Abstract
ESL university students are expected to be familiarized with paraphrasing and note-taking skills throughout the first few months of their new academic life in order to be prepared to do integrated writing tasks, which are increasingly being used in academic writing. Their teachers continuously highlight the concept of plagiarism and emphasize its seriousness. Therefore, assessing the paraphrasing and note-taking skills on a regular basis is of great importance to the students’ academic success. After teaching paraphrasing and note-taking, it is preferable to administer a formal assessment such as a test for two main reasons. First, as a new skill to the majority of undergraduate students, it becomes critical to assess it on a regular basis in order to assure its mastery. Second, this kind of assessment becomes essential as it serves as a diagnostic tool. The researcher describes the different phases of developing (initial planning, test specs, and item writing and moderation) and administering a test assessing both paraphrasing and note-taking skills of Arabic-speaking ESL undergraduate students.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C., & Wall, D. (1995). Language test construction and evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, H. D. (2010). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. New York: Pearson ESL.
Brown, J. D. (2005). Testing in language programs: A comprehensive guide to english language assessment. New York: McGraw.
Brown, A., Iwashita, N., & McNamara, T. (2005). An examination of rater orientations and test-taker performance on english-for-academic-purposes speaking tasks (TOEFL Monographs Series #MS29). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services.
Cho, Y. (2003). Assessing writing: Are we bound by only one method? Assessing Writing, 8, 165–191.
Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Powers, D., Santos, T., & Taylor, C. (2000). TOEFL 2000 writing framework: A working paper (TOEFL Monograph Series Report No. 18). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
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, 5–43.
Currie, P. (1998). Staying out of trouble: Apparent plagiarism and academic survival. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 1–18.
Gebril, A. (2006). Independent and integrated academic writing tasks: A study in generalizability and test method. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA.
Gebril, A. (2009). Score generalizability of academic writing tasks: Does one test method fit it all? Language Testing, 26(4), 507–531. doi:10.1177/0265532209340188
Gebril, A., & Plakans, L. (2009). Investigating source use, discourse features, and process in integrated writing tests. In Spaan fellow working papers in second/foreign language assessment (Vol. 7, pp. 47–84). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.
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), 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.642040
Hamp-Lyons, L., & Kroll, B. (1996). Issues in ESL writing assessment: An overview. College ESL, 6(1), 52–72.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johns, A. M., & Mayes, P. (1990). An analysis of summary protocols of university ESL students. Applied Linguistics, 11, 253–271.
Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). ‘‘Completely different worlds’’: EAP and the writing experiences of ESL students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 39–69.
McCarthy, P., Guess, R., & McNamara, D. (2009). The components of paraphrase evaluations. Behaviour Research Methods., 41(3), 682–690.
Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’ word: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 201–230.
Plakans, L. (2007). Second language writing and reading-to-write assessment tasks: A process study. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Iowa, Iowa, City: IA, USA.
Plakans, L. (2008). Comparing composing processes in writing-only and reading-to-write test tasks. Assessing Writing, 13(2), 111–129.
Shi, L. (2004). Textual borrowing in second-language writing. Written Communication, 21, 171–200.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weigle, S. C. (2004). Integrating reading and writing in a competency test for non-native speakers of English. Assessing Writing, 9, 27–55.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Paraphrasing scoring rubric
4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
|---|---|---|---|
• Effective paraphrasing strategies • No violation of paraphrasing rules (order, phrasing, ideas) • Development of a smooth and controlled paraphrase of the original text | • Effective paraphrasing strategies • No violation of paraphrasing rules (order, phrasing, ideas) • Paraphrased text is not completely smooth and controlled | • Minor violation of one of the paraphrasing rules (order, phrasing, ideas), but no explicit plagiarism • Paraphrased text is awkward and uncontrolled | • Text is plagiarized due to serious violation of paraphrasing rules |
Note-taking scoring rubric
Category | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Keywords versus Copying | Notes are recorded as keywords and phrases | Notes are primarily recorded as keywords and phrases | Notes are primarily copied from the source. Some evidence of keywords and phrases | Notes are copied directly from the source. Notes are not present, missing; no attempt shown |
Relevance | Notes relate to the topic | Notes primarily relate to the topic | Some notes relate to the topic, but many don’t | Notes are not related to the topic |
Organization | Has heading, topic/subtopics listed, and search terms are listed | Heading, topic, and search terms are mainly complete | Some evidence that notes are organized, bulleted, and neat. Heading, topic, and search terms are incomplete | No heading, topic, or search terms listed |
Citations | All notes refer to their source | Notes primarily refer to their source | Some evidence that notes refer to their source | No evidence that notes refer to their source |
Quantity | More than enough notes are taken to create the product | A sufficient number of notes are taken to create the product | Nearly enough notes are taken to create the product | Not enough notes are taken to create a product Not present, missing; no attempt shown |
Appendix 3
General notes on sources used to create the test:
-
The two tasks of paraphrasing were inspired from the worksheets prepared by Dr M. Rayan at the IEP in the AUC.
-
It can be found on the Study Skills Google site created by the IEP.
-
Retrieved June 12, 2008, from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/619/02/
The mini-lecture entitled “Angela Lee Duckworth: The key to success? Grit” can be found on TED talks on the following link:
-
http://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit.html
-
The transcript is also available on the same webpage.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Soheim, Y. (2017). Assessing ESL Students’ Paraphrasing and Note-Taking. In: Hidri, S., Coombe, C. (eds) Evaluation in Foreign Language Education in the Middle East and North Africa. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43234-2_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43234-2_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43233-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43234-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)