An analysis of the application of language skills in academic tasks versus linguistic competence in relation to the formation of complex arguments.

对学术任务中语言技能的运用与语言能力在复杂论证形成中的关系进行分析。

This project examines how students’ practical application of language skills in academic tasks compares to their underlying linguistic competence when constructing complex arguments.
It aims to identify gaps between language ability and argumentation performance, providing insights for targeted teaching and assessment strategies.

The study found that in both EAP113 and EAP122, tutors frequently over-rewarded surface-level features—such as a clear stance, citations, and logical paragraphing—while under-recognizing higher-order skills like balanced reasoning, synthesis, rebuttal, and evaluative integration of sources. Statistical analysis confirmed these discrepancies were significant, revealing a misalignment between rubric descriptors and their practical application.

The standardization notes were effective for structural elements, as shown by strong agreement on Organization scores, but less effective for higher-order skills, lacking concrete indicators, annotated exemplars, or borderline case comparisons. This gap may be reinforced by time pressures, the halo effect, and ambiguous upper-band rubric language, all of which encourage a focus on easily observable features.

Overall, the findings highlight a need for improved calibration, clearer operationalization of advanced criteria, and better integration of higher-order skills into both teaching and assessment to ensure marking validity and reliability.