DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC LITERACY IN WRITING
DOI: 10.23951/2307-6127-2018-1-128-134
The article deals with various diagnostic systems in assessing the results of teaching academic writing. The author distinguishes levels of academic writing literacy and sets objectives for each level. The levels are characterized with reference to the Russian educational context. The diagnostic system is dynamic: a student moves from stage to stage starting with comprehension of academic writing functioning in Russia, following to application of writing requirement in study at higher institutions, until (s)he is able to create and present new knowledge in an autonomous research. The article touches upon different approaches to assessing academic writing results, for instance, ‘genre’ approach and ‘cognitive taxonomy’ approach, known also as ‘study skills’ and ‘academic literacies’ approaches, respectively. The suggested diagnostic system employs cognitive objectives to assess level of critical thinking in writing. To achieve the objectives, the syllabus is designed with the focus on Russian education realia, developing intrinsic and professional motivation through the theoretical part, reference to the real-life examples and their analysis. Consequently, the diagnostic system, first, establishes students’ study needs in the learning field. The genre in this system is the means, not the aims of assessment, as the focus is on the development of critical thinking in writing.
Keywords: level of writing, academic literacy, diagnostic assessment, cognitive learning objectives
References:
1. Gordenko N. V. Formirovaniye akademicheskikh kompetentsiy u studentov vuzov. Avtoref. dis. kand. ped. nauk [Formation of students’ academic literacy. Abstract of thesis cand. of ped. sci.]. Stavropol, 2006. 22 p. (in Russian).
2. Bespalko V. P. Parametry i kriterii diagnostichnoy tseli [Parameters and criteria for assessing the objective]. Shkol’nyye tekhnologii – Journal of School Technology, 2006, no. 1, pp. 118–128 (in Russian).
3. Khoutyz I. Engagement in written academic discourse: a cross-cultural study of Russian and English research articles. International Journal of Russian Studies, 2015, no. 4 (2). URL: http://www.ijors.net/issue4_2_2015/articles/khoutyz.html#_ftn130 (accessed 15 August 2017).
4. Chuikova E. S. Akademicheskoye pis’mo: kakoye soderzhaniye aktual’no dlya Rossii? [Academic Writing: Relevant Content for Russia]. Vyssheye obrazovaniye v Rossii – Higher Education in Russia, 2016, no. 12 (207), pp. 59–67 (in Russian).
5. Chuykova E. S. Lichnostno oriyentirovannoye prepodavaniye angloyazyichnogo akademicheskogo pis’ma [Person-oriented teaching of English academic writing]. Pedagogika, 2017, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 86–91 (in Russian).
6. Hyland K. English for Academic Purposes: An advanced resource book. NY, Routledge, 2006. 340 p.
7. Lytaeva M. A., Talalakina E. V. Academic skills: sushchnost’, model’, praktika [Academic skills: notion, model, practice]. Voprosy obrazovaniya – Educational Studies Moscow, 2011, no. 4, pp. 178–201 (in Russian).
8. Lazareva I. N. Taksonomicheskiy podkhod v proyektirovanii lichnostno oriyentirovannogo intellektual’no-razvivayuschego obucheniya [Taxonomic approach in person-oriented intellect-developing education projecting]. Izvestiya Rossiyskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta im. A. I. Gertsena – Izvestia Herzen University Journal of Humanities and Science, 2009, no. 94, pp. 130–136 (in Russian).
9. Morozova S. A. K voprosu o kontrol’no-otsenochnoy deyatel’nosti v usloviyakh kompetentnostnogo podkhoda [On the question of the control and evaluative activities in a competence-based approach]. Nauchno-pedagogicheskoye obozreniye – Pedagogical Review, 2016, vol. 3 (13), pp. 48–53 (in Russian).
10. Miller J. Building academic literacy and research skills by contributing to Wikipedia: A case study at an Australian university. Journal of Academic Language and Learning. 2014, vol. 8, no. 2. URL: http://journal.aall.org.au/index.php/jall/article/viewArticle/319 (accessed 15 August 2017).
11. Seviour M. Assessing academic writing on a pre-sessional EAP course: Designing assessment which supports learning. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2015, vol. 18, pp. 84–89. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.03.007.
12. Choshanov M. A. Obzor taksonomiy uchebnykh tseley v pedagogike SShA [Review of study objectives in the US pedagogics]. Pedagogika, 2000, no. 4, pp. 86–91 (in Russian).
13. Krathwohl D. R. A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. 2002. URL: http://www.depauw.edu/fi les/resources/krathwohl.pdf (accessed 15 August 2017).
14. Bespal’ko V. P. Slagayemye pedagogicheskoy tekhnologii [Components of teaching technology]. Moscow, Pedagogika Publ., 1989. 192 p. (in Russian).
15. Gebril A., Plakans L. Source-based tasks in academic writing assessment: Lexical diversity, textual borrowing and profi ciency. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2016, vol. 24, pp. 78–88. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.10.001.
16. Lim J. M. H. How do writers establish research niches? A genre-based investigation into management researchers’ rhetorical steps and linguistic mechanisms. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2012, vol. 11, pp. 229–245. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2012.05.002.
( 449.69 kB ) 
( 442.42 kB )
Issue: 1, 2018
Series of issue: Issue 1
Rubric: PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
Pages: 128 — 134
Downloads: 808