THE IMPACT OF EVALUATION CRITERIA ON WRITING PERFORMANCE: A STUDY OF PRE-SERVICE ENGLISH TEACHERS . Lina Mukhopadhyay & Geetha Durairajan [email protected] 20 February: TEC14. The objective of this presentation is to address the following points:
20 February: TEC14
The objective of this presentation is to address the following points:
A. Role and types of evaluation criteria (theoretical issues)
B. Impact of evaluation criteria on writing performance (empirical evidence)
C. Creation of evaluation criteria to assess writing
(practice for teachers)
A classroom based study on effect of evaluation criteria on writing performance
A practice session on designing task-specific evaluation criteria
(justice: inter-learner equity)
How do I choose my evaluation criteria?
ESL/ EFL learners will be able to
Aim: To examine the role of evaluation criteria in writing performance
To show this, we look at
Context: A course at PhD level titled ‘Language Testing and Assessment’ was where this study was conducted. The course had a formative assessment model – each assessment had task specific evaluation criteria which were shared with the learners prior to doing the tasks. An in-depth study was done to get evidence of learning through writing assessment.
(assessment for and as learning)
If task specific criteria are provided to adult ESL learners,
(i) will they benefit from this knowledge?
(ii) what kinds of benefit will they experience?
13 adult learners (8 female), 24 to 45 years of age, participated in the study. 8 participants had prior teaching experience and 2 of them reported to have used criteria in assessment.
Stage 1: making available task-specific criteria
Stage 2: perception of criteria
Stage 3: using criteria (implicit training)
Stage 4: talking about benefit(s)
Look at the proficiency test. This was used as an entrance test for BA English programme at EFL-U. Does this test pass all the five principles of assessment (authenticity, reliability, validity, practicality andwashback)? Justify your stance with relevant examples. Write a critical response in about 500 words.
Qualitative analysis of perceptions from two sources:
B. tutor as evaluator
to capture instances of learning (positive washback).
Do the participants
Participants reported benefit at the level of planning and post task reflection, at 96% . This wasexperienced due to availability of evaluation criteria to complete writing assessments.
One instance of peer evaluation
ease in planning
I liked the idea of writing with the prompt and evaluation criteria as it helped me to produce responses that were clear and to a greater extent, up to the assessor’s expectations.
By the end of the course my response to using the evaluation criteria to plan and write my assignments improved. I think that it is a very significant and necessary aspect of writing an assignment. For the other courses, where we did not receive any evaluation criteria I tried to speculate the expectations of the assessor and create the criteria and then write the assignment. (S:VI)
understand assessor’s expectations
generalize techniques to other pieces of writing – post course application
I could not follow the evaluation criteria that much meaningfully for the first time. The problem was not obviously with the criteria, but with my understanding of the nature of assignment… But later on, day by day I had been trying to build a sort of familiarity or say rapport with the evaluation criteria, and started adjusting my writing into the criteria.
My later assignments would manifest how much labor I devoted to follow those criteria. And the result was satisfactory. I was happy, indeed. (S:RU)
ease in using criteria
positive reflection post performance
Source: Participants’ responses
In the course there was one assessment task where the participants had to critique a test for its degree of usefulness. Evaluation criteria to complete the task was given to the participants before they attempted the task. They reported that they had used the criteria while working on the task.
Later, the same criteria was used by them to do peer assessment on the same task. It was found that the correlation of the peer assessment to the tutor’s assessment was at r=.79. This was a high positive correlation indicating a high degree of inter-rater reliability.
In a one-to-one discussion (through discussion board on the internet), the participants said that they found peer evaluation methodical because of use of task specific criteria. They could understand the direction in which the writing task had to be attempted and could give appropriate scores and feedback to their peers.
1. Did the criteria help you in assessing the response of your peer? If yes, then why?
Yes, the criteria helped me assessing my peer because it allowed one to look for specifics in the answer and score against that.
2.If you were not given the criteria but only the prompt then would your assessment have differed? If yes, then in what way? Would you have been able to justify the scores that you would have given as a holistic score or analytical score? Which score type would you be likely to give in the absence of a criteria?
Yes, if the criteria was not given then scoring would not have easy and it would not have been based on the specifics. Also, the justification of the scores would have been difficult. The scoring without criteria would have been a holistic one.
3. When you were given back your response as evaluated by your peer, did you agree on the scoring or disagree? Explain why you agreed or disagreed.
I agreed with the scoring because it was objectively scored against the criteria given. (S:SH)
positive washback: inter-rater reliability, feedback
Source: Tutor as evaluator
(comprehensible output, Schmidt 2001, 2010)
4. Noticing specific details of tasks to do peer assessment helped learners process ideas at a deeper level. Consequently, they could give each other meaningful feedback on responses. (Robinson 2009)
5. Learners felt responsible for what they had written and evaluated: they learned to focus closely on content development. For instance use of appropriate examples to substantiate a claim was noticed by the learners due to the twin use of evaluation criteria. This created an atmosphere of democratic method of assessment that lead to further instances of learning (positive washback).(Shohamy 2002)
Nitko 1983, 1989; Earl 2003; English language arts curriculum, British Columbia 2006; Ontario Report 2010
notice task requirements,
We need to design and share evaluation criteria with our learners because it can :
b) give rise toinstances of learning (positive washback)
TASK: You wish to subscribe the magazine READER’S DIGEST. Write a letter in 100-150 words to the editor requesting him/ her to give you the subscription details. In your letter, you can ask about the subscription rate, mode of payment, delivery and any other query that you may have.
Option 1:General criteria
You will be graded on content, language and organization.
Option 2: Task-specific criteria
Enquires about subscription details, mode(s) of payment, details of delivery, time to be taken, whom to contact in case of problems (Content)
Uses vocabulary appropriate to express each language function and a variety of sentence structures accurately. (Language)
Begins with a formal address to the editor and expresses interest about the magazine presents all enquiries about the subscription concludes by thanking the editor and intends to receive information at the earliest (Organization)
Being and looking fair is important. Do you agree? Discuss with reference to the following pictures. Write your answer in 100-150 words.
Picture A Picture B
Being and looking fair is important. Do you agree? Discuss with reference to the following advertisement. Write your answer in 250-300 words.
Anand learners because it can :, Ayesha, Barka, Clementine, Jayant, Kezo, Manish, Remya, Rukan, Shehla, Sunitha, Suraj and Vrishali.Thank you for your participation and timely responses without which this project would have remained unfulfilled
Brown, J. D., and Abeywickrama, P. (2011). Language assessment: principles and classroom practices (2ndEdn). Pearson Education.
Earl, L. (2003) Assessment as Learning: Using Classroom Assessment to Maximise Student Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA, Corwin Press.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kunnan, A. J. (2000). Fairness and validation in language assessment. Studies in Language Testing 9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reid, J.M., 1993. Teaching ESL Writing. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J. W. Sew, T. Suthiwan, & I. Walker, Proceedings of CLaSIC 2010, Singapore, December 2-4 (pp. 721-737). Singapore: National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies.
Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: a critical perspective on the use of language tests. Pearson Education.
Upshur, J.A., Turner, C.E., 1995. Constructing rating scales for second language tests. ELT Journal 49 (1), 3–12.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!! learners because it can :