There has been a surprisingly limited amount of research comparing the direct assessment of writing by teachers of English as a mother tongue and English as a second language (abbreviated as English and ESL respectively) given the amount of common ground they share as teachers of writing. This study aims to investigate whether these two groups of teachers rate writing samples differently using both holistic (global) and analytical (multiple trait) scoring methods. The research compares the assessments made by four experienced teachers from each of these two rater groups of the same set of 20 native speaker (English) and 20 non native speaker (ESL) essays written by final year secondary students. While no significant difference was found between the single global essay ratings of the two groups of teachers, this was not the case for the essay totals obtained by combining the global and analytical scores. The comparison based on these essay totals indicated that overall English teachers rated all of the essays significantly more harshly than ESL teachers. These findings suggested that the analytical scoring method may be more faithful to real dissimilarities which exist between raters of different backgrounds and professional experience than is the holistic scoring method in the assessment of writing. The choice of scoring procedure when both types of raters are used, therefore, is likely to determine whether or not these differences are highlighted and thus the overall level of inter-rater reliablity.
Bartko, J.J. (1966) The intra-class correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychological Report 191:3–11.
Brown, J.D. (1991) Do English and ESL faculties rate writing samples differently?Tesol Quarterly, 25,4:587–603.
Carlson, S., B. Bridgeman, R. Camp and J. Waanders (1985) Relationship of admission test scores to writing performance of native and non native speakers of English. (TOFEL Research Report 19) Princeton, NJ, Educational Testing Service.
Elder, C. (1992) How do subject specialists construe language proficiency?Melbourne Papers in Language Testing 1,1:17–36.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (ed.) (1991) Assessing second language writing in academic contexts. Norwood, NJ, Ablex.
Hatch, E. and Lazaraton, E. (1991) The research manual design and statistics for applied linguistics. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Henning, G. (1987) A guide to language testing: Development, validation, research. Cambridge, Mass: Newbury House.
Huot, B. (1990a) The literature of direct writing assessment: major concerns and prevailing trends. Review of Educational Research 60,2:237–263.
Huot, B. (1990b) Reliability, validity and holistic scoring: what we know and what we need to know. College Composition and Communication 411,31:201–213.
Linacre, J.M. (1988) FACETS, A computer program for the analysis of multi-facted data, Chicago, MESA Press.
McNamara, T.F. (1990) Assessing the second language proficiency of health professionals. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Melbourne.
Morgan, J. (1990) ESL students and the new Victorian Certificate of Education common study. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Melbourne.
O’Loughlin, K.J. (1992) Final report on the University of Melbourne Trial English Selection Test. NLLIA Language Testing Research Centre, University of Melbourne.
Purpura, J.E. (1992) Rater consistency between and among ESL teachers and writing program teachers. Unpublished typescript, Department of TESL/Applied Linguistics, University of Los Angeles, California.
Cited by (14)
Cited by 14 other publications
Li, Junfei & Jinyan Huang
2022. The impact of essay organization and overall quality on the holistic scoring of EFL writing: Perspectives from classroom english teachers and national writing raters. Assessing Writing 51 ► pp. 100604 ff.
Liu, Li
2022. Scoring Judgment of Pre-Service EFL Teachers: Does Writing Proficiency Play a Role?. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 31:3 ► pp. 333 ff.
Zou, Shaoyan
2022. The Impact of Rating Scales on the CET-4 Writing: A Mixed Methods Study. In Assessing the English Language Writing of Chinese Learners of English, ► pp. 11 ff.
Leńko-Szymańska, Agnieszka, Jo Lewkowicz & Tomasz Żółtak
2020. Assessment of B2 English exam writing subtest: A quantitative analysis of the results of a pro-quality study. In Kompetencje XXI wieku: certyfikacja biegłości językowej / Competences of the 21st century: Certification of language proficiency,
Jeong, Heejeong
2019. Writing scale effects on raters: an exploratory study. Language Testing in Asia 9:1
Soo-Kyung Park
2015. The Interplay of Task, Rating Scale, and Rater Background in the Assessment of Korean EFL Students’ Writing. English Teaching 70:2 ► pp. 55 ff.
정성희
2012. Native- and Nonnative-English-Speaking Raters’ Assessment Behavior in the Evaluation of NEAT Essay Writing Samples. English Language Teaching 24:2 ► pp. 49 ff.
Barkaoui, Khaled
2007. Participants, Texts, and Processes in ESL/EFL Essay Tests: A Narrative Review of the Literature. The Canadian Modern Language Review 64:1 ► pp. 99 ff.
BARKAOUI, KHALED
2010. Do ESL Essay Raters' Evaluation Criteria Change With Experience? A Mixed‐Methods, Cross‐Sectional Study. TESOL Quarterly 44:1 ► pp. 31 ff.
Barkaoui, Khaled
2010. Explaining ESL essay holistic scores: A multilevel modeling approach. Language Testing 27:4 ► pp. 515 ff.
Barkaoui, Khaled
2010. Variability in ESL Essay Rating Processes: The Role of the Rating Scale and Rater Experience. Language Assessment Quarterly 7:1 ► pp. 54 ff.
Barkaoui, Khaled
2011. Effects of marking method and rater experience on ESL essay scores and rater performance. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 18:3 ► pp. 279 ff.
Barkaoui, Khaled
2013. Using Multilevel Modeling in Language Assessment Research: A Conceptual Introduction. Language Assessment Quarterly 10:3 ► pp. 241 ff.
Davison, Chris
2004. The contradictory culture of teacher-based assessment: ESL teacher assessment practices in Australian and Hong Kong secondary schools. Language Testing 21:3 ► pp. 305 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.