Evaluando la escritura de alumnos universitarios de EFL: estudio sobre la confiabilidad de las calificaciones

Elsa Fernanda González, Nelly Paulina Trejo, Ruth Roux


Texto completo

HTML (English) PDF (English)

DOI

https://doi.org/10.24320/redie.2017.19.2.928

Resumen


La evaluación de la escritura en inglés como lengua extranjera (EFL) es un proceso que depende del juicio humano, por lo que es difícil de obtener evaluaciones justas, acertadas y confiables (Pearson, 2004, p. 117; Hamp-Lyons, 2003). Este estudio reporta la variabilidad existente entre las calificaciones analíticas que 11 docentes Mexicanos universitarios de EFL proporcionaron a cinco trabajos escritos. Describe las percepciones de los participantes en torno a la evaluación de la escritura y el uso de las rúbricas de evaluación. Los datos obtenidos de las calificaciones de cada trabajo y de un cuestionario escrito revelaron que existe gran variedad entre las calificaciones proporcionadas y que los evaluadores difieren en sus niveles de exigencia, sugiriendo así que antecedentes homogéneos y el uso de una misma rúbrica no son suficientes para obtener confiabilidad en las evaluaciones. Las percepciones de los participantes fueron similares en relación al uso de las rúbricas.

Palabras clave


Inglés como lengua extranjera, Evaluación de la escritura, Confiabilidad, Rúbrica de evaluación

Referencias


Attali, Y., Lewis, W. & Steier, M. (2012). Scoring with the computer: Alternative procedures for improving the reliability of holistic essay scoring. Language Testing, 30(1), 125-141.

Bacha, N. (2001). Writing evaluation: What can analytic versus holistic essay scoring tell us? System, 29(3), 371-383.

Barkaoui, K. (2007). Rating scale impact on EFL essay marking: A mixed-method study. Assessing Writing, 12(2), 86-107.

Barkaoui, K. (2010). Variability in ESL essay rating processes: The role of the rating scale and rater experience. Language Assessment Quarterly,7(1), 54-74.

Council of Europe. (2002). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching and assessment. Strasbourgh, FR: Author.

Council of Europe. (2009a). The manual for language test development and examination. Strasbourgh, FR: Author.

Council of Europe. (2009b). Manual for relating language examinations to the common european framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching and assessment. Strasbourgh, FR: Author.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cumming, A. (1990). Expertise in evaluating second language compositions. Language Testing, 7, 31-51.

Eckes, T. (2008). Rater types in writing performance assessments: a classification approach to rater variability. Language Testing, 25(2), 155-185.

Esfandiari, R. & Myford, C. (2013). Severity differences among self-assessors, peer-assessors, and teacher assessors rating EFL essays. Assessing Writing, 18(2), 111-131.

Gonzalez, E.F. & Roux, R. (2013). Exploring the variability of Mexican EFL teachers’ ratings of high school students’ writing ability. Argentinian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 61-78.

Glówka, D. (2011). Mix? Yes, but how? Mixed methods research illustrated. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), Extending the boundaries of research on second language learning and teaching (pp. 289-300). Poland: Springer.

Hamp-Lyons, L. (1989). Raters respond to rhetoric in writing. In H. Dechert & C. Raupach (Eds.), Interlingual processes (pp. 229-244). Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991). Assessing second language writing in academic contexts. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation Assessing.

Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). The scope of writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 8, 5-16.

Hamp-Lyons, L. (2003) Writing teachers as assessors of writing. In Kroll, B. (Ed.) Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp.162-189). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Jacobs, H., Zinkgraf, S., Wormuth, D., Hartfiel, V. & Hughey, J. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Knoch, U. (2009). Diagnostic assessment of writing: A comparison of two rating scales. Language Testing, 26(2), 275-304.

Kroll, B. (1998). Assessing writing abilities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,18, 219-240.

Lim, G. (2011). The development and maintenance of rating quality in performance writing assessment: A longitudinal study of new and experienced raters. Language Testing, 28, 543-560.

Mendelsohn, D. & Cumming, A. (1987). Professors’ ratings of language use and rhetorical organizations in ESL compositions. TESL Canada Journal, 5(1), 9-26.

Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pearson, P.C. (2004). Controversies in second language writing: Dilemmas and decisions in research and instruction. The University of Michigan Press.

Saxton, E., Belanger, S. & Becker, W. (2012) The Critical Thinking Analytic Rubric (CTAR): Investigating intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of a scoring mechanism for critical thinking performance assessments. Assessing Writing, 17(4), 251-270.

Shi, L. (2001). Native and non-native speaking EFL teachers’ evaluation of Chinese students’ English writing. Language Testing, 18(3), 303-325.

Shi, L., Wan, W. & Wen, Q. (2003). Teaching experience and evaluation of second language students’ writing. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6, 219-236.

Vann, R., Lorenz, F. & Meyer, D. (1991). Error gravity: Faculty response to errors in the written discourse of non-native speakers of English. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 181-195). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Weigle, S. C. (1994). Effects of training on raters of ESL compositions. Language Testing, 11, 97-223.

Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Weir, C. J. (1990). Communicative language testing. NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

White, E. M. (1990). Language and reality in writing assessment. College Composition and Communication, 41(2), 87-200.

Wiseman, C. (2012). Rater effects: Ego engagement in rater decision-making. Assessing Writing, 17, 150-173.