付费下载
下载本文档
版权说明:本文档由用户提供并上传,收益归属内容提供方,若内容存在侵权,请进行举报或认领
文档简介
1、ESL essay raters cognitive processesPaula Winke and Hyojung LimMichigan State U This is a study of rater behaviorThis is a study of rater behaviorMy essayHow does a rater make scoring decisions? What does a rater pay attention to when rating?This is a study of rate
2、r behaviorMy essayLanguage testers need to know if construct-irrelevant variation in scores stem from how raters approach and think about a rubric. This is a study of rater behaviorMy essayEmpirical studies on raters cognitive processes are scarce (especially with analytic scoring), and findings are
3、 not consistent. Previous findingsMy essayRaters focus on different features in essays when scoring; weight the different scoring categories differently (Cumming et al., 2002; Eckes, 2008; Orr, 2002). Previous findingsMy essaySometimes they consider external features that are not even described in a
4、 rubric (Barkaoui, 2010; Lumley, 2005; Vaughan, 1991).Previous findingsMy essayRaters may have different attentional foci when scoring, and their foci may depend on the scale type (holistic vs. analytic), the raters experience (expert vs. novice rater),the raters L1 and even L2 background.The curren
5、t studyWed like to knowHow raters cognitively process (i.e., use) an analytic rubric while rating ESL essays Whether variability in processing (difference in rubric usage) is associated with lower inter-rater reliability Research QuestionsTo which parts of an analytic rubric do raters pay the most a
6、ttention (measured as total fixation duration and visit count)? Are inter-rater reliability statistics on the ponents of an analytic rubric related to the amount of attention paid to those ponents? Method9 raters, all ESL instructors in the same English-language program at a large, Midwestern univer
7、sity and native speakers of English. Each rated 40 essays (4 prompts * 10 essays). Analytic rating scale: Currently used at the language program; it is a modified version from Jacobs et al. (1981) content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanicsTobii TX300 eye-tracker: The rubric was i
8、nstalled in the Tobii Studio program. Content OrganizationVocabulary Language UseMechanics Method9 raters, all ESL instructors in the same English-language program at a large, Midwestern university and native speakers of English. Each rated 40 essays (4 prompts * 10 essays). Analytic rating scale: C
9、urrently used at the language program; it is a modified version from Jacobs et al. (1981) content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanicsTobii TX300 eye-tracker: The rubric was installed in the Tobii Studio program. The data collection set-up64cmRubricEssayScoreProcedureSession 1 in c
10、onference roomSession 2 in LabSession 3 in LabTwo-hour rater training sessionThe raters worked through 7 benchmark essays with Paula.Hyojung explained the procedure.Background questionnaireEye calibrationPractice rating (norming session)Block 1: 10 essaysBlock 2: 10 essays Eye calibration Practice r
11、ating (norming session)Block 3: 10 essaysBlock 4: 10 essays The dataData AnalysisTo quantify attention: total fixation duration (divided by the number of words in each category) and visit countTo observe a rating process: time to first fixation, gaze plots, and heat maps (Bax & Weir, 2012)Inter-rate
12、r reliability: the intraclass coefficient (ICC) and reliability adjusted by the Spearman-Brown prophecy formulaStatistics: the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney (post hoc) testResultsIn general, raters read the rubric from left to right, starting from content, organization, vocabulary, language use to
13、 mechanics. Oftentimes (71 times, to be specific), mechanics were overlooked. ResultsOrganization received the most attention (in terms of fixation duration and visit count) and showed the highest inter-rater reliability; raters attended least to and agreed least on mechanics. r = .90r = .75Fixation
14、 duration (mean) in seconds with # of words controlledVisit countIntraclass CoefficientSpearman-Brown prophecy formula Content.0714.03.89.82Organization.080Vocabulary.058Language Use.052Mechanics.045Statistical resultsOrganization, Content Vocab. Lang Mechanic
15、s Vocab, Organization, Lang, Content MechanicsResultsFrom a qualitative review of the videos and heatmaps in comparison with each raters inter-rater reliability estimate, we believe that raters who agreed the most had common attentional foci, whereas those who agreed the least did not. Incongruous R
16、atersRaters 1 and 7 were found to be most incongruous, given their lowest inter-rater reliability for the total score (.45), and the second lowest reliability for content (.36) and for mechanics (.28). Because the scores for Essay 2 had the largest standard deviation, we looked at the heat maps for
17、essay 2 for raters 1 and 7. Essay 2Rater 1Essay 2Rater 7Agreeing RatersRaters 6 and 8 had the highest correlation coefficient in total scores (r=.79) as well as on the sub-scores for content (r=.75) and mechanics (r=.67). Given that the scores of Essay 8 shows the smallest standard deviation, the he
18、at maps for the essay 8 were compared between rater 6 and 9. Essay 8Rater 6Essay 8Rater 8DiscussionRaters attention and inter-rater reliabilityMore attention leads to higher inter-rater reliability with analytic scoring. ( greater care and attention decrease reliability with holistic scoring, Wolfe,
19、 1997) Those who showed higher inter-rater reliability showed similar reading patterns reading a relatively large area of the rubric, and having common patterns of attentional foci. DiscussionThe effect of the layout With an analytic scale, raters decision-making behaviors tend to operate within the
20、 scope of the given guidelines (Smith, 2000). Part of the guidelines is the order of the categories. We think that raters gave their most attention to content and organization and their least attention to mechanics because of a primacy effect.It has to do with rubric real estate. DiscussionIn Lumley
21、s (2005) study, the conventions of presentation (spelling, punctuation, script layout) received the second most attention after content, more attention than organization and grammar. In his study, the conventions of presentation came second after content in the rubric. May also be evidence of this p
22、rimacy effect.DiscussionRaters may use the rubric mainly to justify or adjust the scores for an essay on which they have already made decisions. When finishing reading an essay, raters seemed to know where the quality of the essay would fall in the grid of the analytic rubric.Those who showed higher
23、 inter-rater agreement appeared to look through more descriptors for various levels; those who didnt seemed to stick to their initial judgment. Limitations & Future DirectionsThe eye-movement data dont fully explain why raters paid more attention to certain categories or whether raters considered no
24、n-criterion features. - analysis of our stimulated-recall interview data is needed.We dont know if there was any halo effect across essays in the rating process.Information is lacking on how raters read the essays and how they went back and forth between the essays and the rating scale. We have coll
25、ected data for a second study in which both the rubric and essay are on screen, and data for a third study to investigate potential halo effects. Questions or comments?Paula Winke Hyojung Lim Notes on EssaysWe assembled a stratified sample of 40 essays from prior ESL place
26、ment tests at a large Midwestern university. We culled four sets of 10 essays, each set from one of four scoring bands (64 and below, 65-69, 70-74, and 75 and above: see supplemental material that panies the online version of this manuscript). We balanced the selection of the 40 essays equally acros
27、s four prompts as follows, with two to three essays at each score band being a response to one of these prompts:Do you think it is better for people to make their purchases online or to go shopping in stores and malls? Use specific details and examples to explain your answer. Some people say that al
28、l international students who are studying English should have an American roommate for at least one year. What is your opinion on this topic? Some employees have bosses that they really like working for, while others have bosses that they absolutely hate. What are the most important qualities of a g
29、ood boss at work, and why?If you had the choice, would you rather take a college course online or have the same class face to face with an instructor and classmates in a classroom? Use specific details and examples to explain your answer. The length of student essays was limited to one page so that raters did not need to flip over pages while rating. The order of 10 essays within each prompt set was randomized, and the order of the four prompt sets was counterbalanced across raters. A packet of 40 copied essays w
温馨提示
- 1. 本站所有资源如无特殊说明,都需要本地电脑安装OFFICE2007和PDF阅读器。图纸软件为CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.压缩文件请下载最新的WinRAR软件解压。
- 2. 本站的文档不包含任何第三方提供的附件图纸等,如果需要附件,请联系上传者。文件的所有权益归上传用户所有。
- 3. 本站RAR压缩包中若带图纸,网页内容里面会有图纸预览,若没有图纸预览就没有图纸。
- 4. 未经权益所有人同意不得将文件中的内容挪作商业或盈利用途。
- 5. 人人文库网仅提供信息存储空间,仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理,对用户上传分享的文档内容本身不做任何修改或编辑,并不能对任何下载内容负责。
- 6. 下载文件中如有侵权或不适当内容,请与我们联系,我们立即纠正。
- 7. 本站不保证下载资源的准确性、安全性和完整性, 同时也不承担用户因使用这些下载资源对自己和他人造成任何形式的伤害或损失。
最新文档
- 2026年双鸭山市四方台区法检系统书记员招聘笔试备考题库及答案详解
- 2026年郑州市事业单位招聘(省级联考)惠济区岗位调整笔试参考题库及答案详解
- 2026年陕西省铜川市法检系统书记员招聘笔试参考试题及答案详解
- 2025年广元市元坝区法检系统书记员招聘考试试题及答案详解
- 2025年内蒙古自治区赤峰市法检系统书记员招聘笔试试题及答案详解
- 2026年北京市丰台区法检系统书记员招聘笔试备考题库及答案详解
- 2025年桂林市叠彩区法检系统书记员招聘考试试题及答案详解
- 2026年宁夏回族自治区银川市法检系统书记员招聘笔试参考题库及答案详解
- 2026年来宾市兴宾区法检系统书记员招聘笔试参考题库及答案详解
- 2026年湖北省孝感市法检系统书记员招聘笔试参考试题及答案详解
- 解读慢性阻塞性肺病(GOLD)指南(2026)更新要点课件
- 光伏电站运行维护规程
- THIS001-2022红外热电堆传感器
- 外墙水包砂质保合同范本
- 肢体创伤后水肿管理指南解读
- 招标代理业务管理规范与操作指南
- 旅游直播培训课件
- T/CAPA 3-2021毛发移植规范
- 急诊治疗过程中的医患沟通技巧
- 旅游客车交通安全检查
- 金属基体上的金属覆盖层 电沉积和化学沉积层 附着强度试验方法评述
评论
0/150
提交评论