Diagnosing L2 Learners' Writing Ability in Level-Specific Approach Journal Article

Writer: Taghizadeh، Mahboubeh ؛ Alavi، Seyyed Mohammad ؛ Rezaee، Abbas Ali ؛

Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly Spring 2015, Volume 7 - Number 1 Ranking: Science-Research/ISC (‎29 page(s) - From 145 to 173 )

Keywords: Self-assessment CEFR DIALANG writing task SA TEFL Europe

Abstract:

The objectives of this study were (a) to examine the writing performance of L2 learners on the level-specific tasks based on Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) and (b) to investigate whether there was any difference between the students' self-assessed level of writing and the writing level reported by the raters. This study was conducted with 138 Iranian students at BA and MA levels in Alborz Institute of Higher Education. The participants' majors were Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL), English Literature, and Translation Studies. DIALANG writing self-assessment grid, CEFR writing self-assessment grid, and three writing tasks at B1, B2, and C1 levels were administered in this research. The results showed that (a) no one in the BA group was placed at the C1 level, and only 17.3% of MA students could reach this level; (b) students of both groups rated their writing ability higher on the CEFR grid, whereas they rated themselves lower on the DIALANG grid; and (c) the learners' self-assessment did not correspond closely with their performance on the writing tasks, and only one-third of them were accurate in assessing their writing ability.

Machine summary:

A great number of advantages are suggested for SA, among which are raising the students' level of awareness of the learning process (Benson, 2001; Blanche & Merino, 1989; Kato, 2009; Nunan, 1988; Oscarson, 1989; Todd, 2002; von Elek, 1985); promotion of learner autonomy (Cram, 1995; Dann, 2002; Kato, 2009; Oscarson, 1989, 1997; Paris & Paris, 2001); increasing students' motivation (Barbera, 2009; Paris & Paris, 2001; Sadler & Good, 2006; Todd, 2002); having a long-lasting effect on students' learning (Oscarson, 1989); setting realistic goals and directing their own learning (Abolfazli Khonbi & Sadeghi, 2012; Blanche & Merino, 1989; Butler & Lee, 2010; Oscarson, 1989); discerning their own individual patterns of strengths and weaknesses (Blue, 1994; Esfandiari & Myford, 2013; Saito & Fujita, 2004); monitoring their progress and reflecting on what they needed to do (Barbera, 2009; Butler & Lee, 2010; Esfandiari & Myford, 2013; Hana Lim, 2007; Harris, 1997; Peden & Carroll, 2008; Sadler & Good, 2006; Sally, 2005); facilitating democratic learning process (Oscarson, 1989; Shohamy, 2001); taking responsibility for their own learning (Barbera, 2009; Esfandiari & Myford, 2013; Paris & Paris, 2001; Peden & Carroll, 2008; Sadler & Good, 2006); and promotion of learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Oscarson, 1989). Weir identifies four areas of concern with regard to the use of CEFR for the test development: (a) the scales are premised on an incomplete and unevenly applied range of contextual variables/performance conditions (context validity); (b) little account is taken of the nature of cognitive processing at different levels of ability (theory-based validity); (c) activities are seldom related to the quality of actual performance expected to complete them (scoring validity); and (d) the wording for some of the descriptors is not consistent or transparent enough in places for the development of tests.

Download citation file :
(پژوهیار, , , )

Download PDF
Downlaod HTML

Shortlink:

Page: