Assessing Writing

The objectives of this paper are to identify the metadiscourse devices used by English learners at the different levels of language acquisition established by the Common European Framework of Reference and to categorise them to facilitate the assessment and learning of textual and interpersonal devices. First, a learner corpus of essays written by English learners was compiled. Then, the metadiscourse devices were classified in different levels and categories. The results showed the lists and frequencies of metadiscourse devices. The examples aim to make additional and explicit connections between levels of language proficiency and assessment of metadiscourse devices. It can be stated, as a conclusion, that metadiscourse devices portray specific ways of argumentation in essay writing in different levels of EFL proficiency.

Having rich and complex vocabulary is a crucial component that contributes to the quality of writing for academic purposes. However, use of academic vocabulary can be challenging for adolescent L2 writers who are developing their academic language proficiency. Thus, understanding lexical needs of adolescent L2 students in composing academic essays is pivotal in supporting this population in their endeavor to become proficient academic writers. This study investigates the lexical features of adolescent L2 students’ text-based analytical essays and analyzes the extent to which lexical density, lexical diversity, and lexical sophistication predict the quality of their writing. Computational tools Coh-Metrix and VocabProfiler were used to obtain quantitative measures of lexical density, diversity, and sophistication. The results of the study indicate that the essays (n = 70), on average, have (1) low lexical density, (2) more repetition of words indicating less diversity compared to grade-level estimates, and (3) a higher percentage of basic words and lower percentage of academic words. 44 % of the AWL words in the essays come from the source text and prompt. The results of multiple hierarchical regression indicate that the use of academic vocabulary is a predictor of writing quality. The study has important pedagogical implications for classroom practice at secondary school.

English writing is a key competence for higher education success. However, research on the assessment of writing skills in English as a foreign language in European upper secondary education (i.e. beyond year 9) remains scarce. The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) describes language proficiency on a scale of six ascending levels (A1-C2). For writing skills at the end of secondary education in Europe, the common standard is vantage level B2. In this study, experts from Germany and Switzerland linked upper secondary students’ writing profiles elicited in a constructed response test (integrated and independent essays from the TOEFL iBT®) to CEFR levels. Standard setting methodology (a modified examinee paper selection/performance profile approach) was used to establish the linkages. The study reports the methodology and procedure of the standard setting process and discusses the procedural and internal validity of resulting cut scores. It also applies the cut scores to a large sample of upper secondary students in Germany and Switzerland to gain evidence for external and consequential validity.

Numerous studies have examined the relationship between lexical features of students’ compositions and judgements of text quality. However, the degree to which teachers’ judgements are influenced by the quality of vocabulary in students’ essays with regard to their assessment of other textual characteristics is relatively unexplored. This experimental study investigates the influence of lexical features on teachers’ judgements of English as a second language (ESL) argumentative essays. Using analytic and holistic rating scales, English pre-service teachers (N = 37) in Switzerland assessed four essays of different proficiency levels in which the levels of lexical diversity and sophistication had been experimentally varied. Coh-Metrix software was used to manipulate the level of lexical diversity, as measured by MTLD and D, and the Tool for the Automatic Analysis of Lexical Sophistication (TAALES) software was used to obtain differing levels of lexical sophistication, as measured by word range. The results suggested that texts with greater lexical diversity and sophistication were assessed more positively concerning their overall quality as well as the analytic criteria ‘grammar’ and ‘frame of essay’. The implications of this study for classroom practice and teacher education are discussed.

In response to changing stakeholder needs, large-scale language test providers have increasingly considered the feasibility of delivering paper-based examinations online. Evidence is required, however, to determine whether online delivery of writing tests results in changes to writing performance reflected in differential test scores across delivery modes, and whether test-takers hold favourable perceptions of online delivery. The current study aimed to determine the effect of delivery mode on the two writing tasks (reading-into-writing and extended writing) within the Trinity College London Integrated Skills in English (ISE) test suite across three proficiency levels (CEFR B1-C1). 283 test-takers (107 at ISE I/B1, 109 at ISE II/B2, and 67 at ISE III/C1) completed both writing tasks in paper-based and online mode. Test-takers also completed a questionnaire to gauge perceptions of the impact, usability and fairness of the delivery modes. Many-facet Rasch measurement (MFRM) analysis of scores revealed that delivery mode had no discernible effect, apart from the reading-into-writing task at ISE I, where the paper-based mode was slightly easier. Test-takers generally held more positive perceptions of the online delivery mode, although technical problems were reported. Findings are discussed with reference to the need for further research into interactions between delivery mode, task and level.