پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 158 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,230 |
| تعداد مقالات | 67,759 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 115,130,360 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 89,896,651 |
تاثیر خودآزمایی مهارت نگارش به روشهای سازنده و پایان محور بر عملکرد نگارش و دقت خودآزمایی زبان آموزان ایرانی | ||
| پژوهشهای زبانشناختی در زبانهای خارجی | ||
| مقاله 5، دوره 6، شماره 2، مهر 1395، صفحه 343-364 اصل مقاله (283.59 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی(عادی) | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jflr.2017.219338.299 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| مسعود سیری* 1؛ ستاره قربان دایی2 | ||
| 1استادیار زبان انگلیسی واحد علوم تحقیقات دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی تهران | ||
| 2:کارشناسی ارشد زبان انگلیسی واحد تهران جنوب دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی | ||
| چکیده | ||
| هدف از خودآزمایی به‌صورت سازنده و یا پایان‌محور می‌تواند در میزان دقت نمره‌دهی خودآزمایی زبان‌آموزان تاثیر بگذارد، بنابراین این پژوهش به‌بررسی اینکه آیا خودآزمایی به‌روشهای سازنده و پایان‌محور تاثیرات متفاوتی بر نگارش و میزان دقت نمره‌دهی زبان‌آموزان در خودآزمایی میگزارد یا خیر می‌پردازد. بدین منظور، 60 زبان‌آموز سطح میانی به‌دو گروه سازنده و پایان‌محور به‌صورت تصادفی تقسیم شدند، و یک پیش‌آزمون برای سنجش فعلی آن‌ها در نگارش پاراگراف اجرا شد. در گروه سازنده، نمره خودآزمایی زبان‌آموزان از میانگین نمره معیار دو مصحح تفریق می‌شد تا میزان خطا در خودآزمایی مشخص شود. در گروه پایان‌محور شرایط مشابهی وجود داشت اما میزان دقت در انجام خودآزمایی به‌عنوان بخشی از نمرهء پایان دوره در نظر گرفته شد. بعد از اجرای پس‌آزمون ،نتایج بررسی کواریانس نشان داد که زبان‌آموزان هر دو گروه بهبود معنادار و برابری در کیفیت عملکرد نگارش داشتند، اما زبان‌آموزان گروه پایان‌محور افزایش بیشتری در میزان دقت خودآزمایی از‌خود نشان دادند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| خودآزمایی؛ سنجش سازنده؛ سنجش پایان محور؛ عملکرد نگارش؛ دقت سنجش | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| The Effect of Formative and Summative Self-assessment of Writing on the Writing Performance and Self-rating Accuracy of Iranian EFL Learners | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Masood Siyyari1؛ Setare Ghorban Daei2 | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| This study investigated whether formative and summative self-assessments have any differential effect on the writing performance and self-rating accuracy of Iranian EFL learners. In so doing, sixty homogenized intermediate EFL learners were assigned to the two assessment conditions. After the administration of a paragraph writing pretest, the self-rating scale was introduced to the students of both groups. In the formative group, the students practiced self-assessment after each writing assignment during the term. Self-assessment error scores were, then, computed, and the students could see their accuracy extent in their self-assessment during the term. In the summative group, the students’ accuracy of self-assessment during the term was considered in their final term score. To check the students’ improvement in writing and rating accuracy, a posttest self-assessment was administered. ANCOVA results revealed under both conditions, equal improvement occurred in the students’ writing; however, the summative group students improved much more significantly in self-rating accuracy. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Formative Assessment, Rating Accuracy, Self-assessment, Summative Assessment, Writing | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
منابع Allan, D. (2004). Oxford placement test 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Andrade, H., Wang, X., D, Y., & Akawi, R. (2009). Rubric-referenced self-assessment and self-efficacy for writing. The Journal of Educational Research, 102, 287-302. Arnaudet, M. L., & Barrett M. E. (1990). Paragraph development: A guide for students of English (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Birjandi, P. & Hadidi Tamjid, N. (2012). The role of self-, peer and teacher assessment in promoting Iranian EFL learners’ writing performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(5), 513-533. Birjandi, P. & Siyyari, M. (2010). Self-assessment and Peer-assessment: A Comparative Study of Their Effect on Writing Performance and Rating Accuracy. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics,13(1). 23-45. Birjandi, P. & Siyyari, M. (2016). Agreeableness and Conscientiousness as Predictors of University Students’ Self/Peer-assessment Rating Error. Irish Educational Studies. 35(1), (117-135). Blanche, P. (1988). Self-assessment of foreign language skills: Implications for teachers and researchers. RELC Journal, 19(1), 75-96. Blanche, P., & Merino, B. J. (1989). Self-assessment of foreign-language skills: Implications for teacher and researchers. Language Learning, 39(3), 313-340. Brantmeier, C., & Vanderplank, R. (2008). Descriptive and criterion-referenced self-assessment with L2 readers, System, 36, 456-477. Brown, J. D. (ed.) (1998). New ways of classroom assessment. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Inc. Brown, A. (2005). Self-assessment of writing in independent languagelearning programs: The value of annotated samples. Assessing Writing, 10(3), 174-191. Brown, J. D., & Hudson, T. (1998). The alternatives in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 653-675. Brown, J. D., & Hudson, T. (2002). Criterion-referenced language testing. Cambridge University Press. Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (2005). Peer assessment of language proficiency.Language Testing, 22(1), 93-121. Davidson, F., & Henning, G. (1985). A self-rating scale of English proficiency: Rasch scalar analysis of items and rating categories. Language Testing, 2(2), 164-79. Dochy, F., & Segers, M., (1999). The Use of Self-, Peer and Co-assessment in Higher Education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331-350. 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 progress work, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 22, 385-396. Gipps, C. V. (1994). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. London: The Falmer Press. Harris, M. (1997). Self-assessment of language learning in formal settings. ELT Journal, 51, 12-20. Heilenmann, K. L. (1990). Self-assessment of second language ability: The role of response effects. Language Testing, 7(2), 174-201. Jacobs, H. J., Zingraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Massachusetts: Newbury House. Jafarpur, A., & Yamini, M. (1995). Do Self-Assessment and Peer-Rating Improve with Training? RELC Journal, 26(1), 63-85. Janssen-van Dieten, A. (1989). The development of a test of Dutch as a second language: The validity of self-assessments by inexperienced subjects. Language Testing, 6(1), 30-46. Langan, A. M., Shuker, D. M., Cullen, W. R., Penney, D., Preziosi, R. F. & Wheater, C. P. (2008). Relationships between student characteristics and self, peer and tutor evaluations of oral presentations, Assessment Evaluation in Higher Education, 3, 179-190. Lejk, M., & Wyvill, M. (2001). Peer assessment of contributions to a group project: A comparison of holistic and category-based approaches. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 62–72. Lejk, M., & Wyvill, M. (2002). Peer Assessment of Contributions to a group project: Student attitudes to holistic and category-based approaches. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(6), 569-577. Macalpine, J. M. K. (1999). Improving and encouraging peer assessment of student Presentations, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24, 15-25. Matsuno, S. (2009). Self-, peer-, and teacher-assessments in Japanese university EFL writing classrooms. Language Testing, 26(1), 75-100. McKay, P. (2006). Assessing young language learners. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Miller, P. J. (2003). The effect of scoring criteria specificity on peer and self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 383-394. Oscarson, M. (1989). Self-assessment of language proficiency: Rationale and implications. Language Testing, 6(1), 1-13. Patri, M. (2002). The influence of peer feedback on self-and peer assessment of oral skills. Language Testing, 19(2), 109-131. Pope, N. (2005). The impact of stress in self- and peer-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 51-63. Ross, S. (1998). Self-assessment in second language testing: A meta-analysis and analysis of experiential factors. Language Testing 15, 1-20. Saito, H., & Fujita, T. (2004). Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 31-54. Stefani, L. A. J. (1994). Peer, self and tutor assessment: relative reliabilities. Studies in Higher Education, 19, 69-75. Smith, H., Cooper, A., & Lancaster, L. (2002). Improving the quality of undergraduate peer assessment: A case for student and staff development. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39, 71-81. Taras, M. (2001). The use of tutor feedback and student self-assessment in summative assessment tasks: Towards transparency for students and for tutors. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 605-614. Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249–276. Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25, 149-169. Topping, K. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.) Optimizing new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 55-87). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Xiao, Y., & Lucking, R. (2008). The impact of two types of peer assessment on students' performance and satisfaction within a Wiki environment. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 186-193. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 658 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 442 |
||