The second‐language writing performance of 23 young adults on three composition tasks was assessed in relation to their writing expertise and second‐language proficiency. Both factors accounted for large proportions of variance in the qualities of written texts and problem‐solving behaviors in the second language. But the factors exerted independent effects, suggesting they are psychologically distinct. Writing expertise proved to relate to: qualities of discourse organization and content in the compositions produced; attention to complex aspects of writing during decision making; problem‐solving behaviors involving heuristic searches; and well‐differentiated control strategies. Second‐language proficiency proved to be an additive factor, enhancing the overall quality of writing produced, and interacting with the attention that participants devoted to aspects of their writing. But second‐language proficiency did not visibly affect the processes of composing. In all analyses, more cognitively demanding argument and summary tasks produced significantly different behaviors from a less cognitively demanding letter task.

We assessed whether and how the discourse written for prototype integrated tasks (involving writing in response to print or audio source texts) field tested for Next Generation TOEFL® differs from the discourse written for independent essays (i.e., the TOEFL Essay®). We selected 216 compositions written for 6 tasks by 36 examinees in a field test-representing score levels 3, 4, and 5 on the TOEFL Essay-then coded the texts for lexical and syntactic complexity, grammatical accuracy, argument structure, orientations to evidence, and verbatim uses of source text. Analyses with non-parametric MANOVAs followed a 3 (task type: TOEFL Essay, writing in response to a reading passage, writing in response to a listening passage) by 3 (English proficiency level: score levels 3, 4, and 5 on the

This study (1) assesses whether raters implicitly distinguish students' writing expertise and second language proficiency while evaluating ESL compositions holistically and (2) seeks to describe the decision-making behaviours used by experienced and inexperienced raters in this process. The performance of 7 novice and 6 expert ESL teachers was assessed while they evaluated 12 compositions written by adult students with differing levels of ESL proficiency (intermediate and advanced) and writing expertise (average and professionally experienced writers) in their mother tongues. Multivariate analyses of rating scores indicated that both groups' evaluations distinguished students' second language proficiency and writing skills as separate, non-interacting factors. Descriptive analyses of the raters' concurrent verbal reports revealed 28 common decision-making behaviours, many of which varied significantly in use between novice and expert groups. Implications discuss biases in holistic evaluations of second language compositions, aspects of expertise in this skill, and potential uses of this research for the training of composition raters and student-teachers.

This article documents 3 coordinated, exploratory studies that developed empirically a framework to describe the decisions that experienced writing assessors make when evaluating ESL/EFL written compositions. The studies are part of ongoing research to prepare a new scoring scheme and tasks for the writing component of the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). In Study 1 a research team of 10 experienced ESL/EFL raters developed a preliminary descriptive framework from their own think‐aloud protocols while each rating (without any predefined scoring criteria) 60 TOEFL essays at 6 different score points on 4 different essay topics. Study 2 applied the framework to verbal report data from 7 highly experienced English‐mother‐tongue (EMT) composition raters while each rated 40 TOEFL essays. In Study 3 we refined the framework by analyzing think‐aloud protocols from 7 of the same ESL/EFL raters who rated compositions from 6 ESL students on 5 different writing tasks involving writing in response to reading or listening material. In each study, participants completed a questionnaire to profile their individual characteristics and relevant background variables. In addition to documenting and analyzing in detail the thinking processes of these raters, we found that both groups of raters used similar decision‐making behaviors, in similar proportions of frequency, while assessing both the TOEFL essays and the new writing tasks, thus verifying the appropriateness of our descriptive framework. Raters attended more extensively to rhetoric and ideas (compared to language) in compositions they scored high than in compositions they scored low. The ESL/EFL raters attended more extensively, though, to language than to rhetoric and ideas overall, whereas the EMT raters balanced more evenly their attention to these main features of the written compositions. Most participants perceived that their previous experiences rating compositions and teaching English had influenced their criteria and their processes for rating the compositions.

We assessed whether and how the discourse written for prototype integrated tasks (involving writing in response to print or audio source texts) field tested for the new TOEFL® differs from the discourse written for independent essays (i.e., the TOEFL essay). We selected 216 compositions written for 6 tasks by 36 examinees in a field test—representing Score Levels 3, 4, and 5 on the TOEFL essay—then coded the texts for lexical and syntactic complexity, grammatical accuracy, argument structure, orientations to evidence, and verbatim uses of source text. Analyses with nonparametric MANOVAs, following a 3‐by‐3 (task type by English proficiency level) within‐subjects factorial design, showed that the discourse produced for the integrated writing tasks differed significantly at the lexical, syntactic, rhetorical, and pragmatic levels from the discourse produced in the independent essay on most of these variables. In certain analyses, these differences were also obtained across the 3 ESL proficiency levels.