L2 Students’ Views on Writing Tools: Investigating Domain Definition Within Argument-Based Validation Framework
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In many high-stakes testing situations, test-takers are not allowed to draw on external writing resources while writing, a practice observed more frequently in classroom settings. This may pose problems with the representativeness of test tasks and score interpretations. This study investigates the domain definition of one particular test known as the English Placement Writing Test within an argument-based validation framework. Focusing on the domain definition inference, the following rebuttal was evaluated: Certain essential contextual factors in the academic writing domain are not modeled in the test tasks. To do so, lower- and intermediate-level ESL students (n=92) who previously took the test were surveyed and interviewed regarding their uses of computer-based and face-to-face human-assisted writing tools. Results showed that students at both levels were statistically similar in their attitudes toward and uptakes of such tools while writing. The difference in availability of external writing tools between the target and test domain may point to issues with task authenticity of the test.
Abstract
In many high-stakes testing situations, test-takers are not allowed to draw on external writing resources while writing, a practice observed more frequently in classroom settings. This may pose problems with the representativeness of test tasks and score interpretations. This study investigates the domain definition of one particular test known as the English Placement Writing Test within an argument-based validation framework. Focusing on the domain definition inference, the following rebuttal was evaluated: Certain essential contextual factors in the academic writing domain are not modeled in the test tasks. To do so, lower- and intermediate-level ESL students (n=92) who previously took the test were surveyed and interviewed regarding their uses of computer-based and face-to-face human-assisted writing tools. Results showed that students at both levels were statistically similar in their attitudes toward and uptakes of such tools while writing. The difference in availability of external writing tools between the target and test domain may point to issues with task authenticity of the test.
참고문헌 (27)
- American Educational Research Association, "Standards for educational and psychological testing" (2014), American Education Research Association
- Andrade, M. S., "ESL readers and writers in higher education: Understanding challenges, providing support", pp.18~36 (2015), Routledge
- Cancino, M., "The impact of Google translate on L2 writing quality measures : Evidence from Chilean EFL high school learners", System, 98, pp.102464~ (2021)
- Chapelle, C. A., "Argument-based validation in testing and assessment" (2020), Sage
- Chapelle, C. A., "Building a validity argument for the test of English as a foreign language" (2008), Routledge
- Dimova, S., "Local language testing: Design, implementation, and development" (2020), Routledge
- Ferris, D. R., "Teaching college writing to diverse student populations" (2009), The University of Michigan Press
- Ferris, D. R., "Responding to student writing : Teachers’ philosophies and practices", Assessing Writing, 19, pp.6~23 (2014)
- Finstad, K., "The usability metric for user experience", Interacting with Computers, 22(5), pp.323~327 (2010)
- Hawe, E. M., "Building students’ evaluative and productive expertise in the writing classroom", Assessing Writing, 19, pp.66~79 (2014)
- Kane, M. T., "Educational measurement", pp.17~64 (2006), Praeger
- Kane, M. T., "The Routledge handbook of language testing", pp.53~69 (2022), Routledge
- Koltovskaia, S., "Students engagement with automated written corrective feedback(AWCF)provided by Grammarly : A multiple case study", Assessing Writing, 44, pp.100450~ (2020)
- Lee, E., "An evaluation of the English placement writing test using students’ selfassessments and instructors’ judgments", doctor, pp.2020
- Li, Z., "An argument-based validation study of the English placement test (EPT):Focusing on the inferences of extrapolation and ramifications", doctor, pp.2015
- Martin, J. R., "Language of evaluation: Appraisal in English" (2005), Palgrave Macmillan
- McMartin-Miller, C., "How much feedback is enough? : Instructor practices and student attitudes toward error treatment in second language writing", Assessing Writing, 19, pp.24~35 (2014)
- Moussu, L., "ESL readers and writers in higher education: Understanding challenges, providing Support", pp.49~63 (2015), Routledge
- O’Neill, E., "Online translator, dictionary, and search engine use among L2 students", CALL-EJ, 20(1), pp.154~177 (2019)
- Ranalli, J., "Automated written corrective feedback: How well can students make use of it?", Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(7), pp.653~674 (2018)
- Ranalli, J., "Automated writing evaluation for formative assessment of second language writing : Investigating the accuracy and usefulness of feedback as part of argument-based validation", Educational Psychology, 37(1), pp.8~25 (2017)
- Ranalli, J., "Automated written corrective feedback : Error-correction performance and timing of delivery", Language Learning & Technology, 26(1), pp.1~25 (2022)
- Saldaña, J., "The coding manual for qualitative researchers" (2016), Sage
- Storch, N., "Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications", pp.66~79 (2017), Routledge
- Tigchelaar, M., "Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications", pp.97~113 (2017), Routledge
- Weigle, S. C., "Source text borrowing in an integrated reading", writing assessment, 2012, pp.21(2), 118~133
- Williams, J., "Tutoring and revision : Second language writers in the writing center", Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(3), pp.173~201 (2004)