Journals and Field Notes The figure below is a journal entry of a kindergarten student in a class of all Khmer speaking Cambodian Americans who were learning English.
Structures and Vocab The Comment Sheet serves as a record of the rater's justification for the given score. It functions as a reminder of how a rater arrived at a score and this record is used in the discussion with the co-rater when establishing a consensus score.
If raters cannot establish a consensus score, a third rater is asked to rate the paper. The individual and final scores recorded on the Comment Sheet are reviewed after each testing session as part of the ongoing test validation process. This study examines how comments made on the Comment Sheet reflect raters' values and decision-making processes in scoring writing tests.
This paper will first review relevant literature on rater variability and use of rating criteria. It will then provide a brief explanation of appraisal theory and how it will be applied in this context.
Finally, it will discuss the analyses of the data and conclude by highlighting the implications resulting from the analysis. Literature Review The most common method of rating direct assessments of second language L2 writing in large-scale composition tests is through a process of holistic scoring or analytic schemes by at least one rater.
It is generally acknowledged that with careful rater training and monitoring, this kind of scoring procedure can produce reliable results McNamara, ; Weigle, However, these rating processes have been criticized for oversimplifying the constructs they are supposed to represent.
As Cumming, Kantor, and Powers explained, Holistic rating scales can conflate many of the complex traits and variables that human journal articles on writing assessment of students' written composition perceive such as fine points of discourse coherence, grammar, lexical usage, or presentation of ideas into a few simple scale points, rendering the meaning or significance of the judges' assessments in a form that many feel is either superficial or difficult to interpret.
As will be shown, appraisal theory can be an effective tool to conduct such examinations. McNamara stated, "Performance assessment necessarily involves subjective judgments" p.
Raters may vary in scoring for various reasons, such as: Raters also engage in extensive problem-solving when making scoring decisions as opposed to simply matching rating criteria to aspects of test papers Cumming, ; DeRemer, Little attention has been paid to the nature of these decisions and the significance this self-monitoring and self-feedback, which is often manifested in written comments, has in the raters' scoring outcomes.
As Weigle stated"It is not enough to be able to assign a more accurate number to examinee performances unless we can be sure that the number represents a more accurate definition of the ability being tested" p.
Of central importance in test validity, then, is construct validity or how the construct is defined and how the operationalized definition is assessed.
As McNamara argued, both the construct what we believe 'coping communicatively' in relevant settings to mean and our view of the individual's standing are matters of belief and opinion, and each must be supported with reasoning and evidence before a defensible decision about the individual can be made.
In other words, it is crucial in the validation process to amass evidence that supports a well-defined construct. Raters contribute to the definition of the construct of a test in that they interpret the rating criteria, which in many tests serves as the most explicit definition of the construct.
From their position as judges, raters speak as authorities, and their perceptions of language and their biases serve to reinforce the values represented in a test. As it will be shown in this paper, appraisal theory can be very constructive and informative to identify and map out such values and biases.
Appraisal theory has been chosen as analytical framework to analyze the comments made by the raters because it not only allows for the quantification of data, but also provides a way to interpret the social phenomena that they represent.
From this perspective, the function of language is to make meaning, and meanings are always influenced by the social context in which they are exchanged. Language is part of a dialectal process in which it informs and is informed by the values of a particular culture.
In this analysis, raters' comments presumably can be interpreted as not only reflecting what an institution values in writing, but also as contributing to and reinforcing those values.
Rater comments serve as a window into how the test defines the construct of good writing. Appraisal is concerned with the interpersonal metafunction of language, which deals with role relationships and attitudes. Analyses using an appraisal theory framework allow researchers to reveal the underlying ideological assumptions of writers and texts through the systematic close reading of texts.
As Hunston and Thompson explain, evaluation includes both a conceptual and linguistic component.
Conceptually, evaluation is comparative, subjective and value-laden. Linguistically, evaluation can be identified through lexis, grammar, and recurring patterns of these features in texts.
In this study, the analysis focuses on how raters subjectively compared texts to their own definition of good writing.
The analysis identifies those linguistic features of comments that convey approval or disapproval of the texts the raters scored. This study uses Martin and White's appraisal system network, which sees the act of appraisal as featuring the three components of source, attitude, and amplification.Reflective Journal Writing as an Alternative Assessment Nicole Williams Beery Middle School- Columbus Public Schools Keywords Reflective journal writing, alternative assessment, general music classroom, early adolescence.
Jul 11, · Educational research articles and webinars for educators and teacher professional development.
Education articles on no child left behind research, classroom management, formative assessment and more. Contract grading in the technical writing classroom: Blending community-based assessment and self-assessment From assessing to teaching writing: What teachers prioritize Comparing the outcomes of two different approaches to CEFR-based rating of students’ writing performances across two European countries.
Articles in press Latest issue Special issues All issues About the journal Sign in to set up alerts. Automated Assessment of Writing. Edited by Norbert Elliot, David M.
|The Journal of Writing Assessment||Although an episode in the history of writing assessment that has been well documented, the EEE bears revisiting through the lens of an organizational perspective, with special attention to the process of innovation. Attention to management processes and the contexts in which they occur can inform the perspectives of professionals in language assessment and strengthen their commitment to action undertaken on behalf of students.|
|Recent Assessing Writing Articles - Elsevier||Write Outside the Boxes:|
Williamson. Volume 18, Issue 1, Pages (January ) Previous vol/issue. Next vol/issue. Select all documents. Download PDFs. Assessing Writing is a refereed international journal providing a forum for ideas, research and practice on the assessment of written rutadeltambor.coming 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.
Volume 6, Issue 1: Using Appraisal Theory to Understand Rater Values: An Examination of Rater Comments on ESL Test Essays.
by Carla Hall and Jaffer Sheyholislami. Abstract. This study is an illustration of the value of appraisal theory in studies of writing assessment.