Article published In: ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 123/124 (1999) ► pp.79–124
Local and ENS Rating of EFL Composition
in Arabic 'Culturo-Linguistic' context.
Published online: 1 January 1999
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.123-124.04alh
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.123-124.04alh
Abstract
This paper reports on an empirical examination of the effect of instructors' formal training, professional experience, culturo-linguistic background, and exposure to the local context on the evaluation of EFL composition. A total of 106 English-native and Arabic-native instructors, with varying academic training, teaching experience, and exposure to the local context of EFL instruction, evaluated the language, the contents, and the rhetorical structures of two EFL compositions - written by Arabic-native speakers - using 10-point scales.
Findings show that instructor's culturo-linguistic background was evidently the most influential factor on the evaluation of EFL composition. Instructor 's exposure to the local Arabic context of EFL instruction testified to confirm this effect.
With respect to the effect of instructor's teaching experience on the evaluation of EFL composition, the findings reveal that expe-rienced instructors appear to be more rigid in their evaluation of EFL composition than their less experienced counterparts. The effect of instructor's formal training on the evaluation of EFL composition is generally inconsistent.
References (32)
ALHARBI, L. (1997). Rhetorical Transfer Across Cultures : English into Arabic and Arabic into English”. Journal Of Applied Linguistics, 11, 2, 69-94.
(1998). An investigation of the correlation between language proficiency, cultural awareness and rhetorical performance of ESL learner. Review of Applied Linguistics, 118-1201, 91-106.
BARRETT, L. et al. (1986). Researching practice : evaluating assessment essays. College Composition and Communication, 371, 315-27.
BASHAM, C. and KWACHKA, D. (1991). Reading the wold differently : A cross-cultural approach to writing assessment. In : Hamp-Lyons, L. (ed.) Assessing Second Language writing in Academic Contexts. New Jersey : Ablex, p.111-126.
BROWN, J. (1991). Do English and ESL faculty rate writing samples differently? TESOL Quarterly, 251, 587-603.
CHARNEY, D. (1984). The validity of using holistic scoring to evaluate writing : A Critical overview. Research in the teaching of English, 181, 65-81.
CHAUDRON, C. (1983). Research on metalinguistic judgements : A review of theory, method, and results. Language Learning, 33,1, 343-377.
CONNOR, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric : Cross-cultural Aspects of Second Language Writing. New York : Cambridge University Press.
COOPER, C. (1977). Holistic evaluation of writing. In Cooper C. & ODELL, L. (Eds) Evaluating Writing. University of Illinois Press. Urbana, Illinois, USA.
COPPIETERS, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language, 63,3, 544-573.
CUMMING, A. (1990). Expertise in evaluating second language composition. Language Testing, 71, 31-51.
DEGENHART, R. and TAKALA, S. (1988). Developing a rating method for stylistic preference : A cross-cultural pilot study. In : Purves, A. (ed. )Writing Across Languages and Cultures : Issues in Contrastive Rhetoric. Sage, USA. p. 79-106.
KACHRU, Y. (1988). Writers in Hindi and English. In : Purves, A. (Ed.) (1988). Writing Across Languages and Cultures. California : Sage.
KAPLAN, R. (1966). Cultural though patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning 161, 1-20.
(1978). ‘Contrastive rhetoric : some hypothesis.’ ITL Review of Applied Linguistics 37-401, 61-72.
KHALIL, A. (1985). Communicative error evaluation: Native speaker’s evaluation and interpretation of writer errors of oral EFL learners. TESOL, 19,2, 335-351.
KOBAYASHI, H. and RlNNERT, C. (1996). Factors affecting composition evaluation in an EFL context : Cultural rhetorical patterns and readers’ background. Language Learning, 46,3, 397-437.
LAND, R. and WHITLEY, C. (1989). ‘Evaluating second language essays in regular composition classes : Toward a pluralistic US rhetoric’. In : Johnson, D. and Roen, D. (Eds.). Richness In Writing : Empowering ESL Students. New York : Longman. P. 284-293.
PIAZZA, L. (1980). French tolerance for grammatical errors made by Americans. Modern Language Journal 64,4, 422-427.
REID, J. (1989). English as second language composition in higher education: the expectations of the academic audience. In : Johnson, D. and Roen, D. (Eds.). Richness In Writing: Empowering ESL Students. New York : Longman. P. 220-235.
SANTOS, T. (1988). Professors’ reactions to the academic writing of normative-speaking students. TESOL 22,1, 69-90.
SCARCELLA, R. (1984). How writers orient their readers to expository essays : A comparative study of native and normative English writers. TESOL quarterly, 181, 671-689.
SHEOREY, R. (1986). Error-perceptions of native-speaking and non-native speaking teachers of ESL. ELT 40,4, 306-312.
TAKASHIMA, H. (1987). To what extent are non-native speakers qualified to correct free composition? A case study. The British Journal of Language Teaching, 25,1, 43-48.
VANN, et all. R. (1991). Error gravity: A study of faculty opinion of ESL errors. In : Hamp-Lyons, L. (ed.) Assessing Second Language writing in Academic Contexts. New Jersey : Ablex. p. 181-211.
VAUGHAN, C. (1991) Holistic assessment : What goes on in the rater’s mind? In : Hamp-Lyons, L. (ed.) Assessing Second Language writing in Academic Contexts. New Jersey : Ablex, p. 111-126.