View Content #21667

by Stephanie Knight, CASLS Language Technology Specialist

It is unlikely that learners will be able to engage in adequate self-assessment without first evaluating the work of others. Such evaluations are particularly useful in developing skills in both Presentational Writing and Presentational Speaking. While these forms of communication are unidirectional, they do engender interaction. For example, Fulcher (1998) discusses Widdowson’s (1983) discourse model of communicative competence and performance by explaining that readers are confronted with the task of deciphering the illocutionary intent of writers; essentially there is a type of internal discourse in which the receivers of a message question and interact with texts in order to (hopefully) understand the intended messages of their authors.

It is logical then that learners who are writers get feedback from other readers and that learners who are speakers get feedback from their audiences when learning and perfecting said crafts. Brown (2005) points out that one valid approach to teaching writing is to have learners engage in evaluation of their peers. After all, she discusses, educators (examiners and teachers) are often trained to evaluate learners by working with annotated texts in order to ensure the appropriate interpretation of such evaluative tools as rubrics. It would be logical to extend that training to learners.

In Brown’s small-scale study of how training in peer review parlayed into effective learner self-evaluation, some important characteristics of effective peer review were crystalized. These characteristics are explained below.

Train learners to annotate texts: This training may certainly focus on syntactic variables, but it should also focus on annotating characteristics within a text related to meaning making (e.g., discourse markers, supporting details, and voice). It is also important during this training to break down the academic vocabulary (terms such as “modal” or “passive voice”) that learners will need to negotiate with when making annotations.

Consider learners’ proficiency levels: It is difficult for learners at low proficiency levels to annotate texts that they do not understand. Brown (ibid.) recommends that learners be paired or grouped by proficiency level so that they are able to fully engage in the text(s) that are being evaluated. If the makeup within a classroom prevents such a grouping, a possible solution would be to have learners annotate one characteristic of a text in lieu of the text in its entirety.

Group learners according to relative strengths and weaknesses: Brown (ibid.) discusses an exit interview in which one study participant indicated that it was difficult transfer skills from engaging in peer review to self-evaluation because she was not paired with someone whose strengths and weaknesses were reflected in her own work. While ideal groupings are impossible to achieve at the beginning of an academic term, educators are encouraged to be intentional when creating groups once they get to know each individual’s strengths and weaknesses.

Teaching a person to do for his or her self is much more beneficial than doing for him or her. In kind, our job as educators is not only to give feedback to learners, but to also to empower learners to evaluate themselves. Training learners in effective peer review is the first step to emboldening learners to do just that.

References

Brown, A. (2005). Self-assessment of writing in independent language learning programs: The value of annotated samples. Assessing Writing. 10. 174-191.

Fulcher, G. (1998). Widdowson’s model of communicative competence and the testing of reading: An exploratory study. System. 26. 281-302.