Bibliographic record
Abstract
Direct assessment of second language (L2) writing skill, in which a student is usually assessed by means of an essay on a topic during a limited time period, has been used as a valid measurement of ability to write in comparison to indirect assessment of writing through multiple-choices. Although both direct and indirect assessments have a risk of reliability, it is effectively argued that direct assessment is more representative of the integrative aspects of writing (Coffman,1966; Morris-Friehe & Leuenberger, 1992). In this era of globalization, a large number of culturally and linguistically diverse students seek higher education in North America. Direct assessment of L2 writing skill is widely used to assess these newly-arrived students’ English proficiency for placement decisions at the beginning of their university programs in the target language. As such, understanding direct assessment of L2 writing is paramount to improve assessment procedures for test validity and fairness. This article reviews direct assessment of L2 writing in the existent research literature with an attention to its two major scoring rubrics: holistic and analytic. The literature review concludes that the purpose of the writing task is significant in deciding which scoring method to use in specific contexts.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".