The purpose of the present study is to develop appropriate scoring scales for each of the defined stages of the writing process, and also to determine to what extent these scoring scales can reliably and validly assess the performances of EFL learners in an academic writing task. Two hundred and two students’ writing samples were collected after a step-by-step process oriented essay writing instruction. Four stages of writing process —generating ideas (brainstorming), outlining (structuring), drafting, and editing —were operationally defined. Each collected writing sample included student writers’ scripts produced in each stage of the writing process. Through a detailed analysis of the collected writing samples by three raters, the features which highlighted the strong or weak points in the student writers’ samples were identified, and then the student writers’ scripts were categorized into four levels of performance which were holistically defined as VERY GOOD, GOOD, FAIR, and POOR. Then descriptive statements were made for each identified feature to represent the specified level of performance. These descriptive statements, or descriptors, formed rating scales for each stage of the writing process. And finally, four rating scales, namely brainstorming, outlining, drafting, and editing were designed for the corresponding stages of the writing process. Subsequently, the designed rating scales were used by the three raters to rate the 202 collected writing samples. The scores thus obtained were put to statistical analyses. The high inter-rater reliability estimate (0.895) indicated that the rating scales could produce consistent results. The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) indicated that there was no significant difference among the ratings created by the three raters. Factor analysis suggested that at least three constructs, knowledge, planning ability, and idea creation ability —could possibly underlie the variables measured by the rating scale. Manuscript profile

The purpose of this study is to look into post-Greimasian semiotics and investigate how this tensive model can be applied to Rustam and Sohrab in Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh and its translation by Arnold. The tensive model, considering the two dimensions of intensity and extent, investigates meaning formation and production. Accordingly, this research intends to analyze the semiotic patterns in the two poems and see whether Arnold’s translation follows the same pattern as the source text. There are four elementary plus canonical models defined for the tensive model. Since in Arnold’s version of Rustam and Sohrab, some parts of the source text do not exist (although the main topic is followed), only those common parts in meaning were selected and the tensive model was applied to the discourses. Arnold followed the Greek style in his poems that considered mostly the impression derived from the poem and regarded the whole poem and not the isolated parts. In Rustam and Sohrab, Arnold shows this Greek style remarkably. The results of this study demonstrate that the discourses in the two poems mostly follow the tensive model which shows more affection, sensation, emotion, and tension. Furthermore, Arnold’s translation follow the same semiotic patterns as Ferdowsi’s Rustam and Sohrab in most cases. Manuscript profile