There were also several unexpected findings, and research is recommended in areas including the input of scripts (handwriting versus typed), the relations between task and genre, and the ‘management of voices’ in candidate responses in relation to academic writing more generally. The measures found to be good indicators of band score regardless of candidate L1 were text length, reading ease and word frequency in the quantitative analysis, and genre and use of Attitude in the discourse analysis. A range of measures (quantitative and discourse analytic) did not show any difference according to L1. Some differences were also found in the discourse analysis, with scripts of European-based L1 candidates more likely to use a typical generic structure in higher bands, and the scripts of Hindi L1 candidates showing slightly different discursive patterns in Appraisal from the other two groups.
These included: readability at band 7 between European-based L1 and Hindi L1 scripts lexical diversity at band scores 5 and 6 between European-based L1 and Hindi L1 scripts word frequency at band 7 between Hindi L1 and European-based L1 scripts cohesion at band 6 between Arabic L1 and European-based L1 scripts and cohesion also at band 7 between Hindi L1 and Arabic L1 scripts. Significant differences were also found between the three L1 categories at the same band scores. Descriptive statistics of textual features indicate that, overall, scripts with higher band scores (6 and 7) were found to be more complex (using less frequent words, greater lexical diversity, and more syntactic complexity) than cohesive. Discourse analysis was conducted on a subset of 54 texts, using genre analysis and Appraisal Theory from Systemic Functional Linguistics. Quantitative analysis was conducted on 254 scripts, measuring text length, readability of the scripts, Word Frequency Level (WFL), lexical diversity, grammatical complexity, incidence of all connectives, and two measures of coreferentiality (argument and stem overlap). The scripts came from candidates representing three L1 groups (Arabic L1, Hindi L1, and European-based L1) and three band scores (band 5, 6, and 7).
The findings show that candidates’ first language is one of several factors related to the band score they achieve.
Knox, Macquarie University, Australia Grant awarded: RoAbstract This project examines the responses of IELTS candidates to Task 2 of the Academic Writing Test, exploring the relations between candidates’ first language, their band score, and the language features of their texts. Suggestions for improving the construct validity include: possible fine tuning of the CC band descriptors clarification of the expected rhetorical genre further linguistic research to provide detailed analysis of CC in sample texts and refinements to the training materials, including a glossary of key terms and sample scripts showing all cohesive ties.An investigation of the relations between test-takers’ first language and the discourse of written performance on the IELTS Academic Writing Test, Task 2 Author: A. The introduction of terms such as these, together with variation in the degree to which examiners focused on particular features of CC, has implications for the construct validity of the test. They also introduced other terms not explicitly used in the CC descriptors, such as ‘flow’, ‘structure’ and ‘linking words’, as well as the terms, ‘essay’, ‘introduction’ ‘conclusion’ and ‘topic sentence’. The findings showed that examiners found the marking of CC more difficult than the other criteria.Įxaminers were conscientious in applying the band descriptors and used the terminology of the descriptors for CC most of the time.
No significant effects could be found for examiners’ qualifications or experience, which suggests that the training is effective. The marking of CC was slightly less reliable than the marking of Grammatical Range and Accuracy and Lexical Resource, but not significantly different to Task Response. The quantitative data revealed that examiner reliability was within the acceptable range for all four criteria. The study involved think-aloud protocols and follow-up interviews with 12 examiners marking a set of 10 scripts, and a quantitative study with 55 examiners marking 12 scripts and completing a follow-up questionnaire. The study investigated whether examiners find the marking of coherence and cohesion (CC) in the IELTS Academic Writing Task 2 more difficult than the marking of the other criteria what features of CC examiners are looking for in marking Academic Writing Task 2 the extent to which they differ in their marking of CC compared to their marking of the other criteria whether qualifications and experience had an impact on assessment reliability and how much current examiner training materials clarify understandings of CC.
0 kommentar(er)
