Examining the Effect of Peer and Self Assessment Practices on Writing Skills

Abstract

This study aims to reveal how peer- and self-assessment practices influence the writing skills of 9th grade students. The study adopted mixed-methods explanatory design. The participants were 102 students attending a public school in Ankara. The quantitative data were collected through a quasi-experimental method, and qualitative data were collected through a case study. There were three groups of participants in this study: the 1st experimental group in which peer-assessment was carried out with 34 participants; the 2nd experimental group in which self-assessment was conducted with 34 students, and 34 students in the control group. The interventions lasted 7 weeks. Writing performance tasks and rubrics were used to gather quantitative data while a Semi-Structured Interview Form was used to collect the qualitative data. For the analysis, paired samples t-test, ANOVA, and content analysis were used. The findings revealed that there was a significant difference between pre-test and post-test scores of experimental groups in which peer and self-assessments were conducted whereas there was not a significant difference between the scores of the control group. The findings of ANOVA, the post-test results of the experimental and control groups showed that there was a significant difference between all groups in favor of the 1st experimental group in which peer assessment was applied. The qualitative findings of the study corroborate the quantitative findings. Hence, we can conclude that peer and self-assessment practices were effective both in the development of students' writing skills and on their attitudes and interests towards writing.

Keywords

• peer-assessment
• self-assessment
• writing skills
• quasi-experiment

Akran ve öz değerlendirme uygulamalarının yazma becerilerine etkisinin incelenmesi

Öz

Bu araştırma, akran ve öz değerlendirme uygulamalarının 9.sınıf öğrencilerinin yazma becerileri üzerindeki etkisini ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmada nitel ve nicel araştırmaların birlikte kullanıldığı karma yöntemlerden “Açıklayıcı Desen” kullanılmıştır. Ankara ilinde bir devlet okulunda gerçekleştirilen araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, akran değerlendirmesine dayalı çalışmaların yürütüldüğü 1. deney grubunda 34, öz değerlendirme yaklaşımına dayalı çalışmaların yürütüldüğü 2. deney grubunda 33, normal eğitim sürecinin devam ettiği kontrol gurubunda ise 34 öğrenci olmak üzere toplamda 102 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Deney gruplarına 7 haftalık bir süreç boyunca Fachikov (2005)’un akran ve öz değerlendirme için önerdiği program uygulanırken kontrol gurubu normal öğretim sürecine devam etmiştir. Araştırmanın nicel verilerini elde etmek için yazma performans görevleri ve dereceli puanlama anahtarı kullanılmış, nitel verilerin elde edilmesinde ise Yarı Yapılandırılmış Görüşme Formu kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın nicel boyutundan elde edilen veriler Bağımlı Örneklemler t-testi ve ANOVA analizleriyle çözümlenirken, nitel boyutu için yapılan görüşmeler içerik analizi yöntemiyle çözümlenmiştir. Araştırma sonunda elde edilen nicel bulgulara göre, 1. deney ve 2. deney gruplarına ait ön test ve son test puanları arasında anlamlı fark bulunurken, kontrol gurubunda anlamlı bir fark bulunmamıştır. Deney ve kontrol gruplarına ait son test sonuçları ise tüm gruplar arasında, akran değerlendirilmesinin yapıldığı 1. deney grubu lehine anlamlı bir fark olduğunu göstermektedir. Araştırma sonucunda elde edilen nitel bulgular da nicel bulguları desteklemektedir. Buna göre akran ve öz değerlendirme uygulamalarının öğrencilerin hem yazma becerilerinin gelişimi üzerinde hem yazma çalışmaları yapmaya yönelik tutum ve ilgileri üzerinde etkili olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Akran değerlendirme
• Öz değerlendirme
• Yazma becerileri
• Yarı-deneysel desen

References

1. Andrade, H.G. (2001). The effects of instructional rubrics on learning to write. Current Issues in Education, 4(4), 2-22. https://l24.im/BPRSj
2. Andrade, H.L., Du, Y., & Wang, X. (2008). Putting rubrics to the test: The effect of modal, criteria generation and rubric referenced self assessment on elementary school students’ writing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(2), 3 13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745 3992.2008.00118.x
3. Ateş, S. (2011). Evaluation of fifth-grade turkish course learning and teaching process in terms of comprehension instruction [Doctoral dissertation, Gazi University]. Yöktez. https://l24.im/6AY
4. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & William, D. (2003). Assessment for learning. Open University Press. http://www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/html/0335212972.html
5. Boud, D. (1989). The role of self‐assessment in students’ grading. Assessment in Higher Education, 14(1), 20-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293890140103
6. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007) Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the long term. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203964309
7. Chamot, A. U. (2009). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach (2nd ed.). Pearson. https://l24.im/81v
8. Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1997). Having second thoughts: Students’ perceptions before and after a peer assessment exercise. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 233 239. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079712331381064

9. Cho, K., Schunn, C.D., & Charney, D. (2007). Commenting on writing: Typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written communication, 23(3), 260-294. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0741088306289261
10. Collins, J.L. (2000). Review of key concepts in strategic reading and writing instruction. In J.L. Collins (Ed.), Cheektowaga-sloan handbook of practical reading and writing strategies (pp. 5-10). Cheektowaga-Sloan Union Free School District.
11. Cömert, M. & Kutlu, Ö. (2018). The effect of self-assessment on achievement in writing in english. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 8(1), 107 118. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ebader/issue/44691/555166
12. Creswell, J.W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Pearson.
13. Çağımlar, Z., & Oflazoğlu, A. (2002). Evaluation of written and oral expression skills (composition) in primary 5th grades in terms of teacher and students’ opinions. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 2(23), 12-22. https://l24.im/v9E5eFq
14. Desoete, A., & Roeyers, H. (2002). Off-line metacognition A domain-specific retardation in young children with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25(2), 123 139. https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1511279
15. Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2006). Rethinking classroom assessment with purpose in mind. Assessment for learning, assessment as learning, assessment of learning. Western and Northern Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in Education (WNCP). https://l24.im/zTPWItn
16. Eckes, T. (2008). Raters types in writing performance assessment: A classification approach to rater variability. Language Testing, 25(2), 155 185. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/0265532207086780
17. Edwards, R., Ranson, S., & Strain, M. (2002). Reflexivity: towards a theory of lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21(6), 525 536. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260137022000016749
18. Erman Aslanoğlu, A., Sata, M., & Karakaya, İ. (2020). Evaluation of university ÖĞRENCİs’ rating behaviors in self and peer rating process via many facet rasch model. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 20(89), 25-46. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2020.89.2
19. Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Students’ peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287-322. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543070003287
20. Fallows, S., & Chandramohan, B. (2001). Multiple approaches to assessment: Reflections on use of tutor, peer and self assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(2), 229 246. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510120045212
21. Ferris, D.R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on students’ revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588049
22. Gardner, D. (2000). Self-assessment for autonomous language learners. Links and Letter, 7(1), 49-60. https://l24.im/isyk
23. Hanrahan, S., & Isaacs, G. (2001). Assessing self and peer assessment: The students’ views. Higher Education Research and Development, 20(1), 53 70. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360123776
24. Howell, D.C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology (5th ed.). Duxbury.
25. Javaherbashsh, M. R. (2010). The impact of self-assessment on Iranian EFL learners’ writing skill. English Language Teaching, 3(2), 213-218. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n2p213
26. Karatay, H. (2013). Süreç temelli yazma modelleri: 4+1 planlı yazma ve değerlendirme modeli [Process-based writing models: 4+1 planned writing and evaluation model]. In M. Özbay (Ed.), Yazma eğitimi [Writing education] (pp. 21-48). Pegem. https://l24.im/uRAJ4y
27. Khonbi, Z.A., & Sadeghi, K. (2012). The effect of assessment type (self vs. peer vs. teacher) on Iranian university EFL students’ course achievement. Language Testing in Asia, 2(4), 47-74. https://doi.org/10.1186/2229-0443-2-4-47
28. Knoch, U. (2009). Diagnostic assessment of writing: A comparison of two rating scales. Language Testing, 26(20), 275-304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532208101008
29. Lam, R. (2010). The role of self assessment in students’ writing portfolios: A classroom investigation. TESL Reporter, 43(2), 16-34. https://l24.im/1tiXK
30. Nielsen, K. (2021). Peer and self assessment practices for writing across the curriculum: Learner differentiated effects on writing achievement. Educational Review, 73(6), 753 774. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2019.1695104
31. Kulm, G. (1994). Mathematics assessment: What works in the classroom. Jossey Bass. https://l24.im/MEVdk
32. Kutlu, Ö., Doğan, C.D., & Karakaya, İ. (2010). Öğrenci başarısının belirlenmesi: Performansa ve portfolyoya dayalı durum belirleme [Determining students’ success: Assessment based on performance and portfolio]. Seçkin. https://www.seckin.com.tr/kitap/532235955
33. Meihami, H., & Varmaghani, Z. (2013). The implementation of self-assessment in EFL writing classroom: An experimental study. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 9(1), 39-48. https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILSHS.9.39
34. Merriam, S.B. (2015). Nitel araştırma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber [Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation] (S. Turan, Trans.). Nobel (Original work published 2013, 3th ed.).
35. Nakanoshi, C. (2015). The effects of different types of feedback on revision. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 4(4), 213-224. https://l24.im/f6YxtBQ
36. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Sage. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-97407-000
37. Mistar, J. (2011). A study of the validity and reliability of self-assessment. TEFLIN Journal, 22(1), 45-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v22i1/45-58
38. Moussaoui, S. (2012). An investigation of the effects of peer evalu¬ation in enhancing Algerian students’ writing autonomy and positive affect. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69(1), 1775-1784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.127
39. Noonan, B., & Duncan, C. (2005). Peer and self assessment in high schools. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10(17), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.7275/a166-vm41
40. Oscarson, A.D. (2009). Self-assessment of writing in learning English as a foreign language: A study at the upper secondary school level. Geson Hylte Tryck. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505960.pdf
41. Pierce, L.V. (2003). Assessing English language learners. National Education Association. https://l24.im/l3vxESD
42. Popham, W.J. (2006). Assessment for educational leaders. Allyn & Bacon. https://l24.im/vrbpOo
43. Richer, D.L. (1992). The effects of two feedback systems on first year college students’ writing proficiency [Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Lowell]. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 2722. ProQuest. https://l24.im/Y4Sws2V
44. Ross, J.A., Rolheiser, C., & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (1999). Effects of self-evaluation training on narrative writing. Assessing Writing, 6(1), 107 132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1075 2935(99)00003-3
45. Ruegg, R. (2015). The relative effects of peer and teacher feedback on improvement in EFL students’ writing ability. Linguistics and Education, 29(1), 73 82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.12.001
46. Sadler, P., & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self and peer grading on student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1 31. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1101_1
47. Sperling, M., & Freedman, S.W. (2001). Research on writing. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.) (pp. 370-389). American Educational Research Association. https://l24.im/ie4D1
48. Strijbos, J.W., & Sluijsmans, D. (2010). Unravelling peer assessment: Methodological, functional, and conceptual developments. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 265 269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.002
49. Sun, C., & Feng, G. (2009). Process approach to teaching writing applied in different teaching models. English Language Teaching, 2(1), 150-155. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v2n1p150
50. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson. https://l24.im/5nQpO
51. Topping, K. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 55–87). Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48125-1_4
52. Uysal, K. (2008). Involving students’ in the assessment process: Peer assessment and self assessment [Master dissertation, Abant İzzet Baysal University]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp
53. Wang, J., & Luo, K. (2019). Evaluating rater judgments on ETIC advanced writing tasks: An application of generalizability theory and many-facets Rasch model. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 8(2), 91–116. https://l24.im/jJG
54. Weigle, S.C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732997
55. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (7. Baskı) [Qualitative research in social sciences, 7th ed.]. Seçkin.
56. Young, J.E., & Jackman, M.G.A. (2014). Formative assessment in the Grenadian lower secondary school: Teachers’ perceptions, attitudes and practices. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(4), 398 411. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.919248