Development and initial argument-based validation of a scoring used in the assessment of L2 writing electronic portfolios

• Main Authors: Lallmamode, Sheila Parveen, Mat Daud, Nuraihan, Abu Kassim, Noor Lide
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier 2016
• Subjects: L Education (General); PE English
• Online Access: http://irep.iium.edu.my/52378/1/Development%20%26%20Initial%20Argument-Based%20Validation.pdf; http://irep.iium.edu.my/52378/; http://www.journals.elsevier.com/assessing-writing

Although writing electronic portfolios (ePortfolios) help learners communicate digitally and provide a platform for works to be better collected and presented, challenges are present in their assessment. This paper reports the development and validation of a writing ePortfolio scoring rubric for an action research course for L2 learners. Using Bachman's (2005) 'Assessment Use Argument' as a basis, two main claims to support the validity of the rubric were examined: (1) the rubric is a reliable tool; and, (2) the rubric is relevant to the construct being measured. A mixed-method approach was used in the development and validation of the eight-criteria analytic and holistic evaluation scoring rubric. Thirteen raters evaluated thirty-eight ePortfolios in the study. The analyses of raters' rating using many-facet Rasch measurement approach and raters' individual standardised open-ended interviews indicated that overall the rubric's analytic categories functioned appropriately to assess the intended construct. However, the criterion 'Ease of Navigation' was found to be misfitting due to a differences in raters' evaluation of the same ePortfolios. Overall, the argument-based validation indicated that the scoring rubric is a reliable and valid instrument for the purpose of assessing L2 writing ePortfolios in the context for which it was developed.