Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10397/618
PIRA download icon_1.1View/Download Full Text
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorDepartment of English-
dc.creatorCheng, W-
dc.creatorWarren, M-
dc.date.accessioned2014-12-11T08:24:40Z-
dc.date.available2014-12-11T08:24:40Z-
dc.identifier.issn0265-5322-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10397/618-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherEdward Arnolden_US
dc.rights© 2005 Edward Arnold (Publishers), Sage Publications.en_US
dc.subjectEnglish language proficiencyen_US
dc.subjectPeer assessmenten_US
dc.titlePeer assessment of language proficiencyen_US
dc.typeJournal/Magazine Articleen_US
dc.identifier.spage93-
dc.identifier.epage121-
dc.identifier.volume22-
dc.identifier.issue1-
dc.identifier.doi10.1191/0265532205lt298oa-
dcterms.abstractThis article describes part of an investigation into the reliability and potential benefits of incorporating peer assessment into English language programmes. Undergraduate Engineering students attending a university in Hong Kong were asked to assess the English language proficiency of their peers - among other assessment criteria, such as preparation, content, organisation, and delivery - as exhibited in the seminar, oral presentation and written report of an integrated group project. The paper compares the students' attitudes towards assessing both the English language proficiency and other aspects of performance of their peers. It also compares peer and teacher assessments. The findings suggest that students had a less positive attitude towards assessing their peers' language proficiency, but they did not score their peers' language proficiency very differently from the other assessment criteria. Students and teachers were different in their respective marking behaviours and the ways oral and written language proficiency were interpreted. While students derived benefits from the peer assessment exercise, a question mark hangs over incorporating peer assessment for both language proficiency and the other criteria into the regular assessment process until such differences are resolved. Suggestions are made for improvement in procedures and future research.-
dcterms.accessRightsopen accessen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationLanguage testing, Jan. 2005, v. 22, no. 1, p. 93-121-
dcterms.isPartOfLanguage testing-
dcterms.issued2005-01-
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-13744257915-
dc.identifier.rosgroupidr20634-
dc.description.ros2004-2005 > Academic research: refereed > Publication in refereed journal-
dc.description.oaAccepted Manuscripten_US
dc.identifier.FolderNumberOA_IR/PIRAen_US
dc.description.pubStatusPublisheden_US
Appears in Collections:Journal/Magazine Article
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
LT_298.pdfPre-published version351.76 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Open Access Information
Status open access
File Version Final Accepted Manuscript
Access
View full-text via PolyU eLinks SFX Query
Show simple item record

Page views

114
Last Week
0
Last month
Citations as of Jul 3, 2022

Downloads

1,919
Citations as of Jul 3, 2022

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

85
Last Week
1
Last month
0
Citations as of Jul 7, 2022

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.