Article published in:ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 172:2 (2021) ► pp. 199–228
Peer and teacher assessment of second-language writing in high- and low-stakes conditions
This study aimed to compare second-language (L2) students’ ratings of their peers’ essays on multiple criteria with those of their teachers’ under different assessment conditions. Forty EFL teachers and 40 EFL students took part in the study. They each rated one essay on five criteria twice, under high-stakes and low-stakes assessment conditions. Multifaceted Rasch Analysis and correlation analyses were conducted to compare rater severity and consistency across rater groups, rating criteria and assessment conditions. The results revealed that there was more variation in students’ ratings than the teachers’ across assessment conditions. Additionally, both rater groups had different degrees of severity in assessing different criteria. In general, students were significantly more severe on language use than were teachers; whereas teachers were significantly more severe than were peers on organization. Student and teacher severity also varied across rating criteria and assessment conditions. The findings of this study have implications for planning and implementing peer assessment in the L2 writing classroom as well as for future research.
Keywords: second language assessment, peer assessment, peer assessment accuracy, rater bias, high-stakes assessment, rating criteria, quality of peer assessment
- Factors affecting the quality of PA
- Uses of peer assessment
- Studies on the severity/leniency of teacher and peer raters
- The present study
- Data analysis
- Descriptive statistics and correlational analyses
- MFRM analyses
- MFRM interaction analyses
- Discussion and implications
Published online: 18 November 2020
Bachman, L. F., Palmer, A. S.
Baker, B. A.
Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K., & Mylonas, A.
Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., & Horn, B.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D.
Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., & Jamieson, J. M.
Cheng, W. & Warren, M.
Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Wilson, R. W.
De Ayala, R. J.
Esfandiari, R., & Myford, C. M.
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J.
Farrokhi, F., Esfandiari, R., & Schaefer, E.
Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K.
Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S. A., Wormouth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B.
Jeffery, D., Yankulov, K., Crerar, A., & Ritchie, K.
Kearney, S. P., & Perkins, T.
Kearney, S., Perkins, T. & Clark, S. K.
Lamb, T. E. R. R. Y.
Lee, S. B.
Linacre, J. M.
(2013) A user’s guide to FACETS. Program manual 3 71.0. Rasch-Model Computer Programs. Retrieved from: www.winsteps.com
Liu, X. & Li, L.
Myford, C. M., & Wolfe, E. W.
Nguyen, L. T. C., & Gu, Y.
Ozogul, G., & Sullivan, H.
Saito, H., & Fujita, T.
Topping, K. J.
Van Gennip, N. A. E., Segers, M. S. R., & Tillema, H. H.
Van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., & Van Merrie¨nboer, J. J. G.
Weaver, D., & Esposto, A.