Chapter 2- Theoretical Issues on Writing Course
2.2. English writing competence in theory and in reality
2.2.2. Realization of English writing competence
Inspired by the above line of inquiry, and in order to design the contents for the targeted course in this study, the present part proceeds to give a second thought to the application of theoretical writing competence into practice, most visible from the writing constructs in large scale tests. In this line, the tradition of using rating scales in writing assessment is investigated.
In the first place, one of the best alternatives may well be the widely approved writing assessment rubric, namely IELTS (International English Language Testing System) Profile Band Descriptors for Academic and General Training Writing Module. The IELTS writing test is used as an example of a large scale high stake test in measuring test-takers‟ English language communicative competence. In IELTS profile band descriptors, writing pieces are required to be assessed from three aspects including: “communicative quality”, “arguments, ideas & evidence and vocabulary &
sentence structure”, which almost cover the three competences, suggested beforehand (Cao, 2012).
Besides IELTS, as applied to the second-language arena, the Test of English as Foreign Language (TOEFL) writing of Educational Testing Service (ETS, USA) is designed to target a range of proficiency such as lexical and syntactic standards of English and the effectiveness with which the examinee organizes, develops, and expresses ideas in writing (ETS, 2004). That is recognized as “socio-linguistic”
competence. Except for that, the context of the TOEFL suggests a stricking attention to writing as "discourse competence,” that takes place within a context, accomplishes a particular purpose, and is appropriately shaped for its intended audience (Hamp-Lyons
& Kroll, 1997). On the other hand, using correct grammar, vocabulary, spelling and punctuation is highly required in TOEFL writing pieces.
As can be inferred from the pictorial representation above, IELTS and TOEFL writing descriptors have put different weight of emphasis on a variety of examinees‟
writing competences. For more example in the categories of the scale, the Cambridge
18
ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) Common Scale for Writing (CSW) as a wellknown descriptor of writing proficiency levels would be examined to reveal any implicit assumptions and/or hidden values involved (Hawkey & Barker, 2004).
In Cambridge ESOL exams, writing involves multiple competences including vocabulary and grammatical knowledge, phonological control, knowledge of discourse, and pragmatic awareness (Hamp-Lyons and Kroll, 1997). Ramshaw (2010) also shared his view with that writing ability is regarded as a “linguistic, cognitive, social and cultural phenomenon” that takes place in a “specific context” and for a
“particular purpose”. Furthermore, writing tasks set as part of the tests are currently scored by rating degree of task fulfilment and evidence of target language control according to criteria such as communicative effectiveness, register, organisation, linguistic range and accuracy (Hawkey & Barker 2004). Apparently, it is necessary for candidates to achieve a satisfactory level in organising and structuring their response coherently and offering relevant information which addresses the requirements of the task.
It is impossible not to mention the The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) as a key guidance for course designers in shaping the course contents. CEFR describes language learners‟ ability of speaking, reading, listening and writing at six reference levels ranging from the basic user stage to the proficient user stage, levels A1 to C2.
In terms of writing, the CEFR provides „illustrative descriptors‟ and these are presented as a series of scales with Can Do statements from levels A1 to C2. These scales can be used for writing syllabus designers, coursebook publishers and writing test providers worldwide, including Cambridge ESOL, seek to align their exams to the CEFR for reasons of transparency and coherence. It can be seen from the descriptors, users/learners bring to bear their capacities as detailed above for the realisation of written communicative competence, in narrow sense, including linguistic competences, sociolinguistic competences and pragmatic competences (Council of Europe, p.108).
For linguistic competences in writing, CEFR clearly distinguished them into lexical competence, grammatical competence, semantic competence, orthographic
19
competence. Lexical and grammar competences are similar to competences that were aforementioned. Adding to that, CEFR writing referes to semantic competence which deals with the “learner‟s awareness and control of the organisation of meaning”.
Orthographic competence involves “a knowledge of and skill in the perception and production of the symbols of which written texts are composed” (CEFR, p. 117). For alphabetic system such as English, learners should know and be able to perceive and produce the form of letters in printed and cursive forms in both upper and lower case, the proper spelling of words, including recognised contracted forms, punctuation marks and their conventions of use.
With regard to sociolinguistic competences, the knowledge and skills required to deal with the social dimension of language use such as linguistic markers of social relations, expressions of folk-wisdom, register differences. The first use is widely divergent depending on relative status or closeness of relation such as use and choice of address forms (Council of Europe, p.119). The second, expressions of folk-wisdom are frequently used, or perhaps more often referred to, for instance in newspaper headlines, proverbs, idioms. Meanwhile, the term „register‟ is used to refer to systematic differences between varieties of language used in different contexts. This is a very broad concept, which could cover what is here dealt with under „tasks‟ or „text- types‟. All of these vary in different contexts and from one culture to another.
In respect of pragmatic competences, they are concerned with the user and learner‟s knowledge of the principles according to which written texts are organised, structured and arranged, used in communication for particular functional purposes such as description, narration, commentary, exposition, exegesis, explanation, argumentation, persuasion (Council of Europe, p. 126).
To cut a long story short, writing in CEFR is designed to target a single proficiency level – from A1 to C2 level of the CEFR; therefore the writing test reflects tasks, skills, and competences appropriate to this single level. In curriculum and syllabus design, the CEFR writing scale is a rich source of descriptors which can be related to both high and lower-level aims and is designed to be applicable to many contexts, including education, university, migration, and work. Thus, linking a writing course to the CEFR means relating the particular features of a particular context of
20
learning (the learners, the learning objectives, etc.) to the CEFR, focusing on those aspects which can be found reflected in the level descriptors. Upon finding relevant scales and descriptors in the CEFR, the course designer can then state the language proficiency level at which students are expected to be able to achieve the objectives.
This also illustrates that linking to CEFR is a very effective way of focusing on the outcomes of language teaching (Council of Europe 2001a).
Summary
The above constructs of writing competence in ESL have varied significance to course designers. Firstly, despite outstanding IELTS Profile Band Descriptors for Academic and General Training Writing Module, it is hard for designers of a writing course according to CBA to follow the IELTS writing module. In my view, the significant reason is that the IELTS writing module claims to prepare test-takers for the writing skills required in English-speaking universities. In addition, Leki, Cumming and Silva (2008) found it not to cover the essential and universal skills used in workplace context such as specific subject matters, specialized vocabulary, researching, citing references, writing lengthy papers. Weigle (2007) also criticized the short, timed essays used in the IELTS writing tasks for failing to match the context where the tasks require students to respond through other texts that have been read or discussed already, and involved elements of research and citing sources.
Secondly, regarding TOEFL, in the design phase the primary concern was that the tasks must represent writing which is integral to university or college contexts.
This has been borne out in the development of the integrated writing task, which has clearly been modelled on an academic classroom environment. Its advocates claim that this form of writing does allow the candidate to show language, structure and reasoning abilities that would be required in an educational setting (Enright &
Quinlan, 2010). However, a university student is rarely called on to write a 300-word essay in 30 minutes without reference to other sources (Weigle, 2002). At the same time, it seems to be too challenging for engineers at VAEI to practice and perform their writing competence under the integrated task. On the other hand, in order to adopt TOEFL writing scoring rubrics, preparation for TOEFL test is highly needed;
thus, the instructors are required to spend considerable time and effort designing
21
courseware and exercises specifically targeting this perceived weakness. Due to time constraints, it seemed more productive to devote resources to creating a “solution” by another option rather than investigating the proposition.
In the case of the Cambridge ESOL General English suite of exams, different exams target five different proficiency levels; however, the written responses are assessed via different multiband (or multilevel) rating scales. To link the various rating bands across the five exam levels, Cambridge ESOL has recently completed a long- term project to develop a Common Scale for Writing covering the five upper CEFR levels. However, it remains unclear how the finer bands of the exam-specific rating scales can be interpreted with reference to the levels of this Common Scale and to the CEFR proficiency levels; to be more specific, could a band 5 rating, for instance, in the CAE be interpreted as the candidate having shown a writing performance beyond CEFR Level C1? Although this issue is addressed for the overall grade, it is not addressed for reporting a profile for the different skills covered in the exam. Thus, it seems difficult to transparently trace how multiband ratings of written performances in this suite of exams could lead to the assessment of a candidate‟s writing proficiency in terms of CEFR levels (Taylor & Jones, 2006).
When it comes to the particular writing course design and writing assessment context of workplace for occupational purposes, CEFR appears to outweight other mentioned procedures. It can be adaptable to fit the context and central to the outcomes of learning which competence-based approach aims at. Once the context and purpose are established, it is possible to delineate the target language use (TLU) situations. For example, for the VAEI engineers, several TLUs can be imagined:
attending lectures, participating in seminars, giving presentations, reading books and papers, writing reports and essays; and each TLU may suggest a different combination of skills and language exponents. Furthermore, demands may vary on different courses: those such as engineering may require higher levels of ability in literacy- related areas than others (Council of Europe 2001a). This is why CEFR descriptions will be used to design the most important component of the targeted writing course in this study: the course objectives.