نسیم قنبری

As a formative assessment procedure, self-assessment aims to converge learners’ and teachers’ views in assessment. Hence, reducing the perceptual mismatches between the learners’ and the teachers’ assessment would positively affect the learning process. For this aim, the present study investigated to what extent the learners’ assessment of their writing before and after being provided with a list of rating criteria, agrees that of their teachers. Therefore, a body of 6 EFL writing teachers and 27 EFL learners participated in this study. The learners were asked to rate their writing before and after being provided with rating criteria developed by the researchers. The teachers also rated the students’ writings following the same criteria. The obtained results showed a significant difference between the students' scores on the first and second assessment occasions. The teachers’ and the students’ assessment on the second time also were found to significantly correlate. Moreover, the analysis of the students’ comments showed that while they rated their writing on some limited aspects of writing in the first rating occasion, they assessed their essays using more components in the second assessment phase. Overall, the findings revealed that providing the learners with rating criteria would not only reduce the perceptual mistaches between the students’ and the teachers’ assessment but through involving the students’ voices in their assessment would promote democratic classroom assessment. Pedagogical implications of the study are discussed.

Among different factors affecting writing assessment, rater and rating scale are two influential variables that determine the outcome of assessment. In fact, the way raters interact with rating scales considerably affects the validity of their assessment. Taking this into account, this study attempted to identify and classify the raters’ behaviors in the Iranian EFL context when using analytic and holistic rating scales. To this end, a group of nine expert raters were asked to verbalize their thoughts when rating student essays. They were also asked to do their rating using the analytic scale of ESL Composition Profile and IELTS holistic scale. Upon the qualitative analysis of think-aloud protocols (TAPs), two themes emerged which showed the raters’ behaviors when applying the rating scales. The findings further showed that when using the holistic scale, the raters read the text first to get an overall impression. Then they assessed the text based on their own criteria. Next, they referred to the scale for scoring and in the last stage they provided evidence for their scoring. On the other hand, when applying analytic rating scales, the raters first scanned the text for surface features. Then they read the text for their initial impression. Next, they read each scale component and its descriptor for scoring and finally, they attempted to provide evidence for their scoring. In addition to identifying the raters’ behaviors, the raters’ behaviors were classified to shed light on the process of rating. The findings imply that the diagnosis of the rater-rating scale interactions can unveil the strengths and weaknesses of the EFL rating process. This, in turn, can provide more quality training for the raters and in this way enhance the scoring validity of their judgements. In the long run, this would improve the professional development of the raters involved in the writing assessment.

Concerning the limited capacity of working memory and drawing on Limited Attentional Capacity Model and Cognition Hypothesis, this paper examined the effect of planning time on Iranian EFL writers' performance and reported on the mediating role of educational contexts on the way of the planning process. Forty-one Iranian EFL learners in two contexts (university and institute) were asked to write in an argumentative genre under different planning time conditions (pre-task planning and online planning). The results revealed that the pre-task planning, by reducing the cognitive loads on working memory, helped the learners to have better performance in terms of fluency. However, it did not exert statistically significant differences in the complexity and accuracy of the written productions. Given the context of elicitation, the results indicated a significant effect on the participants' written performance regarding complexity and accuracy. Moreover, a significant interaction effect was found between planning time and context. The findings shed more light on the understanding of the planning process as a main cognitive component of the writing process in second/foreign language learning. Furthermore, the results of the study have pedagogical implications for utilizing the planning process to improve the writing performance of language learners.

The present study was conducted to further improve the practice of written corrective feedback by integrating the two known feedback types (i.e. direct corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation). With this aim, a sample of sixty-nine high-intermediate Iranian EFL learners was assigned into different feedback groups. While the first and second groups received direct and metalinguistic explanation feedback, respectively, the third group received an integration of both. Results showed that all three types of feedback improved the learners’ accuracy, though with different degrees of success. However, the results of the delayed post-tests revealed that only the integration of Direct Corrective Feedback (DCF) with Metalinguistic Explanation (ME) had the most sustainable effect on the learners' accurate use of the articles in the long run. It is discussed that the integration of DCF and ME can enhance the corrective effect of the feedback and reduce the defects which have been associated with the practice.