Assessing Writing

1018 articles
Year: Topic:
Export:

April 2019

  1. Assessing student-writers’ self-efficacy beliefs about text revision in EFL writing
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.03.002
  2. Editorial - volume 40
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.04.001

January 2019

  1. Book review
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.01.001
  2. A validation program for the Self-Beliefs, Writing-Beliefs, and Attitude Survey: A measure of adolescents' motivation toward writing
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.12.004
  3. Editorial
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.01.002
  4. Editorial Board
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(19)30011-x
  5. The influence of lexical features on teacher judgements of ESL argumentative essays
    Abstract

    Numerous studies have examined the relationship between lexical features of students’ compositions and judgements of text quality. However, the degree to which teachers’ judgements are influenced by the quality of vocabulary in students’ essays with regard to their assessment of other textual characteristics is relatively unexplored. This experimental study investigates the influence of lexical features on teachers’ judgements of English as a second language (ESL) argumentative essays. Using analytic and holistic rating scales, English pre-service teachers (N = 37) in Switzerland assessed four essays of different proficiency levels in which the levels of lexical diversity and sophistication had been experimentally varied. Coh-Metrix software was used to manipulate the level of lexical diversity, as measured by MTLD and D, and the Tool for the Automatic Analysis of Lexical Sophistication (TAALES) software was used to obtain differing levels of lexical sophistication, as measured by word range. The results suggested that texts with greater lexical diversity and sophistication were assessed more positively concerning their overall quality as well as the analytic criteria ‘grammar’ and ‘frame of essay’. The implications of this study for classroom practice and teacher education are discussed.

    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.12.003
  6. An investigation of the text features of discrepantly-scored ESL essays: A mixed methods study
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.10.003
  7. Book review
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.10.002
  8. Source use in the story continuation writing task
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.12.001
  9. Exploring the correspondence between traditional score resolution methods and person fit indices in rater-mediated writing assessments
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.12.002
  10. Quantity and quality of uptake: Examining surface and meaning-level feedback provided by peers and an instructor in a graduate research course
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.11.001

October 2018

  1. Contract grading in the technical writing classroom: Blending community-based assessment and self-assessment
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.06.002
  2. Corrigendum to “Modeling second language writing quality: A structural equation investigation of lexical, syntactic, and cohesive features in source-based and independent writing” [Assess. Writ. 37C (2018) 39–56]
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.09.002
  3. Corpus analytic tools: Constructing and understanding student writing assessment
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.06.006
  4. Editorial Board
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(18)30193-4
  5. The BAWE corpus and genre families classification of assessed student writing
    Abstract

    The British Academic Written English (BAWE) corpus (www.coventry.ac.uk/BAWE) comprises almost 3,000 pieces of university student writing distributed across four domains (Arts & Humanities, Life Sciences, Social Sciences, Physical Sciences) and four levels of study (from first year undergraduate to taught Master's level). The texts had all been submitted as part of regular university coursework, and had been awarded top grades, indicating that they had met disciplinary requirements in terms of level and task. The corpus was compiled to enable identification of the linguistic and generic features associated with successful university student writing. Our detailed analyses of the corpus led to the identification of thirteen genre families, and supports the premises that university students write in a wider variety of genres than is commonly recognised, and that student writing differs across genres, disciplines and levels of university study. This review introduces the BAWE corpus and the associated genre family classification, then explains how they can be accessed and used for teaching and research purposes, how they have been used to deepen our understanding of academic writing in English, and where

    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.06.005
  6. Teaching textual awareness with DocuScope: Using corpus-driven tools and reflection to support students’ written decision-making
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.06.003
  7. Integrated writing scores based on holistic and multi-trait scales: A generalizability analysis
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.08.001
  8. Editorial
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.10.001
  9. Assessing writing with the tool for the automatic analysis of lexical sophistication (TAALES)
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.06.004
  10. Connecting writing assessment with critical thinking: An exploratory study of alternative rhetorical functions and objects of enquiry in writing prompts
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.09.001

July 2018

  1. Editorial Board
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(18)30120-x
  2. Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001
  3. Not to scale? An argument-based inquiry into the validity of an L2 writing rating scale
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.01.001
  4. Comparing the outcomes of two different approaches to CEFR-based rating of students’ writing performances across two European countries
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.009
  5. From assessing to teaching writing: What teachers prioritize
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.003
  6. Modeling second language writing quality: A structural equation investigation of lexical, syntactic, and cohesive features in source-based and independent writing
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.002
  7. Writing from sources: Does audience matter?
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.004
  8. EDITORIAL
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.06.001

April 2018

  1. Examining the comparability between paper- and computer-based versions of an integrated writing placement test
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.006
  2. Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.004
  3. Editorial Board
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(18)30054-0
  4. Show me your true colours: Scaffolding formative academic literacy assessment through an online learning platform
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.005
  5. Paper-based vs computer-based writing assessment: divergent, equivalent or complementary?
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.04.001
  6. Researching the comparability of paper-based and computer-based delivery in a high-stakes writing test
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.008
  7. The effects of writing mode and computer ability on L2 test-takers' essay characteristics and scores
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.005
  8. Exploring the potential of process-tracing technologies to support assessment for learning of L2 writing
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.007
  9. Going online: The effect of mode of delivery on performances and perceptions on an English L2 writing test suite
    Abstract

    In response to changing stakeholder needs, large-scale language test providers have increasingly considered the feasibility of delivering paper-based examinations online. Evidence is required, however, to determine whether online delivery of writing tests results in changes to writing performance reflected in differential test scores across delivery modes, and whether test-takers hold favourable perceptions of online delivery. The current study aimed to determine the effect of delivery mode on the two writing tasks (reading-into-writing and extended writing) within the Trinity College London Integrated Skills in English (ISE) test suite across three proficiency levels (CEFR B1-C1). 283 test-takers (107 at ISE I/B1, 109 at ISE II/B2, and 67 at ISE III/C1) completed both writing tasks in paper-based and online mode. Test-takers also completed a questionnaire to gauge perceptions of the impact, usability and fairness of the delivery modes. Many-facet Rasch measurement (MFRM) analysis of scores revealed that delivery mode had no discernible effect, apart from the reading-into-writing task at ISE I, where the paper-based mode was slightly easier. Test-takers generally held more positive perceptions of the online delivery mode, although technical problems were reported. Findings are discussed with reference to the need for further research into interactions between delivery mode, task and level.

    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.003

January 2018

  1. Analysis of syntactic complexity in secondary education EFL writers at different proficiency levels
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2017.11.002
  2. Call for papers 25 th Anniversary Themed Issue: Framing the Future of Writing Assessment
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.002
  3. Book review
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2017.12.001
  4. Examining the validity of an analytic rating scale for a Spanish test for academic purposes using the argument-based approach to validation
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2017.12.003
  5. Editorial Board
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(18)30007-2
  6. Editorial
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.001
  7. Effects of indirect coded corrective feedback with and without short affective teacher comments on L2 writing performance, learner uptake and motivation
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2017.12.002
  8. From independent ratings to communal ratings: A study of CWA raters’ decision-making behaviors
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2017.12.004

October 2017

  1. Integrating assessment as , for , and of learning in a large-scale exam preparation course
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2017.09.003
  2. Design and evaluation of automated writing evaluation models: Relationships with writing in naturalistic settings
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2017.10.001
  3. Automated formative writing assessment using a levels of language framework
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2017.08.002