulary in writing, but they struggled with organization, self-monitored feedback to avoid burdening teachers, relied on self-monitoring if feedback was delayed, and inquired about feedback when preparing for tests. Herein, implications for L2 writing pedagogy are provided.

This article examines a student-centered placement process where matriculating students could write a short, reflective paper to advocate for a new placement. While research describing student writing used in placement processes is often concerned with 1) a student’s ability to accurately articulate their abilities and 2) the perceived validity of a reader evaluating the work, this research applies a raciolinguistic lens (Flores & Rosa, 2015) to understand how students’ perceptions of language appropriateness mediate their self-assessments. Using the raciolinguistic framework to understand types of evidence, this article details how students create and write to a faculty reader during writing produced for placement, paying special attention to the ways in which white supremacist language ideologies are enacted for the benefit of the imagined listening subject/reader.

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.

A growth mindset (GM), defined as an individual’s perception that their intellectual ability is malleable, has been the subject of extensive research attention, as it can facilitate learning in many contexts. GM has been found to have more pronounced positive effects on students with lower-level writing proficiency. Emotions have also been found to play a significant role in second language (L2) writing. We conducted an innovative investigation of the relationships between GM, emotions related to writing (enjoyment and anxiety), and writing performance. The results of our study involving 589 Chinese 12th-graders and L2 writing tasks showed that GM was positively associated with enjoyment and negatively associated with anxiety. When assessing students grouped according to their writing performance (high, middle, and low), we found an indirect positive path from GM to writing performance via anxiety in the middle-level group and via enjoyment in the low-level group. The findings suggest that GM can promote enjoyment and mitigate anxiety, therefore facilitating L2 writing performance. The pedagogical implications are that teachers should encourage students to develop a GM and foster their social–emotional learning.