Efficacy of Self-Assessment in Written Production among High School Students

Authors: Yoko Suganuma Oi

Abstract:

The purpose of the present study is to find the efficacy of high school student self-assessment of written production. It aimed to explore the following two research questions: 1) How is topic development of their written production improved after student self-assessment and teacher feedback? 2) Does the consistency between student self-assessment and teacher assessment develop after student self-assessment and teacher feedback? The data came from the written production of 82 Japanese high school students aged from 16 to 18 years old, an American English teacher and one Japanese English teacher. Students were asked to write English compositions, about 150 words, for thirty minutes without using dictionaries. It was conducted twice at intervals of two months. Students were supposed to assess their own compositions by themselves. Teachers also assessed students’ compositions using the same assessment sheet. The results showed that both teachers and students assessed the second compositions higher than the first compositions. However, there was not the development of the consistency in coherence.

Keywords: Feedback, self-assessment, topic development.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1107978

References:

[1] Oi, S. Y. (2012). A Study of Student Evaluation and Teacher Evaluation Unpublished master’s thesis, Waseda University, Tokyo.
[2] LeBlanc, R. & Painchaud, G. (1985). Self-assessment as a second language placement instrument. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 673-87.
[3] Bachman, L.F. & Palmer, A.S. (1981). The construct validity of the FSI oral interview. Language Learning, 31, 67-86.
[4] Oskarsson, M. (1989). Self-assessment of language proficiency: Rational and applications. Language Testing, 6 (1), 1-13.
[5] Cheng, Y. (2008). Learning to self-assess oral performance in English: A longitudinal case study. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 254-255.
[6] Kent, D. (1980). Self-Grading Versus Instructor Grading. Journal of Educational Research, 73(4), 207-211.
[7] Boud, D. & Falchikov, N. (1989). Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher education: a critical analysis of findings. Higher Education, 18, 529-549.
[8] Little, D. (2002). The European Language Portfolio: Structure, origins, implementation and challenges. Language Teaching, 35(3), 182-189.
[9] Crocker, A. C. & Cheeseman, R. G. (1988). The Ability of Young Children to Rank Themselves for Academic Ability. Educational Studies, 14(1), 105-110.
[10] Peirce, B., Swain, M., and Hart, D. (1993). Self-Assessment, French Immersion, and Locus of Control. Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 25-42.
[11] Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “Grammar Correction” Debate in L2 Writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime...? Journal of Second Language Writing. 13(1), 49-62.
[12] Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., & Merrill, P. F. (2010). Effects of Dynamic Corrective Feedback on ESL Writing Accuracy. TESOL QUARTERLY. 44(1), 84-109.
[13] Truscott, J. & Hsu, A. P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing 17(4), 292-305.
[14] Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing. 13(4), 337-343.
[15] Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. 14(3), 191-205.
[16] Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing. 17(2), 102-118.
[17] Kepner, C. G. (1991). An Experiment in the Relationship of Types of Written Feedback to the Development of Second-Language Writing Skills. The Modern Language Journal. 75(3), 305-313.
[18] Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., & Horn, B. (2011). The Effectiveness of Feedback for L1-English and L2-Writing Development: A Meta-Analysis. TOEFL iBT TM Research Report. 14.
[19] The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2011). Designated for Course of Study for Senior High Schools. Retrieved June 27, 2013, from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/new-cs/youryou/eiyaku/1298353. htm
[20] Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter-Cultural Education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20.
[21] Harder, B. D., & Katz-Harder, H. (1982). Cultural Interface and Teaching English Composition in Japan. The English Teacher’s Magazine, 7. XXXI, 4 (pp. 19-23). Tokyo: Taishu-kan.
[22] Oi, K. (1986). Cross-cultural Differences in Rhetorical Patterning: A Study of Japanese and English. The Japan Association of College English Teachers 17, 23-48.
[23] Hinds, J. (1990). Inductive, deductive, quasi-inductive: Expository writing in Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Thai. In U. Connor & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 87-109). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of other Languages (TESOL).
[24] Kubota, R. (1998). An investigation of Japanese and English L1 essay organization: Differences and similarities. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 475-507.
[25] Oi, S. Y. (2013). A Pilot Study of Self-Evaluation and Peer Evaluation. Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 1-11.