ASSESSMENT OF DIRECTED WRITING BY A GROUP OF TESL STUDENTS IN UPSI
Twenty-eight TESL students in UPSI and one experienced English SPM Examination examiner (Expert Rater 1) assessed twenty-five samples of Form Four ESL secondary school students' writing. Twelve of the TESL students used the analytic scoring method; seven used the primary trait scoring method...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Monograph |
| Published: |
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris
2003
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://pustaka2.upsi.edu.my/eprints/582/ http://pustaka2.upsi.edu.my/eprints/582/1/Assessment%20of%20directed%20writing%20by%20a%20group%20of%20tesl%20students%20in%20UPSI.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Twenty-eight TESL students in UPSI and one experienced English SPM Examination
examiner (Expert Rater 1) assessed twenty-five samples of Form Four ESL secondary
school students' writing. Twelve of the TESL students used the analytic scoring method;
seven used the primary trait scoring method; and eight used the holistic scoring method.
The expert rater and one of the TESL students (Teacher A) used the English SPM
Examination scoring method. Teacher A and Expert Rater 1 assessed the writing samples
individually, but the other twenty-eight TESL students were gathered during three
separate seminars and workshops. The scores that twenty-eight TESL students, Teacher
A and Expert Rater 1 gave to the writing samples were correlated using descriptive
statistics and parametric (Pearson R) and non-parametric (Spearman Rho) calculations.
The analysis of these scores showed that there was significant correlation coefficient
among the scores obtained from all the subjects, even though they used three different
scoring methods to assess the writing samples. The TESL students who took part in the
assessment during the seminars and workshops agreed that the three scoring methods
were suitable for classroom assessment as compared to the English SPM Examination
scoring method, which was more suitable for standardized assessment. A few strengths
and weaknesses of each scoring method were identified and solutions for use in the
classroom assessment were recorded in the salient features of assessment |
|---|