Explore the vast range of titles available.

Little is known about how the assessment modality, i. e., computer-based (CB) and paper-based (PB) tests, affects language teachers’ scorings, perceptions, and preferences and, therefore, the validity and fairness of classroom writing assessments. The present mixed-methods study used sociocognitive writing test validation framework to examine the scoring and consequential validity evidence of CB and PB writing tests in EFL classroom assessment in higher education. Original handwritten and word-processed texts of 38 EFL university students were transcribed to their opposite format and assessed by three language lecturers ( = 456 texts, 152 per teacher) to examine the scoring validity of CB and PB tests. The teachers’ perceptions of text quality and preferences for assessment modality accounted for the consequential validity evidence of both tests. Findings revealed that the assessment modality impacted teachers’ scorings, perceptions, and preferences. The teachers awarded higher scores to original and transcribed handwritten texts, particularly text organization and language use. The teachers’ perceptions of text quality differed from their ratings, and physical, psychological, and experiential characteristics influenced their preferences for assessment modality. The results have implications for the validity and fairness of CB and PB writing tests and teachers’ assessment practices.

A major concern with computer-based (CB) tests of second-language (L2) writing is that performance on such tests may be influenced by test-taker keyboarding skills. Poor keyboarding skills may force test-takers to focus their attention and cognitive resources on motor activities (i.e., keyboarding) and, consequently, other processes and aspects of writing (e.g., planning, revising) might be left unattended to, which can lead to poor text quality and lower test scores. Such effects might be more pronounced for L2 test-takers. This study investigated the impact of keyboarding skills on test-takers’ scores in the context of the TOEFL-iBT Writing Section. Each of 97 test-takers, with different levels of English language proficiency (low vs. high) and keyboarding skills (low vs. high), responded to two TOEFL-iBT writing tasks (independent and integrated) on the computer. Test scores were statistically compared across tasks and test-taker groups. The findings indicated that overall English language proficiency and writing ability in English contributed substantially to variance in task scores, while keyboarding skill had a significant, but weak, effect on task scores. Additionally, keyboarding skills effects depended on task type. While these findings support the claim that performance on TOEFL-iBT writing tasks depends mainly on test-taker English language proficiency, they also raise important questions about the relationships between keyboarding skills, L2 writing ability, and performance on CB L2 writing tests, as well as factors affecting these relationships.

Two laboratory and two randomized field experiments tested a psychological intervention designed to improve students' scores on high-stakes exams and to increase our understanding of why pressure-filled exam situations undermine some students' performance. We expected that sitting for an important exam leads to worries about the situation and its consequences that undermine test performance. We tested whether having students write down their thoughts about an upcoming test could improve test performance. The intervention, a brief expressive writing assignment that occurred immediately before taking an important test, significantly improved students' exam scores, especially for students habitually anxious about test taking. Simply writing about one's worries before a high-stakes exam can boost test scores.

PurposeIn spite of the growing interest in using corpora in language teaching and learning, applying computers and software (especially corpora software) is still new in second language teaching and learning. In addition, employing a learner corpus-based perspective in teaching metadiscourse features in International English Language Testing System (IELTS) writing tasks is not reported to the best knowledge of the researchers. Understanding and spotting this gap, the purpose of this paper is to utilize a learner corpus-based approach in teaching metadiscourse features and investigate its possible impacts on IELTS writing performance of the Iranian second language learners. Therefore, this study addressed the following research questions and hypotheses.Design/methodology/approachThe current research utilized a quasi-experimental research design. In addition, this research used a learner corpus-based methodology. The corpus-based methodology was exploited to enable the researchers to have access to a large body of authentic language materials. In other words, a corpus-based methodology was used due to the fact that it made it possible for the researchers to elicit the metadiscourse features from a large number of authentic writing materials and to employ them during the treatment process with authentic examples.FindingsThe findings showed that there was a positive correlation between teaching metadiscourse features and writing performance of IELTS learners; in that, teaching metadiscourse features could soar the writing performance of the subjects. In addition, interactional metadiscourse features had more impact than interactive metadiscourse features on writing performance.Practical implicationsThe results of this research can have useful implications for second language teachers and learners as well as researchers in learner corpus as they can learn the creation and application of learner corpora in second language teaching and learning.Originality/valueThis paper is value in that it uses corpus software and methodology in teaching metadiscourse features in writing section of IELTS test.

In order to meet writing objectives specified in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), many teachers need to make significant changes in how writing is taught. While CCSS identified what students need to master, it did not provide guidance on how teachers are to meet these writing benchmarks. The current article presents research-supported practices that can be used to meet CCSS writing objectives in kindergarten to grade 8. We identified these practices by conducting a new meta-analysis of writing intervention studies, which included true and quasi-experiments, as well as single-subject design studies. In addition, we conducted a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies examining the practices of exceptional literacy teachers. Studies in 20 previous reviews served as the data source for these analyses. The recommended practices derived from these analyses are presented within a framework that takes into account both the social contextual and cognitive/motivational nature of writing.

This research aims to explore the concept of mental model of students about genetic concepts through drawing-writing test. The participants were 85 students of Biology Education at University of Lampung, which has taken genetics course. Mental model of students was categorized into five levels (levels 1-5) based on coding framework which was adapted from Kose (2008) and Saka et al. (2006). The results showed that the most dominant mental models found in each concept through drawing-writing test (D/W) respectively were D3/W3 (drawings with misconceptions/partial understanding with alternative conceptions) on the concept of \"genetic materials\", D2/W2 (non-representational drawings/alternative conceptions) on the concept of \"heredity\", D2/W3 (non-representational drawings/partial understanding with alternative conceptions) on the concept of \"gene expression\", D2/W3 (non-representational drawings/partial understanding with alternative conceptions) on the concept of \"gene regulation in metabolic processes\", and D1/W2 (no understanding/alternative conception) on the concept of \"gene regulation of the growth and development of an organisms\". The results indicated that drawing-writing test can be used in probing the learning difficulties and misconseption on genetics.

This article describes what Intermediate and Advanced heritage language learners of Mandarin Chinese, Korean, and Spanish can do when writing in their heritage language, and what prevents these writers from performing at the next proficiency level. One hundred eighty‐seven samples were collected using the ACTFL Writing Proficiency Test. Each sample is analyzed employing a review form through which floor and ceiling criteria are identified, and the strengths and weaknesses of writing while attempting next‐level functions are made evident. The proficiency profiles resulting from this analysis are used to propose pedagogical practices in support of literacy development. The Challenges Heritage learners acquire language in unique ways, exhibit unique linguistic characteristics, and have widely differing instructional needs, particularly when writing in their heritage language. What tasks can they effectively accomplish and what prevents heritage learners who scored at the Intermediate or Advanced‐levels of proficiency from being rated at the next, higher level?

There is a general consensus that writing is a challenging task for students with learning disabilities (LD). To identify more precisely the extent and depth of the challenges that these students experience with writing, the authors conducted a meta-analysis comparing the writing performance of students with LD to their typically achieving peers. From 53 studies that yielded 138 effect sizes, the authors calculated average weighted effect sizes, showing that students with LD obtained lower scores than their peers on the following writing outcomes: writing quality (–1.06); organization (–1.04); vocabulary (–0.89); sentence fluency (–0.81); conventions of spelling, grammar, and handwriting (–1.14); genre elements (–0.82); output (–0.87); and motivation (–0.42). Implications for research and practice are provided based on these findings.

The present study adopted the structural equation modeling approach to examine Chinese university students’ metacognition, critical thinking skills, and academic writing. In particular, this research explored whether awareness in metacognition can foster critical thinking and, thus, lead to enhancement in academic writing. The measure for exploring metacognitive writing strategies covered metacognitive knowledge and regulation in academic writing. The measure for understanding learners’ critical thinking encompassed the following five skills: inference, recognition of assumptions, deduction, interpretations, and evaluation of arguments. The academic writing assessment was based on an internal test. The participants consisted of 644 third-year students from a Chinese university. Three models tested: (1) the role of metacognition in academic writing; (2) the role of metacognition in critical thinking; and (3) correlations between metacognition, critical thinking skills, and academic writing. The results indicated significant relationships between the three variables, and the implications based on these findings were discussed.

Writing on-demand, text-based analytical essays is a challenging skill to master. Novice writers, such as the sixth grade US students in this study, may lack background knowledge of how to compose an effective essay, the self-efficacy skills, and the goal setting skills that will help with completing this task in accomplished ways. This sequential mixed-method study explored the impact of guiding a predominantly Redesignated English Learner group of students in a large, urban, low-SES school district in a timed, on-demand essay into a multiple draft process paper through a self-assessment, planning and goal setting, and reflection process as they revised this process paper over a three week period. Both treatment and comparison students completed a pre-test on demand writing assessment, a pre and post self-efficacy in writing survey, and a post-test on demand writing assessment. Students in both conditions were participating in a year-long writing intervention called The Pathway to Academic Success, developed and implemented by the UC Irvine site of the National Writing Project (UCI Writing Project), during the 2017–2018 school year and received identical training from their teachers on how to revise a pre-test essay. However, only the treatment group engaged in self-assessment, planning and goal setting, and reflection during this revision process. Students in the treatment condition demonstrated improved self-efficacy in the writing sub-domain of revision (p < .05) and had statistically significant greater gains on the post-test writing assessment (r = .57; p < .001). These results suggest that engaging students in a planned revision process that includes student reflection, planning, and goal setting before revision, and reflection and self-assessment after revision, positively impacts self-efficacy and writing outcomes.