INVESTIGATING CHINESE EFL STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF WRITING PROMPTS OF DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF INFORMATION

Su You

Abstract


Abstract: This study aims to explore how Chinese EFL students perceive the advantages and disadvantages of prompts providing different amount of information, namely prompt with more information and prompt with less information. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected through questionnaire survey and semi-structured interview. Research results indicate that: 1) Respondents hold a mixed attitude towards the prompt effect on their task accomplishment. 2) Students believe that prompt type can affect their expression in writing; 3) Students generally agree that prompt with more information facilitate their writing in terms of content and organization; 4) Students’ preference for the prompt type differs across different English proficiency level.

Keywords: prompt effect, English writing, testing writing, perceptions


Full Text:

PDF

References


Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C., & Wall, D. (2000). Language test construction and evaluation. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brossell, G. (1983). Rhetorical specification in essay examination topics. College English, 45(2), 165-173

Brossell, G., & Ash, B. H. (1984). An experiment with the wording of essay topics. College Composition and Communication, 35(4), 423-425

Chiste, K. B., & O'Shea, J. (1988). Patterns of question selection and writing performance of ESL students. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 22(4).

Gu, X., & Gao, X. (2007). An investigation into the writing tasks of NMET 2007. China Examinations, (12), 28-36.

Gu, X., Yang, R., & Feng, N. (2010). A study on the quality of the writing tasks of NMET. Educational Measurement and Evaluation , (12), 47-50.

Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writer’s text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jennings, M., Fox, J., & Graves, B. (1999). The test-takers' choice: an investigation of the effect of topic on language-test performance. Language Testing (16), 456-462

Kroll, B., & Reid, J. (1994). Guidelines for designing writing prompts: clarifications, caveats and cautions. Journal of Second Language Writing. 3(3), 231-255.

Li, X. (2001). The science and art of language testing. Changsha: Hunan Education Press.

Ministry of Education. (2001). National English curriculum standards. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.

Messick, S. (1996). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13-23.

Oh, H., & Walker, M. E. (2007). The effects of essay placement and prompt type on performance on the new SAT. New York: The College Board.

O’Loughlin, K., & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Investigating task design in academic writing prompts. In Taylor, L. (Ed.), IELTS collected papers: research in speaking and writing assessment. 379-418. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Polio, C., & Glew, M. (1996). ESL writing assessment prompts: How students choose. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 35-49

Powers, D. E., & Fowles, M. E. (1998). Test takers' judgment about GRE writing test prompts (RR 98-36). NJ: Princeton: ETS.

Qi, L., (2004). A study on the washback of NMET. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 36(5), 357-363.

Weigle, S. C. (2011). Assessing writing. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Wu，Z. (2008). Theory and practice of English language testing. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c)