EFFECT OF CAPTION TYPE IN PICTURE PROMPTS ON EFL WRITING QUALITY

Jaqueline Shi

DOI Number
https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP2002111S
First page
111
Last page
122

Abstract


To explore the validity of picture-prompt writing assessment, the study investigated the influence of caption type (i.e. narrative, abstract, and zero) in the picture prompt on EFL writing quality of Chinese college students in terms of holistic scores and functional dimensions (i.e. Dimensions of Involvement, Narration, Elaborated reference, Persuasion, Abstractness, and On-line informational elaboration). ANOVA, MANOVA, and linear regression analysis were conducted and results showed that (a) participants performed significantly better with the abstract caption; (b) Dimensions of Involvement and Abstractness significantly distinguished essays with the abstract caption from those with other types; (c) Dimension of Persuasion significantly predicted ratings of essays with the narrative caption, while Dimension of Narration significantly predicted ratings of essays with the abstract caption. Finally, implications for picture-prompt writing assessment and instruction were discussed.


Keywords

caption, picture prompt, writing quality, functional dimension, holistic ratings

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bae, J., & Lee, Y. S. 2010. “The validation of parallel test forms: 'mountain' and 'beach' picture series for assessment of language skills.” Language Testing, 28(2), 155-177.

Biber, D. 2010. “Corpus-based and corpus-driven analyses of language variation and use.” In The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, edited by N. F. Heine & H. Narrog, 159-191. Oxford University Press.

Biber, D., & Burges, J. 2000. “Historical change in the language use of women and men.” Journal of English Linguistics, 28(1), 21-37.

Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R. Byrd, P., Helt, M., Clark, V., & Urzua, A. 2004. Representing Language Use in the University: Analysis of the TOEFFL 2000 Spoken and Written Academic Language Corpus. TOEFL Monograph Series (MS-25). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Biber, D., & Gray, B. 2013. Discourse characteristics of writing and speaking task types on the TOEFL iBT1 Test: A lexico-grammatical analysis. ETS Research Report RR-13-04, TOEFLiBT-19. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Biber, D., Gray, B., & Staples, S. 2016. “Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels.” Applied Linguistics, 37(5), 639-668.

Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (Eds.). 2001. Multi-dimensional studies of register variation in English. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.

Crossley, S. A, Allen, L. K., & McNamara, D. S. 2014. “A Multi-Dimensional analysis of essay writing: What linguistic features tell us about situational parameters and the effects of language functions on judgments of quality.” In Multi-dimensional Analysis, 25 years on: A Tribute to Douglas Biber, edited by Sardinha, T. B., & Pinto, M. V., 197-237. J. Benjamins.

Deroey, K. & Biber, D. 2007. “University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers.” Applied Linguistics, 28(4): 624-627.

Evans, V., & Green, M. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Friginal, E., Li, M., & Weigle, S. C. 2014. “Revisiting multiple profiles of learner compositions: A comparison of highly rated NS and NNS essays.” Journal of Second Language Writing, 23, 1-16.

Friginal, E., & Weigle, S. 2014. “Exploring multiple profiles of l2 writing using multi-dimensional analysis.” Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 80-95.

Hagan, S. M. 2007. “Visual/Verbal collaboration in print: Complementary differences, necessary ties, and an untapped rhetorical opportunity.” Written Communication, 24(1), 49-73.

Hamp-Lyons, L. 2011. “Writing assessment: shifting issues, new tools, enduring questions.” Assessing Writing, 16(1), 3-5.

Jarvis, S., Grant, L., Bikowski, D., & Ferris, D. 2003. “Exploring multiple profiles of highly rated learner compositions.” Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 377–403.

Jung, J., & Bae, J. 2013. “The influence of picture prompt variation on writing performance: ‘Series’ vs. ‘Imagine Before and After’.” English Language Teaching, 25(2), 27- 46.

Kellogg, R. T. 1996. “A model of working memory in writing.” In The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications, edited by Levy, C. M., & Ransdell, S., 57-71. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kellogg, R. T., Whiteford, A. P., Turner, C. E., Cahill, M., & Merlens, A. 2013. “Working Memory in Written Composition: An Evaluation of the 1996 Model.” Journal of Writing Research, 5(2), 159-190.

Kjeldsen, J. E. 2015. “The rhetoric of thick representation: how pictures render the importance and strength of an argument salient.” Argumentation, 29(2), 197-215.

Kormos, J. 2011. “Task Complexity and Linguistic and Discourse Features of Narrative Writing Performance.” Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 148-161.

Li, J. 2018. “Establishing Comparability across Writing Tasks with Picture Prompts of Three Alternate Tests.” Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(4), 368-386.

McNamara, D., Crossley, S.A., & McCarthy, P. 2010. “Linguistic features of writing quality.” Written Communication, 27(1), 57-86.

Messaris, P., & Abraham, L. 2001. “The role of images in framing news stories.” In Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world, edited by Reese, S. D. et al., 215-226. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Nini, A. 2015. Multidimensional Analysis Tagger (Version 1.3). Available at: http://sites.google.com/site/multidimensionaltagger.

Olshansky, B. 2018. “The universal language of pictures: A critical tool for advancing student writing.” TESOL Journal, 9(4), 1-16.

Roque, G. 2012. “Visual argumentation: A further reappraisal.” In Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory: 20 Exploratory Studies, edited by van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssan, B., 273-288. Springer Netherlands.

Staples, S., Biber, D., & Reppen, R. 2018. “Using Corpus-Based Register Analysis to Explore the Authenticity of High-Stakes Language Exams: A Register Comparison of TOEFL iBT and Disciplinary Writing Tasks.” Modern Language Journal, 102(2), 310-332.

Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. 1998. “Cognitive architecture and instructional design.” Educational psychology review, 10(3), 251-296.

Taguchi, N., Crawford, W., & Wetzel, D. Z. 2013. “What linguistic features are indicative of writing quality? A case of argumentative essays in a college composition program.” TESOL Quarterly, 47(2), 420-430.

Weigle, S. C. 2002. Assessing Writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Weigle, S. C., & Friginal, E. 2015. “Linguistic dimensions of impromptu test essays compared with successful student disciplinary writing: Effects of language background, topic, and L2 proficiency.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 18, 25-39.

Xi, X. 2010. “Aspects of performance on line graph description tasks: Influenced by graph familiarity and different task features.” Language Testing, 27(1), 73-100.

Yang, H. C. 2016. “Describing and interpreting graphs: the relationships between undergraduate writer characteristics and academic graph writing performance.” Assessing Writing, 28, 28-42.

Zheng, Y., & Cheng, L. 2008. “College English Test (CET) in China.” Language Testing, 25(3), 408-417.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP2002111S

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


ISSN 2334-9182 (Print)
ISSN 2334-9212 (Online)