영작문 평가에 관한 원어민과 비원어민 교수 비교연구

Abstract

Objectives This study investigated the similarities and differences in assessing an academic term-paper written by L2 writer between native English-speaking (NES) and Korean professors. It further explored the similarities and differences between NES and Korean evaluators on their perceptions of L2 writer identities. Methods 38 NES and 43 Korean professors rated the term-paper written by a graduate student majoring in applied linguistics according to holistic and analytical scoring methods. The analytical scoring, in particular, included four language areas, such as grammar, vocabulary, content, and organization. A questionnaire was administered to the two groups on their perceptions of author identity. The results from the two groups were compared using the independent t-test, and follow-up interviews were conducted with four NES and four Korean professors to explore the factors of the survey results. Results There was no difference in overall scoring between the two groups. Still, in analytical scoring, the NES professors were strict in organization and content, whereas the Korean professors were strict in grammar. Regarding their perceptions of author identity and their influence on evaluation, NES professors showed more positive attitudes. Concerning the clues of their perceptions, the NES professors' judgment was based on the structure and method of thesis writing. In contrast, the Korean professors recognized the author's identity based on his English proficiency and the breadth of content knowledge. Conclusions The results show that the professors' ratings were influenced by the composition training they previously experienced and their language background. Thus, it suggests that content professors create a rubric suitable for individual courses for appropriate evaluation and share it with their students. It also shows the importance of training students to construct an effective author identity in academic writing.