Reciprocal Contribution of Writing Attributes to One Another

Document Type : Research Paper


1 English Department, Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 , Professor, English Department, Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran


Formative writing assessment can help writing instructors to explore weaknesses and strengths of language learners’ writing performances. The current research aimed to explore firstly writing attributes and secondly examine their reciprocal contribution to one another. To achieve such an objective, the participants (N=200) were asked to write about two different topics. One writing sample before treatment was considered as the pre-test and the other after the treatment was considered as the post-test writing sample. Having scrutinized the pre-writing samples, five raters extracted the writing attributes which appeared in pre-test and post-test writing samples. Results indicate that there is a statistically significant difference among the participants’ performances in terms of using writing attributes. The results can be advantageous for both instructors and syllabus designers to provide pedagogical materials which identify particular frailties and notify them about the more troublesome points to concentrate on in the classroom so as to arrange effective education.


Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge University Press.
Alderson, J. C. (2010). Cognitive diagnosis and q-matrices in language assessment: A commentary. Language Assessment Quarterly7(1), 96-103.
Alderson, J. C., Brunfaut, T., & Harding, L. (2014). Towards a theory of diagnosis in second and foreign language assessment: Insights from professional practice across diverse fields. Applied Linguistics, 36(2), 236-260.
Alderson, J. C., Haapakangas, E. L., Huhta, A., Nieminen, L., & Ullakonoja, R. (2015). The diagnosis of reading in a second or foreign language. Routledge.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice.  Routledge.
de la Torre, J. (2009). A cognitive diagnosis model for cognitively based multiple-choice options. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33(3), 163-183.
Dewey, J. (2012). Democracy and Education. Pensylvania: Electronic Classics Series. DIALANG.
DiBello, L., & Stout, W. (2008). Arpeggio documentation and analyst manual. Chicago: Applied informative assessment research enterprises (AIARE)—LLC.
Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2007). Language testing and assessment: An advanced resource book. Routledge.
Gamaroff, R. (2000). Rater reliability in language assessment: The bug of all bears. System, 28(1), 31-53.
Hartz, S. M. (2002). A Bayesian framework for the unified model for assessing cognitive abilities: Blending theory with practicality. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 63(2-B), 864.
Jang, E. E. (2005). A validity narrative: Effects of reading skills diagnosis on teaching and learning in the context of NG-TOEFL [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (AAT 3182288)
Jaramillo Urrutia, L., & Medina Gutiérrez, A. S. (2011). Adolescents’ awareness of environmental care: Experiences when writing short descriptive texts in English. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 13 (1), 11-30.
Kim, H. S. J. (2011). Diagnosing examinees’ attributes-mastery using the Bayesian inference for binomial proportion: A new method for cognitive diagnostic assessment [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Georgia Institute of Technology.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 1-26). Oxford University Press
Lee, Y. W., & Sawaki, Y. (2009). Application of three cognitive diagnosis models to ESL reading and listening assessments. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6(3), 239-263.
Leighton, J. P., & Gierl, M. J. (2007). Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education: Theory and applications. Cambridge University Press.
Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R. & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Journal, 30(3), 359–377.
Purpura, J. E. (2004). Assessing grammar. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ross, S. (1998). Self-assessment in second language testing: A meta-analysis and analysis of experiential factors. Language Testing, 15(1), 1-11.
Roussos, L. A., DiBello, L. V., Stout, W. F., Hartz, S. M., Henson, R. A., & Templin, J. H. (2007). The fusion model skills diagnostic system. In J. Leighton & M. Gierl (Eds.), Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education: Theory and applications (pp. 275–318). Cambridge University Press.
Rupp, A. A., Templin, J., & Henson, R. A. (2012). Diagnostic measurement: Theory, methods, and applications. Guilford Press.
Snow, R. E., & Lohman, D. F. (1989). Implications of cognitive psychology for educational measurement. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 263–331). Macmillan Publishing Co, Inc; American Council on Education.
Taras, M. (2002).Using assessment for learning and learning from assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(6), 501.
Urquhart, S., & Weir, C. J. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product and practice. Longman.
Weigle, S.C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge University Press.b