Author(s): |
Ren, Li; Hu, Guangwei |
Source: |
Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, v13 n1 p98-130 Mar 2013 |
|
Pub Date: |
2013-03-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Immigrants; Literacy; Foreign Countries; Comparative Analysis; Educational Development; Human Capital; Social Capital; Family Environment; Interviews; Asians; Observation; Educational Attitudes; Bilingualism; Mandarin Chinese; English (Second Language); Second Language Learning; Middle Class
Abstract:
Social capital--the social relations between people--is an important component of the family environment and is crucial for the creation of human capital for the next generation. Drawing on James S. Coleman's theory of family capital, this study focuses on parents' utilization of social capital to support children's literacy acquisition in four Singaporean and immigrant middle-class Chinese families in Singapore. Comparative analyses of observation and interview data reveal that these families differed not only in the volume of social capital they possessed but also in the activation of this capital for their children's biliteracy and educational development. They also reveal that the parents' application of social capital is motivated by such factors as the status of the family (immigrant or native), parental occupation, parents' educational views and the family's acculturation to the host society (in the case of immigrant families). Furthermore, a family's skilful use of its social capital could compensate for a relative shortage of human capital. These findings, taken as a whole, contribute to Coleman's theory by disentangling potential from actualized social capital. (Contains 1 table.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
English (Second Language); Language Tests; Essay Tests; Factor Structure; Academic Discourse; Reading Comprehension; Listening Comprehension; Factor Analysis; Correlation; Scores; Listening Comprehension Tests; Reading Tests
Abstract:
The present study examined the factor structures across features of 446 examinees' responses to a writing task that integrates reading and listening modalities as well as reading and listening comprehension items of the TOEFL iBT[R] (Internet-based test). Both human and automated scores obtained for the integrated essays were utilized. Based on a series of preliminary factor analyses, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) identified a model that specified a higher order factor for comprehension. In the model, the Comprehension factor underlay factors representing content of the written essay as well as reading and listening comprehension. The Comprehension factor correlated with two writing factors--Productive Vocabulary and Sentence Conventions. Furthermore, follow-up CFA models with covariates (multiple indicators multiple causes models, or MIMIC models) were tested to compare performance between a group of 190 examinees scoring above a frequently used TOEFL iBT Total score requirement for international student admission and the other group of 128 examinees scoring below the requirement. The higher ability group performed significantly better than the lower ability group on all three constructs: Comprehension, Productive Vocabulary, and Sentence Conventions. The identification of the multiple distinct factors in this study may hold promise for obtaining writing profiles that inform instruction in contexts such as test preparation. (Contains 9 tables, 4 figure and 1 footnote.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Reading; Essay Tests; Language Tests; Integrated Activities; English (Second Language); Undergraduate Students; Language Usage; Syntax; Grammar; Accuracy; Language Fluency; Information Sources; Statistical Analysis; Foreign Countries
Abstract:
As a growing number of testing programs use integrated writing tasks, more validation research is needed to inform stakeholders about score use and interpretation. The current study investigates the relationship between writing proficiency and discourse features in an integrated reading-writing task. At a Middle Eastern university, 136 undergraduate students completed a reading-based writing task. The essays were holistically scored by two raters and then classified into three proficiency levels. In addition, the essays were analyzed for a number of discourse features, including fluency, lexical sophistication, syntactic complexity, grammatical accuracy, verbatim source use, and direct and indirect source use. A one-way analysis of variance was employed to look into the relationship between writing proficiency and the discourse features of interest. The results yielded significant differences across proficiency levels for a number of discourse features. Nonetheless, follow-up comparisons indicated that the differences were greater between the lowest level and the two upper levels. As for the upper levels, no statistically significant differences were found between these two levels for most of the discourse features. The implications of the study suggest that the selected discourse features play a major role at lower levels, whereas other textual features, such as cohesion, content, and organization, are more critical at higher level writing. The results also support the need in a construct of integrated writing for the inclusion of reading proficiency and knowledge about discourse synthesis. (Contains 7 tables, 1 figure and 3 footnotes.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
Author(s): |
Yu, Guoxing |
Source: |
Language Assessment Quarterly, v10 n1 p96-109 2013 |
|
Pub Date: |
2013-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Documentation; Writing Tests; Language Usage; Language Tests; English (Second Language); Expertise; Educational Research; Evaluation Criteria
Abstract:
This article reports the lexical diversity of summaries written by experts and test takers in an empirical study and then interrogates the (in)congruity between the conceptualisations of "summary" and "summarize" in the literature of educational research and the operationalization of summarization tasks in three international English language tests in relation to their task directions and assessment criteria. These analyses show that summarization is not a uniform construct; rather, it is multidimensional in terms of its purposes, functions, and practices in real-life contexts, and as a consequence not particularly well operationalized in language tests and so in need of precise definitions for specific assessment contexts. This conclusion has implications for designing summarization tasks and assessing task performance. First, clear and transparent task directions are essential to ensure that test takers and evaluators share a common understanding of a test task; test takers need to be instructed what kind of summary they are expected to produce, particularly what information to include and to exclude. Second, because summarization may well be a unique type of writing process, it is important to employ parameters different from and additional to those for independent composition writing in order to measure the quality of a summary effectively. (Contains 4 tables and 3 footnotes.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Writing Assignments; Reading; Comprehension; Persuasive Discourse; Academic Discourse; Writing Processes; College Students; Foreign Students; Asians; English (Second Language); Interviews; Ethnography; Foreign Countries; Classroom Research
Abstract:
This article argues that task representation should be considered as part of the construct of classroom-based academic writing. Task representation is a process that writers move through when creating a unique mental model of the requirements for each new writing task they encounter. Writers' task representations evolve throughout the composing process and continue to change even after a writing assignment is submitted for evaluation. The article presents data from an ethnographic study of an argumentative writing-from-readings assignment given in an academic writing class. The data show that the task representations of the four participants heavily influenced the form and substance of their final written products. It was particularly difficult for these second-language writers to interpret task cues emanating from the teacher and context to understand the boundaries of the writing-from-sources task and construct appropriate task representations. Consequently, two received a score of 0% for plagiarism and one intentionally avoided part of the source use requirement of the writing task. Because the participants' writing performance was partially a result of the accuracy and appropriateness of their task representations, this article argues that task representation should be considered when defining the construct of an academic writing-from-sources assessment. (Contains 2 footnotes.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|