An Overview of Writing Assessment: Theory, Research, and Practice

Blattner, Nancy

doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(00)00011-8

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There was less agreement for the other-than-best essays. Kelly and Takao (2002) identified similar disparities between their framework estimates and expert rankings and explained them as common occurrences when evaluating writing (Wolcott and Legg, 1998). In our case, we argue that the variety was an artefact of the presence of inaccurate scientific information in one of the essays.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 55%

Application and testing of a framework for characterizing the quality of scientific reasoning in chemistry students' writing on ocean acidification

Moon

Moeller

Gere

et al. 2019

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science educators recognize the need to teach scientific ways of knowing and reasoning in addition to scientific knowledge. However, characterizing and assessing scientific ways of knowing and reasoning is challenging. Writing-to-learn offers one way of eliciting and supporting students’ reasoning; further, writing serves to externalize and make traceable students’ reasoning. For this reason, it is a useful formative assessment of scientific reasoning. The utility hinges on researchers’ ability to understand what students can do and think from their writing. Given the challenges in assessing students’ writing, this research offers an adapted framework for assessing students’ scientific reasoning evident in writing. This work will introduce an adapted framework and show an application to general chemistry students’ argumentative writing about ocean acidification. We provide evidence that this framework can be used to validly estimate the quality of students’ reasoning. We argue that this framework offers some affordances that overcome challenges reported in the literature. It serves to define scientific reasoning in a domain-general way by breaking it down into its components, but in a way that can produce a composite score that tells us about how students reason using chemistry content. Further, the framework provides a way to characterize the scientific accuracy of students’ reasoning that can inform instructors’ treatment of alternative conceptions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 55%

Application and testing of a framework for characterizing the quality of scientific reasoning in chemistry students' writing on ocean acidification

Moon

Moeller

Gere

et al. 2019

Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Writing can be assessed in different ways; the most common is the direct assessment of writing skills (Wolcott & Legg, 1998). Most direct writing assessments ask students to write in response to a particular topic for a specified time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most direct writing assessments ask students to write in response to a particular topic for a specified time. The topic is introduced at exam time, and the learners are not permitted to check the dictionary or ask for consultations with others (Wolcott & Legg, 1998). In the ondemand/direct assessment, the test takers should provide a well-organized writing piece to meet the face validity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the ondemand/direct assessment, the test takers should provide a well-organized writing piece to meet the face validity. More importantly, the written material must be grammatically and semantically accurate (Wolcott & Legg, 1998). As the score reliability issue suggests, scoring writing samples, whether for direct writing assessments or portfolios, is a significant issue that should include both validity and reliability (Wolcott & Legg, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Holistic, primary trait, and analytic scoring are three types of writing assessment scoring (Wolcott & Legg, 1998). Holistic scoring is based on the premise that the whole is worth more than the sum of its parts; hence, it seeks to focus on an entire piece rather than on its components, and the overall impression is scored instead.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Relationship of Iranian EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Depth with Their Writing Vocabulary Use, Fluency, and Organization

Kamali Khalavi,

Zeraatpishe

2023

J. Contemp. Lang. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Recent years have witnessed a growing interest in investigating L2 English productive and receptive vocabulary knowledge in writing. Previous inquiries focused heavily on the pedagogical effects of teaching vocabulary on writing. A less investigated area is learners’ lexical competence involvement in the complicated writing process regarding their subcomponents. To bridge the research gap, the present study examined the alleged relationship between the elements of vocabulary depth (collocation and synonym) and the writing skill’s subcomponents (vocabulary use, content, and organization). Methodology: Thirty intermediate English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ writing scores on the Preliminary English Test were compared and correlated to the depth of vocabulary knowledge (DVK). The writing texts were given a holistic score, and several lexical measures were calculated. Results: The results indicated significant relationships between DVK and writing, synonym and vocabulary use, synonym and content, collocation and vocabulary use, and collocation and writing scores. The result of multiple linear regression revealed the double impact of collocation as a predictor of writing scores. Conclusion: The findings showed the predictable pedagogical value of practicing collocation in EFL writing enhancement.

show abstract

Leveraging on Chatgpt, an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tool to Transform Examination Writing in Higher Education

Atieku-Boateng,

Osei,

Aryee

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The study explored how ChatGPT could transform examination writing in higher education. The research question was: How can the AI tool ChatGPT help transform examination writing in higher education? The study interviewed the chatbot (ChatGPT) by way of "prompt engineering" to test if it has the potential to achieve the following: (1) Generate varied questions on a subject matter of the same level of difficulty, (2) Generate varied questions on a subject matter with case scenarios, (3) Generate varied questions on a subject matter that requires critical thinking, (4) Generate varied questions on a subject matter that takes into consideration the diverse needs and backgrounds of students and (5) Streamline assessment process. These objective tests were to explore the diverse ways the chatbot could assist in the examination process. Despite the academic concerns surrounding students' use of ChatGPT, the study's findings seek to stimulate discussion on the potentially significant benefits ChatGPT offers to the educational sector if it is effectively implemented. Approach/Design/Method Through "prompt engineering", the study interviewed ChatGPT to test it on the five (5) objectives. Subject area lecturers and exam moderators reviewed questions as well as marking schemes generated by the chatbot to ensure accuracy and appropriateness. Findings ChatGPT was able to generate varied questions of the same difficulty level on the same given content and generated questions with case scenarios. The questions generated also required critical thinking; ChatGPT produced questions considering students' diverse needs and backgrounds. Finally, it could streamline the assessment process as well. However, ChatGPT required specific human guidance to shape the questions. Also, the examiner or the educator needed to double-check the accuracy of the questions generated. Additionally, it was discovered that the version of ChatGPT used was limited in subject areas that required graphics and figures. Research Limitations/Implications The study found that ChatGPT is effective with text-like tasks but is limited in areas that require graphics and figures (for the version used), which may be needed in some fields of study. It also meant that responses only had to be in text for the Chatbot to award scores based on the assessment criteria. Notwithstanding the limitations, ChatGPT can become an excellent tool for assisting educators in assessing students, thereby transforming examination writing in higher education. The originality of the study Research on ChatGPT is an emerging one. The study is novel, as this area is still being explored. This paper will serve as one of the early research works that provide educators and policymakers with knowledge of leveraging ChatGPT to transform examination writing.

show abstract

An Overview of Writing Assessment: Theory, Research, and Practice

Cited by 10 publications

References 3 publications

Application and testing of a framework for characterizing the quality of scientific reasoning in chemistry students' writing on ocean acidification

Application and testing of a framework for characterizing the quality of scientific reasoning in chemistry students' writing on ocean acidification

Relationship of Iranian EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Depth with Their Writing Vocabulary Use, Fluency, and Organization

Leveraging on Chatgpt, an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tool to Transform Examination Writing in Higher Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About