Assessing Writing

1018 articles
Year: Topic:
Export:

July 2020

  1. Beyond linguistic complexity: Assessing register flexibility in EFL writing across contexts
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2020.100465
  2. Editorial Board
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(20)30037-4
  3. The relationship between features of source text use and integrated writing quality
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2020.100467
  4. Feedback scope in written corrective feedback: Analysis of empirical research in L2 contexts
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2020.100469
  5. Rater Negotiation Scheme: How writing raters resolve score discrepancies
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2020.100466
  6. Changing stories: Linguistically-informed assessment of development in narrative writing
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2020.100471
  7. Engaging expectations: Measuring helpfulness as an alternative to student evaluations of teaching
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2020.100464
  8. Volume 45 Editorial
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2020.100472
  9. Presentation-mode effects in large-scale writing assessments
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2020.100470
  10. Co-constructed rubrics and assessment for learning: The impact on middle school students’ attitudes and writing skills
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2020.100468

April 2020

  1. Student engagement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Grammarly: A multiple case study
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2020.100450
  2. eRevis(ing): Students’ revision of text evidence use in an automated writing evaluation system
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2020.100449
  3. Assessing the metacognitive awareness relevant to L1-to-L2 rhetorical transfer in L2 writing: The cases of Chinese EFL writers across proficiency levels
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2020.100452
  4. Investigating what feedback practices contribute to students’ writing motivation and engagement in Chinese EFL context: A large scale study
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2020.100451
  5. Editorial
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2020.100453
  6. Editorial Board
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(20)30018-0

January 2020

  1. Do raters use rating scale categories consistently across analytic rubric domains in writing assessment?
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.100416
  2. A measure of possible sources of demotivation in L2 writing: A scale development and validation study
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.100438
  3. Assessing the lexical richness of figurative expressions in Taiwanese EFL learners’ writing
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.06.007
  4. Engaging with automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback on L2 writing: Student perceptions and revisions
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.100439
  5. Marrying achievement with proficiency – Developing and validating a local CEFR-based writing checklist
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.100433
  6. Corrigendum to “The influence of lexical features on teacher judgements of ESL argumentative essays” [Assess. Writ. 39 (2019) 50–63]
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2020.100448
  7. Linking TOEFL iBT® writing rubrics to CEFR levels: Cut scores and validity evidence from a standard setting study
    Abstract

    English writing is a key competence for higher education success. However, research on the assessment of writing skills in English as a foreign language in European upper secondary education (i.e. beyond year 9) remains scarce. The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) describes language proficiency on a scale of six ascending levels (A1-C2). For writing skills at the end of secondary education in Europe, the common standard is vantage level B2. In this study, experts from Germany and Switzerland linked upper secondary students’ writing profiles elicited in a constructed response test (integrated and independent essays from the TOEFL iBT®) to CEFR levels. Standard setting methodology (a modified examinee paper selection/performance profile approach) was used to establish the linkages. The study reports the methodology and procedure of the standard setting process and discusses the procedural and internal validity of resulting cut scores. It also applies the cut scores to a large sample of upper secondary students in Germany and Switzerland to gain evidence for external and consequential validity.

    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.100420
  8. Editorial Board
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(20)30005-2
  9. Editorial
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2020.100447

October 2019

  1. Reflecting on the past, embracing the future
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.100423
  2. Complexity, consequence, and frames: A quarter century of research in Assessing Writing
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.100424
  3. Evidence of fairness: Twenty-five years of research in Assessing Writing
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.100418
  4. Making our invisible racial agendas visible: Race talk in Assessing Writing, 1994–2018
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.100425
  5. Unresolved issues in defining and assessing writing motivational constructs: A review of conceptualization and measurement perspectives
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.100417
  6. (Re)visiting twenty-five years of writing assessment
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.100419
  7. Editorial: 25 Years of Assessing Writing
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.100422
  8. Editorial Board
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(19)30170-9
  9. What has been assessed in writing and how? Empirical evidence from Assessing Writing (2000–2018)
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.100421

July 2019

  1. Directed self-placement as a tool to foreground student agency
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.06.001
  2. Writing placement tools: Constructing and understanding students’ transition into college writing
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.06.005
  3. Using the Smarter Balanced grade 11 summative assessment in college writing placement
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.06.002
  4. Investigating the effect of source characteristics on task comparability in integrated writing tasks
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.05.003
  5. Affordances and limitations of the ACCUPLACER automated writing placement tool
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.06.004
  6. Affordances of TOEFL writing tasks beyond university admissions
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.06.006
  7. Error analysis and diagnosis of ESL linguistic accuracy: Construct specification and empirical validation
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.05.002
  8. Holistic, local, and process-oriented: What makes the University Utah’s Writing Placement Exam work
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.06.003
  9. Editorial
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.06.008
  10. Editorial Board
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(19)30113-8
  11. Raters’ perceptions of assessment criteria relevance
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.04.002
  12. Lower English proficiency means poorer feedback performance? A mixed-methods study
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.05.001

April 2019

  1. Editorial Board
    doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(19)30050-9
  2. “I should summarize this whole paragraph”: Shared processes of reading and writing in iterative integrated assessment tasks
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.03.003
  3. Learning from giving peer feedback on postgraduate theses: Voices from Master's students in the Macau EFL context
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.03.004
  4. Developing and examining validity evidence for the Writing Rubric to Inform Teacher Educators (WRITE)
    doi:10.1016/j.asw.2019.03.001