The Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Carol A. Chapelle

can be found in Ockey (2009).

Challenges and Opportunities for the Future

      Assessment specialists have focused on designing tasks that reflect real‐world writing more accurately while maintaining rigorous standards for scoring. It has long been recognized that a single timed impromptu essay is inadequate for assessing writing (see, for example, Behizadeh, 2014). The trend in large‐scale writing tests is toward multiple tasks and new genres. For example, the TOEFL iBT® includes both an independent task and an integrated writing task that is based on listening and reading (Chapelle, Enright, & Jamieson, 2008), while the Cambridge suite of exams has introduced e‐mail tasks in some tests (Shaw & Weir, 2007). These less traditional tasks are bound to stimulate new validity research as they become more widely used.

      At the same time the introduction of more tasks and the need to maintain rigorous standards in scoring add to the human and financial costs of producing and scoring writing assessments. AES systems are an important way to help contain such costs; thus, the ongoing debate about the use of automated scoring is another important issue that is certain to be a focus of debate in the foreseeable future.

      The importance of writing in the business world and the growth of instant global communication may also mean that new assessments for business writing will need to be developed that are specifically tailored to the genres and tasks of international business communities. This is an additional area of potential growth in writing assessment (see Katz, Haras, & Blaszczynski, 2010, for an overview of the role of writing in business). Similarly, globalization and the extensive use of different varieties of English make it imperative for language testing to grapple with issues of World Englishes in writing assessment (Brown, 2014).

      This entry has demonstrated the complexity of assessing writing as well as the opportunities that have emerged in an age of globalized electronic communication.

      SEE ALSO: Assessment in the Classroom; Assessment of Integrated Skills; English for Academic Purposes; Rating Scales and Rubrics in Language Assessment; Task‐Based Language Assessment; Uses of Language Assessments; Washback in Language Assessment; Writing and Language for Specific Purposes

References

      1 Attali, Y., & Burstein, J. (2006). Automated essay scoring with e‐rater version 2.0. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(3).

      2 Barkaoui, K. (2007). Participants, texts, and processes in second language writing assessment: A narrative review of the literature. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 97–132.

      3 Behizadeh, N. (2014). Mitigating the dangers of a single story: Creating large‐scale writing assessments aligned with sociocultural theory. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 125–36.

      4 Brown, J. D. (2014). The future of world Englishes in language testing. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(1), 5–26.

      5 Chapelle, C., Enright, M., & Jamieson, J. (Eds.). (2008). Building a validity argument for the Test of English as a Foreign Language. New York, NY: Routledge.

      6 Dikli, S. (2006). An overview of automated scoring of essays. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5(1).

      7 Eckes, T. (2008). Rater types in writing performance assessments: A classification approach to rater variability. Language Testing, 25, 155–85.

      8 Educational Testing Service. (2004). TOEFL iBT Test: Integrated writing rubrics. Retrieved April 25, 2019 from https://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/TOEFL/pdf/Writing_Rubrics.pdf

      9 Elliott, S. (2003). IntelliMetric: From here to validity. In M. D. Shermis & J. C. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A cross‐disciplinary perspective (pp. 67–81). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

      10 Green, A. (2014). Exploring language assessment and testing: Language in action. London, England: Routledge.

      11 Hamp‐Lyons, L. (1990). Second language writing: Assessment issues. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 69–87). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

      12 Hamp‐Lyons, L. (1991). Basic concepts. In L. Hamp‐Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 5–15). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

      13 Hamp‐Lyons, L., & Condon, W. (2000). Assessing the portfolio: Principles for practice, theory, and research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

      14 Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

      15 Huot, B. (1990). Reliability, validity and holistic scoring: What we know and what we need to know. College Composition and Communication, 41(2), 201–13.

      16 Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, D. R., Wormuth, V. F., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

      17 Katz, I., Haras, C., & Blaszczynski, C. (2010). Does business writing require information literacy? Business Communication Quarterly, 73(2), 135–49.

      18 Knoch, U. (2009). Diagnostic assessment of writing: A comparison of two rating scales. Language Testing, 26(2), 275–304.

      19 Lumley, T. (2002). Assessment criteria in a large‐scale writing test: What do they really mean to the raters? Language Testing, 19(3), 246–76.

      20 Lumley, T. (2005). Assessing second language writing: The rater's perspective Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.

      21 McNamara, T. (1996). Measuring second language performance. Harlow, England: Addison‐Wesley.

      22 Ockey, G. J. (2009). Developments and challenges in the use of computer‐based testing (CBT) for assessing second language ability. The Modern Language Journal, 93(s1), 836–47.

      23 Pennington, M. C. (2003). The impact of the computer in second language writing. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 287–310). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

      24 Powers, D. E., Fowles, M. E., Farnum, M., & Ramsey, P. (1994). Will they think less of my handwritten essay if others word process theirs? Effects on essay scores of intermingling handwritten and word‐processed essays. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31(3), 220–33.

      25 Schaefer, E. (2008). Rater bias patterns in an EFL writing assessment. Language Testing, 25(4), 465–93.

      26 Shaw, S. D., & Falvey, P. (2008). The IELTS writing assessment revision project: Towards a revised rating scale (Web‐based Research Report I). Cambridge, England: Cambridge ESOL.

      27 Shaw, S. D., & Weir, C. J. (2007). Examining writing: Research and practice in assessing second language writing. Studies in Language Testing, 26. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

      28 Shermis, M. D. (2014). State‐of‐the‐art automated essay scoring: Competition, results, and future directions from a United States demonstration. Assessing Writing, 20, 53–76.

      29 Shermis, M. D., & Burstein, J. (2003). Automated essay scoring: A cross disciplinary perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

      30 Tedick, D. (1990). ESL writing performance: Subject‐matter knowledge and its impact on performance. English for Specific Purposes, 9, 123–43.

      31 Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

      32 Weigle, S. C. (2013). English language learners and automated scoring of essays: Critical considerations. Assessing Writing, 18(1), 85–99.

      33 White, E. (1994). Teaching and assessing writing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.

      34 Wolcott, W. (1998). An overview of writing assessment theory, research, and practice. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Suggested Readings

      1 Calfee, R., & Perfumo, P. (Eds.). (1996).