英语写作测试中基于计算机和纸质评分模式的比较

IF 4.2 1区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Assessing Writing Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2023.100771
Yuhua Liu , Jianda Liu
{"title":"英语写作测试中基于计算机和纸质评分模式的比较","authors":"Yuhua Liu ,&nbsp;Jianda Liu","doi":"10.1016/j.asw.2023.100771","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The study utilized a mixed methods approach to compare the scoring of raters in assessing writing performance across three modes: paper-based, on-screen marking of scanned images, and online word-processed versions. six experienced raters evaluated the performances of 39 test-takers in each mode. The many-facet Rasch model was employed to analyze scoring differences among the rating modes; the semi-structured interview was used to collect raters' perceptions towards performance under the three modes. The findings indicated that the difficulty level was ranked in ascending order of on-screen marking of scanned images, paper-based text, and online word-processed text. Bias analysis revealed interactions between the rater and the mode, as well as between the criterion and the mode. Verbal reports from the raters highlighted four construct-irrelevant factors that could potentially influence scoring under the three modes: convenience for essay overview and word recognition, potential underestimation of word count, and raters' preference for essays in handwriting. Based on the results, recommendations were provided for rater training and essay scoring across different modes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46865,"journal":{"name":"Assessing Writing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing computer-based and paper-based rating modes in an English writing test\",\"authors\":\"Yuhua Liu ,&nbsp;Jianda Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.asw.2023.100771\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The study utilized a mixed methods approach to compare the scoring of raters in assessing writing performance across three modes: paper-based, on-screen marking of scanned images, and online word-processed versions. six experienced raters evaluated the performances of 39 test-takers in each mode. The many-facet Rasch model was employed to analyze scoring differences among the rating modes; the semi-structured interview was used to collect raters' perceptions towards performance under the three modes. The findings indicated that the difficulty level was ranked in ascending order of on-screen marking of scanned images, paper-based text, and online word-processed text. Bias analysis revealed interactions between the rater and the mode, as well as between the criterion and the mode. Verbal reports from the raters highlighted four construct-irrelevant factors that could potentially influence scoring under the three modes: convenience for essay overview and word recognition, potential underestimation of word count, and raters' preference for essays in handwriting. Based on the results, recommendations were provided for rater training and essay scoring across different modes.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46865,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Assessing Writing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"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/S107529352300079X\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessing Writing","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S107529352300079X","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

摘要

这项研究采用了一种混合方法来比较评分者在评估三种模式的写作表现时的评分:纸质、扫描图像的屏幕标记和在线文字处理版本。六位经验丰富的评分员评估了39名考生在每种模式下的表现。采用多方面Rasch模型分析不同评分模式的评分差异;采用半结构化访谈的方法收集了三种模式下评分者对绩效的看法。研究结果表明,难度等级按扫描图像、纸质文本和在线文字处理文本的屏幕标记升序排列。偏差分析揭示了评分者和模式之间以及标准和模式之间的相互作用。评分者的口头报告强调了四个与结构无关的因素,这些因素可能会影响三种模式下的评分:文章概述和单词识别的便利性、对单词计数的潜在低估以及评分者对手写文章的偏好。根据研究结果,为不同模式的评分员培训和论文评分提供了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparing computer-based and paper-based rating modes in an English writing test

The study utilized a mixed methods approach to compare the scoring of raters in assessing writing performance across three modes: paper-based, on-screen marking of scanned images, and online word-processed versions. six experienced raters evaluated the performances of 39 test-takers in each mode. The many-facet Rasch model was employed to analyze scoring differences among the rating modes; the semi-structured interview was used to collect raters' perceptions towards performance under the three modes. The findings indicated that the difficulty level was ranked in ascending order of on-screen marking of scanned images, paper-based text, and online word-processed text. Bias analysis revealed interactions between the rater and the mode, as well as between the criterion and the mode. Verbal reports from the raters highlighted four construct-irrelevant factors that could potentially influence scoring under the three modes: convenience for essay overview and word recognition, potential underestimation of word count, and raters' preference for essays in handwriting. Based on the results, recommendations were provided for rater training and essay scoring across different modes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
Validating an integrated reading-into-writing scale with trained university students Understanding the SSARC model of task sequencing: Assessing L2 writing development Exploring the use of model texts as a feedback instrument in expository writing: EFL learners’ noticing, incorporations, and text quality Exploring the development of noun phrase complexity in L2 English writings across two genres L2 master’s and doctoral students’ preferences for supervisor written feedback on their theses/dissertations
×
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