ETS的作文评分标准.docx
- 文档编号:11762358
- 上传时间:2023-04-01
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:18
- 大小:33.70KB
ETS的作文评分标准.docx
《ETS的作文评分标准.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《ETS的作文评分标准.docx(18页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
ETS的作文评分标准
在ETS用“雷同探测器”向全球考生,尤其是中国考生,念起紧箍咒,规定了这样那样的百般“禁忌”之后,如何才能写出能给自己带来满意成绩的文章,便成为考生们的当务之急。
实际上,如果中国考生能摈弃某些好高骛远、不切实际的目标,那么,研究一下ETS的作文评分标准以及对应于各分数段的作文样品,我们就会发现,要达到4.0的平均分,其实并不过分困难。
当然,能获得5.0或6.0分的成绩无疑会使人欣喜若狂,但这一成绩在目前的中国考生中,仅限于英语专业研究生中训练有素(well-trained)的中等学生,英语专业本科生中的佼佼者以及非英语专业本科、研究生中具备英文写作特长的学生。
如果考生愿意将分数底线设定在4.0分并全力以赴朝着这一目标努力的话,则不失为一种明智、务实之举。
考虑到一般考生在Argument类文章上得分较高而在Issue类文章上得分较低这一实际情况,考生可力争在Argument类文章上获得5.0分,在Issue类文章上获得3.0分;或者,如果在Argument类文章上获得4.5分,但在Issue类文章上则必须获得3.5分,从而达到总平均分4.0分的目标。
那么,只有在写出怎样的文章之后才有可能在Issue类文章上获得3.0及以上的分数呢?
相信看了下述ETS公布的3.0分标准的作文样本后,考生们都会信心倍增。
SamplesofScoredIssueEssayswithReader'sCommentaries
SampleIssueTopic:
"Inourtime,specialistsofallkindsarehighlyover-rated.Weneedmoregeneralists—peoplewhocanprovidebroadperspectives."
Benchmark3—Limited
GeneralistshavetheideasandbeliefsofwhatAmericaismadeof.America'swealthofknowledgecanberelatedtothegeneralistsofthepastgenerationsandtheoriginalleadersofourConstitutionPeriodthathelpedshapeourgreatnation.Ifourformerleaderswouldhavenotbeengeneralistswhencreatingourcountry'sConstitutioninthelate1770's,Americangenerationsofwouldhavebeenburdenedwiththeconstantunderstandingthattheyaredoomedtofailure.
ThefactthatourpastleaderswerenotspecialistsgavethecreationoftheConstitutiontheabilitytobechangedthroughamendmentspassedbyourrepresentedleadersoftoday.TheConstitutionwascreatedwiththeabilitytoadapttothecountriesneedsanddemandsinrunningoursocietyasitchangesovertime.Thegeneralistsapproachtothiscreationofanon-specializedConstitutionshowstheneedfortodaysgenerationstocontinuewiththebeliefsthataspecialistwouldnotfollow.
Americahaslearnedfromit'spastandhasdonewhatitcantomakethechangesthroughadaption.America'sgreatnesshasbeenfromthegeneralistleadersofthepast,thinkingfortheAmericansofthefuture.Americanswithabroadperspectiveiswhatwillcontinuetoleadourgreatnationintothetwenty-firstcentury.
全文总共209个英文单词。
对于中国考生而言,其写作能力无论糟糕到何种地步,在考场上规定时间内写出209个英文单词应在情理之中。
纵观上述作文样本,原文作者主要是较好地组织了三个层次的论点,清晰地表述出来,所援引的例子仅有一个,即美国宪法这一例子。
在国内很多TOEFL/GRE培训班上,作文老师告诫学生应该尽可能将文章的篇幅写得长一些。
但这种“多多益善,以长取胜”的做法至少在这里已不适用。
因此,中国考生以其漫无边际地贪图写得多,在语言文字上冒错误连篇、又臭又长之风险,还不如尽量使内容简洁有力,将结构加以精心组织为好。
撇开上述这篇作文样本语言文字上的各种错误姑且不谈,如果作者能将每个论点稍加扩充,议论更加深入一点(再多写100个左右的英文单词),并且,论点再稍加平衡一点(原文作者对题目全盘肯定,一点都没有考虑特殊、例外的情形),则分数有望达到3.5或4.0分。
我们不妨看一下ETS评阅人对该文的评语:
ReaderCommenton3
Thisresponsedisplayssomecompetencebutisflawedbyimpreciseuseoflanguageandlimitedanalysisoftheissue.
Thewritersupportstheclaimthatgeneralistsarepreferabletospecialists,offeringasevidencethehistoricalexampleofthegeneralistswhocreatedtheU.S.Constitution.Theexample,whilerelevant,isnotadequatelydeveloped.ThemiddleparagraphtracestheflexibilityoftheU.S.Constitutiontothegeneralistorientationof18thcenturyleaders,buttheideasinthefirstparagrapharetoovaguelyexpressedtocontributetothisdiscussion,andthefinalparagraphconsistsofunsubstantiatedgeneralities.
Frequentminorerrorsinpunctuation,pronounuse,andverbtense,aswellasimprecisesyntaxandphrasing(e.g.,"GeneralistshavetheideasandbeliefsofwhatAmericaismadeof."and"...gavethecreationoftheConstitutiontheabilityto...")contributetotheoverallinadequacyofthisresponse.
在看完了3.0分的Issue类的作文样本之后,我们不妨再来研读一篇得分为4.0分的Issue类文章。
SampleIssueTopic:
"Inourtime,specialistsofallkindsarehighlyover-rated.Weneedmoregeneralists—peoplewhocanprovidebroadperspectives."
Benchmark4—Adequate
Theneedforgeneralistsisundeniablebutonecannotunderestimatetheneedandimportanceofspecialists.Themedicalprofessionisagoodexampleofanareathatrequiresbothgeneralistsandspecialists.Iftherewerenogeneralistsintheprofessiontherewouldbenoonetohelppatientsdeterminewhenaspecialistwasneeded.Therearecertainproblemsthatageneralpractitionercantakecareofandthereareotherproblemsthatareoutofhisorherleague.Thegeneralpractitioneristheanappropriateplacetostartwhenapatientdevelopsaproblem.Manytimesthegeneralpractitionerismorethancapableofhandlingproblemsthatariseandothertimesheorsheisunabletofullytakecontrolofthepatient'scare.Itisn'tafaultwiththegeneralpractitioners.Thereisjusttoomuchtoknowforanyonepersontobeanexpertonalltopics.Ittakespeopleyearstobecomeexpertsonasingletopic,nevermindbeinganexpertoneverythinginthemedicalprofession.
Iamcurrentlyworkinginalargeteachinghospitalwheretheneedforbothgeneralpractitionersandspecialistsisobvious.Whenapatientisadmittedtoageneralmedicinefloor,thegeneralmedicinephysiciansarenotalwaysabletodealwitheveryproblemthepatienthaswithoutsomehelpfromthespecialists.Itwouldbeunrealistic,nottomentionunfairtothegeneralpractitioners,toexpectthegeneralpractitionerstoknoweverythingabouteverything.Thekeyistoknowwhereeveryone'sknowledgeandareaofexpertiselieandusetheirstrengthstooptimizepatientcare.
OnthegeneralmedicineteaminwhichIworked,theteamwouldconstantlyberequestingconsultsfromspecialists.Whetheritbearenal,psychiatric,orthopedic,rehabilitation,speech,gastroenterologist,oranyotherspecialist,theirinputwasconstantlyneededandusedtogetthepatientwellasquicklyaspossible.Thelistofspecialistscangoonlongerthanonewouldthinkanditisjustimpossibleforonepersontoknoweverythingabouteachoneofthem.
Althoughtheneedforgeneralistsisapparent,itwouldbehardtosurvivewithoutspecialists,also.Whenapersonactsasageneralist,theyknowlittlebitabouteverything,butcertainlynotatotallyinclusiveknowledgeofeverything.Thespecialististheretohelpaddtheexpertiseandinclusiveknowledgethatthegeneralistmaybelacking.Themostimportantthingtorememberwithspecialistsandgeneralistsistorecognizeboth'sstrengthsandweaknessesandcapitalizeonthestrengthstoachievewhatevergoalmaybedesired.(430words)
如果我们将上述两篇Issue类文章稍加对比的话,那么,被评为”limited”的3.0分文章在所提出的论点、所展开的论述以及所列举的事例这三方面仿佛是话仅说出了一半,显得意犹未尽,且由于仅持一面之辞而似显片面。
而纵观这篇被评为”adequate”的4.0分的文章,作者的观点是平衡的。
从结构上来说,其综合的论点在第一段得到了全面的表述。
如果我们将第一段视作议论的话,则第二、第三段则是在进行举例说明(illustration)。
与我们有些考生爱用“举世闻名”的事例相反,该文作者所引用的是其工作中的亲身感受,因此决不会落入俗套而与人人熟知的事例相雷同。
此外,所举例子确实能有力地论证文章的论点。
ETS评阅人认为,该文的主要缺点是第二段的例证有“掉链子”的迹象,而最后一段的结论仅仅是在复述第一段的主题,没能“推陈出新”地深化和发展主题。
这篇4.0分的文章全文共430个英文单词,是它前面那篇3.0分文章的一倍多。
对中国考生来说,在实际考试的时间限制内,可能只有一半的考生能写出400个至450个英文单词。
如果考生虽能写出450个至500个单词,但仍然没能得到4.0分,除去文字和语言上的问题,原因主要在于立论、论证和例证三方面缺乏条理和深度。
下面是ETS评阅人对4.0分作文的评语。
ReaderCommenton4
Overall,thisisacompetentresponsetothetopic.Thewriterdisputestheclaimthat"specialistsareover-rated"andarguesfromthepositionthatbothspecialistsandgeneralistsareneeded.Thesingleextendedexampleclearlysupportsthepremiseoftheargumentasthewritercomparestherolesandresponsibilitiesofgeneralistsandspecialistsinthemedicalprofession.Byparagraph3,however,thediscussionfalters,andtheconcludingparagraphdoeslittlemorethanrepeatideaspresentedinthefirsttwoparagraphs.
Thisessaydisplaysgenerallyadequatecontroloversyntaxandusage,andthewordchoice,whileappropriate,lacksprecision.
在扼要分析了Issue类文章的评分标准及相应样本之后,我们不妨接下来审视一下Argument类的作文样本及其评分标准。
记得在第一次读到ETS公布的Argument6.0分的作文样本(参见附录一)时,我在读完最后一句时曾确实情不自禁地为之拍案称奇,深深感慨于其鞭辟入里之深邃,丝丝入扣之细腻,实有一种令多数考生无可企及的感觉。
但是,如果我们不以Argument作文6.0分作为终极目标,并且,当我们对5.0分的Argument类文章作一番分析之后,信心和成功的希望在我们内心深处又会油然而生。
SamplesofScoredArgumentEssayswithReader'sCommentaries
SampleArgumentTopic
Hospitalstatisticsregardingpeoplewhogototheemergencyroomafterrollerskatingaccidentsindicatetheneedformoreprotectiveequipment.Withinthisgroupofpeople,75percentofthosewhohadaccidentsinstreetsorparkinglotswerenotwearinganyprotectiveclothing(helmets,kneepads,etc.)oranylight-reflectingmaterial(clip-onlights,glow-in-the-darkwristpads,etc.).Clearly,thesestatisticsindicatethatbyinvestinginhigh-qualityprotectivegearandreflectiveequipment,rollerskaterswillgreatlyreducetheirriskofbeingseverelyinjuredinanaccident.
Benchmark5—Strong
Theargumentpresentedislimitedbutuseful.Itindicatesapossiblerelationshipbetweenahighpercentageofaccidentsandalackofprotectiveequipment.Thestatisticscitedcompelafurtherinvestigationoftheusefulnessofprotectivegearinpreventingormitigatingroller-skatingrelatedinjuries.However,theconclusionthatprotectivegearandreflectiveequipmentwould"greatlyreduce...riskofbeingseverelyinjured"ispremature.Dataislackingwithreferencetothetotalpopulationofskatersandtherelativelevelsofexperience,skillandphysicalcoordinationofthatpopulation.Itisentirelypossiblethatfurtherresearchwouldindicatethatmostseriousinjuryisavertedbytheskater'sabilitytoreactquicklyandskillfullyinemergencysituations.
Anotherareaofinvestigationnecessarybeforeconclusionscanbereachedisidentificationofthetypesofinjuriesthatoccurandthevariouscausesofthoseinjuries.Thearticlefailstoidentifythemostprevalenttypesofroller-skatingrelatedinjuries.Italsofailstocorrelatetheabsenceofprotectivegearandreflectiveequipmenttothoseinjuries.Forexample,ifthemajorityofinjuriesareskinabrasionsandclosed-headinjuries,thenacasecanbemadefortheusefulnessofprotectiveclothingmentioned.Likewise,ifinjuriesarecausedbycollisionwithvehicles(e.g.bicycles,cars)orpedestrians,thenlight-reflectiveequipmentmightmitigatetheoccurences.However,ifth
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- ETS 作文 评分标准