Young Adolescent EFL Students’ Writing Skill Development: Insights From Assessment Data

References

• Attali, Y., & Burstein, J. (2006). Automated essay scoring with e-rater® V.2. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(3), 3–30.
   Google Scholar
• Barkaoui, K. (2016). What changes and what doesn’t? An examination of changes in the linguistic characteristics of IELTS repeaters’ Writing Task 2 scripts. IELTS Research Report Series, No. 3. Canberra, Australia: British Council, Cambridge English Language Assessment and IDP: IELTS Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2013). Discourse characteristics of writing and speaking task types on the TOEFL iBT ® test: A lexico-grammatical analysis (TOEFL iBT Research Report-19). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambliss, M. J., & Murphy, P. K. (2002). Fourth and fifth graders representing the argument structure in written texts. Discourse Processes, 34(1), 91–115. doi:10.1207/S15326950DP3401_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coffin, C. (2004). Arguing how the world is or how the world should be: The role of argument in IELTS tests. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(3), 229–246. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2003.11.002
   Google Scholar
• Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures of international persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 67–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crossley, S. A., Roscoe, R. D., McNamara, D. S., & Graesser, A. (2011). Predicting human scores of essay quality using computational indices of linguistic and textual features. In G. Biswas, S. Bull, J. Kay, & A. Mitrovic (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th international conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 438–440). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Crossley, S. A., Weston, J., McLain Sullivan, S. T., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic analysis. Written Communication, 28(3), 282–311. doi:10.1177/0741088311410188
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crowhurst, M. (1990). Teaching and learning the writing of persuasive/argumentative discourse. Canadian Journal of Education, 15(4), 348–359. doi:10.2307/1495109
   Google Scholar
• Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui, K., & James, M. (2005). Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10(1), 5–43. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2005.02.001
   Google Scholar
• Deane, P. (2014). Using writing process and product features to assess writing quality and explore how those features relate to other literacy tasks (ETS Research Report RR-14-03). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Deane, P., & Quinlan, T. (2010). What automated analyses of corpora can tell us about students’ writing skills. Journal of Writing Research, 2(2), 151–177. doi:10.17239/jowr-2010.02.02.4
   Google Scholar
• Educational Testing Service. (2012). TOEFL Junior writing scoring guides. Princeton, NJ: Author. Retrieved from https://www.ets.org/s/toefl_junior/pdf/toefl_junior_comprehensive_writing_scoring_guides.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Educational Testing Service. (2015). TOEFL Junior Comprehensive Handbook. Princeton, NJ: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59–84. doi:10.1017/S0272263104261034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engber, C. A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(2), 139–155. doi:10.1016/1060-3743(95)90004-7
   Google Scholar
• Fellner, T., & Apple, M. (2006). Developing writing fluency and lexical complexity with blogs. The JALT CALL Journal, 2(1), 15–26.
   Google Scholar
• Ferris, D. R. (1994). Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 414–420. doi:10.2307/3587446
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friginal, E., Li, M., & Weigle, S. (2014). Revisiting multiple profiles of learner compositions: A comparison of highly rated NS and NNS essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 23, 1–16. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2013.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gebril, A., & Plakans, L. (2013). Toward a transparent construct of reading-to-write tasks: The interface between discourse features and proficiency. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(1), 9–27. doi:10.1080/15434303.2011.642040
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant, L., & Ginther, A. (2000). Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 123–145. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00019-9
   Google Scholar
• Guo, L., Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Predicting human judgments of essay quality in both integrated and independent second language writing samples: A comparison study. Assessing Writing, 18(3), 218–238. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2013.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, UK: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Jarvis, S., Grant, L., Bikowski, D., & Ferris, D. (2003). Exploring multiple profiles of highly rated learner compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 377–403. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2003.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knoch, U., Macqueen, S., & O’Hagan, S. (2014). An investigation of the effect of task type on the discourse produced by students at various score levels in the TOEFL iBT® writing test (TOEFL iBT Research Report-23). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 148–161. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322. doi:10.1093/applin/16.3.307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). The linguistic features of quality writing. Written Communication, 27(1), 57–86. doi:10.1177/0741088309351547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neumann, H. (2014). Teacher assessment of grammatical ability in second language academic writing: A case study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 24(1), 83–107. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2014.04.002
   Google Scholar
• Newell, G. E., Beach, R., Smith, J., & VanDerHeide, J. (2011). Teaching and learning argumentative reading and writing: A review of research. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 273–304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492–518. doi:10.1093/applin/24.4.492
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polio, C., & Shea, M. C. (2014). An investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 10–27. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powell, A. G., Farrar, E., & Cohen, D. K. (1985). The shopping mall high school: Winners and losers in the educational marketplace. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Purpura, J. (2017). Assessing meaning. In E. Shohamy, I. G. Or, & S. May (Eds.), Language testing and assessment. Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd ed., pp. 33–61). New York, NY: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Quinlan, T., Higgins, D., & Wolff, S. (2009). Evaluating the construct-coverage of the e-rater® scoring engine (ETS RR-09-01). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Riazi, A. M., & Knox, J. S. (2013). An investigation of the relations between candidates’ first language and the discourse of written performance on the IELTS academic writing test, task 2. IELTS Research Reports, No. 2. Canberra, Australia: British Council, Cambridge English Language Assessment and IDP: IELTS Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Scarcella, R. (2003). Academic English: A conceptual framework (TechnicalReport No. 2003–1). Santa Barbara: University of California, Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sheehan, K. M. (2015). Aligning TextEvaluator scores with the accelerated text complexity guidelines specified in the common core state standards (ETS RR-15-21). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Sheehan, K. M., Flor, M., & Napolitano, D. (2013). A two-stage approach for generating unbiased estimates of text complexity. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Improving Textual Accessibility, Atlanta, GA.
   Google Scholar
• Sheehan, K. M., Kostin, I., Futagi, Y., & Flor, M. (2010). Generating automated text complexity classifications that are aligned with targeted text complexity standards (ETS RR-10-28). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Sheehan, K. M., Kostin, I., Napolitano, D., & Flor, M. (2014). The TextEvaluator tool: Helping teachers and test developers select texts for use in instruction and assessment. The Elementary School Journal, 115(2), 184–209. doi:10.1086/678294
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556–569. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taguchi, N., Crawford, W., & Wetzel, D. Z. (2013). What linguistic features are indicative of writing quality? A case of argumentative essays in a college composition program. TESOL Quarterly, 47(2), 420–430. doi:10.1002/tesq.2013.47.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uccelli, P., Dobbs, C. L., & Scott, J. (2013). Mastering academic language: Organization and stance in the persuasive writing of high school students. Written Communication, 30(1), 36–62. doi:10.1177/0741088312469013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weigle, S. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wolf, M. K., Everson, P., Lopez, A., Hauck, M., Pooler, E., & Wang, J. (2014). Building a framework for a next-generation English language proficiency assessment system (ETS Research Report No. RR-14-34). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii.
   Google Scholar
• Zhu, W. (2001). Performing argumentative writing in English: Difficulties, processes, and strategies. TESL Canada Journal, 19(1), 34–50. doi:10.18806/tesl.v19i1.918
   Google Scholar