ESL Writers’ Performance in Exam and Non-Exam Academic Writing Settings

Document Type : Research article

Authors

1 Professor, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, Tehran, Iran

2 Ph.D. Candidate, Allameh Tabataba’i University. Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

With the growing access to new types of reference tools, today’s L2 writers have a plethora of choices when completing an academic writing assignment. Such resources are absent in most high-stakes academic writing exams, making the two situations dissimilar. Aimed to compare the performances of ESL writers in Exam and Non-exam (real-life) academic writing situations, the present study recruited seven ESL university students who had previously taken an IELTS test. The students completed two analogous writing tasks: an exam-setting and a Non-exam writing test which aimed to simulate the real-life setting. Coh-Metrix analysis of the linguistic features of syntactic complexity, lexical sophistication, and text cohesion of the writings suggested that the students improved the textual quality of their writings in real-life academic writing situation. In addition, FACETS analysis of the quality of the writings, as assessed by the human raters, showed that the students did not benefit equally from the merits of the real-life settings compared to the Exam settings. The findings suggest that the students spent different amounts of time and used different types of queries to consult with external resources. Students’ background training and writing strategies can highly affect their performance in real-life academic writing compared to the writing exams, warning against the validity of such tests.

Keywords

References

  1. Bloom, M. (2008). Second language composition in independent settings: Supporting the writing process with cognitive strategies. In S. Hurd & T. Lewis (Eds.), Language learning strategies in independent settings (pp. 103-118). Multilingual Matters.
  2. Chan, S., Bax, S., & Weir, C. (2017). Researching participants taking IELTS Academic Writing Task 2 (AWT2) in paper mode and in computer mode in terms of score equivalence, cognitive validity and other factors. IELTS Research Reports Online Series, No. 4. British Council, Cambridge English Language Assessment and IDP: IELTS Australia.
  3. Conroy, M. A. (2010). Internet tools for language learning: University students taking control of their writing. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6), 861-882. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1047
  4. Curry, M. J. (2004). UCLA community college review: Academic literacy for English language learners. Community College Review, 32(2), 51-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/009155210403200204
  5. Dziemianko, A. (2012). On the use(fulness) of paper and electronic dictionaries. In S. Granger & M. Paquot (Eds.), Electronic lexicography (pp. 319-341). Oxford University Press.
  6. Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387. https://www.doi.org/10.2307/356600
  7. Flowerdew, L. (2010). Using corpora for writing instruction. In A. O’Keeffe, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 444-457). Routledge.
  8. Furneux, C. (2013). What are the academic writing requirements of Masters level study in the Humanities and how far can EAP proficiency tests, such as IELTS, replicate them? Paper presented at the CRELLA Summer Research Seminar, United Kingdom.
  9. Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A., & Gilmore, A. (2018). Tracking the real-time evolution of a writing event: Second language writers at different proficiency levels. Language Learning, 68(2), 469-506.
  10. Hafner, C. A., & Candlin, C. N. (2007). Corpus tools as an affordance to learning in professional legal education. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(4), 303-318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.005
  11. Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 369-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451260
  12. Ho Yung, k. W., & Cai, Y. (2020). Do secondary school-leaving English examination results predict university students’ academic writing performance? A latent profile analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(4), 629-642. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1680951
  13. Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. Longman.
  14. Kennedy, C., & Miceli, T. (2010). Corpus assisted creative writing: Introducing intermediate Italian learners to a corpus as a reference resource. Language Learning and Technology, 14, 28-44.
  15. Khuder, B., & Harwood, N. (2015). L2 writing in test and non-test situations: Process and product. Journal of Writing Research, 6(9), 233-278. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2015.06.03.2
  16. Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 390-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.003
  17. Lee, S., Lim, G. S., & Basse, R. (2021). The effect of additional time on the quality of argumentation in L2 writing assessment: A mixed-methods study. Language Assessment Quarterly, 18(3), 253-272.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2021.1872080
  18. Leijten, M., Van Waes, L., Schriver, K., & Hayes, J. R. (2014). Writing in the workplace: Constructing documents using multiple digital sources. Journal of Writing Research, 5(3), 285-337. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2014.05.03.3
  19. Marefat, F., & Heydari, M. (2018). English writing assessment in the context of Iran: The double life of Iranian test-takers. In T. Ruecker & D. Crusan (Eds.), The politics of English Second Language writing assessment in global contexts (pp. 67-71). Routledge.
  20. McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). The linguistic features of quality writing. Written Communication, 27(1), 57-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309351547
  21. McNamara, D. S., & Graesser, A. C. (2012). Coh-Metrix: An automated tool for theoretical and applied natural language processing. In P. M. McCarthy & C. Boonthum-Denecke (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution (pp. 188-205). IGI Global.
  22. Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic Books.
  23. Oh, S. (2019). Second language learners’ use of writing resources in writing assessment, Language Assessment Quarterly, 17(1), 60-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2019.1674854
  24. Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others' words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 201-230. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588141
  25. Riazi, A. M. (2016). Comparing writing performance in TOEFL-iBT and academic assignments: An exploration of textual features. Assessing Writing, 28, 15-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.02.001
  26. Roca de Larios, J., Manchón, R., Murphy, L., & Marín, J. (2008). The foreign language writer's strategic behaviour in the allocation of time to writing processes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 30-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.005
  27. Serror, J. (2013). Screen capture technology: A digital window into students' writing processes. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.21432/T28G6K
  28. Weir, C. J., O'Sullivan, B., Yan, J., & Bax, S. (2007). Does the computer make a difference? Reaction of participants to a computer-based versus a traditional handwritten form of the IELTS writing component: Effects and impact. IELTS Research Report, 7(6), 1-37.
  29. Worden, D. (2009). Finding process in product pre-writing and revision in timed essay responses. Assessing Writing, 14(3), 157-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2009.09.003
  30. Yoon, C. (2016). Individual differences in online reference resource consultation: Case studies of Korean ESL graduate writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 67-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.04.002
  31. Yoon, H. (2008). More than a linguistic reference: The influence of corpus technology on L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 31-48.
  32. Zheng, B., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Epilogue: Second language writing in the age of computer-mediated communication. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 61-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.05.014
  33. Zhi, M., & Huang, B. (2021). Investigating the authenticity of computer- and paper-based ESL writing tests. Assessing Writing, 50, 100548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100548

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics