Source-Based Writing Assessment Workshop · Source-Based Writing Assessment Workshop Bremen, November 17, 2017 EALTA SIGS Assessment of Writing and Assessment for Academic Purposes

Source-Based Writing Assessment Workshop Bremen, November 17, 2017

EALTA SIGS Assessment of Writing

and Assessment for Academic

Purposes Joint Meeting

Handouts

Atta Gebril THE AMERRICAN UNIVERSITY IN CAIRO

Source-based writing assessment Workshop EALTA SIG Conference, Bremen (November 17, 2017)

Copyright © 2017 by Atta Gebril ([email protected])

1

Handout (1) Sample Reading to Write Task

Read the question below, then, read the two passages to get more information about the topic. Write an

essay on the topic giving your opinion in response to the question. Typically, an effective response will

contain a minimum of 300 words. Your writing will be scored based on how well:

- your ideas are explained

- the readings support your argument

- you organize your essay

- you choose words

- you use grammar

- you spell and punctuate

IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BEFORE WORKING ON THE TASK:

- The two passages should help you get some ideas about the topic. - You may go back to the passages to check information while writing. - You should use ideas and examples from the text. However, you must mention the author’s name

if you do so. - If you take exactly the same phrases or sentences mentioned in the passage, put them between

two inverted commas (“ ”).

Some people believe that global warming is damaging our planet.

Others believe that global warming is not a serious problem.

Which point of view do you agree with? Why?

Give reasons and support your writing with examples.

*** Use specific reasons and details to support your answer.

mailto:[email protected]



2

Reading (1): Scientists Say Global Warming is Undeniable (Adapted from an article by David Smith, Reuters, 2005)

Scientists have confirmed that climate change is being caused by human activity. A number of studies looking at the oceans and melting ice leave no doubt that it is getting warmer, people are to blame, and the weather is going to suffer. Tim Barnett, who is a famous global warming researcher, indicates that new computer models that look at ocean temperatures instead of the atmosphere show the clearest signal yet that global warming is well under way. Mr. Barnett said that earlier climate models based on air temperatures were weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not in the air. Other researchers found clear effects on climate and animals. For example, Ruth Curry, who is from an important oceanographic institute, said changes in the water cycle affects the ocean and, ultimately, climate. She said the changes were already causing droughts in the United States, and Greenland’s ice cap. Sharon Smith of the University of Miami found melting ice was taking with it plants that are an important base of the food supply for many animals. And the disappearing ice meant big Institution found that melting ice was changing the animals such as polar bears and seals were losing their homes. Given all these serious problems

caused by global warming and the way humans have abused the earth, governments must act immediately

to save our planet. The future of this planet depends on our actions and any delay would result in serious

problems.

Reading (2): Myths of Global Warming (Adapted from an article by Sterling Burnett, a

Senior Fellow for the National Center for Policy Analysis, 2001)

There is no scientific agreement that global warming is a problem or that humans are its cause.

Even if current predictions of global warming are correct, much of the environmental policy now

proposed is based on wrong theories.First, there is a wrong belief that the earth is warming. While

ground-level temperature suggests the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees since 1850,

reliable global satellite data show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years. In addition,

scientists do not agree that humans affect global climate because the evidence supporting that

theory is weak. Some people also think that the government must act now to stop global warming.

However, a 1995 analysis by supporters of global warming theory concluded that the world’s

governments can wait up to 25 years to take action with no bad effect on the environment. In

short, our policymakers need not act immediately. The government has time to gather more data,

and industry has time to develop new ways of reducing its influence. Supporters of the theory of

human-caused global warming also argue that it is causing and will continue to cause all

environmental problems. Many famous scientists reject these beliefs. Sea levels are rising around

the globe, though not equally. In fact, sea levels have risen more than 300 feet over the last 18,000

years. Contrary to the predictions of global warming theorists, the current rate of increase is

slower than the average rate over the 18,000-year period.




3

Handout (2) Graph-Based Writing Task (Yang, 2012)




4

Handout 3 Source Use Issues as Reported by Raters (Gebril& Plakans, 2014)




5

Handout (4) Sample Essays Based on a Reading-to-Write Task

1

There are many problems in the world that cause many changes to our environment. These problems

have a big effect and it always a negative effect on the world. Also, it can may because one of dangers

cause to world change. One of these problems is global warming.

Global warming is increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s. This can make a big

change in the world such as, weather, lifestyle, and environment. This change can caused by human

activity, environment and pollution. In my opinion, All of them are truth because, the daily human

activity for example, the worker who work and the factors to make anythings. There are many run-off

can factors produce such as, the dirty water which use to wash the machans and the poison gas. The

poison gas can caused high tempreather of the Garth’s. This will effect on the enviroment for example,

dissolution the trees and plants. Also, it chang the clean water to dirty water (river). I think the human

have are the main factor to make and improve the global warming and the environment can’t chang by

itself. To sum up, we must but roles for all human activities, you this world to product our world.

2

Today there are many problems that causes by humans activites or anythings that cause it. One of these

problems is the global warming. The global warming is the rumor phenomenon that appear today and it

is being caused by human activities or natural activities like hurrican and other environmental hazards.

Also, there are many scientists and researchers that try to solve this phenomenon. In addition

(“a number of studies looking at the oceans and melting ice have no doubt that it is getting warmer”).

First of all, Tim Barnett is one of a famous global warming researchers who staid that the

(“earlier climate models based on our temperatures were weak because most of the evidence for global

warming is not in the air”)

Next, (“other researchers found clear effects on climate and animals”) and one of these

researchers is Ruth Curry who is from an important oceanographic insititute. (“she said the changes

were already causing droughts in the United States, and Greenland’s ice cap”).

In the other hand, most of the scientists and researchers found not only humans are its cause

but also most of the environmental activities and natural hazards. Also (“scientists do not agree that

humans affect global climate because the evidence supporting that theory is weak”)




6

Then the governments should try to stop this problem or try to decrease the dangerous that

caused it for people or animals or earth.

In conclusion, I agree when the global warming is damaging our earth and I agree when this

problem that causes many dangerous for our life and other lifes on the earth. Also, people should know

what the global warming that can cause for them like hazards or diseases.

3

Global warming is a big problem increased in the last years. It affects badly the earth and. The studies

show that this problem is caused by human activity.

Global warming is defined as the increasing in the average temperature of the earth. It was

increased because of the greenhouse effects. That has gas as water vapour, carbon dioxide, nitrous

oxide and ozone, these gases keep the heat and the warm of the sun on the earth. The industry

increasing as a result the CO2 and other gases increased, so the greenhouse effects will make the earth

warmer and the climate will change.

The effects of global warming became more every year. For example “Ruth Curry who is from an

important oceanographic institute said the changes will already causing drought in the United States,

and Greenland’s ice cap.” (David Smith, 2006). Also, this problem causing the melting ice and the sea

levels have risen. When I search on the internet I found many other results of global warming.

This is a serious problem and has many bad result. If it doesn’t solve, it will increase and damage

the plant. The governments must act imeddialy with people to find a solutions and save the plant.

4

I will write about the global warming. The global warming is damaging and it is the very dangerous on

the earth. Also This problems is very important on people.

First, The global warming is problem and this effect for the earth and this also effect on health people.

Then, the cause from global warming is the human and the human does this problem. Also, the human

cause global through some things; cars, factors and smoking…

Second, the global warming sometime effect on the human in health. It is the global warming affect on

animals and every things in the earth. Then this problems also, effect on forest and environment and all

plants.

In conclusion, the global warming (ran out of time)




7

Handout (5) Holistic Rubric- Adapted from the Scoring Rubric for the TOEFL iBT Integrated Task

(Gebril & Plakans, 2009)

Score Task Description

5 A response at this level:

successfully presents their ideas in relation to the relevant information presented in the reading sources.

is well organized with well-developed content

occasional language errors that are present do not result in inaccurate or imprecise presentation of content or connections.

4 A response at this level:

is generally good in coherently and accurately presenting their ideas in relation to the relevant information in the reading texts , although may have inaccuracy, vagueness, or imprecision in connection to points made in the readings.

has clear organization and logical development.

more frequent or noticeable minor language errors; such errors do not result in anything more than an occasional lapse of clarity or in he connection of ideas.

3 A response at this level

conveys some relevant connection to the reading, but only vague, global, unclear, or somewhat imprecise connection to points made in the reading .

development is somewhat limited, but some specific support for their argument is provided.

occasionally lacks cohesion but has a basic organizational structure.

includes errors of usage and/or grammar that are more frequent or may result in noticeably vague expressions or obscured meanings in conveying ideas and connections.


contains some relevant information from the readings, but is marked by significant language difficulties or by significant omission or inaccuracy of important ideas from the readings

lacks logical organizational coherence and development. Ideas are very general and lack specific details in support.




8

contains language errors or expressions that largely obscure connections or meaning at key junctures, or that would likely obscure understanding of key ideas for a reader not already familiar with the topic.


provides little or no meaningful or relevant coherent content from the readings and

does not follow an organization pattern or develop content.

includes language that is so low and it is difficult to derive meaning.


either merely copies sentences from the reading, rejects the topic, not connected to

the topic, is written in a foreign language, or is blank.

Notes:

-- If only one phrase or sentence is copied from the reading, do not assign a “0” but base the

rating on the rest of the essay.

-- If language use & development are at a certain level but the readings have not been included

(directly or indirectly), add “NS” to the score

-- If ideas from the readings are used but not cited, do not rate lower unless the writer is

copying directly (use NC marking).




9

Handout (6 ) Analytic Scoring Rubric (Plakans & Gebril, 2015)

Analytic scoring rubric ( Adapted from Plakans & Gebril, 2015)

Source use

5- The writing shows high integration quality and accuracy of source text content. Sources

were effectively used to address the issues.

4- Sources are usually appropriately integrated and accurate, and relatively effective in

addressing the issues under discussion.

3- Adequate source use, but not well integrated in the writing. Sometimes source details are

misrepresented.

2- Very few instances of source use with inadequate citation and serious problems with the

accuracy of source information.

1- No source use or very problematic textual borrowing, either through verbatim use

without giving credit to authors; or complete misrepresentation of source information.

Organization

5- The essay has a clear, logical and effective organizational plan, sophisticated use of

cohesive devices, and a solid introduction and conclusion.

4- The essay has an adequate organizational plan, making good use of cohesive devices,

with a clear introduction and conclusion.




10

3- The organizational plan is not clear enough, but there is an introduction and a conclusion,

and cohesive devices are sometimes used.

2- The organizational plan is weak, few cohesive devices are used, and the argument is not

easily followed.

1- No organizational plan is evident and the argument is difficult to follow.

Development of ideas

5- Full development of ideas using different types of details provided by the student and

drawing support from the source texts.

4- Development is adequate. Details provided by the writer or adapted from the source texts

are generally used to support the argument.

3- Development is emerging, but few details supporting the argument are provided by the

student or adapted from the source texts.

2- Little development in the essay, with hardly any details to support the argument.

1- No development of the topic; the argument is not supported with any details.

Language use

5- Few language errors. The essay includes a variety of sophisticated structures and

language accurately presents source and student’s ideas.

4- Some language errors that do not result in misrepresentation of source or student’s ideas.

Varied vocabulary and structures, but redundancy is sometimes an issue.




11

3- Language errors do not usually interfere with understanding meaning, but may

misrepresent the source or student’s ideas. Limited variety and common redundancy of

structures and vocabulary.

2- Frequent language errors interfere with understanding the essay and misrepresent source

ideas, with basic vocabulary and redundant structures.

1- Serious language errors impede understanding, with limited vocabulary and awkward

structures.

Authorial voice

5- The essay includes a strong student presence with clear personal views that show a high

degree of authority and confidence and can be easily differentiated from those presented

in the source.

4- The essay generally shows the student’s identity, and personal views are separated from

the source details, with some authority and confidence.

3- The student’s identity, authority and confidence are sometimes absent, and it is somewhat

hard to distinguish personal views from source views.

2- The essay is mainly a reflection of the source views and rarely presents personal views,

authority, or confidence.

1- There is no sense of individuality in the essay, which completely mirrors the source

orientation.




12

Handout (7) Source-Based Writing: A Bibliography

Ascención-Delaney, Y. (2008) Investigating the reading-to-write construct. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 140–150.

Bachman, L., Palmer, A., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford Univ. Press.

Butler, F. A., Eignor, D., Jones, S., McNamara, T., & Suomi, B. K. (2000). TOEFL 2000 speaking framework: A working paper. TOEFL RM-6. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services.

Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., & Jamieson, J. (2008). Building a validity argument for the test of English as a foreign language. New York: Routledge.

Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., & Jamieson, J. (2010). Does an argument-based approach to validity make a difference? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29(1), 3–13.

Cho, Y., Rijmen, F., & Novák, J. (2013). Investigating the effects of prompt characteristics on the comparability of TOEFL iBT™ integrated writing tasks. Language Testing, 30(4), 513-534.

Cho, M., & Lee, O. S. (2016). Strategy, Affect, and L2 Ability in Integrated Writing. English Teaching, 71(2), 78-109.

Cumming, A., Grant, L., Mulcahy-Ernt, P., & Powers, D. (2004). A teacher-verification study of speaking and writing prototype tasks for a new TOEFL. Language Testing, 21(2), 159–197.

Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Eouanzoui, K., Erdosy, U., & James, M. (2006). Analysis of discourse features and verification of scoring levels for independent and integrated tasks for the new TOEFL. Princeton, NJ: ETS (TOEFL Monograph No. MS-30 Rm 05-13).

Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui, K., & James, M. (2005). Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10 (1), 5-43.

Cumming, A. (2013). Assessing integrated writing tasks for academic purposes: Promises and perils. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(1), 1–8.

Cumming, A., Lai, C., & Cho, H. (2016). Students' writing from sources for academic purposes: A synthesis of recent research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 47-58.

Eblen, C. (1983). Writing across the curriculum: A survey of a university faculty's views and classroom practices. Research on the Teaching of English, 17, 343-349.

Esmaeili, H.(2002). Reading-to-write reading and writing tasks and ESL students’ reading and writing performance in an English language test. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 599–622.




13

Ewert, D., & Shin, S. Y. (2015). Examining instructors’ conceptualizations and challenges in designing a data-driven rating scale for a reading-to-write task. Assessing Writing, 26, 38-50.

Feak, C., & Dobson, B. (1996). Building on the impromptu: A source-based writing assessment. College ESL, 6(1), 73–84.

Grabe, W. (2003). Reading and writing relations: Second language perspectives on research and practice. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 242–262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Grabe, W., & Zhang, C. (2013). Reading and writing together: A critical component of English for academic purposes teaching and learning. TESOL Journal, 4(1), 9–24.

Gebril, A. (2009). Score generalizability of academic writing tasks: Does one test method fit it all? Journal of Language Testing, 26, 507-531. doi: 10.1177/0265532209340188

Gebril, A. & Plakans, L. (2009). Investigating source use, discourse features, and process in integrated writing tests. Spaan Fellow Working Papers in Second / Foreign Language Assessment 7, 47-84. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan

Gebril, A. (2010). Bringing reading-to-write and writing-only assessment tasks together: A generalizability analysis. Assessing Writing, 15, 100–117.

Gebril, A. (2010). Reading-to-write assessment tasks: Fundamental issues in reliability, validity, and task development. In Arshad Samad & Sharifah Rahman, Readings in professional development in teaching English as a second language, pp 89-106. Selangor, Malaysia: Universiti Putra Malaysia Press.

Gebril A. & Plakans, L. (2013). Towards a transparent construct of reading-to-write assessment tasks: The interface between discourse features and proficiency. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10 (1), 9-27 - A Special Issue on the Use of Integrated Writing Tasks in Language Assessment. DOI: 10.1080/15434303.2011.642040

Gebril, A. & Plakans, L. (2014). Assembling validity evidence for assessing academic writing: Rater reactions to integrated tasks. Assessing Writing, 21 (2), 56-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2014.03.002

Gebril, A. & Plakans, L. (2016). Source-based tasks in L2 writing assessment: Lexical diversity, textual borrowing and proficiency. Journal of English for Academic Purposes (JEAP), 24, 78-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.10.001

Gebril, A. (in press). Integrated-Skills Assessment. In John Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Greene, S. (1992). Mining texts in reading-to-write. Journal of Advanced Composition, 12(1), 151–170.

Hale, G., Taylor, C., Bridgeman, J., Carson, J., Kroll, B., & Kantor, R. (1996). A study of writing tasks assigned in academic degree programs. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services.


https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2014.03.002

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.10.001



14

Harsch, C., & Rupp, A. A. (2011). Designing and scaling level-specific writing tasks in alignment with the CEFR: A test-centered approach. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8(1), 1-33.

Harsch, C., & Martin, G. (2013). Comparing holistic and analytic scoring methods: Issues of validity and reliability. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20(3), 281-307.

Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting reading and writing in second language writing instruction. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Horowitz, D. (1986). Essay examination prompts and the teaching of academic writing. English for Specific Purposes, 5(2), 107-120.

Huang, H. & Hung, C. (2010). Examining the practice of a reading-to-speak test task: anxiety and experience of EFL students. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11, 235–242.

Inoue, M. (2009). Health sciences communication skills test: the development of a rating scale. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 14(1), 55–91.

Jamieson, J. M., Eignor, D., Grabe, W., & Kunnan, A. J. (2008). Frameworks for a new TOEFL. In C. A. Chapelle, M. K. Enright, & J. M. Jamieson (Eds.), Building a validity argument for the test of English as a foreign language (pp. 55–95). NY: Routledge.

Johns, A. M., & Mayes, P. (1990). An analysis of summary protocols of university ESL students. Applied Linguistics, 11(3), 253-271.

Kim, S. Y. (2012). A Study on the English Reading-Writing Integration. Studies in English Education, 17(1), 27-64.

Knoch, U., & Sitajalabhorn, W. (2013). A closer look at integrated writing tasks: Towards a more focused definition for assessment purposes. Assessing Writing, 18(4), 300-308.

Lee, Y. W., & Kantor, R. (2005). Dependability of new ESL writing test scores: Evaluating prototype tasks and alternative rating schemes. TOEFL MS-31. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services.

Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). Completely different worlds”: EAP and the writing experiences of ESL students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 39–69.

Lewkowicz, J. (1994). Writing from sources: does source material help or hinder students’ performance? Paper presented at the Annual International Language in Education Conference, Hong Kong [ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED386050].

Matsuda, P. (2001). Reexamining audiolingualism: On the genesis of reading and wiring in L2 studies. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela ( Eds.), Liking literacies: Perspectives on Le reading-writing connections, pp. 84-105. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Melenhorst, M. S. (2006). Highlighting professional writing: on screen note-taking as part of writing from sources by professionals (PhD dissertation). University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.




15

Moore, T., & Morton, J. (1999). Authenticity in the IELTS academic module writing test: A comparative study of task 2 items and university assignments (IELTS Research Reports no 2). Canberra: IELTS Australia.

Ohkubo, N. (2009). Validating the integrated writing task of the TOEFL internet-based test (iBT): Linguistic analysis of test takers’ use of input materials. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 14(1), 1–39.

Plakans, L. (2008). Comparing composing processes in writing-only and reading-to-write test tasks. Assessing Writing, 13(2), 111–129.

Plakans, L. (2009a). Discourse synthesis in integrated second language assessment. Language Testing, 26(4), 561–587.

Plakans, L. (2009b). The role of reading strategies in L2 writing tasks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(4), 252–266.

Plakans, L. (2010). Independent versus integrated writing tasks: A comparison of task representation. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 185–194.

Plakans, L. (2012). Writing integrated items. In G. Fulcher, & F. Davidson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language testing (pp. 249–261). UK: Routledge.

Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2012). A close investigation into source use in integrated second language writing tasks. Assessing Writing, 17, 18–34.

Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2013). Using multiple texts in an integrated writing assessment: source test use as a predictor of score. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 217–230.

Plakans, L., Gebril, A., & Bilki, Z. (in press). Shaping a score: The impact of fluency, accuracy, and complexity on integrated skills performances. Journal of Language Testing. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532216669537

Plakans, L. & Gebril, A. (2017). Exploring the relationship of organization and connection with scores in integrated writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 31, 98-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.08.005

Read, J. (1990). Providing relevant content in an EAP writing test. English for Specific Purposes, 9, 109–121.

Risemberg, R. (1996). Reading-to-write: self-regulated learning strategies when writing essays from sources. Reading Research and Instruction, 35, 365–383.

Ruiz-Funes, M. (1999). The process of reading-to-write used by a skilled Spanish-as-a-foreign-language student: a case study. Foreign Language Annals, 32, 45–62.

Shin, S. Y., & Ewert, D. (2015). What accounts for integrated reading-to-write task scores?. Language Testing, 32(2), 259-281.

Spivey, N. (1997). The constructivist metaphor: Reading, writing and the making of meaning. San Diego: Academic Press.


https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532216669537

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.08.005



16

Spivey, N., & King, J. R. (1989). Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(1), 7–26.

Stahl, S.A., Hynd, C.R., Britton, B.K., McNish, M.M., & Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31(4),p. 430-456.

Watanabe, Y. (2001). Read-to-write tasks for the assessment of second language academic writing skills: investigating text features and rater reactions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii

Weigle, S. (2004). Integrating reading and writing in a competency test for non-native speakers of English. Assessing Writing, 9, 27–55.

Wu, R. J. R. (2013). Native and non-native students’ interaction with a text-based prompt. Assessing Writing, 18(3), 202-217.

Yang, H. (2009). Exploring the complexity of second language writers’ strategy use and performance on an integrated writing test through structural equation modeling and qualitative approaches. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.

Yang, H. (2012). Modeling the relationships between test-taking strategies and test performance on a graph-writing task: Implications for EAP. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 174–187.

Yu, G. (2007). Students’ voices in the evaluation of their written summaries: Empowerment and democracy for test takers? Language Testing, 24, 539–572.

Yu, G. (2008). Reading to summarize in English and Chinese: A tale of two languages? Language Testing, 25, 521–551.

Yu, G.(2009). The shifting sands in the effects of source text summarizability on summary writing. Assessing Writing, 14, 116–137.

Yu, G. (2010). Effects of presentation mode and computer familiarity in summarization of extended texts. Language Assessment Quarterly, 7(2), 119–136.

Yu, G. (2013). From integrative to integrated language assessment: are we there yet? Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(1), 110–114.

Zhang, X. (2017). Reading–writing integrated tasks, comprehensive corrective feedback, and EFL writing development. Language Teaching Research, 21(2), 217-240.


Source-Based Writing Assessment Workshop · Source-Based Writing Assessment Workshop Bremen, November 17, 2017 EALTA SIGS Assessment of Writing and Assessment for Academic Purposes

Documents