Problematizing Rating Scales in EFL Academic Writing Assessment: Voices from Iranian Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Along with a more humanitarian movement in language testing, accountability to contextual variables in the design and development of any assessment enterprise is emphasized. However, when it comes to writing assessment, it is found that multiplicity of rating scales developed to fit diverse contexts is mainly headed by well-known native testing agencies. In fact, it seems that EFL/ESL assessment contexts are receptively influenced by the symbolic authority of native assessment circles. Hence, investigating the actualities of rating practice in EFL/ESL contexts would provide a realistic view of the way assessment is conceptualized and practiced. To investigate the issue, present study launched a wide-scale survey in the Iranian EFL writing assessment context. Results of a questionnaire and subsequent interviews with Iranian EFL composition raters revealed that rating scale in its common sense does not exist. In fact, raters relied on their own internalized criteria developed through their long years of practice. Therefore, native speaker legitimacy in the design and development of scales for the EFL context is challenged and the local agency in the design and development of rating scales is emphasized.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".