Your search found 3487 results.

Descriptors:
Second Language Learning; Reflection; Speech Skills; Student Attitudes; Personal Autonomy; Linguistic Input; Independent Study; Metalinguistics; Second Language Instruction; Peer Evaluation; Self Evaluation (Individuals); Foreign Countries; College Students

Abstract:
This pilot study explores language development among a class of L2 students who were required to transcribe and reflect upon spoken performances. The class was given tasks for self and peer-evaluation and afforded the opportunity to assume more responsibility for assessing language development of both themselves and their peers. Several studies (Lynch, 2001; Lynch, 2007; Mennim, 2003) have promoted the use of student transcription activities to help students make their output "more comprehensible, elaborate or sophisticated" (Stillwell et al., 2010: 446) and reflection and reflective learning models have been described as key psychological components of autonomy (Benson, 2011: 104; Kohonen, 1992). In examining these concepts, this study focuses on students' perceived input, or noticing of weaknesses in their speaking skills as evidenced through transcription activities. The research shows how transcription and reflective practice can help support the development of noticing, arguably a key element in the autonomous acquisition of new language and language development. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Teacher Effectiveness; Feedback (Response); Second Languages; Peer Evaluation; Language Teachers; Teacher Evaluation; Outcomes of Education; Instructional Improvement; Faculty Development; Secondary School Teachers; Sociocultural Patterns

Abstract:
Although there is no consensus on how to assess teacher quality, scholars do agree that the improvement of teaching is the most important step that we can take toward improving the quality of education of our students and the one that directly affects learning outcomes (Perlman & McCann, 1998). Teacher assessment has become a cornerstone issue insofar as teaching improvement is concerned; yet, there is no consensus as to what constitutes an effective assessment method (Brent & Felder, 1997; Wood & Harding, 2007). This problem particularly affects foreign language teachers. In this conceptual article, we explore and argue for a model that situates peer evaluation at the center of teacher assessment. Further, we argue that foreign language teacher assessment: 1) should include multiple types of assessments, ranging from administrative evaluations to peer observations and feedback; and 2) should primarily serve as a platform for improvement of the quality of teaching and for the teacher's growth and professional development. We conclude by identifying directions for future research examining the potential of this proposed model. (Contains 2 figures and 2 footnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Higher Education; Feedback (Response); Student Evaluation; College Students; Educational Research; Literature Reviews; Computer Uses in Education; Self Evaluation (Individuals); Peer Evaluation; Student Attitudes; Teacher Attitudes; College Faculty; Power Structure; Student Role; Teacher Role; Communities of Practice

Abstract:
This article presents a thematic analysis of the research evidence on assessment feedback in higher education (HE) from 2000 to 2012. The focus of the review is on the feedback that students receive within their coursework from multiple sources. The aims of this study are to (a) examine the nature of assessment feedback in HE through the undertaking of a systematic review of the literature, (b) identify and discuss dominant themes and discourses and consider gaps within the research literature, (c) explore the notion of the feedback gap in relation to the conceptual development of the assessment feedback field in HE, and (d) discuss implications for future research and practice. From this comprehensive review of the literature, the concept of the feedback landscape, informed by sociocultural and socio-critical perspectives, is developed and presented as a valuable framework for moving the research agenda into assessment feedback in HE forward. (Contains 2 tables, 1 figure, and 1 note.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Instructional Effectiveness; Self Efficacy; Writing Tests; Writing Skills; Measures (Individuals); Scoring Rubrics; Foreign Countries; Control Groups; Experimental Groups; English (Second Language); Second Language Learning; Academic Achievement; Secondary School Students; Language Teachers; Second Language Instruction; Peer Evaluation; Writing Instruction; Essays; Student Attitudes

Abstract:
The present study aimed at identifying the necessary writing performance skills for the first year secondary stage students. These skills are necessary for writing the compositions. In this study, the writing conferences and peer response groups strategies were used to develop the students' writing skills, improve their achievement and performance in and enhance their self efficacy. To achieve these purposes, the study designed activities based on writing conferences and peer response groups strategies. In addition, a teacher's guides were prepared to help English language teachers handle writing compositions. The study made use of a performance writing test to measure the students' development in the writing skills, a self efficacy scale and a holistic scoring rubric. The researchers adopted the experimental design. Two classes were assigned to be the experimental groups, studying writing through the "Writing Conferences" Strategy and Peer Response "Groups Strategy." Another class was assigned to be the control group, studying through the steps suggested by the ministry of education in hello! 7 Teacher's Guide. Results of the present study showed that writing conferences and peer response groups strategies improved students' writing skills and self efficacy. Thus, it was observed that the students who were the sample of the study enjoyed writing the compositions. In addition, the writing conferences and peer response groups strategies were effective in developing the writing performance and self efficacy of the students. The following are appended: (1) The steps of a teacher writing conference; (2) A student self-efficacy scale; and (3) A holistic scoring rubric. (Contains 1 tables.) [This study was a part of the Egyptian National Program Zero for Education Quality.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (345K)

Descriptors:
Homework; Writing Skills; Writing Instruction; Peer Evaluation; College Faculty; Higher Education; Teaching Methods; Models

Abstract:
In this article, the authors describe an acrostic-based mnemonic device they created to aid students in constructing and supporting arguments in a manner consistent with the claim-data-warrant model. They call it the "IDOL writing device": I-"I"dentify a specific claim, D-"D"evelop an argument to support your claim, O-"O"ffer an example(s) that supports your argument, L-"L"ink the example(s) to the claim. This device highlights the need for students to make a specific claim and further describe the claim by providing additional details. It also reminds students to incorporate examples from their experiences, observations, survey responses, or other forms of data. Finally, it asks students to explain how the examples connect to the claim being made. The authors use the device in a variety of ways during in-class exercises or homework assignments. The device can also be used in peer review exercises by asking students to identify the elements in other students' writing. Using the IDOL writing device allows students to remember the crucial elements of making and supporting arguments in formal writing by introducing academic reasoning. Once students have learned to incorporate each of these elements into their writing, they can then focus on improving the content and quality of their arguments. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Writing for Publication; Special Education; Guidelines; Periodicals; Peer Evaluation; Evaluation Methods

Abstract:
The evidence-based practice movement in special education has emphasized the use of the scientific process to assist with the identification of effective academic and behavioral strategies. An important but often overlooked aspect of this system is the peer review process in which manuscripts submitted for publication are reviewed by experts to ensure that the most significant and accurate information is being disseminated. The purpose of this systematic review was to describe the prevalence and content of guidelines developed to assist peer reviewers when conducting manuscript evaluations. Results demonstrated that peer review guidelines are commonly used in special education with many referring to similar aspects of submitted manuscripts. Despite these commonalities, however, there was considerable variability observed across guidelines regarding the specific criteria used to assess these common manuscript features. Findings are discussed within the context of the strengths and limitations of the peer review process with recommendations provided to foster a stronger community of researchers and practitioners. (Contains 1 table.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Observation; Teacher Evaluation; Accuracy; Reliability; Interrater Reliability; School Personnel; Principals; Peer Evaluation; Comparative Analysis

Abstract:
For many teachers, the classroom observation has been the only opportunity to receive direct feedback from another school professional. As such, it is an indispensable part of every teacher evaluation system. Yet it also requires a major time commitment from teachers, principals, and peer observers. To justify the investment of time and resources, a classroom observation should be both accurate and reliable. In this paper, the authors evaluate the accuracy and reliability of school personnel in performing classroom observations. The authors also examine different combinations of observers and lessons observed that produce reliability of 0.65 or above when using school personnel. They asked principals and peers in Hillsborough County, Florida, to watch and score videos of classroom teaching for 67 teacher-volunteers using videos of lessons captured during the 2011-12 school year. Each of 129 observers provided 24 scores on lessons provided to them, yielding more than 3,000 video scores for this analysis. The authors briefly summarize seven key findings: (1) Observers rarely used the top or bottom categories ("unsatisfactory" and "advanced") on the four-point observation instrument; (2) Compared to peer raters, administrators differentiated more among teachers; (3) Administrators rated their own teachers 0.1 points higher than administrators from other schools and 0.2 points higher than peers; (4) Although administrators scored their own teachers higher, their rankings were similar to the rankings produced by others outside their schools; (5) Allowing teachers to choose their own videos generated higher average scores. However, the relative ranking of teachers was preserved whether videos were chosen or not; (6) When an observer formed a positive (or negative) impression of a teacher in the first several videos, that impression tended to linger; and (7) There are a number of different ways to ensure reliability of 0.65 or above. The authors conclude by discussing the implications for the design of teacher evaluation systems in practice. (Contains 7 figures, 10 tables, and 21 footnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (554K)

Descriptors:
Faculty; Journal Articles; Early Childhood Education; Peer Evaluation; Young Children; Researchers; Publishing Industry; College Students; Authors

Abstract:
Publishing outlets in the field of early childhood vary widely in terms of emphasis on theory, practice, and research as they relate to the care and education of the very young; these outlets also have different readerships (i.e., primarily for teachers, the teachers of their teachers, or the fellow scholars/researchers). Included in the mixture of publications in the early childhood field are two broad categories: (1) professional magazines that are intended primarily for an audience of practitioners and (2) journals that are intended primarily for college students, teacher education faculty, and researchers. This article begins with a discussion of the extrinsic and intrinsic benefits of publishing for the early childhood professional as well as some of the impediments to scholarship in the field. It then surveys 24 different publishing outlets in early childhood education and provides descriptive data on each magazine or journal. Next, it explains the anonymous peer review process that is used to evaluate journal articles. The article concludes with practical advice to authors seeking to publish in the early childhood field. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Foreign Countries; Severity (of Disability); Essays; Gender Differences; Peer Evaluation; Teacher Evaluation; English (Second Language); Self Evaluation (Individuals); Higher Education; Comparative Analysis; Evaluation Criteria

Abstract:
We compared three assessor types (self-assessors, peer-assessors, and teacher assessors) to determine whether they differed in the levels of severity they exercised when rating essays. We analyzed the ratings of 194 assessors who evaluated 188 essays that students enrolled in two state-run universities in Iran wrote. The assessors employed a 6-point analytic scale to provide ratings on 15 assessment criteria. The results of our analysis showed that of the three assessor types, teacher assessors were the most severe while self-assessors were the most lenient, although there was a great deal of variability in the levels of severity that assessors within each type exercised. (Contains 1 figure and 1 table.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Ability; Feedback (Response); Peer Evaluation; Writing Assignments; Student Evaluation; Revision (Written Composition); Writing Skills; Writing (Composition); Writing Ability

Abstract:
The use of peer assessment to evaluate students' writing is one recommended method that makes writing assignments possible in large content classes (i.e., more than 75 students). However, many instructors and students worry about whether students of all ability levels are capable of helping their peers. We examine how ability pairing (e.g., high-ability student with high-ability student versus high-ability student with low-ability student) changes key characteristics of feedback to determine which pairings are likely to benefit students most. A web-based reciprocal peer-review system was used to facilitate the peer review of students' writing of two papers. Over 1,100 comments given to writers from their peers were coded for several relevant categories: type of feedback, type of criticism, focus of problem, focus of solution, and implementation. Overall, creating peer-review groups such that students receive feedback from someone of a dissimilar ability appeared to be most beneficial. High-ability writers received similar kinds of feedback from high-ability versus low-ability peers. By contrast, the low-ability writers received more comments that identified problems focusing on substance issues from high-ability reviewers. In addition, the low-ability writers implemented a higher percentage of the comments from the high-ability reviewers. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website