The Most Suitable Scoring Method to Assess Essay Writing in ESL Classrooms

Arsaythamby Veloo, Noor Hashima Abd Aziz, Aizan Yaacob

Abstract


The Malaysian Education Act in 1996 states that the national language which is the Malay language becomes the main medium of instruction in educational institutions and English is accorded the status of a second language. In Malaysian schools, teachers are given the freedom to use their own teaching and assessment methods in assessing their students’ writing. However, majority of the English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers use a scoring method adapted from the Malaysian Examination to assess their students’ writing. For the Malaysian Certificate of Education (SPM) English Language 1119 subject, students are required to write an essay of more than 350 words and they must be eloquent in their writing style with flawless grammatical errors to obtain the highest score for the subject. The purpose of this study was to explore the ESL teachers’ preference towards the most suitable scoring method to assess essay writing in the classrooms. The study used qualitative approach which involved 25 grade 10 ESL teachers at 12 secondary schools in one of the states in Malaysia. The teachers in this study were trained on how to use the three types of scoring method to examine the students’ continuous essay writing based on the three types of scoring methods namely Holistic, Analytical and Primary Traits. After the training, a few teachers were selected to be interviewed to get their perspectives of the three scoring methods used for classroom-based assessment. The research involved multiple data collection methods: verbal protocol, documents in the form of students’ essays and interviews with the teachers. The findings indicated that the majority of the ESL teachers in this study preferred the holistic scoring method over the other two scoring methods due to its time saving characteristic when it involved a large scale marking and the results were needed to be completed within a short period of time. In addition, the ESL teachers in this study liked the idea of having to give overall evaluation of the essays whereby they could identify not only the overall band, but also the strengths and weaknesses of their students’ writing. The teachers discovered that the holistic scoring method helped them to improve their students’ learning as they could evaluate their students’ overall performance.

Keywords


Classroom-based Assessment, Holistic Scoring Method, Analytic Scoring Method, Primary Trait Scoring Method, Essay Writing, ESL Teachers

Full Text:

PDF

References


Asmah Hj. O. (2003). Language and Language Situation in South East Asia with a Focus on Malaysia. Kuala

Lumpur: Akademik Pengajian Malaysia, Universiti Malaya.

Becker, A. (2011). Examining rubrics to measure writing performance in US intensive English programs. The

CATESOL Journal, 22(11), 113-130.

Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (1998). Research in education (8th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Carnoy, M. (1999). Globalization and educational reform: what planners need to know . International Institute

for Educational Planning. UNESCO.

Ghalib, T. K., & Al-Hattami, A. A. (2015). Holistic versus Analytic Evaluation of EFL Writing: A Case Study. English Language Teaching, 8(7), 225.

Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991). Scoring procedures. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 241-276). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hunter, D. M., Jones, R. M., & Randhawa, B. S. (1996). The use of holistic versus analytic scoring for large-scale assessment of writing. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 11(2), 61.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667251

Lee, Molly N.N. (2002). Educational Change in Malaysia . Monograph series No:3/2002. School of Educational Studies. Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia.

Lloyd-Jones, R. (1977). Primary Trait Scoring. In C.R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing: Describing,

measuring, judging (pp. 33-68). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Malaysian Examinations Syndicate (LPM, 2009). Pengumuman Analisis Keputusan SPM 2009. Putrajaya.

McNamara, T. (2000). Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ministry of Education Malaysia (2000). Sukatan Pelajaran Bahasa Inggeris (English Language Syllabus). Kuala Lumpur.

Normah Othman. (2006). Assessment of Directed Writing by a Group of TESL Student at UPSI. Paper presented at Prosiding Seminar Penyelidikan. Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris.

Normah Othman. (2014). The primary trait scoring method for classroom-based assessment of students’ direct writing. International Journal of Learning & Development. 4(3). 51-61. doi:10.5296/ijld.v4i3.6063

Perkins, K. (1983). On the use of composition scoring techniques, objective measures, and objective tests to evaluate ESL writing ability. TESOL Quarterly, 17(4), 651-671.

Salmani Nodoushan, M.A. (2014). Assessing writing: A review of the main trends.. Studies in English Language Education, 1(2), 119-129.

Selvaraj, B. (2010). English Language Teaching (ELT) Curriculum Reforms in Malaysia, Voice of Academia, 5

(1), 51-60.

Weagle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wiseman, S. (2012). A Comparison of the Performance of Analytic vs. Holistic Scoring Rubrics to Assess L2 Writing. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 2(1), 59-92.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.4p.19

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2010-2020 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

Advances in Language and Literary Studies

You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.