The effect of peer-assessment training on gifted fifth grade students’ English writing skills

Abstract

Peer assessment has become widespread in recent years with the rise of the process approach. However, there is no study in the literature that has applied this method with gifted students in English writing. This study aimed to investigate the effects of peer assessment training on gifted students' English writing. Qualitative and quantitative data were obtained from 30 gifted 5th grade students studying at Afyonkarahisar Dumlupınar Science and Art Centre (BİLSEM). The data from the English writing scored on a rubric and the Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory (SLWAI) used as a pre-post-test were analysed using SPSS 25. Semi-structured Interview Form was used to obtain students’ views. According to the quantitative results, the study made a statistically significant difference in increasing English writing skills and decreasing foreign language writing anxiety. Qualitative findings revealed that the study was useful, informative and enjoyable. The study helped the participants to feel more comfortable because they realized that their peers could also make similar mistakes when writing in English. Besides, the students reported that they were worried about fair evaluation and grading by their peers. In conclusion, peer assessment has the potential to increase students' skills, self-confidence and awareness in English writing.

Keywords

• peer assessment
• gifted students
• English writing skills
• writing anxiety

Akran değerlendirmesi eğitiminin özel yetenekli beşinci sınıf öğrencilerinin İngilizce yazma becerilerine etkisi

Öz

Akran değerlendirmesi son yıllarda süreç yaklaşımının yükselişiyle yaygınlık kazanmıştır. Ancak, literatürde İngilizce yazma konusunda özel yetenekli öğrencilerle bu yöntemi uygulamış bir çalışma bulunamamıştır. Çalışmanın amacı, akran değerlendirmesi eğitiminin özel yetenekli öğrencilerin İngilizce yazma becerilerine etkisini araştırmaktır. Karma araştırma deseninin kullanıldığı çalışmada, kolayda örneklem deney grubunun 12 haftalık katılımıyla nitel ve nicel veriler elde edilmiştir. Ön-son test zayıf deneysel desen kullanılan araştırmanın katılımcı grubunu Afyonkarahisar Dumlupınar Bilim ve Sanat Merkezi'nde (BİLSEM) öğrenim gören 30 özel yetenekli 5. sınıf öğrencisi oluşturmaktadır. Ön-son test olarak kullanılan İkinci Dilde Yazma Kaygısı Envanterine (SLWAI) ve dereceli puanlama anahtarına dayanarak elde edilen veriler SPSS 25 ile analiz edilmiştir. Öğrencilerin görüşlerini almak için Yarı yapılandırılmış Görüşme Formu kullanılmıştır. Nicel sonuçlara göre, çalışma İngilizce yazma becerilerinin artmasında ve yabancı dilde yazma kaygısını azalmasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark yarattığını ortaya koymuştur. Nitel bulgulara göre ise çalışmanın yararlı, öğretici ve eğlenceli olduğu ortaya konmuştur. Çalışma katılımcıların kendilerini daha rahat hissetmelerine yardımcı olmuştur, çünkü akranlarının da İngilizce yazarken benzer hataları yapabileceklerini görmüşlerdir. Diğer taraftan öğrenciler arkadaşları tarafından adil değerlendirme ve puanlama konusunda ise kaygı duyduklarını belirtmiştir. Sonuç olarak, akran değerlendirmesi uygulamasının öğrencilerin İngilizce yazma konusunda becerilerini, özgüvenlerini ve farkındalıklarını artırma potansiyeli vardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sözcükler: akran değerlendirmesi
• özel yetenekli öğrenciler
• İngilizce yazma becerileri
• yazma kaygısı

Kaynakça

1. Acar, F. (2022). Enhancing critical thinking and English speaking skills of gifted students through "Philosophy for Children (P4C) approach" in an EFL context. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Pamukkale University.
2. Akarsu, F. (2004) Üstün yetenekliler, üstün yetenekli çocuklar seçilmiş makaleler kitabı, Ed.: M. R. Şirin, A. Kulaksızoğlu, A. E. Bilgili, Çocuk Vakfı Yayınları, İstanbul, s. 127-154.
3. Bakioğlu, A., & Levent, F. (2013). Suggestions for gifted education in Turkey. Journal of Gifted Education Research, 1(1), 31-44.
4. Berg, B. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215–241.
5. Beşkardeş-Günay, S. (2007). Üstün zekali ve özel yetenekli öğrencilerin yabanci dil (İngilizce) öğretiminde metafor sisteminin uygulanması. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Afyon Kocatepe University.
6. Birjandi P & Tamjid NH. (2012). The role of self-, peer and teacher assessment in promoting Iranian EFL learners’ writing performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 37(5): 513–533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.549204.
7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 17-18.
8. Bruning, R., & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 25-37. From https://doi. org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_4.

9. Bush, T. (2012). Authenticity in research: Reliability, validity and triangulation. Research Methods in Educational Leadership and Management, 75-89.
10. Buhrke, L., Henkels, L., Klene, J., & Pfister, H. (2002). Improving fourth grade students’ writing skills and attitudes. ERIC database. (ED471788).
11. Can, A. (2018). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi. Pegem Atıf İndeksi, 001-429.
12. Chen, W. (2021). Understanding students’ motivation in L2 collaborative writing. ELT Journal, 75(4), 442-450.
13. Cheng, Y. S. (2004). A measure of second language writing anxiety: Scale development and preliminary validation. Journal of second language writing, 13(4), 313-335.
14. Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39, 629-643.
15. Cohen J (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20:37-46.
16. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3. Baskı ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17. Davis, G. A. (2019). Gifted children and gifted education: A handbook for teachers and parents. United States: Great Potential Press.
18. Demir, S. (2019). The effectiveness of EFL students’ peer feedback practices in composition classes: A case study at a state university in Türkiye. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Middle East Technical University.
19. Demirel, E. T. (2009). An investigation of a complementary feedback model for L2 writing: Peer and teacher feedback versus teacher feedback. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Middle East Technical University.
20. Dochy, F. J., & McDowell, L. (1997). Introduction: Assessment as a tool for learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 279-98.
21. Dochy, F. J. R. C., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher education, 24(3), 331-350.
22. Doğar-Kayadelen, B. (2018). Peer editing as a writing assessment to young learners in English writing classes. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Erciyes University.
23. Erarslan, A., & Hol, D. (2014). Language interference on English: Transfer on the vocabulary, tense and preposition use of freshmen Turkish EFL learners. Elta Journal, 2(2), 4-22.
24. Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000) Student PA in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research 70(3): 287-322.
25. Franklin, M. J., & Friedl, B. C. (1973). Teaching gifted students foreign language in grades ten through twelve. Institute of Educational Science
26. Freeman, M. (1995). PA by groups of group work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 20(3), 289-300. Galvan, M. C., & Pyrczak, F. (2016). Writing empirical research reports: A basic guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences. Routledge.
27. Haines, C. (2004). Assessing students’ written work. Marking essays and reports. London: Routledg Falmen.
28. Hajar, S. (2017). Students’ Perception of PA in Improving Students’ Speaking Skill (A Case Study at The Department of English Language Education) (Doctoral dissertation, UIN Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh).
29. Izanlu, M., & Feyli, M. (2015). The effects of symmetrical and asymmetrical scaffolding on university students' grammar acquisition. Journal of Advances in English Language Teaching, 3(6), 106-115.
30. James, P. (2000) A blueprint for skills assessment in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25 (4), pp. 353–367.
31. Johnson, R. (2001). The next frontier of the student-centered classroom: Teaching students to recognize quality writing through the use of peer evaluation. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 463813).
32. Kaynak, M. (2017). Impact of Peer Feedback on Efl Learners’ Foreign Language Writing Anxiety and their Ideas About Peer Feedback. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation], Anadolu University.
33. Kellerman, E. (1983). Now You See It, Now You Don’t. In S. Gass, & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language Transfer in Language Learning (pp. 112-134). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
34. Kızıl, V. (2019). PA in EFL Writing Classes. The Journal of International Lingual Social and Educational Sciences, 5(1), 101-111.
35. Koca, G.S. (2019). Peer Teaching and its Implications on Middle School EFL Learners’Writing Motivation. [Unpublished Master Thesis], Pamukkalae University.
36. Kurt, G., & Atay, D. (2007). The effects of peer feedback on the writing anxiety of prospective Turkish teachers of English. Journal of Theory and practice in Education, 3.
37. Kwok, L. (2008). Students’ perception of peer evaluation and teachers’ role in seminar discussions. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 5(1), 84-97.
38. ,Lee, I. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts, Springer. Singapore: Springer Singapore.
39. Liou, H. C., & Peng, Z. Y. (2009). Training effects on computer-mediated peer review. System, 37(3), 514-525.
40. Lukin, K., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2009). We can still do this, or can we? The Russian system of educating and promoting talent in mathematics and science. The Routledge International Companion to Gifted Education, 92.
41. MEB. (2019). Bilim ve Sanat Merkezleri yönergesi [Regulations of science and art centers]. http://mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/dosyalar/2039.pdf
42. Mehrens, W. A., Popham, W. J., & Ryan, J. M. (1998). How to prepare students for pereorrnance assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(1), 18-22.
43. Min, H. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293-308.
44. Mok, J. (2011). A case study of students' perceptions of PA in Hong Kong. ELT journal, 65(3), 230-239. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq062
45. Musfirah, Y. (2019). The use of PA in speaking skill. English Education Journal, 10(1), 67-79.
46. Nilson, L. B. (2003). Improving student peer feedback. College Teaching, 51(1), 34-38.
47. Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology: A textbook for teacher. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
48. Nurkamto, J., & Drajati, N. A. (2018). EFL learners in digital age: The tendency and impact of using translation tool application ın writing English text. the Thinking Process, 1.
49. Okan, Z. & Işpınar, D. (2009). Gifted students' perceptions of learning English as a foreign language. Educational Research and Review, 4 (4), 117-126
50. Peng, J. (2010). PA in an EFL context: Attitudes and correlations. In Selected Proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research Forum, ed. Matthew T. Prior et al (pp. 89-107).
51. Prastika, A. C. (2020). The use of PA technique to improve speaking performance of junior high school students of Gula Putih Mataram. (Doctoral dissertation, IAIN Metro).
52. Rimm, S. B., Siegle, D., & Davis, G. A. (2018). Education of the gifted and talented (pp. 233-236). Boston, MA: Pearson.
53. Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59, (1),23-30.
54. Rouhi, A., & Azizian, E. (2013). Peer review: Is giving corrective feedback better than receiving it in L2 writing? Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93. 1349-1354. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042813034873
55. Sabanur-Koca, G. (2019). Peer teaching and its implications on middle school EFL learners' writing motivation. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Pamukkale University.
56. Saito, H. (2008). EFL classroom PA: Training effects on rating and commenting. Language Testing, 25(4), 553–581. From doi:10.1177/0265532208094276
57. Sak, U., Ayas, B., Bal-Sezerel, B., Öpengin, E., Özdemir, N. N., & Demirel-Gürbüz, Ş. (2015). A critical assessment of the education for gifted and talented students in Türkiye. Gifted education in Asia, 167-190.
58. Sak, U., Ayas, M. B., Sezerel, B. B., Öpengin, E., Özdemir, N. N. & Demirel, G. Ş. (2021). Gifted and talented education in Türkiye: Critics and prospects. Talent, 5(2), 110–132. https://theeducationjournals.com/index.php/talent/article/view/38
59. Savaş, H. (2013). A study on the evaluation and the development of computerized essay scoring rubrics in terms of reliability and validity. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Çağ University.
60. Shaw, V. N. (2002). Peer review as a motivating device in the training of writing skills for college students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 33(1), 68-76.
61. Sengun, D. (2002). The Impact of Training on Peer Feedback in Process Approach Implemented EFL Writing Classes: A Case Study [Unpublished master’s thesis], Middle East Technical University.
62. Sluijsmans, D. M., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2002). PA training in teacher education: Effects on performance and perceptions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 443-454.
63. Subaşı, G. (2002). Peer written feedback training and its impact on students’ writing outcomes. [Unpublished Masters Thesis]. Anadolu University.
64. Susoy, Z. & Tanyer, S. (2013). A closer look at the foreign language writing anxiety of Turkish EFL pre-service teachers. Paper presented at the International Academic Conference on Education, Teaching and E-learning. Prague, Czech Republic.
65. Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2013). Using multivariate statistics, (6), pp. 497-516). Boston, MA: Pearson.
66. Taymaz, N. (2021). Promoting peer scaffolding through analytic feedback criteria: From a perspective of error analysis in writing based on learner corpus. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Gazi University.
67. Tokcan, İ. M. (2022). Factors that determine the efficacy of teaching English to gifted children: implications for the development of ELT programs. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Maltepe University.
68. Topping, K. J. (2009). PA. Theory into practice, 48(1), 20-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577569
69. Trochim, W. (2000). The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd Edition. Atomic Dog Publishing: Cincinnati, OH.
70. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
71. Watters, J. J. & Diezmann, C. M. (2003). The gifted student in science: Fulfilling potential. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 49(3), 46-53.
72. Yastıbaş, G. Ç., & Yastıbaş, A. E. (2015). The effect of peer feedback on writing anxiety in Turkish EFL (English as a foreign language) students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 530-538.
73. Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16(2), 195-209.