A Categorical Instrument for Scoring Second Language Writing Skills

Brown, James Dean; Bailey, Kathleen M.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00350.x

Cited by 75 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…L. Jacobs, Zingraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel, & Hughey, 1981). Quality of content and language use represent well-established evaluative criteria in other studies (e.g., in Brown & Bailey, 1984;and Santos, 1988). Quality of introduction and quality of conclusion relate directly to differences in culturally influenced rhetorical features (Harder, 1983;Hinds, 1983aHinds, , 1990H.…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differing Perceptions of EFL Writing among Readers in Japan

Rinnert

Kobayashi

2001

The Modern Language Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This quantitative and qualitative study investigated perceptions of English compositions among four groups of readers (N ϭ 465) in Japan. Analyses of evaluative criteria and readers' comments yielded the following clear parallel results: Whereas inexperienced English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students attended predominantly to content in both judging and commenting on compositions, more experienced EFL students and nonnative English teachers showed greater concern than the inexperienced students did for clarity, logical connections, and organization. The experienced groups' perceptions tended to be more similar to the perceptions of native English-speaking teachers than those of the inexperienced EFL students. This tendency suggests that there is a gradual change in Japanese readers' perceptions of English composition from preferring the writing features of their first language (L1) to preferring many of the writing features of the second language (L2). The results imply that the particular kind of evaluation and feedback students are asked to provide on their peers' writing should vary according to the amount of L2 writing awareness and experience they have acquired.

show abstract

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clarity of meaning was intended to represent an overall judgment of intelligibility, which we assumed would be related to language use (Khalil, 1985), coherence (McCulley, 1985), and organization (Brown & Bailey, 1984;H. L. Jacobs, Zingraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel, & Hughey, 1981).…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differing Perceptions of EFL Writing among Readers in Japan

Rinnert

Kobayashi

2001

The Modern Language Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Still another way is having a third rater score the essay on whose grade the raters do not seem to reach a consensus (Hamp-Lyons, 1990;Odell, 1981) Using clear statements to describe the determined criteria and eliminating or rewording the ambiguous terms can also contribute to the reliability of the instrument. Another factor that raises the reliability of a scale is a higher number of subscales (Brown & Bailey, 1984). This may, however, negatively affect the economy of the scale.…”

Section: Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Materials for Assessing the Writing Skill

Nimehchisalem¹

2010

ALLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews the issues of concern in writing scale development in English as Second Language (ESL) settings with an intention to provide a useful guide for researchers or writing teachers who wish to develop or adapt valid, reliable and efficient writing scales considering their present assessment situations. With a brief discussion on the rationale behind writing scales, the author considers the process of scale development by breaking it into three phases of design, operationalization and administration. The issues discussed in the first phase include analyzing the samples, deciding on the type of scale and ensuring the validity of its design. Phase two encompasses setting the scale criteria, operationalization of definitions, setting a numerical value, assigning an appropriate weight for each trait, accounting for validity and reliability. The final phase comprises recommendations on how a writing scale should be used.

show abstract

“…GT has also been applied to the assessment of writing tests (Brown & Bailey, 1984;Gebril, 2010;Llabre, 1978;Sudweeks, Reeve & Bradshaw, 2004;Swartz et al, 1999).…”

Section: Literature Review the Common European Framework Of Refermentioning

confidence: 99%

A Model for Training Teachers to Identify Common Reference Levels in Written Production Activities

Cuadrado-Moreno

Reyes-Fernández

2012

JLTR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-This paper presents a teacher training programme, the purpose of which was to train a secondary education teacher of English to identify common reference levels in written production activities. The first phase of this programme was based on the familiarisation and standardisation phases in North et al. ) and to reliably identify common reference levels of English in both standardised and local performances. During the second phase, the participant assessed the written production competence of a sample of Year-9 pupils of English and assigned a common reference level of English to each pupil. After analysing her scores with generalizability theory, several high reliability coefficients were obtained. Such results demonstrate that this training programme, including its assessment procedure, can be adopted as a model for training secondary education teachers of English to identify common reference levels in written production activities.

show abstract

A Categorical Instrument for Scoring Second Language Writing Skills

Cited by 75 publications

References 7 publications

Differing Perceptions of EFL Writing among Readers in Japan

Differing Perceptions of EFL Writing among Readers in Japan

Materials for Assessing the Writing Skill

A Model for Training Teachers to Identify Common Reference Levels in Written Production Activities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About