Juntao Deng

Yuan B Yao

In recent years, computer-assisted autonomous learning of College English listening (CALCEL) in China has been attracting widespread attention. To investigate the real situation and evaluate the effectiveness of CALCEL, a case study of a university in Eastern China was conducted. Four hundred non-English majors participated in this study. Moreover, an experimental class of forty-seven students was selected to engage in an intensive training program for listening strategies development. Results show that computer-assisted autonomous learning is conducive to developing students’ listening comprehension in numerous aspects. Meanwhile, learning strategies turn out to be the most prominent factor in carrying out such learning practice. Moreover, the training program aiming at cultivating students’ autonomous learning abilities with listening strategies at its core proves to be effective. The study has important implications for developing students’ autonomous learning ability and enhancing the effectiveness of CALCEL.

Jin-yan Huang

Turgay Han

In the assessment of ESL/EFL writing, there has been much debate about the differences between holistic and analytic scoring. Empirical studies reported mixed results regarding the impact of scoring methods on the variability and reliability of ESL/EFL writing scores. These mixed research findings continue to raise a dilemma for institutional writing assessment policy makers in deciding an appropriate and effective method to score ESL/EFL students’ essays. Using generalizability (G-) theory as a theoretical framework, this study was intended to provide a solution to this dilemma through the investigation of the rating variability and reliability of EFL writing by undergraduate students at a Turkish university. Nine EFL essays written by Turkish-speaking students were scored first holistically and then analytically by five raters. The results showed greater rater variation for holistic scores than for analytic scores of EFL papers. Further, there was a large difference in the G-coefficients between holistic (with a G-coefficient of .64) and analytic scoring (with a G-coefficient of .90) and this difference had tremendous impact on the reliability of holistic scoring of EFL papers. The findings of this study provide evidence for policy makers that analytic scoring is more appropriate and effective than holistic scoring in institutional English writing assessment context. Important implications are discussed.