Investigating IELTS Paper Mode vs. Computer Mode: Evidence from Academic Writing Test
محورهای موضوعی : نشریه زبان و ترجمه
مهدی دست پاک
1
,
Mohammad Javad Riasati
2
,
Ehsan Hadipourfard
3
1 - دانشجوی دکتری آموزش زبان انگلیسی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد شیراز
2 - استادیار آموزش زبان انگلیسی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد شیراز
3 - Assistant Professor, Department of Foreign Languages, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
کلید واژه: Academic Writing Test, IELTS Computer Mode, IELTS Paper Mode, Iranian Candidates,
چکیده مقاله :
The present research compared two different modes for IELTS academic module administration among Iranian IELTS candidates: the paper mode and the computer mode in writing tasks one & two in terms of overall band score. Additionally, it examined whether computer familiarity had any significant effect on the IELTS overall band score of Iranian EFL candidates. To this end, 88 IELTS candidates from three different language institutes in Iran were randomly selected. Hence, based on the OPT results, 50 IELTS candidates were recruited and then divided into two equal groups, i.e. paper mode group and computer mode group randomly. Moreover, a computer familiarity questionnaire was also administered. The study’s findings revealed that the participants in the computer-based mode had a better overall band score than the participants in the paper-based mode on both writing Tasks. Additionally, the results showed that computer familiarity could result in computer mode outperformance in both tasks of IELTS academic writing tasks. These findings have some pedagogical implications, the most important of which is the influence of computer mode administration of IELTS and computer familiarity on candidates’ scores.
تحقیق حاضر دو حالت مختلف برای اجرای آزمون نوشتاری آکادمیک آیلتس در میان داوطلبان ایرانی را مقایسه کرده است ، یعنی حالت کاغذی و حالت رایانه ای در نوشتن تکالیف 1 و 2 آزمون نوشتاری از نظر نمره کلی آنها. علاوه بر این ، این تحقیق بررسی کرد که آیا آشنایی رایانه ای تأثیر معنی داری بر نمره باند (کلی) آیلتس در نامزدهای ایرانی دارد یا خیر. بدین منظور 88 داوطلب آیلتس ایرانی از سه موسسه زبان مختلف در ایران به طور تصادفی انتخاب شدند. از این رو ، بر اساس نتایج آزمون تعیین سطح آکسفورد ، 50 داوطلب آیلتس انتخاب و به دو گروه مساوی به عنوان گروه حالت کاغذی و گروه حالت رایانه ای تقسیم شدند. علاوه بر این ، پرسشنامه آشنایی با رایانه نیز اجرا شد. یافته ها نشان داد که شرکت کنندگان در حالت رایانه ای در نوشتن هر دو تکالیف نمره کلی بهتری نسبت به گروه حالت کاغذی داشتند (وتکالیف 1 و 2). علاوه بر این ، نتایج نشان داد که آشنایی با رایانه منجر به عملکرد مطلوب گروه رایانه در هر دو تکلیف 1 و 2 آزمون نوشتاری دانشگاهی آیلتس می شود. این یافته ها پیامدهای آموزشی دارند که مهمترین آنها تأثیر حالت رایانه ای آیلتس و آشنایی با رایانه بر نمرات داوطلبان است.
Ahmadi, A., & Mansoordehghan, S. (2015).Task type and prompt effect on test performance: A focus on IELTS academic writing tasks. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 33(3), 1-20.
Ahmadi-Fatalaki, J., & Nazari, M. (2015). The study of metadiscourse markers in academic IELTS preparation courses. Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 1(5), 11-16.
Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C., & Wall, D. (1995). Language test construction and evaluation. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Allami, H., & Serajfard, H. (2012). Engagement markers: A technique for improving writing skills. Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation, 1(1), 71-83.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University press.
Bagheri, M., & Zare, M. (2009). The Role of Using IELTS Model Essays in Improving Learners’ Writing and their Awareness of Writing Features. Journal of English language Studies, 1, 115-130.
Baker, E., & Kinzer, C. K. (1998). Effects of technology on process writing: Are they all good? In National Reading Conference Yearbook (Vol. 47, pp. 428-40).
Barkaoui, K. (2016). What and when second‐language learners revise when responding to timed writing tasks on the computer: The roles of task type, second language proficiency, and keyboarding skills. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 320-340.
Blackhurst, A. E. (2005). Perspectives on applications of technology in the field of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(2), 175-178.
Breland, H., Lee, Y. W., & Muraki, E. (2004). Comparability of TOEFL CBT writing prompts: Response mode analyses. ETS Research Report Series, 2004(1), i-39.
Chambers, K. D. (2008). The entrepreneur’s guide to writing business plans and proposals. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Collier, R., & Werier, C. (1995). When computer writers compose by hand. Computers and Composition, 12(1), 47-59.
Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui, K., & James, M. (2005). Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10(1), 5-43.
Davies, A. (2008). Assessing academic english: testing english proficiency, 1950-1989: the ielts solution. Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, J. (2009). Language and identity: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). Investigating grammatical difficulty in second language learning: Implications for second language acquisition research and language testing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 4-22.
Feast, V. (2002). The impact of IELTS scores on performance at university. International Education Journal, 3(4), 70-85.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
Fukao, A., & Fujii, T. (2001). Investigating difficulties in the academic writing process: Interview as a research tool. 語学研究, 16, 29-40.
Green, T. O. N. Y., & Maycock, L. O. U. I. S. E. (2004). Computer-based IELTS and paper-based versions of IELTS. Research Notes, 18, 3-6.
Green, A. (2007). IELTS washback in context: Preparation for academic writing in higher education (Vol. 25). CambridgeUniversity Press.
Guo, L., Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Predicting human judgments of essay quality in both integrated and independent second language writing samples: A comparison study. Assessing Writing, 18(3), 218-238.
Hawkey, R. (2006). Teacher and learner perceptions of language learning activity. ELT Journal, 60(3), 242-252.
Hinkel, E. (2013). Research findings on teaching grammar for academic writing. English Teaching, 68(4),3-21.
IELTS. (2014). Guide for educational institutions, governments, professional bodies and commercial organisations. Retrieved from https://www.ielts.org/- /media/publications/guide-for- institutions/ielts-guide-for-institutions-uk.ashx?la=en
IELTS, O. (2013). Student’s book (with CD): Intermediate/M. Black, W. Sharp.
Ingram, D., & Bayliss, A. (2007). IELTS as a predictor of academic language performance, Part 1. International English Language Testing System (IELTS) Research Reports 2007: Volume 7, 1.
Kachru, B. B. (1986). The power and politics of English. World Englishes, 5(2‐3), 121-140
Lee, Y., & Kantor, R. (2005). Dependability of new ESL writing test scores: Tasks and alternative rating schemes (TOEFL Monograph Series no. 1). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of second language writing, 13(4), 285-312.
Mickan, P., Slater, S., & Gibson, C. (2000). Study of response validity of the IELTS writing subtest. International English Language Testing System (IELTS) Research Reports 2000: Volume 3, 31.
Milanovic, M. (2009). Cambridge ESOL and the CEFR. Research Notes, 37, 2-5.
Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts. Tesl-Ej, 6(2), 1-20.
O’Loughlin, K., & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Task. Design in IELTS academic writing Task one: The effect of quantity and manner of presentation of information on candidate writing. International English Language Testing System (IELTS) Research Reports 2003: Volume 4, 89.
O’Sullivan, B., & Dunlea, J. (2015). Aptis General technical manual version 1.0. London: British Council.
O’Sullivan, B., & Stoynoff, S. (2012). The Cambridge guide to second language assessment. Cambridge University Press.
Patriana, A. W., Rachmajanti, S., & Mukminatien, N. (2016). Students’ ability in using discourse markers to build coherence in compositions. TEFLIN Journal, 27 (2), 203-216.
Plakans, L. (2008). Comparing composing processes in writing-only and reading-to-write test tasks. Assessing Writing, 13(2), 111-129.
Pennington, M. C., & So, S. (1993). Comparing writing process and product across two languages: A study of 6 Singaporean university student writers. Journal of Second language writing, 2(1), 41-63.
Russell, M., & Haney, W. (2000). Bridging the gap between testing and technology in schools. Education policy analysis archives, 8, 19.
Saville, N. D. (2009). Developing a model for investigating the impact of language assessment within educational contexts by a public examination provider.
Van Waes, L., & Schellens, P. J. (2003). Writing profiles: The effect of the writing mode on pausing and revision patterns of experienced writers. Journal of pragmatics, 35(6), 829-853.
Wallace, C. (1997). IELTS: global implications of curriculum and materials design. ELT Journal, 51(4), 370-373.
Weissberg, R. (2006). Connecting speaking & writing in second language writing instruction (No. Sirsi) i9780472030323). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Whithaus, C., Harrison, S. B., & Midyette, J. (2008). Keyboarding compared with handwriting on a high-stakes writing assessment: Student choice of composing medium, raters’ perceptions, and text quality. Assessing Writing, 13(1), 4-25.
Wolfe, E. W., & Manalo, J. R. (2005). An investigation of the impact of composition medium on the
quality of scores from the TOEFL writing section: A report from the broad-based study (TOEFL Research Report. No. RR-72). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Wolfe, E. W., Bolton, S., Feltovich, B., & Niday, D. M. (1996). The influence of student experience with word processors on the quality of essays written for a direct writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 3(2), 123-147.
