las vegas, nevada

revelstoke, british columbia

victoria, british columbia

if i were to write

I'd write of lying, wrapped up in her soft body.

I'd write of the power of those golden eyes, and how they make me want to speak. To speak words of love, of those words harder to draw from me than blood from a stone.

I'd write of sunny Sundays, late to rise, simple breakfasts and walking through the lazy city. Of returning sun-drunk and at peace with the fresh air of an early Spring. Making love with the blue blue sky and the mountains just outside the windows, then wrapping ourselves in ourselves and falling asleep.

I'd write of this long road I've wandered these last years. Meandering, full of dead ends and glittering distractions. Winding across continents and through lives, passing through the years with only a notion of a destination.

I'd write of the struggle, upon seeing that imagined destination approach, of accepting it. Of seeing the off-ramps and the safety they promise, of tasting the worry of all that the destination offers. Knowing that to arrive, I'll need to do what I've been so afraid of.

Such little words that take so much to say.

to this day project

mount baker, washington

san diego, california

joshua tree, california

monterrey, california

peer assessment of oral language production: a resource for educators

Much of what I do in my master's program is create comprehensive guides for teachers to help improve their teaching practices. These guides usually address educational research and make a case for why and how to implement strategies in the classroom. Last year I wrote on Critical Pedagogy, as well as an extended piece on how to address homophobia and heteronormativity in the ESL classroom. The former I posted here, while the latter is awaiting publication in an anthology on international language learning.

I wrote the following piece in the Fall and am posting it here to help educators struggling with the idea of incorporating peer assessment in their practice.

-----------------------------

Peer Assessment of Oral Language Production

A Resource for Educators

December 2012

Abstract                                                                                                                                               
This paper addresses the potential benefits and challenges of utilizing peer assessment of oral language in the second language classroom. By reviewing the literature within and beyond the second language education community, it looks at arguments for and against utilizing peer assessment in education, and draws on a number of studies to show that opinion within the educational community is heavily divided regarding the utility of peer assessment. This paper argues that despite strong and valid misgivings about the role peer assessment should play in the classroom, the potential benefits are too great to forsake. The paper then reviews the literature to provide a series of strategies to maximize the value of peer assessment, such as focusing on more advanced learners, properly training peer assessors, ensuring that students have input into the assessment criteria and are well trained in applying it. The paper concludes with a statement in support of peer assessment of oral language in the language learning classroom, assuming that the strategies laid out here are followed and the limitations of the practice are recognized.

Contents

1. Introduction
2. The value of peer-based assessment
3. Holistic Learning and Higher-Level Reasoning
4. As a Socializing Force and Self-Regulated Learning
5. Frequency and Quality of Feedback
6. Learner Perceptions of Peer Assessment
7. Effects on Competency
8. Concerns about peer assessment
9. Do peer-assessment grades correspond to those from the teacher?
10. A framework for productive and valid peer assessment
11. How crucial is a strong correlation between teacher/peer assessments?
12. Training & Practice
13. Advanced Learners
14. Familiarity among Peers
15. Peer Feedback
16. The Challenges of Group Peer Assessment
17. Student Familiarity with Assessment Criteria
18. Concluding Remarks
19. References

Introduction

Oral assessment of second language acquisition is a difficult question in the world of education. While most educators would agree that oral competency is fundamental to feelings of success in second language learning, it is often treated as less important than grammar and aural comprehension. From my own experience, I was able to complete 21 credits of UBC’s Spanish undergraduate program without ever having to do an oral examination. While unfortunate, the situation is unsurprising given the difficulties of oral language assessment. Not only is oral assessment more time consuming for educators, it is also trickier to assess on global scales while maintaining strong validity and reliability in the assessment. Given the challenges educators face in performing oral assessment, it is not surprising that few educators incorporate peer-based assessment of oral proficiency in their classrooms. However, there is a strong case to be made for the value of peer-based assessment, both for pedagogical and economic reasons. In the following paper, I will discuss the benefits that come from peer-based assessment of oral language proficiency, concerns regarding the validity of peer ratings compared to teacher ratings, and offer strategies for how educators can use peer-based feedback without sacrificing validity and reliability in their assessment practice. I believe that this issue is of such significant importance that it merits a strong investigation because of the potential benefits identified in the literature.

In the following paper, I draw on research from a number of contexts and disciplines. Many of the authors mentioned below work outside of the second language classroom, but this paper operates under the assumption that the pedagogical effects addressed here function in a cross-disciplinary manner and are not constrained to the particular contexts in which they were studied.

The value of peer-based assessment

As education culture in the West develops, we turn further away from the traditional rote learning of the past and more toward modes which take into account issues of socialization, critical thinking, metacognitive skills and learner autonomy. In particular, we have seen growth in activities that encourage students to reflect on their own learning. For example, “during recent decades,” Segers et. al (2003) note, “there has been an increase in the implementation of self- and peer assessment“ in the classroom (p. 130). This is understandable, as practicing peer assessment teaches our students so many skills we desire for them: they learn how to analyze texts, monitor the language production of others, and assess their performance. We want our students to learn these skills because if they learn to practice them on others, they will intuitively begin to use them on themselves. This development of metacognitive skills is fundamental and invaluable for higher-level learning, something desirable for all students.

Holistic Learning and Higher-Level Reasoning

Research shows that peer assessment inspires in learners holistic approaches to learning as opposed to instrumental approaches that lead students to study for the purpose of passing a test (Entwhistle, 1987; Gibbs, 1992). When our students learn for the sake of learning, they are more likely to be active participants in classrooms, take responsibility for their own learning, and maintain strong levels of motivation for language learning even after the course has finished (Ozogul & Sullivan, 2009). And not only are they learning for better reasons, but they are learning to think better. Birdsong and Sharplin (1986) study peer assessment and how it can improve higher-level reasoning in learners as well as higher level cognitive thought. “Peer assessment,” Saito (2008) notes, “is a meta-cognitive activity in which student attention is drawn to the features of the language learning task” (p. 554; Falchikov, 2005). Peer assessment promotes strong meta-cognitive skills by “encourag[ing] reflective learning through observing others’ performances and becoming aware of the performance criteria” (Saito, 2008, p. 554). This connection to student-centred learning is also noted in Oldfield and MacAlpine (1995), whose study of undergraduate learners speaks to the potency of peer assessment in promoting learning that focuses on developing well-rounded, intellectually mature students. The development and promotion of meta-cognitive skills helps learners progress and supports self-regulated learning, encouraging students to practice productive learning habits. If we incorporate peer assessment into our classrooms, we will promote an engaged, intrinsically motivated, critical classroom which will support student success.

As a Socializing Force and Self-Regulated Learning

Peer assessment can also bring our students together. Earl (1986) discusses how this mode of assessment acts as a socializing force by promoting interpersonal relationships between students, as it encourages students to view themselves as working as a team, instead of as individuals, toward their learning goals. This is a hugely underestimated benefit of peer-based assessment. By promoting social cohesion and a cooperative, as opposed to competitive, learning environment, educators support self-regulated learning, powerful feelings of autonomy, and strong perceptions of self-efficacy in students (Bandura, 1993). Dornyei (1994a) also speaks to the value of cooperative learning environments, noting that they support students better than competitive environments, as students have less anxiety and more positive feelings about their learning. Anybody who has been in a second language classroom can relate to that sense of anxiety when asked to demonstrate oral language ability. Students who perceive their classroom to be supportive and cooperative will feel far less anxiety than those who feel they are in a competitive, judgemental environmental. And learner satisfaction and success will be bred far more easily in such a positive space.

Zimmerman’s (1990) theory of self-regulated learning addresses how students take ownership of their learning process and guide themselves to success in their learning environments. As Zimmerman (1990) explains, it is a study of “how students metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally initiate and direct their learning processes” (p. 185). Luc de Grez and Roozen (2012) connect self-regulated learning to peer assessment by noting that it “results in a more active involvement of students in their own learning process” (p. 130). When we encourage our students to take ownership over their own learning process, we promote self-regulated learning, while Luc de Grez and Roozen (2012) point out that “both internal and external sources of feedback are helpful to foster the calibration process to attain higher performance levels in the context of self-regulated learning” (p. 130).

Frequency and Quality of Feedback

                One limitation of relying on teacher-provided feedback on oral language skills is the problem of economy. For a teacher to provide substantial, quality feedback to a student, he or so will need to devote significant time. For example, it is challenging for a high school teacher to provide feedback to 30 students in each of his or her classes, which means that feedback for each student is challenging to come by. This works against fostering strong perceptions of self-efficacy, especially in language classrooms where proficiency cannot be checked by reading an answer key or marking en-masse, as it is in other subjects. “Positive feedback,” Rigby et. al (1992) argue, “tends to strengthen perceived competence and enhance intrinsic motivation” (p. 175). Oxford and Shearin (1994) also note that regular feedback supports productive goal setting techniques, an integral function of self-regulated learning.

These authors subscribe to Bandura’s (1993) theory of Perceived Self-Efficacy, which posits that motivation must exist for a learner to engage in learning behaviour. “Conception of ability as an acquirable skill,” Bandura (1993) writes, “foster[s] a highly resilient sense of personal efficacy” (p. 121). Through his work, Bandura identified a relationship between how people perceive their potential to acquire a new skill and their eventual success in doing so. While strong perceptions of self-efficacy do not lead directly to skill acquisition, they set the learner up for success by facilitating other highly effective learning strategies. Students with strong perceptions of self-efficacy “remained steadfast in their perceived efficacy, despite difficult standards to fulfill [and] they continued to set challenging goals [and] used analytic strategies in effective ways” (Bandura, 1993, p. 121). Students who believe that they can achieve their overall goal of language acquisition are empowered by their perceptions of self-efficacy to enact the triadic reciprocal determinism that Zimmerman (1990) discusses. One of the most effective ways to support strong perceptions of self-efficacy in students is to provide them with regular, constructive feedback, and peer assessment is an ideal tool for us to realize this goal.

It is irresponsible not to take advantage of the wealth of feedback opportunities available to us in our classrooms, as fellow learners are capable of providing “immediate, individualized, and [rich] feedback” to their fellow students which is “formative in nature, [and] has a clear potential of fostering the subsequent learning process” (Luc de Grez & Roozen, 2012, p. 130). The pedagogical and economic benefits of incorporating peer assessment into the language learning classroom are impressive; as funding for education becomes more restricted, educators will need to either cut back on their services (and thus reduce the quality of education) or find ways to be more efficient. Peer assessment is one of these ways. Through peer assessment, educators are also able to provide ample feedback to support students’ learning process and foster strong senses of self-efficacy and self-regulated learning.

Learner Perceptions of Peer Assessment

As most educators recognize, our best laid plans come to naught if we cannot get student buy-in. “Student’s perceptions of peer assessment will influence their willingness to take into account the feedback generated by peer assessment and to actually do something with that feedback” (Luc de Grez & Roozen, 2012, p. 138). If our students do not appreciate or value the process of peer assessment, they will dismiss the feedback, formal or informal, and not modify their learning process accordingly. However, numerous studies have shown that learners appreciate and value quality feedback from their peers, reflecting “a very positive attitude towards the value of peer assessment” (Birdsong & Sharplin, 1986; Luc de Grez & Roozen, 2012, p. 138; Zhu, 1994, 1995).

Effects on Competency

Thus far, we have reviewed how peer based assessment can contribute to the development of meta-cognitive skills, how it supports self-regulated learning, perceptions of self-efficacy and learner autonomy, and how it can enable to educators to supply learners with the substantial, quality, formative feedback that will enable them to learn effectively and efficiently. These are all facets of the language learning process and many of them support learning, but none are evidence of second language acquisition. Where is the direct evidence connecting peer assessment to improved performance in the classroom? A number of researchers have studied this.

In the context of developing presentation skills, Mitchell and Bakewell (1995) tested the efficacy of peer feedback with undergraduate students. They found that students benefited even more from peer feedback than from instructor feedback and that significant improvements were noted in performance after having participated in peer assessment. This study demonstrates a direct link between receiving feedback through peer assessment and actual improvements in performances for specific tasks such as oral presentations, a common practice in language learning classrooms.

Stanley (1992) studied the quality and reception of feedback in peer assessment. She found that students trained in providing peer assessment gave specific, constructive feedback and were more likely than their peers to revise their own work in response to peer feedback. Not only did peer assessment involve giving a global grade, peer assessors were able to address “concrete, specific issues” and provide their peers with “a blueprint for revision” (Stanley, 1992, p. 229). The same results are noted by McGroarty and Zhu (1997), who found that peer assessment led to students spending more time revising their own work. What these studies show us is that if we introduce peer assessment into our classrooms, the opportunities for academic development are huge. But what are the challenges?

Concerns about peer assessment

Given that there are so many potential benefits associated with peer assessment of oral language learning, why isn’t it widespread? One of the most commonly voiced concerns from educators is that peer assessment is a threat to the reliability and validity of the assessment process. I will address the question of consistency between peer- and teacher-based assessment below, offer strategies on how to help improve consistency between them, and challenge the idea that consistency between grades is of such importance.

Do peer-assessment grades correspond to those from the teacher?

                Two fundamental qualities of good assessment practice are reliability and validity. Reliability demands that the same assessment record (in this case, the oral performance) be given a reasonably similar mark regardless of which student assesses the performance. If different peers give wildly different grades to the same performance, the reliability of the assessment is questionable. Similarly, if the same assessor gives highly different marks to the same performance based on the setting of the performance, the reliability of the assessment suffers. Validity, while similar to reliability, is different in that it addresses whether the assessment measures what it purports to. Assessment practices should be free of bias and address the performance, not other factors such as the assessor’s relationship to the assessed or bias against certain groups. With this in mind, we can consider the debate regarding consistency between teacher marks and peer marks to be a matter of validity (Falchikov & Goldfinch, 2000).

                The question of consistency in assessment between peers and teachers is fiercely debated with conflicting evidence. A number of studies have shown that peer assessment is correlated with that of the instructor (Forde, 1996; Jafarpur, 1991; Patri, 2002; Saito & Fujita, 2004), though some of these studies come with caveats noting the importance of clear criteria (Patri, 2002) and the differences between low- and high-proficiency students’ abilities to perform assessment (Falchikov & Boud, 1989; Miller & Ng, 1994; Patri, 2002). Forde’s (1996) study of 50 Cantonese-speaking students shows that peer-assessors were able to assess the oral competency of their peers in a manner similar to that of the IELTS-training examiner. While Cheng and Warren (2005) are supportive of peer assessment of oral language skills, they also note that the students in their research were able to give “marks for the language criteria [which] lay within one standard deviation of the class teacher’s” (p. 103). With all of these studies evidencing peer assessment competency, it’s surprising to see a host of research against peer/instructor consistency also reported in the literature.

                Many of the same studies which speak to the correlation between peer/instructor assessments also note that inflation may exist in the peer assessments (Cheng & Warren, 1999; Patri, 2002; Saito & Fujita, 2004). This is unsurprising, as it’s easy to imagine that sympathetic tendencies would compel many peers to err on the side of giving their fellow students passing grades. The literature supports this theory and shows that across many contexts students give fewer failing marks to their peers, though they also give fewer high marks. Cheng and Warren (2005) note this and comment that “there is a very clear difference in the marking behaviour across all classes whereby the class teachers awarded marks in a range 1.5 to 3 times that of their students” (p. 306). While students do not like to give low marks, it seems they also avoid giving high marks. This disinclination is also noted in by Patri (2002), who comments that peer assessors “were overestimating the performance of low achievers” (p. 123; Mowl & Pain, 1995; Sullivan & Hall, 1997). The overall effect of this narrowing of the mark spectrum in peer assessment is “found to be … to the benefit of the weaker students and the detriment of the more able ones” (Cheng & Warren, 2005, p. 105). Woolhouse (1999) believes that peer assessors have a difficult time making honest judgements that would negatively affect their peers, and Oldfield and MacAlpine (1995) support this theory and believe that peer assessors are emotionally prejudiced.

                This inconsistency results is a serious challenge to the validity of peer assessment or oral language. How can educators defend their assessments if so many valid critiques are made of them? Some researchers believe educators cannot defend peer assessment in the face of these critiques. Jafarpur (1991) conducted a study looking for correlations between peer/teacher assessments in an Iranian EFL classroom, concludeding that untrained assessors were not able to provide comparable ratings to those of the teacher. Cheng and Warren (2005) similarly decide that the costs of peer assessment outweigh the benefits, and that their results are not “consistent enough for us to be able to argue that peer assessment can be used reliably alongside teacher assessment” in language learning programs. Clearly, to convince language educators to incorporate peer assessment into their programs, we need to create a framework that responds to these criticisms.

A framework for productive and valid peer assessment

How crucial is a strong correlation between teacher/peer assessments?

The first and most contentious question that should be asked here is: are teacher marks the ideal result of assessment? Can we argue that teacher-based assessments are perfectly valid and reliable, incorruptible by issues of bias, previous experience with the testee, or general mood changes? Of course not, yet many educators unquestioningly assume that their assessments are the ideal. As noted by Luc de Grez and Roozen (2012), “the a priori assumption that assessment by a teacher is more reliable and valid can be doubted in some contexts” (p. 131). Falchikov and Goldfinch (2000) note that “work in the area of marking or grading is fraught with difficulty, as teacher marking has, itself, been found to be problematic (p. 288; also, Falchikov & Magin, 1997; Newstead & Dennis, 1994). In fact, all of our experience as educators and assessors may work against us, since “teachers add criteria and/or indicators when judging the quality of an oral presentation … that add to the unreliable, but often neglected, nature of teacher assessments” (Luc de Grez & Roozen, 2012, p. 138). We need to question our presuppositions regarding the validity and reliability of teacher-based assessments and recognize that they are subject to the same challenges as peer assessments. With that said, I will now address a number of strategies to improve peer assessment validity.

Training & Practice

The most effective strategy for improving the consistency between teacher/peer assessments is to train peers in assessment and allow them ample opportunities for practice. Cheng and Warren’s (1999) study analyzes the correlations between teacher/peer marks of oral seminar and presentations. They found that correlations between marks improved significantly between the initial seminars and the later presentations, lending to the argument that practice makes perfect. Luc de Grez and Roozen (2012) affirm that “the training of assessors is very important” and Saito (2008) notes that “rater training seems to help students provide more relevant comments” (p. 139; p. 574). Recognizing this, educators who wish to use peer assessment in their classrooms should devote ample time to training the peer assessors on how to perform assessment. They should also revisit peer assessments to show how it measures up against the teacher’s assessment, which will help close the divide between teacher/peer assessments.

Advanced Learners

One consistent finding in the literature is that intermediate- to advanced-level learners are much more adept at assessment than beginners (Falchikov & Boud, 1989; Miller & Ng, 1994; Patri, 2002). Novice students simply do not realize how much they don’t know and are less likely to notice mistakes, instead focusing on understanding the gist of the message. However, intermediate and advanced students are able to focus on individual parts of speech to monitor appropriate usage and overall communicative competence. In their meta-analysis of 48 “quantitative peer assessment studies comparing peer and teacher marks,” Falchikov and Goldfinch (2000) found the correlation coefficient between teacher/peer assessments to be .67 for novice students, .77 for intermediate students, and .87 for advanced students. As “students in advanced courses appear to be the more ‘accurate’ assessors than those in introductory courses,” it makes sense to focus our energies on students at least at intermediate levels (Falchikov & Goldfinch, 2000, p. 288).

Familiarity among Peers

An important suggestion shared by Miller & Ng (1994) is that the students should be familiar with each other. “Our students were better prepared for the task of judging their peers” because they were “familiar with the testees’ oral ability” (Miller & Ng, 1994, p. 53). At first this suggestion sounds like it may introduce assessment bias, but the authors point out that “testers and testees were familiar with each other and therefore the tests were conducted under friendly circumstances” (Miller & Ng, 1994, p. 53). Jones (1985) also points out that the “ease of elicitation in an oral interview is often affected by the social relationship between the examiners and the examinee” (p. 81). The first time two people meet, there is an immense amount of noticing that occurs between them; they may notice particular physical attributes, or the distinct speaking style of their interlocutor, or be too focused on making a good impression that they fail to remember the person’s name. Familiarity between the tester and testee directs the energy put into noticing aspects of speech, which contributes to the validity of the assessment. And in the same way that cooperative learning environments lessen anxiety and facilitate language learning, a certain level of comfort with the assessor will help students perform better.

Peer Feedback

                Patri (2002) researched the potential for peer feedback to improve the correlations between teacher/peer assessments. She took groups of students who had received training in giving peer feedback and divided them into control and experimental groups. The experimental group discussed oral language performances before providing individual peer assessments, while the control group provided peer assessments without incorporating peer feedback. She found that the control group’s correlation coefficient with the teacher’s ratings to range between .46-.50, which is too low to be considered consistent with the teacher’s marking. However, the correlation coefficient of the experimental group was .85, which is strong evidence for the value of incorporating peer feedback in an effort to bring teacher/peer ratings closer together. Another notable result is that the incorporation of peer feedback prior to peer assessments was that the tendency to overrate low ability students was reduced in the experimental group. Patri (2002) concludes that “peers can assess in a manner comparable to the teacher provided that they have the benefit of peer feedback” (p. 124). Educators should consider implementing peer feedback in small groups prior to having their students do peer assessments in order to take advantage of these benefits and improve the validity of their assessments. However, educators should resist the urge to have large groups of students provide peer assessment for the same oral performance, as there are some challenges involved in this that I will now discuss.

The Challenges of Group Peer Assessment

A natural inclination of many teachers faced with the challenge of increasing the validity of peer assessments is to have many students rate the same performance. This makes sense, as we would expect the average score to mitigate the effects of assessors who mark too strictly or too generously. However, the research tells us the opposite is true. “There is no evidence,” Falchikov and Goldfinch (2000) report, “to support the superiority of multiple peer ratings over ratings by singletons. Ratings by very large numbers of peers (20+) appear to lead to poorer agreement” with teacher ratings (p. 315). Falchikov and Goldfinch (2000) found that correlation coefficients plummeted as the number of peers involved in each assessment grew. While the average correlation coefficient for single assessors was .72, it dropped to .59 for groups of 20 or more assessors. But how does this make sense? Researchers have studied this question in recent decades to explain why validity drops as the number of raters reaches higher numbers.

Latane, Williams, and Harkins (1979) coined the term ‘social loafing’ to refer to the phenomenon of the inverse relationship found between group size and individual performance. They found that individual responsibility, and thus desire to work hard, diminished as the group size increased and accountability and individual contributions became harder to identify. Kerr and Bruun (1983) followed up on this work and found that individual motivation decreased as group size increased, presumably because individuals felt that their contributions were becoming less critical for group success. Falchikov and Goldfinch (2000) relate this to their meta-analysis of peer assessment studies and propose that “it may be that when students work together in very large groups, some diffusion of responsibility occurs and marking becomes less thoughtful or careless” (p. 316). Educators should involve peer feedback in the oral assessment process, but they should refrain from involving too many students in marking the same assessment.

Student Familiarity with Assessment Criteria

An obvious strategy for improving teacher/peer consistency in assessment is to have clearly defined assessment criteria. If assessors are making with the same criteria in mind, they are more likely to find agreement between than assessors who are marking based off their gut feelings or their own interpretation of what oral competence entails (Falchikov & Goldfinch, 2000). But what role should students play in the construction of the criteria, and how specific should their focus be when marking?

Falchikov (2005) reviewed the value of involving students in the definition of assessment criteria and finds that the more ownership students have over their learning process and objectives, the more likely they are to provide consistent, valid assessment. “Student familiarity with, and ownership of, criteria tends to enhance peer assessment validity” because it draws assessors into the process and supports learner autonomy (Falchikov & Goldfinch, 2000, p. 315). Patri (2002) affirms this and suggests that “more guidance on the marking criteria should be given to ensure that all markers can apply previously agreed criteria in a consistent fashion” (p. 110). Falchikov and Goldfinch’s (2000) meta-analysis shows stronger correlations (r=.85) when students are familiar with the assessment framework than when students are asked to make a global judgment without knowledge of the framework (r=.72). Therefore, we have a compelling case to involve our students in the development of, and make them familiar with, the marking criteria to support assessment validity. But how detailed should this criteria be?

Detailed, but not too detailed, the research tells us. In the same meta-analysis that showed the value of having assessors be familiar with the marking criteria, Falchikov and Goldfinch (2000) studied the effects on students marking on a general criteria versus a checklist of multiple factors. The results were unequivocal: peers marking on a general criteria had a correlation coefficient of .85 with their teachers, whereas peers marking several factors individually had a correlation coefficient of only .53. This dramatic difference tells us that “where judgements are made in the knowledge of criteria or guidelines … may give rise to slightly better peer-faculty agreement” than in other dynamics (Falchikov & Goldfinch, 2000, p. 310). Miller (2003) also researched this effect and agreed that more individual items in a marking criteria leads to greater variance, though it can be beneficial in that it can result in students receiving more detailed feedback. With this in mind, educators should have peer assessors provide a global score for the performance with a few criteria in mind, while also providing written feedback on those areas which need attention and those which are notably strong.

Concluding Remarks

Despite strong arguments for and against the incorporation of peer assessment in oral language assessment, the majority of authors argue that in the long run, it has more beneficial than detrimental effects (Cheng & Warren, 2005; Luc de Grez & Roozen, 2012). Cheng & Warren remind us that “peer assessment can work effectively if the teacher is more concerned with the long-term, cumulative educational benefits rather than simply the immediate success or failure of students’ attempts to imitate … their teacher” (p. 112). Any decision regarding the incorporation of peer assessment needs to consider more than just the immediate question of validity; it needs to look at the enormous pedagogical value that comes with it.

Students who practice peer assessment think better and learn for better reasons. They become less focused on passing a test and more interested in attaining oral competency. They develop stronger bonds with their classmates and practice self-regulated learning, becoming more invested in their learning. These students develop stronger perceptions of self-efficacy by receiving regular, positive feedback and become more intrinsically motivated. Students develop more positive attitudes toward their learning situation. They will simply do better, learn more, and be happier about doing so.

Yes, the integration of peer assessment into the language classroom is fraught with challenges and concerns; however, the wealth of strategies provided in this paper, coupled with the bounty of pedagogical benefits derived from peer assessment, makes a compelling case for introducing peer assessment of oral language into our classrooms.

References

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.

Birdsong, T. & Sharplin, W. (1986). Peer evaluation enhances students’ critical judgement. Highway One, 9(1), 23-28.

Cheng, W. & Warren, M. (2005). Peer assessment of language proficiency. Language Testing, 22(1), 93-121.

Cheng, W. & Warren, M. (1999). Peer and teacher assessment of the oral and written tasks of a group project. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(3), 301-314.

Dornyei, Z. (1994a). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273-284.

Earl, S.E. (1986). Staff and peer assessment: measuring an individual’s contribution group performance. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 11, 60-69.

Entwhistle, N. J. (1987). A model of the teaching process. In J. Richardson, M. Eysenck & D. Piper (Eds.), Student learning: research in education and cognitive psychology. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving assessment through student involvement: practical solutions for aiding learning in higher and further education. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Falchikov, N. (1995a). Peer feedback marking: development peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32, 175-187.

Falchikov, N. (1995b). Improving feedback to and from students. In Knight, P. (Ed.), Assessment for Learning in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page.

Falchikov, N, & Boud, D. (1989). Student self-assessment in higher education: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59(4), 395-430.

Falchikov, N. & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: a meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287-322.

Falchikov, N, & Magin, D. (1997). Detecting gender bias in peer marking of students’ group process work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 22(4), 393-404.

Forde, K. 1996: The effects of gender and proficiency on oral self- and peer- assessments. English Language Studies Working Papers, City University of Hong Kong, 1, 34-47.

Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the quality of student learning. Bristol: Technical and Educational Services Ltd.

Jafarpur, A. (1991). Can naive EFL learners estimate their own proficiency? Evaluation and Research in Education, 5, 145-157.

Jones, R.L. (1985). Some basic considerations in testing oral proficiency. In Y.P. Lee, C.Y.Y. Fox, R. Lord & G. Low (Eds.), New Directions in Language Testing. Oxford: Pergamon.

Kerr, N.L. & Bruun, S.E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 78-94.

Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light work: the causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 822-832.

Luc De Grez, M.V. & Roozen, I. (2012). How effective are self- and peer assessment of oral presentation skills compared with teachers’ assessments? Active Learning in Higher Education, 13(2), 129-142.

McGroarty, M.E. & Zhu, W. (1997). Triangulation in classroom research: a study of peer revision. Language Learning, 47, 1-43.

Miller, P. (2003). The effect of scoring criteria specificity on peer and self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(4), 383-394.

Miller, V.W. & 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.

Mitchell, V.W., & Bakewell, C. (1995). Learning without doing: enhancing oral presentation skills through peer-review. Management Learning, 26, 353-366.

Mowl, G. & Pain, R. 1995. Using self and peer assessment to improve students’ essay writing: a case study from Geography. Innovation in Education and Training International, 32, 324–35.

Newstead, S. & Dennis, I. (1994). Examiners examined: the reliability of exam marking in psychology. The Psychologist, 7(5), 216-219.

Oldfield, K. & MacAlpine, M. (1995). Peer and self-assessment at tertiary level – an experiential report. Assessment and evaluation in higher education, 20, 125-132.

Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 78(1), 12-28.

Ozogul, G. & Sullivan, H. (2009). Student performance and attitudes under formative evaluation by teacher, self and peer evaluations. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(3), 393-410.

Patri, M. (2002). The influence of peer feedback on self- and peer-assessment of oral skills. Language Testing, 19(2), 109-31.

Rigby, C. S., Deci, E. L., Patrick, B. C., & & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Beyond the intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy: self-determination in motivation and learning. Motivation and Emotion, 16(3), 165-185.

Saito, H. (2008). EFL classroom peer assessment: training effects on rating and commenting. Language Testing, 25(4), 553-581.

Saito, H. & Fujita, T. (2004). Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 8, 31-54.

Segers, M., Dochy, F., & Cascallar, E. (2003). The era of assessment engineering: changing perspectives on teaching and learning and the role of new modes of assessment. In M. Segers, F. Dochy & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: in search of qualities and standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 217-233.

Sullivan, K. & Hall, C. 1997. Introducing students to self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 22, 289–305.

Woolhouse, M. 1999. Peer assessment: the participants’ perception of two activities on a further education teacher education course. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 23, 211–19.

Zhu, W. (1994). Effects of training for peer revision in college freshman composition classes. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 951.

Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students’ comments and interaction. Written Communication, 12, 492-528.

Zimmerman, B. (1990). Self-regulating academic learning and achievement: the emergence of a social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 2(2), 173-201.