The value of peer and self-assessment in teaching English

The value of peer and self-assessment in teaching English

Teaching involves many responsibilities, one of which is assessment. The central issue in assessment is objectivity and fairness of grades given by teachers. As a teacher, I find it appropriate to let students share the responsibility with their teacher concerning the discussion of their work in the classroom and considering students’ voice in assessment that could be implemented into practice by means of peer and self-assessment. The importance of peer and self-assessment has been under investigation and educators’ discussion “since the turn of the century” as the result of growing interest in learner autonomy (Bullock, 2011, p.114). In most reports, peer and self-assessment is recognized as less formal and consequently less threatening forms of assessment in modern teaching. In addition, they help to increase students’ self-confidence, motivation and promote autonomous learning because of the sense of involvement that students experience while assessing themselves. In a Kazakhstani teaching context, this approach to learners’ evaluation might cause misunderstanding among teachers because in a traditional system the teacher is a “figure of authority that guaranteed quality” (as cited in Hyland and Hyland, 2006, p.91).

Harris (1997) believes that self-assessment is a “pillar” in terms of developing learners’ autonomy and self-directed language learning. According to this author, self-assessment tends to make learners more actively involved in evaluation and responsible for learning by means of reflection on their strengths and weaknesses. After identifying them, learners might become more aware of own success or necessity to improve and develop in learning. The idea of developing responsibility for learning and self-improvement seems to be new in the Kazakhstani system of education, where previously the emphasis tended to be more on a teacher ‘giving’ and evaluating knowledge rather than helping students to gain that knowledge by themselves and estimate their own progress.

Along with self-assessment, such experts in the area as Black & William (1998) suggest considering peer assessment. A seemingly strong correlation between these two forms can be explained by the fact that after being able to provide meaningful feedback on their own performance or after “carrying out systematic remedial learning work for himself” (p. 30), students would become capable of making use of peers’ feedback and making constructive judgments about others’ work. These authors emphasize the significance of PA in the improvement of learners’ collaboration and recommend incorporating it as a part of classroom learning activity. However, the anticipated problem with peer and self-assessment (PSA) might be that it demands time on the part of both teachers and students to be trained to do it effectively and to become a kind of a ‘tradition’ in the lessons. Particularly in the existing long-established grading system in our country, where traditionally it was only a teacher who had a “responsibility” and “competence” to evaluate students’ work.

The research undertaken by Sivan (2000) differentiates between two types of peer assessment: intra group (within groups: group members assessing the contribution of an individual to the group work) and inter group (between groups: class members assessing groups’ presentations of their work) assessment (p.196). This approach could be primarily helpful in making group projects or presentations. The second type (inter group) can be especially valuable in initial stages of using PA in the classroom, when the whole group performance is assessed, for preventing students’ anxiety about assessment. The intra group assessment would be effective for measuring individual contribution to the group’s success in learning and, in this way, gaining encouragement from peers.

In relation to techniques which might improve or help to organize peer and self-assessment, the initiative of using technology or web-based tools features in studies by Willey & Gardner (2009) and Thompson & McGregor (2009). Despite the number of beneficial effects of computer-assisted PSA such as anonymity and automatic calculation, some drawbacks may be distinguished. The weak point of such computer-assisted PSA seems to be lack of face-to-face communication; real life interaction though might be an easier organizational option for teachers. In addition, the essential effect why educators are supposed to implement PSA is to develop “transferrable skills” (p.256), which Topping (1998) refers to negotiation skills, and diplomacy rather than pure grading or marking. These skills are of greater value because they can make learners not just “passive recipients of assessment outcomes” (Thomas, Martin & Pleasants, 2011) but constructors of their own learning and desirable results. Through PSA, learners could develop strong social skills while achieving a consensus with the assessment criteria or choosing the best alternatives.

References

Black, P., & William, D. (1998).Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in education, 5(1), 7- 74. Retrieved from ProQuest

Bullock, D. (2011). Learner self-assessment: an investigation into teachers’ beliefs. ELT J, 65 (2), 114-125.

Harris, M. (1997).Self-assessment of language learning in formal settings. ELT J, 51, 12 - 20.

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(02), 83-101

Sivan, A. (2000). The implementation of peer assessment: an action research approach. Assessment in education, 7(2), 193-286. Retrieved from ProQuest

Thomas, G., Martin, D., & Pleasants, K. (2011). Using self- and peer-assessment to enhance students’ future-learning in higher education. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 8(1). http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol8/iss1/5.

Thompson, D., & McGregor, I. (2009). Online self- and peer assessment for group work. Education + Training, 51, (5/6), 434-447

Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276. Retrieved from ProQuest

Willey, K., & Gardner, A. (2009). Improving self- and peer assessment processes with technology. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 26(5), 379-397.