Science for Education Today, 2020, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 7–27
© Azizi M., Kralik R., Petrikovicova L., Tkáčová H., 2020
UDC: 
378+159+314

A comparative study of the effects of self-assessment and peer feedback on literature students’ oral production [In English]

Azizi M. 1 (Babolsar, Islamic Republic of Iran), Kralik R. 2 (Nitra, Slovak Republic), Petrikovicova L. 3 (Nitra, Slovak Republic), Tkáčová H. 4 (Zilina, Slovak Republic)
1 University of Mazandaran
2 Contantine the Philosopher University in Nitra
3 University in Nitra
4 University of Zilina
Full text (Open Access) — Downloaded 1044
Abstract: 

Introduction. The purpose of the current study is to investigate self-assessment and peer feedback as two helpful strategies for facilitating teaching and learning in language classrooms and to investigate the effects of these techniques on EFL learners' oral performance.
Materials and Methods. To achieve the purpose of the study and answer the research questions, a quasi-experimental study was conducted.
The participants of the study were two groups of five EFL learners who were called self-assessment group and peer feedback group. The self-assessment and peer feedback techniques were incorporated to the self-assessment and peer feedback group respectively. There were a pretest and posttest sessions and four sessions of treatment were between the pretest and posttest.
The instruments used in this study were storyboards and checklists. The data was collected via recording device and then it was transcribed for further analysis. Some parts of the data were also analyzed qualitatively.
Results. The findings of the present study showed that both techniques are helpful in different aspects of oral performance. Self-assessment had significant effects on the use of correct error- free clauses, subject verb agreement, word choice and tense consistency and also the features of fluency and organization.
Conclusions. Peer feedback also improved the use of error-free clauses and fluency but not the other items. But there is no significant difference between the two techniques.

Keywords: 

Self-assessment; Peer feedback; Oral production; Autonomy.

URL WoS/RSCI: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/rsci/full-record/RSCI:44193021

Prominence Percentile SciVal: 95.252 Peer Assessment | Collaborative Writing | Teacher Feedback

https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85096837706&origin=...

A comparative study of the effects of self-assessment and peer feedback on literature students' oral production

For citation:
Azizi M., Kralik R., Petrikovicova L., Tkáčová H. A comparative study of the effects of self-assessment and peer feedback on literature students’ oral production [In English]. Science for Education Today, 2020, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 7–27. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2005.01
References: 
  1. Ahangari S. The effect of self, peer and teacher correction on the pronunciation improvement of Iranian EFL learners. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 2014, vol. 5 (1), pp. 81–89. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.5n.1p.81
  2. Ahangari S., Rassekh-Alqol B., Ali Akbari Hamed L. The effect of peer assessment on oral presentation in an EFL context. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 2013, vol. 2 (3), pp. 45–53. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.2n.3p.45
  3. Ariafar M., Fatemipour H. The effect of self-assessment on Iranian EFL learners’ speaking skill. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 2013, vol. 2 (4), pp. 7–13. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.2n.4p.7
  4. Benson P. Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 2006, vol. 40 (1), pp.  21–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003958
  5. Birjandi P., Hadidi Tamjid N. The role of self-assessment in promoting Iranian EFL learners’ motivation. English Language Teaching, 2010, vol. 3 (3), pp. 211–220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n3p211
  6. Carless N.-F. L. Peer feedback: the learning element. Teaching in Higher Education, 2007, vol.  11  (1), pp. 279–290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680582
  7. Cheng W., Warren M. Having second thoughts: Student perceptions before and after a peer assessment exercise. Studies in Higher Education, 1997, vol. 22 (2), pp. 233–239. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079712331381064  
  8. Chu R. Effects of teacher’s corrective feedback on accuracy in the oral English of English-majors college students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2010, vol. 1 (5), pp. 454–459. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.1.5.454-459
  9. Gadušová Z., Hašková A., Predanocyová L. Teachers’ professional competence and their evaluation. Education and Self Development, 2019, vol. 14 (3), pp. 17–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26907/esd14.3.02
  10. Gadušová Z., Jakubovská V., Markechová D., Tirpakova A. Teacher competences development - A guarantee of sustainable high level of education and training. TEM Journal, 2019, vol. 8 (3), pp.  1063–1070. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM83-52
  11. Gadušová Z., Vítečková M. Mentors’ and novices’ perception of teachers’ professional career start in Slovakia and in the Czech Republic. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2013, vol. 106, pp. 1825–1833. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.207
  12. Gadušova Z., Hašková A., Szarszoi D. Teachers` competences evaluation: Case study [In English]. Science for Education Today, 2020, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 164–177. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2003.09
  13. Hašková A., Lukáčová D., Noga H. Teacher self-assessment as a part of quality management. Science for Education Today, 2019, vol. 9 (2), pp. 156–169. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.1902.11
  14. Jabr R. K. Introducing the skills of self-assessment and peer feedback. SiSAL Journal, 2011, vol.  2  (1), pp. 26–31. URL: https://sisaljournal.org/archives/mar11/jabr/
  15. Khodadady E., Khodabakhshzade H. The effect of portfolio and self-assessment on writing ability and autonomy. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2012, vol. 3 (3), pp. 518–524. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.3.518-524
  16. Khonamri F., Ahmadi F. The effect of metacognitive strategy training and raising EFL learners’ metacognitive knowledge on listening performance. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2015, vol. 5 (1), pp. 19–28. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v5i1.827  
  17. Khonamri F., Roostaee S. Does extensive reading combined with form-focused or meaning-focused activities affect lexical collocational knowledge of Iranian learners? Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2014, vol. 4 (5), pp. 1038–1044. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.5.1038-1044 
  18. Liu N.-F., Carless D. Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 2006, vol. 11 (3), pp. 279–290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680582
  19. Lundstorm K., Baker W. To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2009, vol. 18 (1), pp. 30–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
  20. Moradi M. R., Karimpour Z. The effect of peer assessment on oral presentation in an EFL context. International Education Studies, 2012, vol. 5 (2), pp. 113–117. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v5n2p113
  21. MacGarrell H. Native and non-native English speaking student teachers engage in peer feedback. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2010, vol. 13 (1), pp. 71–90. URL: https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/view/19930
  22. Nedzinskaitė I., Švenčionienė D., Zavistanavičienė D. Achievements in language learning through students’ self-assessment. Studies About Languages, 2006, no. 8, pp. 84–87. URL: https://www.kalbos.lt/zurnalai/08_numeris/12.pdf
  23. Ochoa E. O. Self-assessment practices: An empowering tool in the teaching and learning EFL processes. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 2007, no. 9, pp. 229–246. URL: http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/calj/n9/n9a12.pdf
  24. Patri M. The influence of peer feedback on self- and peer-assessment of oral skills. Language Testing, 2002, vol. 19 (2), pp. 109–131. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt224oa
  25. Pavlíková M. The power of modern technologies in the fiction of Don DeLillo. Communications – Scientific Letters of the University of Zilina, 2018, vol. 20 (1A), pp. 57–60. URL: http://komunikacie.uniza.sk/index.php/communications/article/view/64/47
  26. Pavlíková M., Žalec B. Struggle for the human self and authenticity: kierkegaard's critique of the public, established order, media, and false christianity. Bogoslovni Vestnik, 2019, vol. 79 (4), pp.  1015–1026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34291/BV2019/04/Pavlikova  
  27. Záhorec J., Nagyová A., Hašková A. Teachers´ attitudes to incorporation digital means in teaching process in relation to the subjects they teach. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (IJEP), 2019, vol. 9 (4), pp. 100–120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v9i4.11064
  28. Záhorec J., Hašková A., Munk M., Particular results of a research aimed at curricula design of teacher training in the area of didactic technological competences. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (IJEP), 2018, vol. 8 (4), pp. 16–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v8i4.8184 

 

Date of the publication 31.10.2020