Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Language Testing
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shi, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Native- and nonnative-speaking EFL teachers’ evaluation of Chinese students’ English writing

Ling Shi

University of British Columbia, Ling.Shi{at}ubc.ca

This study examined differences between native and nonnative EFL (English as a Foreign Language) teachers’ ratings of the English writing of Chinese university students. I explored whether two groups of teachers -expatriates who typically speak English as their first language and ethnic Chinese with proficiency in English -gave similar scores to the same writing task and used the same criteria in their judgements. Forty-six teachers -23 Chinese and 23 English-background -rated 10 expository essays using a 10-point scale, then wrote and ranked three reasons for their ratings. I coded their reported reasons as positive or negative criteria under five major categories: general, content, organization, language and length. MANOVA showed no significant differences between the two groups in their scores for the 10 essays. Chi-square tests, however, showed that the English-background teachers attended more positively in their criteria to the content and language, whereas the Chinese teachers attended more negatively to the organization and length of the essays. The Chinese teachers were also more concerned with content and organization in their first criteria, whereas English-background teachers focused more on language in their third criteria. The results raise questions about the validity of holistic ratings as well as the underlying differences between native and nonnative EFL teachers in their instructional goals for second language (L2) writing.

Language Testing, Vol. 18, No. 3, 303-325 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/026553220101800303


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Language TestingHome page
J. S. Johnson and G. S. Lim
The influence of rater language background on writing performance assessment
Language Testing, October 1, 2009; 26(4): 485 - 505.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Language TestingHome page
Guoxing Yu
Students' voices in the evaluation of their written summaries: Empowerment and democracy for test takers?
Language Testing, October 1, 2007; 24(4): 539 - 572.
[Abstract] [PDF]