Writing evaluation in university English preparatory programs: Two universities of Turkey and Saudi Arabia

Year 2020, , 253 - 264, 29.03.2020

Davut Peaci

https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.712798

Abstract

Scholars have given little attention to testing’s influence on the outcomes of university English preparatory programs (UEPP). Variations on the two main classifications of writing evaluation, the holistic and the analytic were examined. The objectives were to identify the assumptions for inclusion of writing in UEPPs, analyze the skills and abilities tested and finally, to examine the correlation between program assumptions and testing and the potential of different testing methods to impact student motivation. The aims and assumptions of the programs and course materials were analyzed via synchronic and diachronic comparisons of program structures and teaching materials, using two examples from the past and one currently in use. Results revealed that testing instruments designed and used only for grading, failing and promotion of students do not provide constructive student feedback, which is a demotivating factor. Testing and evaluation in general should be primarily constructive and positive. UEPP writing examinations should be evaluated analytically rather than holistically for reasons of fairness and to provide constructive and serious feedback to students. Rubrics should be constructed for the marking of paragraphs and essays to ensure fair and consistent marking in large programs with team teaching. The objective testing of writing skills must be implemented to support instructional goals. Thus, evaluation should be analytical, not holistic. The attention drawn to the linking of student motivation to elements of analytical writing evaluation is the significant contribution of this study.

Keywords

writing evaluation; analytic; holistic; student motivation

References

• Brown, D. (2012). The Written Corrective Feedback Debate: Next Steps for Classroom Teachers and Practitioners. TESOL Quarterly, 46 (4),861-867. DOI:10.1002/tesq.63
• Cheng, L., Watanabi, Y., & Curtis, A. (2004). Washback in Language Testing: Research Contexts and Methods. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263105300283
• Clapham, C. (2003). Principles of Assessment. Centre for Languages Linguistics & Area Studies, University of Southhampton. http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/1398
• Flinders University Centre for University Teaching/ FUCUT (2010). What is a rubric? http://www.flinders.edu.au/teaching/teaching-strategies/assessment/g_...
• Galti, A.M., Saidu, S., Yusuf, H., & Goni, A.A. (2018). Rating Scale in Writing Assessment:Holistic vs. Analytical Scales: A Review. International Journal of English Research, 4(6), 4‒6
• Hussain, M.S., Albasher, K.B., & Salam, A. (2016). An Evaluation of Preparatory Year Program at Qassim University, Saudi Arabia: Possible Innovations and Reforms in the Existing Administrative/Academic System in English Language Unit. Journal of American Academic Research, 4(4).1‒27
• Lam, P.T.-L., & Foong, Y.Y. (1986). Comparative Study of Holistic and Analytical Marking. Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 82‒86
• Peaci/Peachy, D./W.S. (2013a). The Role of the Administration of University Preparatory English Programs. Paper presented at the 13th International Language, Literature and Stylistics Symposium, Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
• Peaci/Peachy, D./W.S. (2013b). ESL Versus EFL in University Preparatory Year Programs. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Changes and New Trends in Education, Ahmet and Nezahat Keleşoğlu Foundation, Ahmet Keleşoğlu Faculty of Education, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
• Peaci/Peachy D./W.S. (2014). Attitudes of Faculty in Academic Units Unconnected to Foreign Language Instruction towards their Preparatory English Program: The Case of Düzce University. Paper No. 17 presented at the EJER Congress in Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
• Peaci, D., Tosuncuoğlu, İ. (2018). An Ottoman lesson for the teaching of writing in additional languages: Historical and personal perspectives. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13, 115‒122. DOI: 10.29000/rumelide.504256
• Perelman, L.C. (2013). Critique (Ver. 3.4) of Mark D. Shermis & Ben Hammer, “Contrasting State-of-the-Art Automated Scoring of Essays: Analysis”. Creative Commons License. http://www.scoreright.org/NCME_2012_Papers3_29_12.pdf
• Shermis & Hammer (2012). Contrasting State-of-the-Art Automated Scoring of Essays. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/335765-contrasting-state-of-the-art-automated-scoring.html