Appraising Translingualism
Decades of research on rater training and scoring practices demonstrates that raters' preferences for writing quality are malleable; for instance, it is customary to "calibrate" raters' scoring decisions through documents like scoring protocols and rubrics. This essay argues that...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | College English 2016-01, Vol.78 (3), p.274-283 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 283 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 274 |
| container_title | College English |
| container_volume | 78 |
| creator | Dryer, Dylan B. |
| description | Decades of research on rater training and scoring practices demonstrates that raters' preferences for writing quality are malleable; for instance, it is customary to "calibrate" raters' scoring decisions through documents like scoring protocols and rubrics. This essay argues that while rubrics from contemporary large-scale writing assessments (and the local assessments they inspire) maintain retrograde assumptions about language variation, relatively small adjustments to these rubrics could help raters and candidates establish what Joseph Williams once called "the ordinary kind of contract" that readers and writers routinely observe anywhere outside of testing contexts. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.58680/ce201627659 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1750722564</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>44075118</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>44075118</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c242t-c4f698d8a69acc0290b23a41a1b563931e708b0b4d5c27fd105ca874e4d0d3303</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNzztLxEAUBeBBFIyrnZUgCLZmvXfeUy6Lj4UFm7UeJpOJJGSTOJMU_nuDEbE6p_i4l0PINcJaaKnh0QcKKKmSwpyQjKLEXKPSpyQDQMjBGH5OLlJqAECBUBm52QxDdHWqu4-7Q3Rdauc2ubZOx0tyVrk2havfXJH356fD9jXfv73stpt97imnY-55JY0utZPGeQ_UQEGZ4-iwEJIZhkGBLqDgpfBUVSWC8E4rHngJJWPAVuR-uTvE_nMKabRNP8VufmlRCVCUCsln9bAoH_uUYqjsEOuji18Wwf6st__Wz_x24U0a-_hnOQclEDX7Bt-1VAI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1750722564</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Appraising Translingualism</title><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Dryer, Dylan B.</creator><creatorcontrib>Dryer, Dylan B.</creatorcontrib><description>Decades of research on rater training and scoring practices demonstrates that raters' preferences for writing quality are malleable; for instance, it is customary to "calibrate" raters' scoring decisions through documents like scoring protocols and rubrics. This essay argues that while rubrics from contemporary large-scale writing assessments (and the local assessments they inspire) maintain retrograde assumptions about language variation, relatively small adjustments to these rubrics could help raters and candidates establish what Joseph Williams once called "the ordinary kind of contract" that readers and writers routinely observe anywhere outside of testing contexts.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0010-0994</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2161-8178</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.58680/ce201627659</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CENGBY</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English</publisher><subject>Achievement tests ; Basic writing ; Coping ; Course Descriptions ; Dialect Studies ; English ; English (Second Language) ; English Instruction ; Evaluators ; Grading ; Grammar ; Language ; Language Aptitude ; Language Proficiency ; Language Variation ; Monolingualism ; Multilingualism ; Native Speakers ; Negotiation ; Rating Scales ; Reinforcement ; Scoring Rubrics ; Second language writing ; Semantics ; Society ; Standardized tests ; Students ; Syntax ; Teaching Methods ; Validity ; Writers ; Writing Ability ; Writing assignments ; Writing Evaluation ; Writing Instruction ; Writing teachers ; Writing Tests ; Written communication ; Written composition</subject><ispartof>College English, 2016-01, Vol.78 (3), p.274-283</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2016 National Council of Teachers of English</rights><rights>Copyright National Council of Teachers of English Conference on College Composition and Communication Jan 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44075118$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/44075118$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27923,27924,58016,58249</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dryer, Dylan B.</creatorcontrib><title>Appraising Translingualism</title><title>College English</title><description>Decades of research on rater training and scoring practices demonstrates that raters' preferences for writing quality are malleable; for instance, it is customary to "calibrate" raters' scoring decisions through documents like scoring protocols and rubrics. This essay argues that while rubrics from contemporary large-scale writing assessments (and the local assessments they inspire) maintain retrograde assumptions about language variation, relatively small adjustments to these rubrics could help raters and candidates establish what Joseph Williams once called "the ordinary kind of contract" that readers and writers routinely observe anywhere outside of testing contexts.</description><subject>Achievement tests</subject><subject>Basic writing</subject><subject>Coping</subject><subject>Course Descriptions</subject><subject>Dialect Studies</subject><subject>English</subject><subject>English (Second Language)</subject><subject>English Instruction</subject><subject>Evaluators</subject><subject>Grading</subject><subject>Grammar</subject><subject>Language</subject><subject>Language Aptitude</subject><subject>Language Proficiency</subject><subject>Language Variation</subject><subject>Monolingualism</subject><subject>Multilingualism</subject><subject>Native Speakers</subject><subject>Negotiation</subject><subject>Rating Scales</subject><subject>Reinforcement</subject><subject>Scoring Rubrics</subject><subject>Second language writing</subject><subject>Semantics</subject><subject>Society</subject><subject>Standardized tests</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>Syntax</subject><subject>Teaching Methods</subject><subject>Validity</subject><subject>Writers</subject><subject>Writing Ability</subject><subject>Writing assignments</subject><subject>Writing Evaluation</subject><subject>Writing Instruction</subject><subject>Writing teachers</subject><subject>Writing Tests</subject><subject>Written communication</subject><subject>Written composition</subject><issn>0010-0994</issn><issn>2161-8178</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AIMQZ</sourceid><sourceid>AVQMV</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><sourceid>PAF</sourceid><sourceid>PQLNA</sourceid><sourceid>PROLI</sourceid><recordid>eNpNzztLxEAUBeBBFIyrnZUgCLZmvXfeUy6Lj4UFm7UeJpOJJGSTOJMU_nuDEbE6p_i4l0PINcJaaKnh0QcKKKmSwpyQjKLEXKPSpyQDQMjBGH5OLlJqAECBUBm52QxDdHWqu4-7Q3Rdauc2ubZOx0tyVrk2havfXJH356fD9jXfv73stpt97imnY-55JY0utZPGeQ_UQEGZ4-iwEJIZhkGBLqDgpfBUVSWC8E4rHngJJWPAVuR-uTvE_nMKabRNP8VufmlRCVCUCsln9bAoH_uUYqjsEOuji18Wwf6st__Wz_x24U0a-_hnOQclEDX7Bt-1VAI</recordid><startdate>20160101</startdate><enddate>20160101</enddate><creator>Dryer, Dylan B.</creator><general>National Council of Teachers of English</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AIMQZ</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>CLO</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>LIQON</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PAF</scope><scope>PPXUT</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQLNA</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PROLI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160101</creationdate><title>Appraising Translingualism</title><author>Dryer, Dylan B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c242t-c4f698d8a69acc0290b23a41a1b563931e708b0b4d5c27fd105ca874e4d0d3303</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Achievement tests</topic><topic>Basic writing</topic><topic>Coping</topic><topic>Course Descriptions</topic><topic>Dialect Studies</topic><topic>English</topic><topic>English (Second Language)</topic><topic>English Instruction</topic><topic>Evaluators</topic><topic>Grading</topic><topic>Grammar</topic><topic>Language</topic><topic>Language Aptitude</topic><topic>Language Proficiency</topic><topic>Language Variation</topic><topic>Monolingualism</topic><topic>Multilingualism</topic><topic>Native Speakers</topic><topic>Negotiation</topic><topic>Rating Scales</topic><topic>Reinforcement</topic><topic>Scoring Rubrics</topic><topic>Second language writing</topic><topic>Semantics</topic><topic>Society</topic><topic>Standardized tests</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>Syntax</topic><topic>Teaching Methods</topic><topic>Validity</topic><topic>Writers</topic><topic>Writing Ability</topic><topic>Writing assignments</topic><topic>Writing Evaluation</topic><topic>Writing Instruction</topic><topic>Writing teachers</topic><topic>Writing Tests</topic><topic>Written communication</topic><topic>Written composition</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dryer, Dylan B.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>Literature Online Core (LION Core) (legacy)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Art, Design & Architecture Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature - U.S. Customers Only</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Arts & Humanities Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Learning: Literature</collection><collection>Literature Online Premium (LION Premium) (legacy)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>Literature Online (LION) - US Customers Only</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Literature Online (LION)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>College English</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dryer, Dylan B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Appraising Translingualism</atitle><jtitle>College English</jtitle><date>2016-01-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>78</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>274</spage><epage>283</epage><pages>274-283</pages><issn>0010-0994</issn><eissn>2161-8178</eissn><coden>CENGBY</coden><abstract>Decades of research on rater training and scoring practices demonstrates that raters' preferences for writing quality are malleable; for instance, it is customary to "calibrate" raters' scoring decisions through documents like scoring protocols and rubrics. This essay argues that while rubrics from contemporary large-scale writing assessments (and the local assessments they inspire) maintain retrograde assumptions about language variation, relatively small adjustments to these rubrics could help raters and candidates establish what Joseph Williams once called "the ordinary kind of contract" that readers and writers routinely observe anywhere outside of testing contexts.</abstract><cop>Urbana</cop><pub>National Council of Teachers of English</pub><doi>10.58680/ce201627659</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0010-0994 |
| ispartof | College English, 2016-01, Vol.78 (3), p.274-283 |
| issn | 0010-0994 2161-8178 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1750722564 |
| source | JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing |
| subjects | Achievement tests Basic writing Coping Course Descriptions Dialect Studies English English (Second Language) English Instruction Evaluators Grading Grammar Language Language Aptitude Language Proficiency Language Variation Monolingualism Multilingualism Native Speakers Negotiation Rating Scales Reinforcement Scoring Rubrics Second language writing Semantics Society Standardized tests Students Syntax Teaching Methods Validity Writers Writing Ability Writing assignments Writing Evaluation Writing Instruction Writing teachers Writing Tests Written communication Written composition |
| title | Appraising Translingualism |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T19%3A14%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Appraising%20Translingualism&rft.jtitle=College%20English&rft.au=Dryer,%20Dylan%20B.&rft.date=2016-01-01&rft.volume=78&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=274&rft.epage=283&rft.pages=274-283&rft.issn=0010-0994&rft.eissn=2161-8178&rft.coden=CENGBY&rft_id=info:doi/10.58680/ce201627659&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E44075118%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1750722564&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=44075118&rfr_iscdi=true |