ABSTRACT

This study investigated the extent to which an extended time limit in an argumentative writing test affects the quality of argumentation in L2 writing. Thirty-two adult ESL learners each wrote two essays on different prompts, one in 30 minutes and one in 45 minutes in a counter-balanced design. The 64 essays were analytically rated by four trained raters. The results show that the sub-score on argumentation as well as the overall score was significantly higher for the essays written in 45 minutes than the ones written in 30 minutes. Interviews with the raters using eight pairs of essays revealed that different features of argumentation were impacted by the additional 15 minutes, depending on the overall level of writing: addressing different sides of the issue for a high level, providing sufficient support for a middle level, and addressing the prompt for a low level. In a post-test questionnaire, a majority of learners reported that the extra 15 minutes was helpful for brainstorming and organizing ideas. Implications for the use of argumentative writing tests and improving analytical descriptors on argumentation are discussed.

摘要

本研究调查了辩论写作测试中延长时间限制对二语写作辩论质量的影响程度。三十二名成人 ESL 学习者每人根据不同的提示写了两篇文章，一篇在 30 分钟内，一篇在 45 分钟内采用平衡设计。这 64 篇文章由四名训练有素的评分者进行分析评分。结果表明，45分钟作文的议论文分项得分和总分明显高于30分钟作文。使用 8 对文章对评分者的采访显示，额外的 15 分钟影响了不同的论证特征，具体取决于整体写作水平：针对高水平解决问题的不同方面，为中等水平提供足够的支持，并解决低级别的提示。在测试后的问卷中，大多数学习者报告说，额外的 15 分钟有助于头脑风暴和组织想法。讨论了使用议论文写作测试和改进议论文的分析描述符的含义。