Keywords
peer-assessment
self-assessment
teacher-assessment
student attitudes
How to Cite
Number of views: 591
Number of downloads: 396
Abstract
Student-directed teaching and assessment techniques are gradually dominating educational systems almost all over the world. This study investigated a cohort of male and female Iranian EFL students’ attitudes toward self-, peer-, and teacher-assessment experiences. Sixty three students at Urmia University and Tabriz Islamic Azad University, in the form of three intact classes, experienced self-, peer-, and teacher assessment activities for one academic semester (having taken a knowledge pretest, four assessment series, and a course achievement posttest). Of all the participants, 38 completed a 5-point Likert-scale attitude questionnaire. The application of ANOVA, across and within group dependent samples t tests, as well as some qualitative analyses, indicated that the three experimental groups had positive attitudes toward their assessment experiences. While the peer-assessment group was the most positive in this regard, slight differences were found in the groups’ attitudes and beliefs. Further findings and implications are discussed in the paper.References
Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K., & Mylonas, A. (2002). Developing procedures for implementing peer assessment in large classes using an action research process. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 427-441.
Barak, M., & Rafaeli, S. (2004). On-line question-posing and peer-assessment as a means for web-based knowledge sharing in learning. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61(1), 84-103.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 141.
Boud, D. (1990). Assessment and the promotion of academic values. Studies in Higher Education, 15, 110-113.
Brindley, C., & Scoffield, S. (1998). Peer assessment in undergraduate programmes. Teaching in Higher Education, 3, 79-89.
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. New York: Pearson Education.
Bullock, D. (2011). Learner self-assessment: An investigation into teachers’ beliefs. ELT Journal, 65(2), 114-125.
Butler, Y., & Lee, J. (2010). The effects of self-assessment among young learners of English. Language Testing, 27(1), 5-31.
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1997). Having second thoughts: Student perceptions before and after a peer assessment exercise. Studies in Higher Education, 22, 233-239.
Clifford, V. A. (1999). The development of autonomous learners in a university setting. Higher Education Research & Development, 18, 115-128.
Cohen, D. K. (1988). Educational technology and school organization. In R. S. Nickerson & P. P. Zodhiates (Eds.), Technology in education: Looking toward 2020 (pp. 231-264). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1998). Qualitatively different experiences of learning mathematics at university. Learning and Instruction, 8(5), 455-468.
Davies, P. (2000). Computerized peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 37, 346-355.
Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving assessment through student involvement. New York: Routledge.
Falchikov, N. (2007). The place of peers in learning and assessment. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education (pp. 128-143). New York: Routledge.
Farhady, H. (2006). Twenty five years of living with applied linguistics: Collection of articles. Tehran: Rahnama.
Fry, S. A. (1990). Implementation and evaluation of peer marking in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 15, 177-189.
Katstra, J., Tollefson, N., & Gilbert, E. (1987). The effects of peer evaluation on attitude toward writing and writing fluency of ninth grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 80(3), 168-172.
Kaufman, J. H., & Schunn, C. D. (2011). Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: Their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science, 39(3), 387-406.
Kennedy, K. J., Chan, J. K. S., Fok, P. K., & Yu, W. M. (2008). Forms of assessment and their potential for enhancing learning: Conceptual and cultural issues. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 7, 197-207.
Lee, I. (1998). Supporting greater autonomy in language learning. ELT Journal, 54(4), 282-288.
Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279-290.
Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 27-52.
McNeil, L. M. (1988). Contradictions of control: School structure and school knowledge. New York: Routledge.
Miller, L., & Ng, R. (1994). Peer assessment of oral language proficiency. Perspectives: Working Papers of the Department of English, City Polytechnic of Hong Kong, 6, 41-56.
Mousavi, S. A. (2012). An encyclopedic dictionary of language testing. Tehran: Rahnama.
Orsmond, P. & Merry, S. (1996). The importance of marking criteria in the use of peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21, 239-250.
Oscarson, M. (1989). Self-assessment of language proficiency: Rationale and applications. Language Testing, 6(1), 1-13.
Oscarson, M. (1997). Self-assessment of foreign and second language proficiency. In C. Clapham, & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 7. Language testing and assessment (pp. 175-187). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on selfregulated learning. Educational Psychology, 36(2), 89-101.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (3rd ed.). London: Pearson Education.
Riley, S. M. (1995). Peer responses in an ESL writing class: Student interaction and subsequent draft revision. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 3031.
Roskams, T. (1999). Chinese EFL students' attitudes to peer feedback and peer assessment in an extended pair work setting. RELC Journal, 30(1), 79.
Sambell, K., & McDowell, L. (1998). The values of self and peer assessment to the developing lifelong learner. In Rust, C. (Ed.), Improving student learning – improving students as learners (pp. 56-66). Oxford: Oxford Center for Staff and Learning Development.
Scouller, K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 35, 453-472.
Simkin, M. G., & Ramarapu, N. K. (1997). Student perceptions of the peer review process in student writing projects. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 27(3), 249-263.
Smith, H., Cooper, A., & Lancaster, L. (2002). Improving the quality of undergraduate peer assessment: A case for student and staff development. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39, 71-81.
Sullivan, M. E, Hitchcock, M. A., & Dunnington, G. L. (1999). Peer and self assessment during problem-based tutorials. The American Journal of Surgery, 177, 266-269.
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249-276.
Topping, K. J. (1996). The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher education: A typology and review of the literature. Higher Education, 32(3), 321-345.
Topping, K. J., & Ehly, S. (1998). Peer assisted learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., & Van Merriёnboer, J. J. G. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 270-279.
Wen, M. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2006). University students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward (online) peer assessment. Higher Education, 51(1), 27-44.
Williams, E. (1992). Student attitudes towards approaches to learning and assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 17, 45-58.
License
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.