Eesti ja vene õppekeelega kooliõpilaste kirjutamisoskus emakeele e-tasemetööde katsetuse tulemuste põhjal

Anne Uusen, Helin Puksand


Artiklis keskendutakse eesti ja vene õppekeelega kooliõpilaste kirjutamisoskuse võrdlusele, lähtudes hindamisaluste väljatöötamisel kirjutamisoskuse laiemast definitsioonist ja analüütilise hindamise mudelist. Kirjaliku suhtluse osakaal järjest suureneb ja asjakohane kirjutamisoskus on aina olulisem. Et teada saada, kas ja kuivõrd tulevad eesti ning vene õppekeelega koolide õpilased elulise situatsiooni sarnases kirjutamisolukorras sõnumite edastamisega toime, mõõdeti katselistes e-tasemetöödes ka kirjutamisoskust. Eesti ja vene koolide õpilaste tulemuste võrdlus annab esmast informatsiooni – eestikeelsele õppele ning e-hindamisele täielikul üleminekul – asjakohaste kirjutamisülesannete koostamiseks. Tulemuste analüüsist selgus, et õpilaste kirjutamisoskusest mitmekülgse tagasiside saamiseks tuleb neis hinnata võimalikult paljusid aspekte. Nii e-kirja kui ka jutustava teksti üldine keskmine sooritusprotsent oli kõrgem vene koolide õpilastel. Mõlema koolitüübi II astme õpilaste e-kirja kirjutamise tulemus oli oluliselt parem kui I astme oma, aga jutustavat teksti kirjutasid vene koolides paremini I astme õpilased. Vene õppekeelega koolide õpilaste üldised kõrgemad tulemused annavad põhjust nentida, et eestikeelsele õppele üleminekuks on õppekeeles kirjutamise oskuse edendamiseks olemas sisend, millele õpetamisel toetuda.


Writing skills of Estonian and Russian language speaking school students based on the results of the mother tongue standard-determining e-tests

The Covid-19 pandemic has significantly changed something in society and at school. Communication is increasingly taking place in a hybrid form, and therefore the ability to communicate one’s thoughts in a comprehensible way to a communication partner in writing, i.e., relevant writing skills, is becoming more and more important.

Research has shown that mother tongue skills, and more specifically the ability to write in the mother tongue, provide input and help to acquire a second language and / or the language of the learner. Consequently, when preparing for the full transition to Estonian-language education, it is important to know how the writing skills of current first and second stage students of Estonian and Russian speaking basic school are similar and different. The opportunity to compare the writing skills of the students of two school types a little more precisely arose from the basis of the general results of the writing part of the e-tests tested in October 2019 in the 1st and 2nd level of basic school. 

The definition of the construct to be assessed was based on the definitions of several authors, which can be summarized as complicated and complex activity of creating high-quality writing, which consists of different stages. To assess writing skills, it must be established in advance how, what and for what purpose will be assessed. As in standard-determining tests it is possible to assess the result of writing or text, the assessment guide was based on a product approach and, more narrowly, on an analytical assessment model. At both school levels, there were two writing tasks in Estonian and Russian: the task of writing communication and writing the narrative text. The analysis showed that the tasks were generally reliable and measured what was expected. The reliability of the tasks of writing a narrative text was rather low in the first stage test of Estonian and in both stage tests in Russian. This shows that as many aspects as possible should be assessed at least in the narrative text. In both text creation tasks, three aspects were assessed: text creation or content, orthography, and digital writing skills, and in the written communication task, also the ability of written communication.

The analysis of the results of Estonian and Russian speaking school students concluded that it was somewhat surprising that the average results of both the e-mail and the narrative text were better of Russian school students in both stages. Surprisingly because of this that, for example, in the PISA surveys, in reading skills Russian school students performed worse (Puksand 2019). As the texts were evaluated by the teachers and not by the computer, this result can be justified on the one hand by the fact that the human evaluation is always influenced by subjective factors, no matter how unambiguous the evaluation guide is. On the other hand, this makes possible to believe more confidently that for the transition to Estonian-language education, first and second stage students of Russian-speaking basic schools will have at least a satisfactory level input of writing skills. 

The e-mail was written much better by the second stage students in both languages, with a big difference, but while the narrative text was written equally by students of both grade in Estonian schools, then in Russian school, second stage students wrote slightly worse than first stage students. 

As a result of analysis described in the article, the opinion was confirmed that the calculation of spelling errors should be based on the length of the text. It was also noticeable that the text creation skills of Russian students are better than those of Estonian students. The reason for this difference also needs further research. In conclusion, it should be noted that the analysis of the general results of the writing part of low stake e-test of first and second stage students in Estonian and Russian language speaking schools provided valuable information and gave direction for further research.


creation of written text; components of writing; digital writing skills; analytical assessment; text-based assessment; Estonian; Russian; kirjalik tekstiloome; kirjutamisoskuse komponendid; digitaalne kirjutamisoskus; analüütiline hindamine

Full Text:



Bachman, Lyle F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Braine, George, Milio Yorozu 1998. Local area network (LAN) computers in ESL and EFL writing classes. – JALT Journal 20 (2), 47–59.

Brindley, Geoff 2013. Task-based assessment. – Carol A. Chapelle (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Brown, H. Douglas 2000. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Education Company.

Dahl, Karin L., Nancy Farnan 2000. Childrens’s Writing: Perspectives from Research. Newark: IRA.

Durga, Satya Sri, Chandra Sekhar Rao 2018. Developing Students’ Writing Skills in English: A Process Approach. – Journal for Research Scholars and Professionals of English Language Teaching 2 (6), 1–5. (22.7.2021).

Eslon, Pille, Annektarin Kaivapalu 2020. Teel sihtkeelepärase keelekasutuse poole: vene- ja soomekeelsete eesti keele õppijate kirjaliku keelekasutuse dünaamika A2- ja B1-tasemel Towards target-like language use: Russian and Finnish learners’ dynamics of written Estonian on A2- and B1-level’]. – Lähivõrdlusi. Lähivertailuja 30, 57−88.

Fulcher, Glenn, Fred Davidson 2007. Language Testing and Assessment: An Advanced Resource Book. New York: Routledge.

Giraldo, Frank 2020. Task-based language assessment: Implications for the language classroom. – GiST Education and Learning Research Journal 21, 209–224.

Goldberg, Amie, Michael Russell, Abigail Cook 2003. The effect of computers on student writing: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. – Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment 2 (1), 3–51.

Graham, Steve, Debra McKeown, Sharlene Kiuhara, Karen R. Harris 2012. A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. – Journal of Educational Psychology 104 (4), 879–896.

Harmer, Jeremy 1988. How to Teach Writing. Harlow: Longman.

Harmer, Jeremy 2004. How to Teach Writing. Harlow: Longman.

Hyland, Ken 2009. Teaching and Researching Writing. London: Longman.

Holliway, David R., Deborah McCutchen 2004. Audience perspective in young writers’ composing and revising. – Linda Allal, Lucile Chanquoy, Pierre Largy (eds.). Revision Cognitive and Instructional Processes. Studies in Writing 13. Boston & Dordrecht & New York: Springer, 87–101.

Javed, Muhammad, Wu Xiao Juan, Saima Nazli 2013. A study of students’ assessment in writing skills of the English language. – International Journal of Instruction 6 (2), 129–144.

Johnstone, Karla M., Hollis Ashbaugh, Terry D. Warfield 2002. Effects of repeated practice and contextual-writing experiences on college students’ writing skills. – Journal of Educational Psychology 94 (2), 305–315.

Kellogg, Ronald T. 2008. Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. – Journal of Writing Research 1 (1), 1–26.

Lee, Song-Eun 2011. Investigation of the Differences between L1 and L2 Writers from the Perspectives of Instructors: A Case Study of Two Secondary School Teachers. MA Thesis. Purdue University. (22.7.2021).

McMackin, Mary C, Barbara Siegel 2002 Knowing How. Researching and Writing Nonfiction 3–8. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers.

Moskal, Barbara M. 2003. Recommendations for developing classroom performance assessments and scoring rubrics. – Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation 8, article 14.

Nation, I.S.P, John Macalister 2021. Teaching ESL/EFL Reading and Writing (2nd edition). New York: Routledge.

Nunan, David 1991. Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers. Edinburgh & Harlow: Longman.

Puksand, Helin 2019. Lugemine [‘Reading’]. – Gunda Tire jt. PISA 2018: Eesti tulemused. Eesti 15-aastaste õpilaste teadmised ja oskused funktsionaalses lugemises, matemaatikas ja loodusteadustes. Tallinn: Innove, 21−42.

Riley, Jeni, David Reedy 2000. Developing Writing for Different Purposes: Teaching about Genre in the Early Years. London: SAGE Publications.

Rivers, Wilga M. 1981. Teaching Foreign Language Skills in a Foreign Language Skills. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Singer, Nancy Robb, Paul LeMahieu 2011. The effect of scoring order on the independence of holistic and analytic scores. – The Journal of Writing Assessment 4 (1).

Spandel, Vicki., Richard J. Stiggins 1997. Creating Writers: Linking Writing Assessment and Instruction. New York: Longman.

Zemach, Dorothy E., Lisa A. Rumisek 2005. Academic Writing. New York: MacMillan.

Tasemetööd [‘Level exams’]. Haridus- ja Noorteamet. (15.5.2021).

Templeton, Shane 1997. Teaching the Integrated Language Arts. USA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Tierney, Robin, Marielle Simon 2004. What’s still wrong with rubrics: Focusing on the consistency of performance criteria across scale levels. – Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 9, article 2.

Urquhart, Vicki, Monette McIver 2005. Teaching Writing in Content Areas. USA: ASCD.

Uusen, Anne 2006. Põhikooli I ja II astme õpilaste kirjutamisoskus [‘Writing Skills of 1st and 2nd Stage Students’]. Tallinna Ülikooli sotsiaalteaduste dissertatsioonid 19. Tallinn: Tallinna Ülikooli Kirjastus.

Uusen, Anne, Helin Puksand 2021. Põhikooli I ja II astme õpilased arvutiga kirjutajatena: kas pikemaaegsem arvuti kasutamise kogemus tagab paremad tulemused tekstiloomes? [‘1st and 2nd stage students of basic school as writers by computer: does a longer-term computer use experience guarantee better results in text creation?’] – Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat 66, 310−326.

Wang, Zhanming M. 2014. Review of the Influence of L1 in L2. – Acquisition Studies in Literature and Language 9 (2), 57–60.

Writing Assessment: A Position Statement. National Council of Teachers of English, 2014.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2021 Anne Uusen, Helin Puksand

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

ISSN 1736-9290 (print)
ISSN 2228-3854 (online)