Assessing Writing最新文献

The torrent of research into peer feedback in academic writing in recent years has largely overlooked student revision process – how individual students engage with this feedback to revise their texts and why certain changes are made in their texts. In other words, the cognitive dimension of student engagement with peer feedback in revision is little known. Drawing on multiple student drafts, peer feedback on these drafts, reflective journals and interviews with students, this study examines how two L2 students engage with peer feedback to conduct revisions. We found that the two participants differed considerably in their revision processes and identified two patterns of engagement: deep engagement, characterized by self-regulated revising practices, and surface engagement, concerned with other-regulated revision operations. We were not only interested in students’ revision operations in their drafts, but also their reflective practices in their reflective journals that their teacher had assigned. The study suggests that effective student engagement with peer feedback largely depends on how they make use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies in the revision process. The study recommends that teachers seek to provide instructional scaffolding to facilitate student cognitive engagement with peer feedback on L2 writing.

Although many studies have elaborated the nature and importance of feedback literacy, a longitudinal approach to delving into the development of EFL students’ feedback literacy is scarce. Informed by an evidence-based framework of feedback literacy improvement in the context of academic writing (Yu & Liu, 2021), the study explored the development of feedback literacy of three first-year students who studied English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in understanding, evaluating, reflecting on, and using peer feedback and their emotional responses during a semester-long online writing program. By analyzing students’ voiced peer feedback, written drafts, immediate reflections after peer feedback, monthly reflection journals, end-of-term stimulated recalls and interviews, we found positive changes in their cognitive, behavioral, and emotional capacities in response to peer feedback, and increasing improvement in students’ assessment criteria knowledge through self-reflections after peer feedback, incorporation of peer feedback and reflections into revision. However, students did not develop at the same pace due to personal factors. Variations in students’ reflections and proactive actions were found in relation to the development of feedback literacy evidenced in their revision improvement. Implications for pedagogical facilitation of peer feedback literacy and use of peer feedback in revision in academic writing are discussed.

Research on corrective feedback (CF) has developed from its original focus on identifying which type of CF is most effective for developing L2 language learners’ grammatical accuracy to focusing on how learners use CF. Underpinning this is the assumption that learners know what to do with CF when they receive it. The concept of “feedback literacy” challenges this assumption. Carless and Boud (2018), define feedback literacy as “the understandings, capacities and dispositions needed to make sense of information and use it to enhance work or learning strategies” (p. 1316). Our intention in this paper is to reflect on the manner in which theoretical and empirical work on feedback literacy can contribute to advancing L2 written corrective feedback (WCF) research agendas. Central in our proposal is the partially under-researched aspect of experience in terms of the L2 writers’ educational background experience, particularly experience with L1 and L2 writing. We further argue that how learners were taught L1 writing and how the L1 educational culture/ society values writing can impact on how learners approach L2 writing tasks and accompanying feedback. Implications of this inclusive view of the learner for future research and pedagogy is discussed.

Advocating for measuring a broadened construct of writing ability, scenario-based assessment (SBA) has recently been used to assess writing ability. While SBA for writing has been explored in ESL contexts (e.g., Banerjee, 2019; Purpura, 2021), it has been rarely used or examined in the context of languages other than English, especially those that are typologically distant from English, such as Korean. This study explores the feasibility of designing a scenario-based Korean writing assessment (K-SBA). A pilot study was conducted with 51 participants from a Korean as a foreign language program at a US university. Through a goal-oriented scenario of a study abroad program in South Korea, examinees were presented with a collaborative problem-solving task where they were expected to learn about two potential class trip destinations and write a summary of the pros and cons of each destination based on what they learned. The results indicated that the K-SBA was psychometrically sound, providing adequate evidence of reliability. It elicited construct-relevant performances reflecting features unique to the Korean language, such as sociolinguistic competence through the use of honorifics or rhetorical control through a range of cohesive devices. Additionally, variations in examinee performances were observed across the different course levels.

The literature on peer feedback has yet to investigate the effects of translanguaging on learners’ affective engagement with feedback. Therefore, this case study 1) explored the affordances of translanguaging between two English learners in Iran, and 2) investigated any developments in these learners’ affective engagement with peer feedback mediated by translanguaging. The analysis of eight samples of student writing with peer feedback, stimulated recalls, and reflection journals showed that translanguaging mediated the learners’ affective engagement with peer feedback. Using their first language, Persian, helped improve their affective engagement with peer feedback on content-related issues. As shown by a sociocultural theory-motivated analysis, the learners’ affective engagement with peer feedback was nonlinear, dynamic, and evolving over the course of six weeks. Indeed, the participants deemed Persian as an effective tool in providing meta-feedback on content-related, and at times, grammar issues, thus leading to more positive affective engagement with peer feedback. We think that teachers should consider allowing their students to use their first language during the process of peer feedback to enhance their affective engagement with peer feedback.

The orthographic and morphological system of Mandarin Chinese requires more time and developmental stages for learners to acquire. This source of difficulty might present unique challenges and opportunities for writing assessment for Chinese as a Second Language (CSL). This study employed a corpus-based approach to examine the accuracy features of 10,750 essays written by test-takers from 17 first language (L1) backgrounds on the HSK test. Based on both orthographic types and economic-geopolitical factors, we classified test-taker L1s into 3 groups. We first factor-analyzed a comprehensive array of error types to identify the underlying dimensions of Chinese writing accuracy. Then, dimension scores were included in regression models to predict HSK writing scores for different L1 groups. The results revealed five dimensions related to syntactic, morphological, and lexical errors. Among them, dimensions on character and word-level errors were stronger predictors of HSK scores, although the discrimination power was stronger for test-takers from L1s that are orthographically dissimilar and economic-geopolitically distant from Mandarin Chinese. These findings suggest that Chinese morphology (i.e., the acquisition of characters and how characters form words) constitutes a unique source of difficulty for L2 learners. We argue that morphological elements should be an important subconstruct in Chinese writing assessments. (200 words)

To explore potential pandemic-related learning gaps on expressive writing skills, predominantly Hispanic (≈50%) and White (≈30%) primary-grade students responded to grade-specific writing prompts in the fall semesters before and after school closures. Responses were evaluated with an analytic rubric consisting of five traits (focus, organization, development, grammar, mechanics), each scored on a 1–4 scale. Data first were analyzed descriptively and, after propensity score weighting, with ordinal response models (for analytic scores) and generalized linear mixed effects models (for composite scores). Compared to first graders in 2019 (n = 310), those in 2020 (n = 203) scored significantly lower overall as well as on all rubric criteria and were more likely to write unintelligible responses. Second graders in 2020 (n = 194) performed significantly lower than those in 2019 (n = 328) in some traits but not all, and there was a widening gap between students who did/not score proficiently. A three-level longitudinal model analyzing the sample of students moving from first to second grade in fall 2020 (n = 90) revealed significant improvements, but students still performed significantly lower than second graders in the previous year. Implications for student resiliency and instructional planning are discussed.

This study examined the use of cohesive features in 270 narrative and argumentative essays produced by 45 s language (L2) students over a semester-long writing course. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine the ability of the computational indices of cohesion (TAACO) variables to predict human ratings of essay quality, recognize any differences in the use of cohesive devices between narrative and argumentative genres, and ascertain which of the cohesive devices varied for each of the genres over time. The results indicated clear differences in how cohesion was signaled between the two genres. Narrative texts relied on the use of connective devices to signal cohesion, whereas argumentative texts relied on the use of global-level repetition. With regard to development, the results were less conclusive but do suggest expansion in the participants’ use of cohesive devices. These results provide important implications for L2 writing pedagogy and assessment.

Recent advances in artificial intelligence have given rise to the use of chatbots as a viable tool for language learning. One such tool is ChatGPT, which engages users in natural and human-like interactive experiences. While ChatGPT has the potential to be an effective tutor and source of language input, some academics have expressed concerns about its impact on writing pedagogy and academic integrity. Thus, this tech review aims to explore the potential benefits and challenges of using ChatGPT for second language (L2) writing. This review concludes with some recommendations for L2 writing classroom practices.