Problems with Inappropriate Use of Lexis - Assignment Example

ASSESSMENT REPORT AND REFLECTION {Insert university’s name} {Insert your name} {Insert instructor’s name} May 24, 2011. Assessment report and reflection This report assesses the writing of three students who were provided with assignment. The assessment is done using two assessment tools in two different scenarios. Scenario 1 is whereby the writings are imagined to be produced in large-scale test, taken by hundreds of students while scenario 2, the samples were produced at the end of unit of work in a class setting where am both the course designer and a teacher. MASUS assessment tool Key to rating 4=excellent/no problem/ accurate/very appropriate 3=good/minor problems/mainly accurate/largely appropriate 2=only fair/some problems/often accurate/often appropriate 1=poor/major problems/inaccurate/inappropriate Test 1 Criteria Structure and development of the answer 4 3 2 1 Generic structure appropriate to the task Focused position statement Critical evaluation of evidence Appropriate statement of the conclusion A A A A Control of academic writing 4 3 2 1 Appropriate choice of lexis Generalizations of qualified where appropriate Logical flows of ideas A A A Grammatical correctness 4 3 2 1 Accurate sentence structure Correct verb/subject agreement Consistent and appropriate tense choice, correctly formed Correct use of articles A A A A Qualities of presentation Spelling generally correct Handwriting legible Paragraphing reflects essay structure A A A From text one, it is evident that the student have certain problems with the structure of the essay, however he is focused on the statement of the essay. In regard to critical evaluation of the evidence, the student is poor has he does not constantly refer to the drawings. On drawing conclusion, there is no problem despite the student failing to use concluding remark (Cazden, 1994, p. 173). In regard to control of academic writing, the use of lexis is accurate as well as logical flow of ideas and generalizations of qualified where appropriate. On grammar, the structures of the sentence are often accurate as well as correct verb/subject agreement, correct usage of articles and tenses. On presentation qualities, it is clear that the student is good with spelling as well as paragraphing which are reflections of the essay requirements. Lastly, the handwriting is legible. Test 2 Structure and development of the answer 4 3 2 1 Generic structure appropriate to the task Focused position statement Critical evaluation of evidence Appropriate statement of the conclusion A A A A Control of academic writing 4 3 2 1 Appropriate choice of lexis Generalizations of qualified where appropriate Logical flows of ideas A A A Grammatical correctness 4 3 2 1 Accurate sentence structure Correct verb/subject agreement Consistent and appropriate tense choice, correctly formed Correct use of articles A A A A Qualities of presentation Spelling generally correct Handwriting legible Paragraphing reflects essay structure A A A On the structure and development of the answer, from the text it is evident that the student experiences certain challenges in regard to generic structure of the task. He has no clear idea what the task requires as he fails to write the assignment in form of an essay. He instead uses points to communicate his ideas. Nonetheless he seems to focus on the statement of the assignment by clearly highlighting the caution that need to be taken in the kitchen. The student fails to critically use the evidence which are the pictures/drawings presented to him, i.e. he fails to make reference to them. In regard to stating the conclusion, the student is poor and fails to state the conclusion appropriately (Cazden, 1994, p. 173). On the control of academic writing, the student experiences major problems in appropriate use of lexis. Additionally, he is fair on the appropriate use of generalizations of the qualified making the essay to fail to meet the expected standards. However, there is no general flow of ideas as the student seems to jump from one idea to another without any form of connection and elaboration (Dulay, Marina, & Stephen, 1992, p. 67). In regard to grammatical correctness, the sentence structures in the essay are fair and the student needs to improve as the ideas do not come out correctly due to poor sentence structures. The poor sentence structures are partly attributed to poor verb/subject agreement. Furthermore, the constructions lack consistency not only in sentence formation but also content. The student is not using the correct articles and the problems make the sentence structures to be incorrect (Cazden, 1994, p. 173). Pertaining to quality presentation, the spellings are mainly accurate making it possible for the reader to decipher what the student is saying. However, the handwriting is eligible but the student still need to improve on the same. The paraphrasing does not reflect the structure of the essay. For instance, the whole text looks like a draft rather than a final copy of the assignment. The student uses numbers and asterisk at the same time in presentation of the points. This makes the whole work to look disorganized (Dulay, Marina, & Stephen, 1992, p. 23).. Test 3 Structure and development of the answer 4 3 2 1 Generic structure appropriate to the task Focused position statement Critical evaluation of evidence Appropriate statement of the conclusion A A A A Control of academic writing 4 3 2 1 Appropriate choice of lexis Generalizations of qualified where appropriate Logical flows of ideas A A A Grammatical correctness 4 3 2 1 Accurate sentence structure Correct verb/subject agreement Consistent and appropriate tense choice, correctly formed Correct use of articles A A A A Qualities of presentation Spelling generally correct Handwriting legible Paragraphing reflects essay structure A A A On the structure and development of the answer, the generate structure is good and appropriate to the assignment. Additionally, the student critically positions the statement of the task which is safety in the kitchen and the student presents dos and don’ts using the visual pictures presented to him. Nonetheless, the critical evaluation of the evidence presented is not appropriate. For instance the student does not refer to the drawings/ pictures presented to him in the essay. The conclusion is not properly stated. The statement need to write a very powerful statement that will leave an impact on the mind of the reader. The concluding statement is well thought but not well presented in line with the flow of a good essay. On the control of academic writing, the choice of lexis is mainly accurate as well as generalization of the qualified where appropriate. Additionally, from the test it is evident that there is logical flow of ideas is good even though the student has not used connecting words. On grammatical correctness, the sentence structure is very poor an aspect that can be attributed to incorrect subject/verb agreement. The text further lacks consistency as well as use appropriate use of tense voice. The student also experiences difficulties with regard to use of articles. He mixes articles with necessarily observing the number agreement. Finally on the qualities of the presentation, the student has no problem with spellings as there are no spelling mistakes evident in the text. Handwriting is legible making it to be regarded as good. Finally, the paragraphing is good as the student is trying to connect one idea with other before drawing conclusion. Learning objective of the tool There are certain issues that need to be put into consideration while designing and conducting similar tests and these include, wash-back, validity and reliability. In developing similar tests, it is important to ensure that the test is valid in that it accurately measure what it was suppose to measure. Some of the kinds of validity that need to be incorporated include: content validity, construct validity, criterion-related validity, and even face validity (Dulay, Marina, & Stephen, 1992, p. 23). Another aspect that needs to be put into consideration is reliability. It is important to distinguish between subjective and objective marking. The mentioned is essential as it will guide the teacher on criteria for marking. Moreover, the test should be developed based on wash-back so that the test impacts on both learning and teaching methods employed by students and teachers respectively. Scenario 2 This section will assess the three tests using assessment tool B Test 1 Proficient user C2 From the written text, it is evident that the student can virtually understand everything that is heard or seen. This is evident from the manner in which, the student draws evidence from drawing presented to him. Additionally, from the presented text, it is evident that the student is proficient in that the student is in a position to reconstruct accounts and arguments in a coherent presentation. C1 Furthermore, it is evident that the student is in a position to understand a wide range of texts as well as recognize the implicit meaning. For instance from the drawing presented, the student is able to bring out the meaning in relation to safety in the kitchen. Independent user C2 C1 The student fairly explains the ideas using relative degree of fluency but the reader strains a little in order to get the meaning of the text. However, it is evident that the student is in a position to produce fairly connected text on topics which are familiar in this safety in the kitchen. Additionally, he is able to describe events by giving reasons and opinions (Lumley & Stoneman, 2000, p. 60). Basic user C2 C1 It is clear that the student is in a position to understand the sentences as well as frequently used expression in completing a given task and relating the same to the most immediate relevance. Furthermore, it is evident that the student can communicate routine tasks such as giving instructions. In global use, it is evident that the student is capable of use of familiar everyday expressions that are necessary in communication of simple instructions or advice. From the written text of the student, it is evident that the student is in a position to introduce himself and even others. Additionally, the student is capable of asking questions which is evident in the way in which he answers questions in regard to safety in the kitchen. Learning objective Another learning objective was to make the student understand a wide range of texts as well as recognize the implicit meaning. For instance from the drawing presented, the student is able to bring out the meaning in relation to safety in the kitchen (Cohen, 1997, p. 17). Nonetheless, the student seems to search for expressions while presenting the ideas for example using the expression ‘bad places’ instead of ‘wrong places’ and also be ‘very precautious with electric appliances’ instead of ‘take caution with electric appliances’ hence, it is evident that the student is in a position to use the language fairly for academic purposes (Lumley & Stoneman, 2000, p. 60). Lumley & Stoneman (2000, p. 60).Even though, the student understands the meaning and the highlights the statement of the assignment, the leaning objective was to make student produce detailed, clear and well-structured ideas an aspect that makes him to fail in showing controlled use of cohesive devices, connectors and organizational patterns. Text 2 Test 1 Proficient user C2 From the student’s writings, the proficiency of the student in proven in that the student is in a position to understand things that are either spoken or read. Moreover, from the content of the txt, it is evident that the student is in a position to summarize information from different sources as well as reconstruct accounts and arguments in a coherent presentation. However, it is evident that the student still has problems with expressing himself fluently due to poor sentence structures. C1 The student can understand a wide range of texts which is evident in the manner in which he keeps referring to the drawings presented to him. However, he is not in a position to express himself fluently as in certain situations he seem to be searching for proper expressions for example, seeing that, letting this kettle, etc are some of the misused expressions. To a certain level, the student can use language effectively for social and academic expressions if the mistakes seen are corrected. Independent user C2 C1 The student fairly explains the ideas using relative degree of fluency but the reader strains a little in order to get the meaning of the text. However, it is evident that the student is in a position to produce fairly connected text on topics which are familiar in this safety in the kitchen. The student can fairly understand key ideas in a given text regardless of its complexity. The grammar makes it challenging for the student to fluently interact with native speakers of English as there are a number of grammatical mistakes. Moreover, from the qualities of the presentation, it can be pointed out that the student cannot come up with a detailed text on a number of subjects as well as providing a critical perception as his work looks jumbled up. Moreover, from the written language, it is evident that the student is capable of dealing with various situations that may occur while traveling to a location in which the language is used (Norris, Brown, Hudson & Bonk, 2002, p. 395). Additionally, the student can come up with simple texts on topics in which he is familiar with. This is because from the drawing, despite the errors the text is describes safety in the kitchen which is a matter of interest to the student based on the requirement of the assignment (Nelson, 1991, p. 119). This makes the student to be in a position to provide explanations for plans and opinions in different fields for instance; the opinion of the student in regard to kitchen safety is to implement certain safety measures (City University of New York, Freshman Skills Assessment Program, 1998, p. 52). Basic user C2 C1 On the element of basics, it is evident that the student can understand sentences and understand expressions that are used in giving out instructions or cautioning. This makes it to be concluded that the student is in a position to describe in simple terms aspect of his immediate environment, himself. On the applicability, it is therefore evident that the student is in a position to not only understand but also use basic phrases and familiar expressions with an aim of satisfying the various needs of a concrete type (McDowell, 1994, p. 24). However, the student needs to be taught quality presentation. Lastly, from the introduction, it is evident that the student is in a position to introduce himself and even other as well ask questions and answer them. Furthermore, he is in a position to communicate simple ideas with ease despite the existence of grammatical mistake. Text 3 Proficient user C2 On CEFR global scale, in terms of proficiency, it is clear that the student is in a position to virtually understand everything read or hear. This is evident from the content of the text. Additionally, the student has well developed summary skills which are evident from the manner in which he presented his points. C1 It can be further pointed out that the student has the capability of drawing explicit meaning from a given assignment for instance drawing on safety of the kitchen from the presented drawings. Additionally, the student can use English language professionally, academically and socially. The structure of the text is not only well structured but also clear making it to be concluded that the student is proficient (Lumley & Brown, 1996, p. 108). Independent user C2 C1 On the aspect of independency, it is evident that the student can easily understand key ideas on both abstract and concrete. However, the student is not in a position to communicate fluently with native speakers as the text is marked with grammatical mistakes. But he can easily produce simply connected text on various topics which is evident from the topic safety in the kitchen (White, 1995, p. 30). Basic user C2 Element of basic, the student is in a position to understand sentence structures in presenting simply information as well as communicating simple and routine tasks. Finally, from the introduction, it is clear that the student can easily introduce himself as well as others (Bailey, 1996, 258). Learning objective According to Dulay, Marina, & Stephen (1992, p. 67) the key is to assess if the student who is at proficiency level is able to read or hear all the information presented. Moreover, Cohen (1997, p. 17) the objective of the evaluating scale is to determine the learner’s ability to summarize information from both written and spoken sources and come up with a coherent presentation. In line with the same, the student is said to have attained proficiency level. Moreover, White (1995, p. 30).points out that the CEFR scale is applicable when the teacher want to determine whether the learner is capable of understanding texts and recognizing their explicit meaning. The scale is further used to test the fluency of the learner in use of language expressions. On the element of independent user Cohen (1997, p. 17) the goal is to test whether the learner can clearly understand input of matters that are familiar regarding work, school and personal life. On testing the independency of the user, the scale evaluates whether the learner can handle different situations in areas where the language is being spoken as well as describing hopes, ambitions, dreams, plans and opinions. According to Lumley & Brown (1996, p. 108) the scale is applied in assessing whether the student can communicate routine and simple routines. On the aspect of basic, the main objective is to determine whether the learner is in a position to introduce himself. Furthermore, the tool is to assess if the student is in a position to interact in a simple manner. Conclusion Just like in assessment A, there are certain issues that need to be put into consideration while designing and conducting similar tests and these include, wash-back, validity and reliability (Cohen, 1997, p. 17). In developing similar tests, it is important to ensure that the test is valid in that it accurately measure what it was suppose to measure. Some of the kinds of validity that need to be incorporated include: content validity, construct validity, criterion-related validity, and even face validity (Lumley & Brown, 1996, p. 105). Another aspect that needs to be put into consideration is reliability. It is important to distinguish between subjective and objective marking. The mentioned is essential as it will guide the teacher on criteria for marking. Finally based on wash-back, the tests should be developed based on the activities of the students and the teachers. In conclusion from the two scenario using two assessment tools, it is evident that teachers need to take into consideration certain aspects when designing and assessing tests. Some of these elements include: wash-back, validity, and reliability. References Bailey, K. (1996), 'Working for Washback: a review of the washback concept in language testing', Language Testing, 13 (3), pp. 257-279. Cazden, C,B. (1994) "Language, Cognition, and ESL Literacy: Vygotsky and Literacy Teaching." TESOL Quarterly 28:172-81. City University of New York, Freshman Skills Assessment Program. (1998). The CUNY Writing Skills Assessment Test: Student Essays Evaluated and Anno­tated By the CUNY Task Force on Writing. 2nd ed. New York: CUNY. Cohen, A, (1997). "Reformulating Compositions." TESOL Newsletter 17 :4-5. Dulay, H., Marina, B., & Stephen, K. (1992). Language Two. New York: Oxford Up. Lumley, T. & Brown, A. (1996).Specific-purpose language performance tests: task and interaction. In Wigglesworth, J. and Elder, C., editors, The testing cycle: from inception to washback. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Series S, Volume 13. Canberra: Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 105–36. Lumley, T. & Stoneman, B. (2000). Conflicting perspectives on the role of test preparation in relation to learning. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 5, 50–80. McDowell, C. (1994). STEP forward: a preparation kit for the Special Test of English Proficiency.Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, pp. 22-29. Nelson, M,W. (1991). At the Point of Need: Teaching Basic and ESL Writers. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook. Norris, J.M., Brown, J.D., Hudson, T.D. & Bonk, W. (2002): Examinee abilities and task difficulty in task-based second language performance assessment. Language Testing 19, 395–418. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook, 1991 White, E. (1995).An Apologia for the Timed Impromptu Essay Test." College Composition and Communication 46 30-45.’;lkjhgfdgh Read More