Dear students,
I use the ESL Composition Profile (ESLCP, reproduced as Figure 8) created by Jacob et al. (1981) to evaluate your writing performance. Although it has been in use for nearly thirty years, ESLCP remains one of the best known analytic scales used in ESL (Tedick, 2002; Weigle, 2002). Check it out!
| ESL Composition Profile (ESLCP) | |||
| SCORE LEVEL CRITERIA COMMENTS | |||
| CONTENT | 30-27 | EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: knowledgeable ● substantive ● thorough development of thesis ● relevant to assigned topic | |
| 26-22 | GOOD TO AVERAGE: some knowledge of subject ● adequate range ● limited development of thesis ● mostly relevant to topic, but lacks detail | ||
| 21-17 | FAIR TO POOR: limited knowledge of subject ● little substance ● inadequate development of topic | ||
| 16-13 | VERY POOR: does not show knowledge of subject ● non-substantive ● not pertinent ● OR not enough to evaluate | ||
| ORGANIZAITON | 20-18 | EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: fluent expression ● ideas clearly stated/ supported ● succinct ● well-organized ● logical sequencing ● cohesive | |
| 17-14 | GOOD TO AVERAGE: somewhat choppy ● loosely organized but main ideas stand out ● limited support ● logical but incomplete sequencing | ||
| 13-10 | FAIR TO POOR: non-fluent ● ideas confused or disconnected ● lacks logical sequencing and development | ||
| 9-7 | VERY POOR: does not communicate ● no organization ● Or not enough to evaluate | ||
| VOCABULARY | 20-18 | EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: sophisticated range ● effective word/idiom choice and usage ● word form mastery ● appropriate register | |
| 17-14 | GOOD TO AVERGE: adequate range ● occasional errors of word/idiom form, choice, usage but meaning not obscured | ||
| 13-10 | FAIR TO POOR: limited range ● frequent errors of word/idiom form, choice, usage ● meaning confused or obscured | ||
| 9-7 | VERY POOR: essentially translation ● little knowledge of English vocabulary, idioms, word form ● OR not enough to evaluate | ||
| LANGUAGE USE | 25-22 | EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: effective complex constructions ● few errors of agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions | |
| 21-18 | GOOD TO AVERAGE: effective but simple constructions ● minor problems in complex constructions ● several errors of agreement, tense number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions but meaning seldom obscured | ||
| 17-11 | FAIR TO POOR: major problems in simple/complex constructions ● frequent errors of negation, agreement, tense, number, word order/function, articles, pronouns, prepositions and/or fragments, run-ons, deletions ● meaning confused or obscured | ||
| 10-5 | VERY POOR: virtually no mastery of sentence construction rules ● dominated by errors ● does not communicate ● OR not enough to evaluate | ||
| MECHANICS | 5 | EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: demonstrates mastery of conventions ● few errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing | |
| 4 | GOOD TO AVERAGE: occasional errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing but meaning not obscured | ||
| 3 | FAIR TO POOR: frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing ● poor handwriting ● meaning confused or obscured | ||
| 2 | VERY POOR: no mastery of conventions ● dominated by errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing ● handwriting illegible ● OR not enough to evaluate | ||
| TOTAL SCORE READER COMMENTS | |||
Reference:
1. Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL Composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
2. Tedick, D. J. (2002). Proficiency-oriented language instruction and assessment: Standards, philosophies, and considerations for assessment. In Minnesota Articulation Project, D. J. Tedick (Ed.), Proficiency-oriented language instruction and assessment: A curriculum handbook for teachers (Rev Ed.), pp. 9-47. CARLA Working Paper Series. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, the Center for Advanced Research on Language Acuisition. Retrieved 22 March, 2009 from http://www.carla.umn.edu/articulation/polia/pdf_files/standards.pdf
3. Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing Writing, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
o
Posts
