Volume 29 Number 2, February 2025 Special Issue: Indigenous Languages and Less Commonly Taught Languages (LCTLs) with Technology Are we testing what we think we are? A multi-site investigation of typed and handwritten L2 Chinese writing assessments

Are we testing what we think we are? A multi-site investigation of typed and handwritten L2 Chinese writing assessments

Repository record updated on:
Jan. 31, 2025, 7:49 p.m.
Database record updated on:
Feb. 12, 2025, 11:35 p.m.
Last Harvested on:
Feb. 12, 2025, 11:35 p.m.
bitstream:
[['https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstreams/ed670bac-9d74-48ee-a529-75cd09a85884/download', '29_02_10125-73616.pdf']]
bitstream_txt:
[['https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstreams/5d0703d8-c13f-4a70-834c-3c1fab742a8d/download', 'full_text']]
collection:
Volume 29 Number 2, February 2025 Special Issue: Indigenous Languages and Less Commonly Taught Languages (LCTLs) with Technology
contributor.author:
Coss, Matthew D.
date.accessioned:
2025-01-29T01:59:45Z
date.available:
2025-01-29T01:59:45Z
date.issued:
2025-02-01
description.abstract:
The extent to which writing modality (i.e., hand-writing vs. keyboarding) impacts second-language (L2) writing assessment scores remains unclear. For alphabetic languages like English, research shows mixed results, documenting both equivalent and divergent scores between typed and handwritten tests (e.g., Barkaoui & Knouzi, 2018). However, for non-alphabetic languages like Chinese, typed responses consistently outscore handwritten ones across proficiency levels (e.g., Bourgerie et al., 2023; Liao, 2023; Zhang & Min, 2019; Zhu et al., 2016), and advanced proficiency groups. This study examined whether this scoring differential exists at the intermediate level. Writing samples were collected from 60 intermediate-level university L2 Chinese learners (N = 120), with counter-balanced prompts and modalities. Two certified raters used a three-criterion analytic rubric for scoring. A linear mixed-effects model showed that regardless of modality or prompt order, test takers produced more content and achieved higher scores on typed responses, even when controlling for language proficiency, multilingual experiences, and Chinese writing/typing habits. These findings suggest that handwritten and typed L2 Chinese test tasks may assess different constructs, carrying implications for various assessment contexts (classroom assessment, placement testing, proficiency tests) and assessment research.
endingpage:
221
format.extent:
31
identifier.citation:
Coss, M. D. (2025). Are we testing what we think we are? A multi-site investigation of typed and handwritten L2 Chinese writing assessments. Language Learning & Technology, 29(2), 190–221. https://hdl.handle.net/10125/73616
identifier.issn:
1094-3501
identifier.uri:
https://hdl.handle.net/10125/73616
number:
2
publicationname:
Language Learning & Technology
publisher:
University of Hawaii National Foreign Language Resource Center Center for Language & Technology
rights:
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
rights.uri:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
site_url:
/item/10125-73616/
startingpage:
190
subject:
Writing assessment Modality E-writing Chinese Less commonly taught languages
title:
Are we testing what we think we are? A multi-site investigation of typed and handwritten L2 Chinese writing assessments
type:
Article
type.dcmi:
Text
volume:
29