Publication Date
| In 2025 | 0 |
| Since 2024 | 0 |
| Since 2021 (last 5 years) | 2 |
| Since 2016 (last 10 years) | 7 |
| Since 2006 (last 20 years) | 7 |
Descriptor
Source
| Cogent Education | 2 |
| Advances in Language and… | 1 |
| International Journal of… | 1 |
| International Journal of… | 1 |
| Online Submission | 1 |
| Written Communication | 1 |
Author
Publication Type
| Journal Articles | 7 |
| Reports - Research | 7 |
| Tests/Questionnaires | 1 |
Education Level
| Higher Education | 3 |
| Postsecondary Education | 2 |
| Secondary Education | 1 |
Audience
Location
| Iran | 7 |
Laws, Policies, & Programs
Assessments and Surveys
| International English… | 3 |
| Cornell Critical Thinking Test | 1 |
| Test of English as a Foreign… | 1 |
What Works Clearinghouse Rating
Peer reviewed
Download full textArefsadr, Sajjad; Babaii, Esmat; Hashemi, Mohammad Reza – International Journal of Language Testing, 2022
This study explored possible reasons why IELTS candidates usually score low in writing by investigating the effects of two different test designs and scoring criteria on Iranian IELTS candidates' obtained grades in IELTS and World Englishes (WEs) essay writing tests. To this end, first, a WEs essay writing test was preliminarily designed. Then, 17…
Descriptors: English (Second Language), Second Language Learning, Language Tests, Writing Evaluation
Direct linkFiroozjahantigh, Mojgan; Fakhri Alamdari, Ebrahim; Marzban, Amir – Cogent Education, 2021
The instruction of metadiscourse markers to L2 writers has been recommended by some scholars to assist them in employing a certain tone in persuading readers. Nonetheless, there is a dearth of research investigating the effect of process-based instruction on hedging and boosting devices to L2 learners. To fill this gap, the present study aimed at…
Descriptors: Writing Processes, Process Approach (Writing), Writing Instruction, English for Academic Purposes
Ahmadi, Saeed; Riasati, Mohammad Javad; Bavali, Mohammad – International Journal of Instruction, 2019
The present study aimed at investigating whether academic IELTS candidates perform differently in writing on either a chart topic or a table topic of the IELTS writing task 1 with regard to the four IELTS writing marking criteria i.e. task achievement, coherence and cohesion, lexical resource, and grammar range and accuracy. The study adopted a…
Descriptors: English (Second Language), Language Tests, Second Language Learning, Writing Tests
Farahian, Majid; Avarzamani, Farnaz – Cogent Education, 2018
The present study seeks to investigate the role of portfolios in EFL (English as a Foreign Language) writers' metacognition as well as their writing skill. Therefore, the participants were assigned to two groups (experimental and control). The students in both groups received a writing test, a researcher-made Metacognitive Writing Questionnaire…
Descriptors: Portfolios (Background Materials), Portfolio Assessment, Second Language Learning, English (Second Language)
Zabihi, Reza – Written Communication, 2018
This study investigates the direct and/or indirect effects of some cognitive (working memory capacity) and affective (writing anxiety and writing self-efficacy) variables on the complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) of second language (L2) learners' writings. To achieve this goal, 232 upper-intermediate English learners performed an automated…
Descriptors: Second Language Learning, Writing Achievement, Writing Tests, Cognitive Ability
Aghajanloo, Khadijeh; Mobini, Fariba; Khosravi, Robab – Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 2016
Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) is a controversial topic among theorists and researchers in L2 studies. Ellis, Sheen, Murakami, and Takashima (2008) identify two dominant dichotomies in this regard, that is focused vs. unfocused WCF and direct vs. indirect WCF. This study considered both dichotomies in a matrix format, resulted in the…
Descriptors: Feedback (Response), Writing Achievement, Error Correction, English (Second Language)
Salmani Nodoushan, Mohammad Ali – Online Submission, 2016
Based on their scores on a proficiency test, the 894 participants in this study were grouped into three experimental groups (EG) and three control groups (CG). They attempted an argumentative writing task and the Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Form Z (CCTT-Form Z) as the pre-test. While CG participants received no treatment or placebo, EG…
Descriptors: Experimental Groups, Control Groups, Critical Thinking, Persuasive Discourse
