Scribd
Upload
33 views20 pages

TAYR Conference

The document summarizes a study that examined the use of peer and teacher assessment of writing compositions for advanced English major students in Tunisia. It found that while students had a positive attitude towards peer assessment, there was a significant difference between peer and teacher scores, likely due to students' lack of editing skills and objectivity. The study also found that most students' writing abilities improved over the six-week study, as measured by their grades. The study concluded that effective peer assessment relies on clear assessment criteria and a collaborative learning environment.

Uploaded by

Zeineb Ayachi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
33 views20 pages

TAYR Conference

The document summarizes a study that examined the use of peer and teacher assessment of writing compositions for advanced English major students in Tunisia. It found that while students had a positive attitude towards peer assessment, there was a significant difference between peer and teacher scores, likely due to students' lack of editing skills and objectivity. The study also found that most students' writing abilities improved over the six-week study, as measured by their grades. The study concluded that effective peer assessment relies on clear assessment criteria and a collaborative learning environment.

Uploaded by

Zeineb Ayachi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 20

PEER AND TEACHER ASSESSMENT IN

EFL WRITING COMPOSITIONS


THE CASE OF ADVANCED ENGLISH
MAJOR STUDENTS AT ISSHJ, TUNISIA

1 TAYR conference 2016


Zeineb Ayachi Ben Abdallah
LAYOUT

• Introduction
• Review of the literature
• Methodology
Participants + Instruments
 data analysis
• Findings
• Conclusion
2
INTRODUCTION 1/2
 Rationale:

 Poor writing skill

 Poor performance in all the subjects

 Weak recruitment chances

3
INTRODUCTION 2/2
 Significance of the study:

 Motivate the learners


 Enhance learner autonomy
 Improve writing skill

4
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 Research question I:
 Are scores of peer-assessment (PA), and teacher-
assessment (TA) similar when assessing writers’
abilities?
 Research question II:

 What is the participants’ attitude to peer assessment?

 Research question III:

 What is the effect of using PA and TA on the participants’


writing ability?

5
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 1/ 3
 Peer assessment:
 helps learners be more in control of their learning
 increases audience awareness
 makes it possible for the writer to observe his or her self in his or her own
writing
 can improve learners’ attitude towards writing
 decreases apprehension
 learners can feel more responsible for their writing
 beneficial for both the writer and the reviewer
 helps learners acquire transferrable skills required for life-long learning, in
particular evaluation skills

6
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2/3
 Peer assessment disadvantages

Not easy to carry out, but requires skills like


 time management,

 socicializing,

 criticizing,

 Proficiency in the language

7
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 3/3
 Contradictory views on peer assessment:

 Some surveys revealed that peer review did not assist learners in
improving their writing skills (Brammer & Rees, 2007; Paulus,
1999; Tsui and NG, 2000)

 no significant difference between peer and teacher assessment : the


mean scores for teacher and peer corrections were quite close to
each other (Azamoosh, 2013).

8
METHODOLOGY
PARTICIPANTS+INSTRUMENTS
o Participants: 17 participants from an advanced English
level course in the Higher Institute of Human Sciences of
Jendouba, Tunisia
o Instruments:

 Jacobs et al’s (1983 in Azamoosh, 2013) writing scale

 Questionnaires on attitudes to PA

 Pre

 Post

9
METHODOLOGY
PROCEDURE 1/2

 Procedure

 6 topics were administered over six weeks:

 motivation in the workplace,

 negotiation and sales,

 organizational structures,

 Supply chain management,

 Marketing,
10
 the issue of a single currency.
METHODOLOGY
PROCEDURE 2/2
o Peer/teacher assessment session:
 Brainstorming: pre-writing task
 Draft writing
 Teacher collection, name removal, coding, and redistribution of the
essays in a random way.
 Peer correction:
 rating the essays using Jacobs et al’s (1983) scoring scales: content,
organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics.
 Teacher correction
 Review of errors made

 Distribution of pre-questionnaire during the first session 11


 Distribution of post-questionnaire during the last session
DATA ANALYSIS
Percentages, Means , standard deviation, and Paired
sample T-test

 Difference in grading between PA and TA

 Evolution of grades

 Attitudes to PA

12
13
FINDINGS 1/3
RESEARCH QUESTION 1
 Are scores of peer-assessment (PA), and teacher-
assessment (TA) similar when assessing writers’
abilities?

 a significant difference between the peer and teacher corrections of


the compositions (T=1, 54 ,p= .05), and the mean scores of
corrections were not close to each other: PA (10,23), TA (9).

14
FINDINGS 1/2
RESEARCH QUESTION 2

Overall attitude towards peer assessment

70

60

50

40
peer assessment is helpful

30

20

10

15
0
yes not sure No
FINDINGS 3/3
RESEARCH QUESTION 3

Evolution of students' grades from


15
11.5
week 13
1 to week 6
11 12.5
9 10 10 10 11.511.5 12
10 9 10
8 9

5 5
4
0
1 2 3 4
5 6 7
8 9 10
11 12 13
14 15 16
17
Week 1 grades week 6 grades

16
CONCLUSION 1/2
Conclusion:
 A significant difference between peer and teacher assessment of the
writing compositions due to the participants’ lack of editing skill,
lack of objectivity, and lack of constructive feedback

 A positive attitude of the participants towards peer


assessment. This method helped them learn from
the mistakes of their peers.

 An improvement of most of the participants’ grades.

17
CONCLUSION 2/2
 Limitations:
 Lack of generalization
 the number of participants was limited to 17
 Being at the same time the teacher and the researcher

o Pedagogical recommendations:
 Evaluation is no longer the exclusive practice of the teacher
but should be regarded as a shared responsibility between
the teacher and the students.
 The success of the peer assessment sessions depends on how well the
assessment criteria are presented, and a sense of shared community
18
Thank you for your kind
attention

19
REFERENCES
 References are available in the article

20

You might also like