Rater cognitive processes in integrated writing tasks: from the perspective of problem-solving

IF 2.1 1区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Wenfeng Jia, Peixin Zhang
{"title":"Rater cognitive processes in integrated writing tasks: from the perspective of problem-solving","authors":"Wenfeng Jia, Peixin Zhang","doi":"10.1186/s40468-023-00265-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract It is widely believed that raters’ cognition is an important aspect of writing assessment, as it has both logical and temporal priority over scores. Based on a critical review of previous research in this area, it is found that raters’ cognition can be boiled to two fundamental issues: building text images and strategies for articulating scores. Compared to the scoring contexts of previous research, the TEM 8 integrated writing task scoring scale has unique features. It is urgent to know how raters build text images and how they articulate scores for text images in the specific context of rating TEM8 compositions. In order to answer these questions, the present study conducted qualitative research by considering raters as problem solvers in the light of problem-solving theory. Hence, 6 highly experienced raters were asked to verbalize their thoughts simultaneously while rating TEM 8 essays, supplemented by a retrospective interview. Analyzing the collected protocols, we found that with regard to research question 1, the raters went through two stages by setting building text images as isolated nodes and building holistic text images for each dimension as two sub-goals, respectively. In order to achieve the first sub-goal, raters used strategies such as single foci evaluating, diagnosing, and comparing; for the second sub-goal, they mainly used synthesizing and comparing. Regarding the second question, the results showed that they resorted to two groups of strategies: demarcating boundaries between scores within a dimension and discriminating between dimensions, each group consisting of more specific processes. Each of the extracted processes was defined clearly and their relationships were delineated, on the basis of which a new working model of the rating process was finalized. Overall, the present study deepens our understanding of rating processes and provides evidence for the scoring validity of the TEM 8 integrated writing test. It also provides implications for rating practice, such as the need for the distinction between two types of analytical rating scales.","PeriodicalId":37050,"journal":{"name":"Language Testing in Asia","volume":"8 8","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Testing in Asia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-023-00265-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract It is widely believed that raters’ cognition is an important aspect of writing assessment, as it has both logical and temporal priority over scores. Based on a critical review of previous research in this area, it is found that raters’ cognition can be boiled to two fundamental issues: building text images and strategies for articulating scores. Compared to the scoring contexts of previous research, the TEM 8 integrated writing task scoring scale has unique features. It is urgent to know how raters build text images and how they articulate scores for text images in the specific context of rating TEM8 compositions. In order to answer these questions, the present study conducted qualitative research by considering raters as problem solvers in the light of problem-solving theory. Hence, 6 highly experienced raters were asked to verbalize their thoughts simultaneously while rating TEM 8 essays, supplemented by a retrospective interview. Analyzing the collected protocols, we found that with regard to research question 1, the raters went through two stages by setting building text images as isolated nodes and building holistic text images for each dimension as two sub-goals, respectively. In order to achieve the first sub-goal, raters used strategies such as single foci evaluating, diagnosing, and comparing; for the second sub-goal, they mainly used synthesizing and comparing. Regarding the second question, the results showed that they resorted to two groups of strategies: demarcating boundaries between scores within a dimension and discriminating between dimensions, each group consisting of more specific processes. Each of the extracted processes was defined clearly and their relationships were delineated, on the basis of which a new working model of the rating process was finalized. Overall, the present study deepens our understanding of rating processes and provides evidence for the scoring validity of the TEM 8 integrated writing test. It also provides implications for rating practice, such as the need for the distinction between two types of analytical rating scales.
综合写作任务中的认知过程:从问题解决的角度
人们普遍认为评分者的认知是写作评估的一个重要方面,因为它比分数具有逻辑和时间上的优先性。基于对该领域先前研究的批判性回顾,我们发现评分者的认知可以归结为两个基本问题:构建文本图像和表达分数的策略。与以往研究的评分语境相比,英语专业八级综合写作任务评分量表有其独特之处。迫切需要知道评分者是如何构建文本图像的,以及他们是如何在TEM8作文评分的特定背景下为文本图像评分的。为了回答这些问题,本研究根据问题解决理论,将评分者视为问题解决者,进行了定性研究。因此,6名经验丰富的评分者被要求在对TEM 8论文进行评分时同时用语言表达他们的想法,并辅以回顾性访谈。分析收集到的协议,我们发现,对于研究问题1,评分者将构建文本图像作为孤立节点,将构建每个维度的整体文本图像作为两个子目标,分别经历了两个阶段。为了实现第一个子目标,评分者采用了单焦点评估、诊断和比较等策略;对于第二个子目标,他们主要采用综合和比较的方法。对于第二个问题,结果显示,他们采取了两组策略:在一个维度内划分分数之间的边界和在维度之间进行区分,每一组都由更具体的过程组成。对每个提取出来的过程进行了明确的定义,并描述了它们之间的关系,在此基础上最终确定了评级过程的新工作模型。总体而言,本研究加深了我们对评分过程的理解,并为英语专业八级综合写作测试的评分效度提供了证据。它还为评级实践提供了启示,例如需要区分两种类型的分析评级量表。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Language Testing in Asia
Language Testing in Asia Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
28.60%
发文量
50
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信