Role of assessment in second language writing research and pedagogy

Research into second language writing has developed in depth and scope over the past few decades. Researchers have shown growing interest in new approaches to the teaching and assessing of writing. The provision of diagnostic and/or (automated) corrective feedback (Lee & Coniam, 2013; Liu & Kunnan, 2016), predicting writers’ ability using psycholinguistic features of their essays (Riazi, 2016) and rater performance (Schaefer, 2008) are but a few major research streams in second language writing. Such new approaches have been discussed heatedly in the scholarly literature, but there remains a need to investigate new issues emerging from these fields in different environments. Specifically, the role of assessment in writing, the validity of the uses and interpretations of qualitative feedback and scores, and the effectiveness of genre-based approaches to writing continue to be major causes of concerns for practitioners and researchers alike. Assessment is a burgeoning field in second language writing research and can be characterised as comprising three fundamental subfields. The first line of research focuses on the development of assessment instruments for various purposes and stakes, including proficiency and/or in-class assessment. Specifically, developing and validating rubrics for diagnostic assessment (Kim, 2011) and investigating the quality of feedback provided by teachers (Bruton, 2009; Diab, 2011) are areas that have drawn intense interest. For example, Kim (2011) investigated the validity of an assessment tool (checklist) for providing diagnostic feedback on writing, which achieved considerable success. Kim showed that the assessment tool – which taps into five dimensions of writing (e.g. ‘content fulfilment’ and ‘organizational effectiveness’) – is psychometrically reliable and can be used effectively to diagnose English learners’ errors. Kim’s research is one of the first studies that examines the underlying structure of a diagnostic writing tool, and more research of this kind is required to explore the benefits that language learners can reap from such pedagogical instruments. Specifically, the development and validation of reliable in-class assessments, which includes diagnostic and formative tasks, is an area in second language writing that requires further research attention and investment. The second line of research in second language writing concerns the validity of the uses and interpretations of scores and qualitative feedback provided by teachers/raters as well as automated writing evaluation (AWE) systems such as Criterion, My Access and WriteToLearn (Attali & Burstein, 2005; Dikli, 2010; Dikli & Bleyle, 2014; Liu & Kunnan, 2016). A recent meta-analysis suggests that the effectiveness and role of teacher feedback in second language writing remains an open question (Liu & Brown, 2015), which is in line with an extensive survey of the literature conducted by Van Beuningen (2010). Van Beuningen divided feedback research into the learning-to-write approach (Leki, Cumming, & Silva, 2008) and the writing-to-learn approach (Ortega, 2009). The former approach aims to foster students’ writing ability through continuous corrective feedback and to help them become independent and effective writers. On the other hand, the writing-to-learn agenda, which emerges from, for example, Manchón (2009) and Ortega (2009), takes a more quantitative approach by applying more controlled research methods and looking into the psycholinguistic and (meta)cognitive aspects of learning (Van Beuningen, 2010). This stream of research provides convincing evidence that, despite all articulated objections and controversies, providing corrective feedback to students can facilitate their learning