Análisis comparativo del uso de marcadores metadiscursivos en la evaluación formativa y sumativa online

  1. Mª Luisa Carrió-Pastor 1
  1. 1 Universidad Politécnica de Valencia
    info

    Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

    Valencia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01460j859

Journal:
Tejuelo: Didáctica de la Lengua y la Literatura. Educación

ISSN: 1988-8430

Year of publication: 2021

Issue Title: Propuestas y perspectivas de investigación en el área de Didáctica de la Lengua y la Literatura"

Issue: 34

Pages: 261-292

Type: Article

DOI: 10.17398/1988-8430.34.261 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Tejuelo: Didáctica de la Lengua y la Literatura. Educación

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

Summative assessment; Formative assessment; Markers; Metadiscourse; Non native speakers. In this paper, my main aim is to compare the effectiveness of formative assessment and summative assessment of communicative skills in online tasks. Different types of online tasks were designed to be done by students in two subjects in the first and second semester of an academic year. Summative assessment was carried out in the subject of the first semester to the control group. In the second semester, formative assessment was performed in another subject to the experimental group. This experiment was performed to graduate students whose mother tongue was Chinese and had to write the tasks in Spanish. In order to identify and analyse the results of the experiment, several aspects were taken into account, such as the use of metadiscursive markers, interaction with the teacher, and effective communication. The students did the tasks progressively and the results were compared in the control and experimental groups. The results were commented in order to identify if differences were observed in the use of metadiscursive markers and the conclusions of the study were drawn.

€ View funding

Funding information

Este trabajo se ha realizado en el marco del Proyecto de Investigaci?n IAMET (referencia FFI2016-77941-P).

Bibliographic References

  • Albelda, M., y Cestero, A. (2011). De nuevo sobre los procedimientos de atenuación. Español Actual, 96, 121-155.
  • Andersson, C., y Palm, T. (2017). The impact of formative assessment on student achievement: A study of the effects of changes to classroom practice after a comprehensive professional development programme. Learning and Instruction, 49, 92-102. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.12.006.
  • Aull, L. (2015). Connecting writing and language in assessment: Examining style, tone, and argument in the U.S. Common Core standards and in exemplary student writing. Assessing Writing, 24, 59-73. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2015.03.002.
  • Black, P. (2015). Formative assessment – an optimistic but incomplete vision, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(1), 161-177. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2014.999643.
  • Black, P. (2010). Formative Assessment. En P. Peterson, E. Baker, y B. McGaw (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 359-364). Elsevier.
  • Briz, A. (2007). Para un análisis semántico, pragmático y sociopragmático de la cortesía atenuadora en España y América. Lingüística Española Actual, 29(1), 5-40.
  • Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2016). A contrastive study of the hedges used by English, Spanish and Chinese researchers in academic papers. En F. Alonso Almeida et al. (Eds.), Input a word, analyze the world: Selected approaches to Corpus Linguistics (pp. 477-492). Cambridge Scholars.
  • Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2019). Different ways to express personal attitudes in Spanish and English engineering papers: An analysis of metadiscourse devices, affective evaluation and sentiment analysis. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 15(1), 45-67. doi: 10.1515/lpp- 2019-0004.
  • Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2020). Conocer la lengua a través de los corpus: la herramienta METOOL, retos para el análisis de los marcadores discursivos. Pragmalingüística, 28, 255-274. doi:10.25267/Pragmalinguistica.2020.i28.13.
  • Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2021, en prensa). Emphasising and mitigating statements in linguistics and engineering academic papers written by non-native speakers of English. En I. Kecskes (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics (pp. en prensa). Cambridge University Press.
  • Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-Cultural Aspects of Second Language Writing. Cambridge University Press.
  • Costa, D. S. J., Mullan, B. A., Kothe, E. J., y Butow, P. (2010). A web-based assessment tool for Master students: A pilot study. Computers & Education, 54, 1248-1253. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.011.
  • Crystal, D. (1997). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Blackwell.
  • De la Hoz Ibacache, S. (2016). Objetivos y metodologías en los estudios de evaluación formativa de la composición escrita entre el periodo de 1992 y 2014. Tejuelo, 24, 31-36. doi: 10.17398/1988-8430.24.1.31.
  • Fernando, W. (2018). Show me your true colours: Scaffolding formative academic literacy assessment through an online learning platform. Assessing Writing, 36, 63-76. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.005.
  • Fernando, W. (2020). Moodle quizzes and their usability for formative assessment of academic writing. Assessing Writing, 46, 1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2020.100485.
  • Flores, N. (2020). Linguistic mitigation in English and Spanish: How speakers attenuate expressions. Routledge.
  • Fordyce, K. (2013). The differential effects of explicit and implicit instruction on EFL learners’ use of epistemic stance. Applied Linguistics, 35, 6-28. doi: 10.1093/applin/ams076.
  • Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., y Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57, 2333-2351. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004.
  • Granberg, C., Palm, T., y Palmberg, B. (2021). A case study of a formative assessment practice and the effects on students’ self- regulated learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 68, 1-10. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100955.
  • Gulikers, J. T. M., Biemans, H. J. A., Wesselink, R., y van der Wel, M. (2013). Aligning formative and summative assessments: a collaborative action research challenging teacher conceptions. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39, 116-124. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.03.001.
  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1998). El lenguaje como semiótica social. La interpretación social del lenguaje y su significado. S. L. Fondo de cultura económica de España.
  • Hamodi, C., López Pastor, V. M., y López Pastor, A. T. (2015). Medios, técnicas e instrumentos de evaluación formativa y compartida del aprendizaje en educación superior. Perfiles educativos, 147, 146-161.
  • Hansen, G., y Ringdal, R. (2018). Formative assessment as a future step in maintaining the mastery-approach and performance- avoidance goal stability. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 56, 59-70. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.11.005.
  • Hansen, G. (2020). Formative assessment as a collaborative act. Teachers’ intention and students’ experience: Two sides of the same coin, or? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 66, 1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100904.
  • Havnes, A., Smith, K., Dyste, O., y Ludvigsen, K. (2012). Formative assessment and feedback: Making learning visible. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38, 21-27. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.04.001.
  • Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.
  • Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum.
  • Liu, F., y Stapleton, P. (2018). Connecting writing assessment with critical thinking: An exploratory study of alternative rhetorical functions and objects of enquiry in writing prompts. Assessing Writing, 38, 10-20. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2018.09.001.
  • Marshall, B. (2010). Formative Assessment and Instructional Planning. En P. Peterson, E. Baker, y B. McGaw (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 365-368). Elsevier.
  • Meusen-Beekman, K. D., Brinke, D. J., y Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2016). Effects of formative assessments to develop self-regulation among sixth grade students: Results from a randomized controlled intervention. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 51, 126-136. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.10.008.
  • Mohamadi, Z. (2018). Comparative effect of online summative and formative assessment on EFL student writing ability. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 29-40. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.02.003.
  • Mur Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3068-3079. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002.
  • Panadero, E., y Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129-144. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002.
  • Pachler, N., Daly, C., Mor, Y., y Mellar, H. (2010). Formative e-assessment: Practitioner cases. Computers & Education, 54, 715-721. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.032.
  • Pellegrino, J. W. (2010). Technology and formative assessment. En P. Peterson, E. Baker, y B. McGaw (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 43-47). Elsevier.
  • Pla-Campas, G., Arumí-Prat, J., Senye-Mir, A. M., y Ramírez, E. (2016). Effect of using formative assessment techniques on students’ grades. Procedia. Social and Behavioural Sciences, 228, 190-195. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.028.
  • Moya, P., y Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2018). Estrategias de intensificación en los comentarios digitales sobre noticias. Spanish in Context, 15 (3), 369-391. doi: 10.1075/sic.00019.car.
  • Pine, G. J. (2009). Teacher action research: Building knowledge democracies. Sage.
Data source: Dialnet