ETS的作文评分标准.docx

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