Visual Counting and Automated Image-analytic Assessment of Ki-67 and their Prognostic Value in Synovial Sarcoma

Background: Ki-67 is a widely used proliferation marker reflecting prognosis in various tumors. However, visual assessment and scoring of Ki-67 suffers from marked inter-observer and intra-observer variability. We aimed to assess the concordance of manual counting and automated image-analytic scoring methods for Ki-67 in synovial sarcoma. Patients and Methods: Tissue microarrays from 34 patients with synovial sarcoma were immunostained for Ki-67 and scored both visually and with 3DHistech QuantCenter. Results: The automated assessment of Ki-67 expression was in good agreement with the visually counted Ki-67 (rPearson=0.96, p<0.001). In a Cox regression model automated [hazard ratio (HR)=1.047, p=0.024], but not visual (HR=1.063, p=0.053) assessment method associated high Ki-67 scores with worse overall survival. Conclusion: The automated Ki-67 assessment method appears to be comparable to the visual method in synovial sarcoma and had a significant association to overall survival.

Evaluation: and Grading of Students' Writing: Holistic and Analytic Scoring Rubrics

The paper tries to investigate the most preferable writing scoring rubrics when assessing students' writing assignments and to find the dimensions that teachers who teach English as a foreign language (EFL) emphasize when scoring EFL writing summaries. Thirty male and female Jordanian EFL teachers who teach English in both basic and secondary schools were participated to collect the necessary data. To conduct the study, a questionnaire consisting of twenty-seven items was prepared and disturbed by the researchers to suit the purpose of the study. In order to analyze the participants' respondents in the questionnaire, the researchers calculate Percentages, Means, Standard Deviations. The results revealed that there is a high interest in using analytic scoring rubrics to correct their students’ writing. The total mean reached 3.27 with standard deviation (0.65) by high agreement degree. Moreover, the results also highlight the importance of using scoring rubrics as precise and effective methods to assess the learners’ writing performance.

The Descriptive Analysis of Students’ Writing Ability in Narrative Text at the Eighth Grade of SMP Negeri 1 Gunungsitoli Barat in 2020/2021

Writing is one of the four language skills that should be mastered by students. The syllabus of SMP Negeri 1 Gunungsitoli Barat expects the students to be able to compiling the narrative text in the form of personal experience. The purpose of the research was describing the students’ writing ability in narrative text and the factors affecting it. The method used in the research was descriptive qualitative. The analysis of the data was conducted by following steps. Analyzing the quantitative data by using analytic scoring rubric from Glenceo namely, focus/organization, elaboration/support/style, and grammar and mechanics and analyzing the qualitative data through transcripts of structure interviews. Furthermore, the informant of the research was class VIII-A students of SMP Negeri 1 Gunungsitoli Barat which consisted of 20 students. The data were collected through documentary data of students’ worksheets and interview both students and English teacher. The result showed that the students’ ability in writing narrative text was in Good category (66 score). It is proved by the findings that there were 7 students (35%) included in ‘Excellent’ category, there were 4 students (20%) included ‘Good category, there were 3 students (15%) included ‘Fairy’ category and category included in ‘Poor’ were 6 students (30%). Furthermore, the factors that affect the students’ ability in writing narrative text were: students cognitive it was problem organization, less motivation, lack of grammar, lack of practice and the influence of the first language (L1) on writing in English.

Holistic vs. Analytic Scoring between Expository and Narrative Genres: Does the Assessment Type Matter?

The unprecedented emphasis on EFL students' development of their writing skills has invited researchers and EFL instructors to look for the most effective methods of teaching writing and assessing it. Within this context, two main dominant assessment types have been used by EFL writing instructors: holistic and analytic scoring with ambiguous research findings about the use of each. Moreover, ambiguity has also been surrounding variability in raters' scoring across genre types. This study aims at uncovering the difference between using the two scoring schemes across two genres in EFL writing: expository and narrative. Two texts each representing a genre type from 10th grade EFL writers' compositions were presented to a sample of 90 in-service EFL teachers for holistic scoring. Two months later, the same texts were presented to the same teachers for analytic scoring in order to compare between the grades assigned in each round for arriving at results. Results suggest significant differences between the scores obtained according to the grading method. Also, narrative essays received higher scores in both assessment types. These results are discussed, and recommendations are derived.

THE EFFECTS OF THE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS ON COLLABORATIVE L2 SUMMARY WRITING

This study investigates the relationships between the number of participants in summary writing and the quality of their final summary writing. A total of 52 participants aged 16, participated in this four week, mixed-method study. The participants’ overall scores and analytic scores were analysed with paired t-test (individual and collaborative group) and independent t-test (pair and groups of four). The paired t-test results for the overall scores revealed that collaborative writing improves students’ final summary writing and the analytic scoring revealed that the participants in the collaborative groups had improved in three out of five components. The independent t-test results for the overall score showed no significant improvements but there were improvements shown by groups of four in the mean score value. On the other hand, the analytic scoring results revealed that the participants in groups of four had improved in all five components. The majority reacted positively and agreed that the collaborative task had improved their vocabulary knowledge compared to grammar and content.

EVALUATING ORAL PROFICIENCY SKILL THROUGH ANALYTICS AND HOLISTIC WAYS OF SCORING

Purpose: Evaluating speaking skill is an exceedingly difficult and intricate subject. Two methods of testing oral proficiency are usually used: holistic and analytic scoring. To this end, this study aimed to compare analytic and holistic techniques for scoring in evaluating oral proficiency skills. Methodology: The participants of this study were 70 second-grade university EFL students who were studying English Language Teaching at a university in Iran. The participants in this research were both male (n=40) and female (n=30) with the age range from24 to 25. Main Findings: The results showed a statistically considerable diversity between analytic and holistic methods of evaluation considering that the p-value was estimated at 0.002 (P < 0.05). Applications: The findings confirmed that employing these two scoring techniques in the procedure of evaluation may be considered proper as they seem to complement each other, one augments the other and lead to more inclusive evaluation. Novelty/Originality: This study is new since it is the first time in an Iranian university context; oral proficiency skill was evaluated through holistic and analytic scoring.

STUDENTS’ DESCRIPTIVE WRITING PERFORMANCE: THE ANALYTIC SCORING ASSESSMENT USAGE

This study explores students’ performance in descriptive writing. Forty-five English Education sophomore students participated to be the respondents. The data were collected from students’ descriptive writing performance using a 5-Likert scale and they were quantitatively analyzed through the descriptive and factor analysis tests. Students’ descriptive writing were measured through the components of grammar (M = 3.00; SD = .476), punctuation (M = 3.93; SD = .495), coherence (M = 3.60; SD = .539), cohesion (M = 3.22; SD = .517), and content (M = 3.51; SD = .894). Other substantial findings corresponded with the principal component analyses that determined the presence of 5 components with the eigenvalue outreaching 1, positioning 31%, 27.3%, 19.7%, 12.6%, and 9.4% of the variances accordingly. This referred to the factorial analysis that claimed 2 extracted components with a total of 58.32% of the variance. The component 1 was 31.00% and component 2 was 27.32%. The interpretation of these components is coherent with the pilot results on the descriptive writing performance scale, in which the component 1 shows the positive affect items and the component 2 partially indicates the negative affect items.