Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Participants
Materials
Procedures
Scoring Procedure
Internal Consistency and Descriptive Statistics
Results
Overview
Objective Two: Rating Scale Evaluation
Discussion
Conclusion
References

How Does “Sentence Structure and Vocabulary

Profile image of Vahid AryadoustVahid Aryadoust

2012

Abstract

Several studies have evaluated sentence structure and vocabulary (SSV) as a scoring criterion in assessing writing, but no consensus on its functionality has been reached. The present study presents evidence that this scoring criterion may not be appropriate in writing assessment. Scripts by 182 ESL students at two language centers were analyzed with the Rasch partial credit model. Although other scoring criteria functioned satisfactorily, SSV scores did not fit the Rasch model, and analysis of residuals showed SSV scoring on most test prompts loaded on a benign secondary dimension. The study proposes that a lexico-grammatical scoring criterion has potentially conflicting properties, and therefore recommends considering separate vocabulary and grammar criteria in writing assessment.

Related papers

Examining writing: Research and practice in assessing second language writing
Christine Coombe

2007

View PDFchevron_right
Assessment Model for Language Learners’ Writing Practice (in Preparing for TOEFL iBT) Based on Comparing Structure, Vocabulary, and Identifying Discrepant Essays
Duc Huu Pham

International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications

This study aims to investigate if learners of English can improve computer-assisted writing skills through the analysis of the data from the post test. In this study, the focus was given to intermediate-level students of English taking final writing tests (integrated and independent responses) in preparation for TOEFL iBT. We manually scored and categorized the students' writing responses into five-point levels for the data to make the software. The results of the study showed that the model could be suitable for computerized scoring for language instructors to grade in a fair and exact way and for students to improve their writing performance through practice on the computer.

View PDFchevron_right
Students’ Descriptive Writing Performance: The Analytic Scoring Assessment Usage
Heny Setyawati

This study explores students’ performance in descriptive writing. Forty-five English Education sophomore students participated to be the respondents. The data were collected from students’ descriptive writing performance using a 5-Likert scale and they were quantitatively analyzed through the descriptive and factor analysis tests. Students’ descriptive writing were measured through the components of grammar (M = 3.00; SD = .476), punctuation (M = 3.93; SD = .495), coherence (M = 3.60; SD = .539), cohesion (M = 3.22; SD = .517), and content (M = 3.51; SD = .894). Other substantial findings corresponded with the principal component analyses that determined the presence of 5 components with the eigenvalue outreaching 1, positioning 31%, 27.3%, 19.7%, 12.6%, and 9.4% of the variances accordingly. This referred to the factorial analysis that claimed 2 extracted components with a total of 58.32% of the variance. The component 1 was 31.00% and component 2 was 27.32%. The interpretation of ...

View PDFchevron_right
Correlating Vocabulary and Sentence Structure Mastery to Students’ Writing Skill in Descriptive Text
Flora Christina

Journal of English Language Teaching and Cultural Studies

The aims of the research are to find the correlation between vocabulary and sentence structure mastery towards students’ writing skill. This research also calculates how strong the correlation by analyzed and computed using Pearson Product Moment. The method used in this research is quantitative research method by implementing a correlation study research design that has three variables. The first variable is vocabulary mastery, the second is sentence structure mastery, and the third is students’ writing skill in descriptive text as dependent variable. The researcher gives three tests to 40 students. That test is given to measure student’s abilities according to the three previous variables. The result of this research is the use of correlation between vocabulary mastery and sentence structure mastery toward students’ writing skill. The finding of the research proves a moderate level of correlation. This study suggest that the students have to learn vocabulary mastery and sentence s...

View PDFchevron_right
Assessing Writing: A Review of the Main Trends
Mohammad Ali Salmani Nodoushan

Studies in English Language and Education, 2014

As a language skill, writing has had, still has and will continue to have an important role in shaping the scientific structure of human life in that it is the medium through which scientific content is stored, retained, and transmitted. It has therefore been a major concern for writing teachers and researchers to find a reliable method for evaluating and ensuring quality writing. This paper addresses the different approaches to scoring writing and classifies them into a priori scoring systems (including holistic and analytic scoring), and a posteriori trait-based scoring systems (including primary-trait and multiple-trait scoring).

View PDFchevron_right
A rating scale for the assessment of writing skills
Wajdan Raza

The chapter in the book 'Teaching English in Multilingual Contexts' is aimed to propose the much needed rating scale to assess English speaking proficiency of students graduating in 124 universities in Pakistan, keeping in mind its increasing utility in the domains of education and profession in the Outer Circle and the singular emphasis laid down recently by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan to improve learner’s communicative skills, which in turn has encouraged the universities to introduce various compulsory English language proficiency courses. In fact, this study is motivated by the fact that the absence of any standard scale to rate the extended -response speaking skill in Pakistan seems to have created both difficulties and discrepancies in assessment. This preliminary work is divided into four phases: studying available rating scales and their practices in and outside Pakistan, examining relevant levels of analytic marking categories, drafting a rating scale with expert advice of eight qualified ESL teachers, and running the scale on forty-four students with eight raters. To achieve fairness, Multifaceted Rasch measurement, using FACETS (Linacre, 2006), was employed to analyze three facets: examinees, raters, and rating categories. The results suggest that the rating scale can be a proper indicator of student’s English speaking abilities with high reliability, however further investigations are needed to validate and improve the scale.

View PDFchevron_right
Rating scales for diagnostic assessment of writing: What should they look like and where should the criteria come from
Ute Knoch

Assessing Writing, 2011

Rating scales act as the de facto test construct in a writing assessment, although inevitably as a simplification of the construct . However, it is often not reported how rating scales are constructed. Unless the underlying framework of a rating scale takes some account of linguistic theory and research in the definition of proficiency, the validity of the scale will be limited . In this paper, the decision-making process when designing a rating scale for diagnostic writing assessment is described. A number of considerations are discussed. These include the type of rating scale, who is going to use the rating scale, what the descriptors should look like and how the scores should be reported. The most central consideration is what the scale categories (or traits) should look like. While the literature on rating scales (e.g., has called for scales to be theory-based, it is shown that none of the theories/models available for this purpose are sufficient by themselves for a scale of diagnostic writing. Several different theories and models were evaluated for the purpose of this paper, and the advantages and disadvantages of each are discussed.

View PDFchevron_right
A Study of Students’ Assessment in Writing Skills of the English Language
wu xiao juan

This paper addresses to evaluate and assess the students' competency in writing skills at Secondary school level in the English Language focusing five major content areas: word completion, sentence making/syntax, comprehension, tenses/ grammar and handwriting. The target population was the male and female students of grade 10 of urban and rural Secondary schools from public and private sector. Forty (40) Secondary schools of District Bahawalnagar, Pakistan were taken using stratified sampling. A sample consisting of 440 students (11students from each school) was randomly selected using a table of random numbers. An achievement test consisting of different items was developed to assess the students' competency and capability in sub-skills of writing such as word completion, sentence making/syntax, comprehension, tenses/grammar and handwriting. Mean score and standard deviation were used to analyze the students' proficiency in each sub-skill. The t-test was applied to make the comparison on the bases of gender, density and public and private sector. The overall performance of all the students was better in comprehension as compared to other sub-skills namely word completion, sentence making/syntax, tenses/grammar and handwriting. The analysis, based on t-value, revealed no significant difference between the performance of male and female students and the students of public and private schools, whereas there was a significant difference between the performance of urban and rural students.

View PDFchevron_right
Diagnosing English learners’ writing skills: A cognitive diagnostic modeling study
Zahra Shahsavar

Cogent Education, 2019

This study aims to clearly diagnose EFL students' writing strengths and weaknesses. I adapted a diagnostic framework which comprises multiple writing components associated with three main dimensions of second language writing. The essays of 304 English learners who enrolled in an English language program were double-rated by 13 experienced English teachers. The data were submitted to cognitive diagnostic assessment (CDA). The provided evidence supports the validity of 21 writing descriptors tapping into three academic writing skills: content, organization, and language. The skill mastery pattern across writing shows that language was the easiest skill to master while content was the most difficult. In mastering language, the highest mastery levels were found in using capitalization, spelling, articles, pronouns, verb tense, subject-verb agreement, singular and plural nouns, and prepositions while some sub-skills such as sophisticated or advanced vocabulary, collocation, redundant ideas or linguistic expressions generated a hierarchy of difficulty. Researchers, teachers, and language learners may benefit from using the 21-item checklist in the EFL context to assess students' writing. This method can have additional benefits for educators to know how to adapt other instruments for various purposes.

View PDFchevron_right
Linguistic features that impact essay scores: a corpus linguistic analysis of ESL writing in three proficiency levels
Leah Gustilo

2011

This study, which is a part of a larger project on learner corpora, used a corpus linguistic approach to analyzing ESL writing produced by freshmen college students from five private schools in Metro Manila, Philippines, in their first week of classes. The data for the study includes (1) essay scores used to classify texts by levels of proficiency, (2) computer tagging results, and (3) MANOVA, ANOVA, and regression analyses. The analyses revealed that most of the general text characteristics (e.g. fluency, unique words, word per sentence, number of sentence, number of paragraphs) and lexical (except conjuncts), clause-level, and grammatical features all have a steady increase across proficiency levels. This implies that the (1) writers of high score essays (level 2 and 3) are likely to employ more of these structures, and (2) The employment of these structures impact the raters’ assignment of scores on the essays. The findings of the present study lead to tentative conclusions and i...

View PDFchevron_right

References (73)

  1. Aryadoust, V. (2012a/forthcoming). Evaluating the psychometric quality of an ESL placement test of writing: A many-facets Rasch study. Linguistics Journal.
  2. Aryadoust, V. (2012b). Differential item functioning in while-listening performance tests: The case of IELTS listening test. International Journal of Listening, 26(1), 40-60.
  3. Aryadoust, V., Akbarzadeh S., & Nasiri, E. (2007a). IELTS writing tutor: Writing task1, academic module. Tehran: Jungle Publication.
  4. Aryadoust, V., Akbarzadeh S., & Nasiri, E. (2007b). IELTS writing tutor: Writing task1, general module. Tehran: Jungle Publication.
  5. Aryadoust, V., Goh, C., & Lee, O. K. (2011). An investigation of differential item functioning in the MELAB listening test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8(4), 361-385.
  6. Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental consideration in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  7. Baghaei, P. (2008). The Rasch model as a construct validation tool. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 22, 1145-1146.
  8. Baghaei, P., & Amrahi, N. (2009). Introduction to Rasch measurement. Iranian EFL Journal, 5, 139-154.
  9. Banerjee, J., Franceschina, F., & Smith, A. M. (2007). Documenting features of written language production typical at different IELTS band score levels. (IELTS Research Report No. 7, the British Council/University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate).
  10. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum.
  11. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  12. Brown, A. (2006). Candidate discourse in the revised IELTS speaking test. (Research Report No. 6, IELTS Australia).
  13. Cambridge Practice Tests for IELTS 3. (2002). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge Practice Tests for IELTS 4. (2005). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge Practice Tests for IELTS 5. (2006). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge Practice Tests for IELTS 6. (2007). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Chapelle, C., Grabe, W., & Berns, M. (1997). Communicative language proficiency: definition and implications for TOEFL-2000. TOEFL-2000 Monograph Series. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
  15. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient for agreement for nominal scales. Education and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37-46.
  16. Connor, U. (1991). Linuistic/rhetorical measures for evaluating ESL writing. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 215-226). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publication Corporation.
  17. Eckes, H. (2005). Examining rater effects in TestDaF writing and speaking performance assessments: A many-facet Rasch analysis. Language Assessment Quarterly, 2(3), 197- 221.
  18. Engelhard, G., Jr. (1992). The measurement of writing ability with a many-facet Rasch mode. Applied measurement in Education, 5(2), 171-191.
  19. Engelhard, G., Jr. (1994). Evaluating rater accuracy in performance assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33(1), 56-70.
  20. Engelhard, G., Jr. (1996). Examining rater errors in the assessment of written composition with a many-faceted Rasch model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33(1), 93-112.
  21. Engelhard, G., Jr. (2002). Monitoring raters in performance assessments. In G. Tindal and T. Haladyna (Eds.), Large-scale assessment programs for ALL students: Development, implementation, and analysis (pp. 261-287). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  22. Engelhard, G., Jr., & Anderson, D. W. (1998). A binomial trials model for examining the ratings of standard-setting judges. Applied Measurement in Education, 11(3), 209-230.
  23. Evola, J., Mamer, E., & Lentz, B. (1980). Discrete point versus global scoring for cohesive devices. In J. W. Oller & K. Perkins (Eds.), Research in language testing (pp. 177-181). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
  24. Fahim, M., & Houman, B. (2011). The effects of rater training on raters' severity and bias in second language writing assessment. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 1(1), 1-16.
  25. Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
  26. Gennaro, K. D. (2009). Investigating differences in the writing performance of international and Generation 1.5 students. Language Testing, 26(4), 533-559.
  27. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. New York: Longman.
  28. Grabowski, K. C. (2008). Investigating the construct validity of a performance test designed to measure grammatical and pragmatic knowledge. Spaan Fellow Working Papers in Second or Foreign Language Assessment, 6, 131-179.
  29. Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991). Reconstructing "academic writing proficiency". In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 127-154). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publication Corporation.
  30. Hattie, J. (1985). Methodology review: Assessing unidimensionality of tests and items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9(2), 139-64.
  31. Hayes J. R., & Flower L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  32. Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1-26). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  33. Hedge, T. (2005). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  34. Homburg, T. J. (1984). Holistic evaluation of ESL compositions: Can it be validated objectively? TESOL Quarterly, 18(1), 87-109.
  35. Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. London: Longman.
  36. Jackeman, V., & McDowell, C. (1996). Cambridge practice tests for IELTS 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  37. Jackeman, V., & McDowell, C. (2000). Cambridge practice tests for IELTS 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  38. Kim, Y.-H. (2011). Diagnosing EAP writing ability using the Reduced Reparameterized Unified model. Language Testing, 28(4), 509-541.
  39. Kondo-Brown, K. (2002). An analysis of rater bias with FACETS in measuring Japanese L2 writing performance. Language Testing, 19, 1-29.
  40. Knoch, U. (2009a). Developing and validating a rating scale for diagnostic writing assessment. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
  41. Knoch, U. (2009b). Diagnostic assessment of writing: A comparison of two rating scales. Language Testing, 26(2) 275-304.
  42. Knoch, U., & Elder, C. (2010). Validity and fairness implications of varying time conditions on a diagnostic test of academic writing proficiency. System, 38(1), 63-74.
  43. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
  44. Linacre, J. M. (2009a). WINSTEPS Rasch measurement, Version 3.64 [computer program]. Chicago: Winsteps.com.
  45. Linacre, J. M. (2009b). A users' guide to WINSTEPS® MINISTEPS Rasch-model computer programs. Chicago: Winsteps.com.
  46. Lougheed, L. (2004). Barron's how to prepare for the Computer-Based TOEFL essay. New York: Barron's Educational series, Inc.
  47. Lynch, B., & McNamara, T. F. (1998). Using G-theory and many-facet Rasch measurement in the development of performance assessments of the ESL speaking skills of immigrants. Language Testing, 15(2), 158-180.
  48. McNamara, T. F. (1996). Measuring second language performance. New York: Longman.
  49. McNamara, T. F. (1990). Item response theory and the validation of an ESP test for health professionals. Language Testing, 7, 52-75
  50. Mickan, P. (2003). 'What's your score?': An investigation into language descriptors for rating written performance. (Research Report No. 4, IELTS Australia).
  51. Mickan, P., & Slater, S. (2003). Text analysis and the assessment of Academic Writing. (Research Report No. 4, IELTS Australia).
  52. Mickan, P., Slater, S., & Gibson, C. (2000). A study of response validity of the IELTS writing subtest. (Research Report No. 3, IELTS Australia).
  53. Motallebzadeh, K., & Baghaee Moghaddam, P. (2011). Models of language proficiency: A reflection on the construct of language ability. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 1(1), 42-48.
  54. Murphy, S., & Yancey, K. B. (2008). Construct and consequence: Validity in writing assessment. In C. Bazerman (Ed.) Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school, individual, text (pp. 365-385). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  55. O'Loughlin, K., & Wigglesworth, G. (2003). Task design in IELTS academic writing task 1: The effect of quantity and manner of presentation of information on candidate writing. (Research Report No. 4, IELTS Australia).
  56. Official IELTS Practice Materials. (2007). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  57. Pollitt, A., & Hutchinson, C. (1987). Calibrating graded assessments: Rasch partial credit analysis of performance in writing. Language Testing, 4(1), 72-92.
  58. Read, J., & Nation, P. (2006). An investigation of the lexical dimension of the IELTS speaking test. In P. McGovern & S. Walsh (Eds.), IELTS research reports (pp. 207-231). Volume 6. Canberra: IELTS Australia.
  59. Riazi, M., & Rezaii, M. (2011). Teacher-and peer-scaffolding behaviors: Effects on EFL students' writing improvement. In A. Feryok (Ed.), CLESOL 2010: Proceedings of the 12th National Conference for Community Languages and ESOL (pp. 55-63). Retrieved from http://www.tesolanz.org.nz/
  60. Saito, H. (2008). EFL classroom peer assessment: Training effects on rating and commenting. Language Testing, 25(4), 553-581.
  61. Schaefer, D. (2008). Rater bias patterns in an EFL writing assessment. Language Testing, 25(4), 465-493.
  62. Shaw, S., & Falvey, P. (2008). The IELTS Writing Assessment Revision Project: Towards a revised rating scale. Retrieved from http://www.cambridgeesol.org/assets/pdf/research_reports_01.pdf
  63. Shaw, S., & Weir, C. J. (2007). Examining writing: Research and practice in assessing second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  64. Smith, Jr., E. V. (2002). Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3, 205-231.
  65. Smith, R. M. (1991). The distributional properties of Rasch item fit statistics. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 541-565.
  66. Smith, R. M. (1996) Polytomous mean-square fit statistics. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 10, 516-517.
  67. Smith, R. M. (2000). Fit analysis in latent trait models. Journal of Applied Measurement, 1, 199- 218.
  68. Smith, R. M., & Miao, C. Y. (1994). Assessing unidimensionality for Rasch measurement. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Objective measurement: Theory into practice (Vol. 2) (pp. 316-327). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  69. Weigle, S. C. (1998). Using FACETS to model rater training effects. Language Testing, 15(2), 263-287.
  70. Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  71. Wright, B. D. (1994). Local dependency, correlations, and principal components. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 10(3), 509-511.
  72. Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1988). Validity in Rasch measurement. University of Chicago: Research Memorandum No. 55.
  73. Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1999). Measurement essentials. (2nd ed.). Wilmington, Delaware: Wide Range, Inc.

Related papers

How does “sentence structure and vocabulary” function as a scoring criterion alongside others in writing assessment?
Vahid Aryadoust

Several studies have evaluated sentence structure and vocabulary (SSV) as a scoring criterion in assessing writing, but no consensus on its functionality has been reached. The present study presents evidence that this scoring criterion may not be appropriate in writing assessment. Scripts by 182 ESL students at two language centers were analyzed with the Rasch partial credit model. Although other scoring criteria functioned satisfactorily, SSV scores did not fit the Rasch model, and analysis of residuals showed SSV scoring on most test prompts loaded on a benign secondary dimension. The study proposes that a lexico-grammatical scoring criterion has potentially conflicting properties, and therefore recommends considering separate vocabulary and grammar criteria in writing assessment.

View PDFchevron_right
Analytic assessment of writing: Diagnosing areas of strength and weakness in the writing of TESL undergraduate students
Touran Ahour
View PDFchevron_right
The Practice of ESL Writing Instructors In Assessing Writing Performance
Mohd Sallehhudin Abd Aziz

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2011

The issue of score reliability has always been a contentious one in the testing of language performance because of the subjectivity involved in the assessment process. Assessment of a performance is usually carried out by human raters and studies have proved that there is a lack of consistency and accuracy in such judgments. This leads to a lack of standardization of marks raising concern about fairness to the students taking the course. One way of ensuring reliability is to mandate the use of a language proficiency rating scale. In addition to being a scoring tool, the rating scale also acts as the “de facto construct” (McNamara, 1996) and as a term of reference for stakeholders. Despite its importance, its development and use in institutional testing tend to be ad hoc (Fulcher 2008) and hardly ever researched. This paper will report on the preliminary findings of a study that investigates the practices relating to scoring reliability in the assessment of ESL writing. The ultimate aim of the study is to come up with guidelines for improving the reliability of scores awarded for writing assessment.

View PDFchevron_right
Investigating Writing Sub-skills in Testing English as a Foreign Language: A Structural Equation Modeling Study
Vahid Aryadoust

This study investigates the validity of a writing model proposed as the underlying structure of the writing skill in English as a foreign language (EFL). Four writing prompts were administered to 178 Iranian EFL learners. The scripts were then scored according to writing benchmarks similar to the IELTS Writing criteria but narrower in scope. After inter- and intra-rater reliability analysis, a three-factor model was posited for validation. Structural modeling of the sub-skills revealed the two sub-skills of Idea Arrangement and Communicative Quality are psychometrically inseparable, but the Vocabulary and Grammar sub-skills proved to have good measurement properties. Using parcel indicators, a two-factor model was then evaluated which had the best fit and parsimony. The researcher concludes Idea Arrangement and Communicative Quality appear to have similar conceptual and theoretical foundations and should be considered the elements of one measuring criterion. Further research is required to support this finding.

View PDFchevron_right
The Correlation of Vocabulary Mastery and Sentence Structure with Students' Writing Ability
Andri Wicaksono

IJLHE: International Journal of Language, Humanities, and Education

This study aims to describe the relationship between vocabulary mastery and sentence structure with the ability to write descriptions of the eighth grade students of SMPN 02 Waway Karya, East Lampung. The author uses the correlational method, meaning that data are collected after all the events in question have taken place. The techniques used in collecting research data are questionnaires, tests, and observations. Based on the results of the study, it can be concluded that, (1) there is a positive and significant correlation between sentence structure and the ability to write descriptions, indicated by a correlation coefficient of 0.766 and a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.587 or 58.7%, (2) there is a positive and significant correlation between vocabulary mastery and the ability to write descriptions as indicated by a correlation coefficient of 0.662 and a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.438 or 43.8%, (3) there is a positive and significant relationship between voc...

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved