Email this article 
Hide
Show all
Holistic vs. Category-Based Self-Assessment of Expository L2 Writing: Validity and Reliability Considerations
Abstract
A considerable body of research in EFL assessment seems to be motivated by the notion of self-assessment (see Sung et al., 2010, for example). In this research, essay writings of sixty-four major English learners were subjected to self- and teacher-assessments employing holistic vs. category-based scoring. The average of teacher scorings was used as the criterion for validity. Statistical analysis indicated that self-assessments were fairly valid, but not reliable. Also, holistic and category-based self-assessments correlated but not very highly. Findings imply that while self-assessment may provide a valid method for measuring learner performance in EFL, an unthinking application of self-assessment as a primary means of measuring learners’ performance would be questionable. Another implication might be that in the cautious application of self-assessment as a partial representation of learners’ performance, teachers and testers may instruct the learners to use both types of scoring as they empirically evoke similar self-judgments on the test-takers’ part.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Bailey, K. M. (1998). Learning about language assessment. Cambridge, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Blanche, P. & Merino, M. (1989). Self-assessment of foreign-language skills: implications for teachers and researchers. Language Learning, 39(3), 313-340.
Boud, D. & Falchikov, N. (1989) Quantitative studies of student self assessment in higher education: A critical analysis of findings. Higher Education 18, 529-549
Brantmeier, C., & Vanderplank, R. (2008). Descriptive and criterion-referenced self-assessment with L2 reader. System, 36, 456-477.
Brown, D.H. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practice. New York: Longman Pearson.
Bulter, Y. G., & Lee, J. (2006). On-Task Versus Off-Task Self-Assessments Among Korean Elementary School Students Studying English. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 506-518.
Butler, Y. G., & Lee, J. (2006). On-task versus off-task self-assessments among Korean elementary school students studying English. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 506-18.
Davies, A. (2003). Three heresies of language testing. Language Testing, 20(4), 355-36.
Dlashka, A., & Krekeler, C. (2008). Self-assessment of pronunciation. System, 36, 506-516.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24, 331e350.
Fitzgerald, J. T., Gruppen, L. D., & White, C. B. (2000). The influence of task formats on the accuracy of medical students’ self-assessments. Academic Medicine, 75(7), 737-741.
Fox, S. & Dinur, Y. (1988). Validity of self-assessment: A field evaluation. Personnel Psychology, 41, 581-592.
Harris, M. (1997). Self-assessment of language learning in formal settings. ELT Journal, 51(1), 12-20.
Jacobs, H., Zinkgraf, S., Wormuth, D., Hartfiel, V., & Hughey, J. (1981). Testing ESL composition: a practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Lee, Y. (2006). The process-oriented ESL writing assessment: Promises and challenges. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 307-330.
Lejk, M., & Wyvill, M. (2001). The effects of the inclusion of self-assessment with peer assessment of contributions to a group project: A quantitative study of secret and agreed assessments. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 551–561.
Lindblom-Ylän, S., Pihlajamäki, H., & Kotkas, T. (2006). Self-, peer- and teacher-assessment of student essays. Active Learning in Higher Education, 7, 51-62.
Magin, D. & Helmore, P. (2001). Peer and teacher assessments of oral presentation skills: how reliable are they? Studies in Higher Education, 26(3), 288-297.
Miller, L. & Ng, R. (1994). Peer assessment of oral language proficiency perspectives. Working papers of the Department of English, City Polytechnic of Hong Kong, 6, 41-56.
Matsuno, S. (2009). Self-, Peer-, and Teacher- assessments in Japanese University EFL Writing Classrooms. Language Testing, 29(1), 75-100.
Oldfield, K.A., & McAlpine, J.M.K. (1995). Peer and self-assessment at the tertiary level: An experiential report. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 20, 125-132.
Pakaslahti, L., & Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. (2000). Comparison of peer, teacher and self-assessments on adolescent direct and indirect aggression. Educational Psychology, 20, 177-190.
Ross, J. A., Rolheiser, C., & Hogaboam-Gary, A. (1999). Effects of self-evaluation training on narrative writing. Assessing Writing, 6(1), 107-132.
Ross, John A. (2006). The Reliability, Validity, and Utility of Self-Assessment. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 11(10). Available online: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=11&n=10
Ross, S. (1998). Self-assessment in second language testing: a meta-analysis and analysis of experiential factors. Language Testing, 15(1), 1-20.
Sullivan, K., & Hall C. (1997). Introducing students to self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 22, 289-303.
Sung, Y., Chang, K., Chang, T., & Yu, W. (2010). How many heads are better than one? The reliability and validity of teenagers’ self- and peer assessments. Journal f Adolescnce, 33, 135-145.
Topping, K. (2003). Self- and peer-assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility in M. Segers, F. Dochy and E. Cascallar (Eds). Optimizing new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 55–87). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Zoller, U. & Ben-Chaim, D. (1997). Student Self-assessment in HOCS Science Examinations: Is it Compatible with that of Teachers? Paper presented at the 7th EARLI conference, Athens, Greece, 26–30 August.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/ijalel.v.1n.2p.26
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
2012-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature
To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.