为综合阅读写作和听力写作总结任务制定更有效的评分标准

IF 2.2 1区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Sathena Chan, Lyn May
{"title":"为综合阅读写作和听力写作总结任务制定更有效的评分标准","authors":"Sathena Chan, Lyn May","doi":"10.1177/02655322221135025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the increased use of integrated tasks in high-stakes academic writing assessment, research on rating criteria which reflect the unique construct of integrated summary writing skills is comparatively rare. Using a mixed-method approach of expert judgement, text analysis, and statistical analysis, this study examines writing features that discriminate summaries produced by 150 candidates at five levels of proficiency on integrated reading-writing (R-W) and listening-writing (L-W) tasks. The expert judgement revealed a wide range of features which discriminated R-W and L-W responses. When responses at five proficiency levels were coded by these features, significant differences were obtained in seven features, including relevance of ideas, paraphrasing skills, accuracy of source information, academic style, language control, coherence and cohesion, and task fulfilment across proficiency levels on the R-W task. The same features did not yield significant differences in L-W responses across proficiency levels. The findings have important implications for clarifying the construct of integrated summary writing in different modalities, indicating the possibility of expanding integrated rating categories with some potential for translating the identified criteria into automated rating systems. The results on the L-W indicate the need for developing descriptors which can more effectively discriminate L-W responses.","PeriodicalId":17928,"journal":{"name":"Language Testing","volume":"40 1","pages":"410 - 439"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards more valid scoring criteria for integrated reading-writing and listening-writing summary tasks\",\"authors\":\"Sathena Chan, Lyn May\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02655322221135025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Despite the increased use of integrated tasks in high-stakes academic writing assessment, research on rating criteria which reflect the unique construct of integrated summary writing skills is comparatively rare. Using a mixed-method approach of expert judgement, text analysis, and statistical analysis, this study examines writing features that discriminate summaries produced by 150 candidates at five levels of proficiency on integrated reading-writing (R-W) and listening-writing (L-W) tasks. The expert judgement revealed a wide range of features which discriminated R-W and L-W responses. When responses at five proficiency levels were coded by these features, significant differences were obtained in seven features, including relevance of ideas, paraphrasing skills, accuracy of source information, academic style, language control, coherence and cohesion, and task fulfilment across proficiency levels on the R-W task. The same features did not yield significant differences in L-W responses across proficiency levels. The findings have important implications for clarifying the construct of integrated summary writing in different modalities, indicating the possibility of expanding integrated rating categories with some potential for translating the identified criteria into automated rating systems. The results on the L-W indicate the need for developing descriptors which can more effectively discriminate L-W responses.\",\"PeriodicalId\":17928,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Language Testing\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"410 - 439\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Language Testing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322221135025\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Testing","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322221135025","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管在高风险学术写作评估中越来越多地使用综合任务,但对反映综合摘要写作技能独特结构的评分标准的研究相对较少。本研究采用专家判断、文本分析和统计分析的混合方法,考察了150名考生在综合读写(R-W)和听写(L-W)任务上的五个熟练程度的写作特征。专家判断揭示了广泛的特征,区分了R-W和L-W反应。当用这些特征编码5个水平的回答时,在思想的相关性、转述技能、来源信息的准确性、学术风格、语言控制、连贯和衔接以及任务完成等7个特征上,不同水平的R-W任务表现出显著差异。相同的特征在不同熟练程度的L-W反应中没有显著差异。研究结果对于澄清不同形式的综合摘要写作的结构具有重要意义,表明扩大综合评级类别的可能性,并有可能将已确定的标准转化为自动评级系统。研究结果表明,需要开发能够更有效地区分语言语言反应的描述符。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Towards more valid scoring criteria for integrated reading-writing and listening-writing summary tasks
Despite the increased use of integrated tasks in high-stakes academic writing assessment, research on rating criteria which reflect the unique construct of integrated summary writing skills is comparatively rare. Using a mixed-method approach of expert judgement, text analysis, and statistical analysis, this study examines writing features that discriminate summaries produced by 150 candidates at five levels of proficiency on integrated reading-writing (R-W) and listening-writing (L-W) tasks. The expert judgement revealed a wide range of features which discriminated R-W and L-W responses. When responses at five proficiency levels were coded by these features, significant differences were obtained in seven features, including relevance of ideas, paraphrasing skills, accuracy of source information, academic style, language control, coherence and cohesion, and task fulfilment across proficiency levels on the R-W task. The same features did not yield significant differences in L-W responses across proficiency levels. The findings have important implications for clarifying the construct of integrated summary writing in different modalities, indicating the possibility of expanding integrated rating categories with some potential for translating the identified criteria into automated rating systems. The results on the L-W indicate the need for developing descriptors which can more effectively discriminate L-W responses.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Language Testing
Language Testing Multiple-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
9.80%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Language Testing is a fully peer reviewed international journal that publishes original research and review articles on language testing and assessment. It provides a forum for the exchange of ideas and information between people working in the fields of first and second language testing and assessment. This includes researchers and practitioners in EFL and ESL testing, and assessment in child language acquisition and language pathology. In addition, special attention is focused on issues of testing theory, experimental investigations, and the following up of practical implications.
×
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