메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
YunDeok Choi (Sungkyunkwan University)
저널정보
한국응용언어학회 응용언어학 응용언어학 제35권 제4호
발행연도
2019.12
수록면
3 - 30 (28page)
DOI
10.17154/kjal.2019.12.35.4.3

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Over the last several decades, both textual-prompt and source-based writing tasks (linguistic- and graphic-prompt) have been widely used for performance-based assessment. A plethora of studies have been conducted to examine comparability of the textual-prompt and linguistic source-based writing tasks from various perspectives, including composing processes, task representations, and test scores. However, identifying the equivalence of the textual-prompt and the graphic-prompt writing task, particularly for English placement testing at English medium universities, has drawn less attention. The present study investigated if the two writing tasks paralleled one another in terms of holistic (class assignment made based on the overall quality of test essays) and analytic (discourse feature analysis) ratings, as well as text length. Twenty-five ESL students studying at an Intensive English Language Program at a large public state university in the Mid-west of the United States and four international teaching assistants at the university participated in the study. Data collection instruments were a retired textual-prompt writing task from the university’s writing portion of the placement test and a graphic-prompt writing task developed by the author, as well as a background questionnaire. A two-way independent-groups chi-square, a non-parametric one-way multivariate analysis of variance, and a bootstrapped independent-samples t-test were performed with the data garnered from the participants. It was found that the two writing tasks were not significantly different in both the holistic and analytic ratings. The length comparison between the two writing tasks showed no statistical significance, either. Implications, methodological limitations, and directions for future research were discussed.

목차

I. INTRODUCTION
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
III. METHODOLOGY
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
V. CONCLUSION
REFERENCES

참고문헌 (38)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0