The use of the common european framework of reference for languages to evaluate compositions in the english exam section of the university admission examination;El uso del marco común europeo de referencia para las lenguas para evaluar las redacciones en la sección de inglés de la prueba de acceso a la universidad

Revista de Educacion

Volumn 357, Issue , 2012, Pages 55-80

  Díez Bedmar, María Belén ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF JAÉN   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84900854633     PISSN: 00348082     EISSN: 1988592X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. ALTMAN,D.G. (1991). Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London:Chapman and Hall.
2. ALDERSON, J. C. (1991). Bands and Scores. In J.C.ALDERSON & B. NORTH (Eds.), Language testing in the 1990s, 71-86). London: Macmillan.
3. ALDERSON, J. C., FIGUERAS, N., KUIJPER, H., NOLD, G., TAKALA, S., & TARDIEU, C. (2004). The Development of Specifications for Item Development and Classification within the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Reading and Listening. Final report of the Dutch construct project. Unpublished document.
4. AMENGUAL PIZARRO, M. (2003). A Study of Different Composition Elements that Raters Respond to. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 11, 53-72.
5. — (2003-2004). Rater Discrepancy in the Spanish University Entrance Examination. Journal of English Studies, 4, 23-36.
6. — (2005). Posibles sesgos en los resultados del examen de selectividad. IN H. HERRERA SOLER & J. GARCÍA LABORDA (Ed.), Estudios y criterios para una selectividad de calidad en el examen de Inglés (121-148). Valencia: Universidad Politécnica de Valencia.
7. AMENGUAL PIZARRO, M., & HERRERA SOLER, H. (2003). What is that Raters are Judging? In G. LUQUE AGULLÓ, A. BUENO GONZÁLEZ & G.TEJADA MOLINA (Eds.), Las lenguas en un mundo global (11-18). Jaén: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Jaén.
8. BACHMAN, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. BACHMAN, L. F., & PALMER, A. S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. BUENO GONZÁLEZ, A. (1992). Errores en la elección de palabras en inglés por alumnos de Bachillerato y COU. In A. BUENO GONZÁLEZ, J. A. CARINI MARTÍNEZ & A. LINDE LÓPEZ (Eds.), Análisis de errores en inglés: tres casos prácticos (39-105). Granada: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Granada.
11. BURSTEIN, J. & CHODOROW, M. (2002). Directions in Automated Essay Analysis. In R. B. KAPLAN (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics (487-497). New York: Oxford University Press.
12. COUNCIL OF EUROPE. (2001).Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. — (2003). Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:Learning, Teaching, Assessment, Manual:Preliminary Pilot Version. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Language Policy Division.
14. — (2009). Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR). A Manual. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Language Policy Division.
15. COCHRAN,W. G. (1977). Técnicas de muestreo. México.Trillas
16. CRONBACH, L. L., LINN, R., BRENNAN, R. & HAERTEL, E. (1995). Generalizability Analysis for Educational Assessments. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, University of California at Los Angeles.
17. CUMMING,A. (1990). Expertise in Evaluating Second Language Compositions. Language Testing, 7, 31-51.
18. DEREMER, M. L. (1998). Writing Assessment: Raters’ Elaboration of the Rating Task. Assessing Writing, 5, 7-29.
19. DÍEZ-BEDMAR, M. B. (in press). Spanish Pre-university Students’ use of English: CEA Results from the University Entrance Examination. International Journal of English Studies, 11.
20. DÍEZ-BEDMAR, M. B. (in press).The English Exam in the University Entrance Examination: an Overview of Studies. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 63.
21. GARCÍA LABORDA, J. (2006).Analizando críticamente la selectividad de Inglés ¿Todos los estudiantes españoles tienen las mismas posibilidades? Tesol Spain, 30, 9-12.
22. GÓMEZ MONTES, I., MARIÑO, J., PIKE, N. & MOSS, H. (2010). Colombia National Bilingual Project. Research Notes, 40, 17-22.
23. GREEN, A. (2008). English Profile: Functional Progression in Materials for ELT. Research Notes, 33, 19-25.
24. HAMP-LYONS, L. (1991a). Scoring Procedures for ESL Contexts. In L. HAMP-LYONS (Ed.), Assessing Second Language Writing in Academic Contexts (241-276). Norwood, NJ:Ablex Publishing Corporation.
25. — (1991b). Basic Concepts. In L. HAMP-LYONS (Ed.), Assessing Second Language Writing in Academic Contexts (5-15). Norwood NJ:Ablex.
26. — (2007). Editorial:Worrying about Rating. Assessing Writing, 12, 1-9.
27. HERRERA SOLER, E. (2000-2001). The Effect of Gender and Working Place of Raters on University Entrance Examination Scores. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 14, 161-180.
28. HUHTA, A., LUOMA, S., OSCARSON, M., SAJAVAARA, K., TAKALA, S. & TEASDALE, A. (2002). A Diagnostic Language Assessment System for Adult Learners. In J. C.ALDERSON (Ed.), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment: Case Studies (130-146). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
29. HUOT, B. A. (1993). The Influence of Holistic Scoring Procedures on Reading and Rating Student Essays. In M. M.WILLIAMSON, & B.A. HUOT (Eds.), Validating Holistic Scoring for Writing Assessment: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations (206236). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
30. HYLAND, K. & ANAN, E. (2006). Teachers’ Perceptions of Errors: the Effects of First Language and Experience. System, 34, 509-519.
31. JOHNSON, R. L., PENNY, J. & GORDON, B. (2000). The Relation between Score Resolution Methods and Interrater Reliability: an Empirical Study of an Analytic Scoring Rubric. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 121-138.
32. KAFTANDJIEVA, F. & TAKALA, S. (2002). Council of Europe Scales of Language Proficiency: a Validation Study. In J. C. ALDERSON (Ed.), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment: Case Studies (106129). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
33. KHALIFA, H., ROBINSON, M. & HARVEY, S. (2010). Working Together: the Case of the English Diagnostic Test and the Chilean Ministry of Education. Research Notes, 40, 22-26.
34. KONDO-BROWN, K. (2002). A FACETS Analysis of Rater Bias in Measuring Japanese L2 Writing Performance. Language Testing, 19, 3-31.
35. LUMLEY,T. (2002).Assessment Criteria in a Large-scale Writing Test:What Do they Really Mean to the Raters? Language Testing, 19, 246-276.
36. — (2005). Assessing Second Language Writing: the Rater’s Perspective. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
37. MCNAMARA,T. (1996). Measuring Second Language Performance. London: Longman.
38. PENNY, J., JOHNSON, R. L. & GORDON, B. (2000). The Effect of Rating Augmentation on Inter-rater Reliability. An Empirical Study of a Holistic Rubric. Assessing Writing, 7, 143-164.
39. PULA, J. J. & HUOT, B.A. (1993).A Model of Background Influences on Holistic Raters. In M.WILLIAMSON & B. HUOT (Eds.), Validating Holistic Scoring forWriting Assessment: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations (237-265). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
40. RANDALL, S. (2010). Cambridge ESOL’s Growing Impact on English Language Teaching and Learning in National Education Projects. Research Notes, 40, 2-3.
41. ROBERTS, F. & CIMASKO, T. (2008). Evaluating ESL: Making Sense of University Professors’ Responses to Second Language Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 125-143.
42. SALAMOURA, A. (2008). Aligning English Profile Research Data to the CEFR. Research Notes, 33, 5-7.
43. SANTOS,T. (1988). Professors’ Reactions to the Academic Writing of Nonnative Speaking Students. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 69-90.
44. SHAW, S. D. &WEIR, C. J. (2007). Examining Writing. Research and Practice in Assessing Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45. SONG, B. & CARUSO, I. (1996). Do English and ESL Faculty Differ in Evaluating the Essays of Native English-Speaking, and ESL Students? Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 163-182.
46. SWEEDLER-BROWN, C. O. (1985). The Influence of Training and Experience on Holistic Essay Evaluation. English Journal, 74, 49-55
47. TURNER, C. E. & UPSHUR, J.A. (2002). Rating Scales Derived from Student Samples: Effects of the Scale Maker and the Student Sample on Scale Content and Student Scores. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 49-70.
48. VANN, R. J., MEYER, D. E. & LORENZ, F. O. (1984). Error Gravity: a Study of Faculty Opinion of ESL Errors. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 427-440.
49. VAUGHAN, C. (1991). Holistic Assessment:What Goes on in the Rater’s Mind? In L. HAMP LYONS (Ed.), Assessing Second Language Writing in Academic Contexts (11-125). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
50. WATTS, F. & GARCÍA CARBONELL, A. (2005). Control de calidad en la calificación de la prueba de lengua inglesa de Selectividad. In H. HERRERA SOLER & J. GARCÍA LABORDA (Eds.), Estudios y criterios para una selectividad de calidad en el examen de inglés (99-115).Valencia: Universidad Politécnica de Valencia.
51. WEIGLE, S. C., BOLDT, H. & VALSECCHI, M. I. (2003). Effects of Task and Rater Background in the Evaluation of ESL Student Writing: a Pilot Study. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 345-354.
52. WEIGLE, S. C. (1998). Using FACETS to Model Rater Training Effects. Language Testing, 15, 263-287.
53. — (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54. WEIR, C. J. (2005). Limitations of the Common European Framework for Developing Comparable Examinations and Tests. Language Testing, 22, 281-300.
55. WOLFE, E. W. & RANNEY, M. (1996). Expertise in Essay Scoring. In D. C. ADELSON & E. A. DOMESHEK (Eds.), Proceedings of ICLS 96 (545-550). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
56. XUELING, C., MEIZI, H. & BATEMAN, H. (2010).The Use of BEC as a Measurement Instrument in Higher Education in China. Research Notes, 40, 13-15.