what is going on in students' minds: students'...

Title What is Going on in Students' Minds: Students' Attitudes andFeelings Toward Peer Assessment of Speech Performance

Author(s) Fukuzawa, Makoto

Citation琉球大学教育学部教育実践総合センター紀要 = Bulletin ofFaculty of Education Center for Educational Research andDevelopment(25): 93-102

Issue Date 2018-03

URL http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12000/42508

Rights

AbstractThe purpose of this study is to investigate students’ attitudes and feelings toward peer

assessment (PA) of speech performance, as how they think and feel about PA might influence the results of their assessment. First, high school students gave speeches on which PA was performed, and then filled out a questionnaire for analysis. It was found that many students were not confident about PA and were reluctant to assess their peers’ speech. Some assessment criteria, such as pronunciation and fluency, seem easier for students to assess, but they felt it difficult to assess grammar. A positive backwash effect was observed, and most of the students did not think that friendship influenced their scores when they assessed other students’ speech performance.

1. Introduction

The Course of Study (MEXT, 2009) requires English teachers to teach communication skills, such as speaking, in language classrooms. However, assessing speaking skills is not easy. Speaking assessment is considered subjective (Brown, 1998), and test administration and scoring are time-consuming and onerous (Oka et al., 1984). Peer assessment (PA) can be an effective means of solving or lessening these problems by providing a new way of assessing speaking to increase the practicality and reliability of speaking assessment. Some previous studies of PA have supported the validity of PA as a part of formal assessment (Fukazawa, 2008; Miller & Ng, 1996; Nakamura, 2002).

However, PA also has certain characteristics that other assessments do not, such as “friendship marking,” over-marking due to friendship between students. It is essential to know students’ attitudes and feelings toward PA so that teachers may reach a deeper understanding of the characteristics of students’ assessments. If teachers can understand students better as raters, it is possible to make PA more practical. In this study, therefore, students’ attitudes and feelings toward PA of speech performance are investigated.

2. Previous Studies

Peer assessment (PA) is an alternative assessment to standardized testing (Matsuzawa, 2002). Brown (1998) defines PA as assessments that require students to judge the language or language performance of one or more other students. PA in this research essentially follows this definition and had the whole class of students besides the speaker evaluate his or her speech performance as raters.

Fukazawa (2008) examined the validity of PA of speaking performance among Japanese high

What is Going on in Students’ Minds: Students’ Attitudes and Feelings Toward Peer Assessment of Speech Performance

Makoto FUKAZAWA

琉球大学教育学部

教育実践総合センター紀要　第 25 号　2018 年 2 月

―93―

琉球大学教育学部教育実践総合センター紀要（第 25 号）

school students, and it was shown to be comparable to that of teacher assessment (TA). Nakamura (2002) also supported the validity of PA. In a university-level oral presentation course, PA was carried out with four randomly chosen students from the class. The data were analyzed using the Many-Facet Rash Measurement Model, and the results suggested that students could be reasonably reliable raters of their peers. Miller and Ng (1996) conducted research on PA with college students in English speaking classes. PA and TA were compared using the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, which found a relatively high correlation (r = .68). Based on the research above, it seems reasonable to state that PA has a certain validity comparable to TA.

However, there has not been much research shedding light on the attitudes and feelings behind it. Cheng and Warren (2005) conducted research on PA of oral presentations and writing among undergraduate students. They studied not only the validity of PA but also student attitudes toward PA. According to their research, students had a negative impression of assessing other students. Miller and Ng (1996) stated that students tend to think they were not qualified to perform PA. Pond, Ul-Haq, and Wade (1995) pointed out “friendship marking,” or over-marking due to friendship with the speaker, as one of the characteristics of PA. On the other hand, there seem to be some positive effects of PA on students’ attitudes and feelings as well. PA motivates students (Nakamura, 2002; Orsmond, Merry, & Reiling, 1996) and allows them to recognize learning goals (Luoma, 2004).

According to the research above, PA has some characteristics that cannot be observed in TA, and it seems that many things are going on in students’ minds while PA is conducted. It is important to know students’ attitudes and feelings toward PA, as this will help researchers to understand the characteristics of PA more deeply and may hold important implications for the use of PA in language classrooms. To investigate students’ attitudes and feelings toward PA, the following research questions are addressed:

RQ 1. Do students feel that they can assess their classmates’ speech performance in a valid and consistent manner?

RQ 2. Which criteria do students feel to be easy or difficult to assess: delivery, fluency, grammar, pronunciation, or overall evaluation?

RQ 3. Do students have a positive attitude toward PA?RQ 4. Does friendship influence PA?RQ 5. Does PA motivate students?

3. Method

3.1 ParticipantsSeventy-nine Japanese high school students (30 boys and 49 girls). participated in this study.

Most of the students had not had any experiences staying in an English-speaking country, apart from five students who had lived in such countries for more than six months. The English proficiency of the participants was relatively high for high school students: Their approximate English level was the grade 2 on the Eiken test, or Test in Practical English Proficiency, according to the questionnaire taken after PA.

3.2 MaterialsFor this study, a questionnaire was developed to collect information and feedback from the

―94―

深澤：What is Going on in Students’ Minds: Students’ Attitudes and Feelings Toward Peer Assessment of Speech Performance

participants (see Appendix). The questionnaire mainly asked questions about the students’ experiences with English and their attitude and feelings toward PA.

More precisely, to obtain participants’ background information, questions concerning their experiences living in English-speaking countries, the duration of their stay, their scores or grades on English proficiency tests such as the STEP Test, TOEFL, and TOEIC, their experiences with PA, and the number (frequency) of their experiences of PA were asked.

The participants’ impressions of the validity and reliability of their own PA and their feelings about each assessment criterion were also asked. Furthermore, there were questions on students’ attitudes towards PA and what they learned by assessing their classmates’ speeches.

3.3 Procedures This study was conducted in conjunction with a speech project in high school. The students

prepared two-minute speeches. Before their performances, students received rater training using a sample speech video. Beginning in the next class, students performed their speeches in front of the class. The topic for the speech was “What I am crazy about,” and the students talked about whatever interested them most, such as their hobbies, favorite music, or sports they play. The rest of the students in the class listened to their speeches and assessed their performance according to five criteria—pronunciation, fluency, grammar, delivery, and overall evaluation. Within a week after the speech project, the questionnaire was conducted. The data from the questionnaire were then analyzed.

3.4 AnalysesAs is standard in this kind of investigation, the questionnaire in this study was analyzed using

descriptive statistics. The number of students who answered the questionnaire was 73. The students’ comments on the questionnaire were also analyzed. To better analyze these comments related to the research questions 2 and 5, they were categorized by the researcher.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Students’ Feelings Toward the Validity and Consistency of PAFour questions were composed to determine students’ feelings toward the validity and the

reliability of their own PA. Question 18 asked the participants whether they were able to conduct PA in a valid manner. Table 1 shows the results of the students’ answers: 46.6% (disagree 45.2%, strongly disagree 1.4%) of the participants did not think that they could evaluate their peers’ speeches validly, while 43.9% (agree 38.4%, strongly agree 5.5%) of them thought that their PA was more or less valid. Thirty-four students who said that they could not validly perform the evaluation stated a reason in Question 19. There were five choices given as responses: (1) friendship, (2) the student’s own English proficiency, (3) lack of concentration, (4) influence of the previous speech (i.e., judging a speech in relation to the performance given by a previous speaker), and (5) other (students provided their own reasons). Half of them (50.0%) chose “influence from a previous speech” as the reason for their invalid judgments (see Table 2). Another 41.2% answered that they did not have sufficient English proficiency to validly evaluate their peers. These two were the most common responses, while only a few students chose “lack of concentration” (5.9%) or “friendship” (2.9%).

―95―


Question 20 asked whether students were able to assess their peers’ speeches in a consistent way. This question asked students’ feelings about the reliability of their own PA. According to the results (see Table 3), 53.4% students (disagree 50.7%, strongly disagree 2.7%) thought their PA was somewhat unreliable. On the other hand, 39.7% (agree 35.6%; strongly agree 4.1%) of the participants had the impression that their PA was more or less reliable. Those who thought their PA unreliable gave their reasons in Question 21. The options given for answers were the same as in Question 19. Table 4 shows that the most common reason was the “influence of a previous speech” (55.3%). Other participants chose “lack of concentration” (23.7%), and still others “their own English proficiency” (18.4%). Only one student (2.6%) chose “friendship” as the reason for unreliable judgment.

Table 1Descriptive Statistics of Q18: I was able to access my peers’ speeches validly. (N = 73)

4

performance according to five criteria—pronunciation, fluency, grammar, delivery, and overall evaluation. Within a week after the speech project, the questionnaire was conducted. The data from the questionnaire were then analyzed. 3.4 Analyses

As is standard in this kind of investigation, the questionnaire in this study was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The number of students who answered the questionnaire was 73. The students’ comments on the questionnaire were also analyzed. To better analyze these comments related to the research questions 2 and 5, they were categorized by the researcher.

4. Results and Discussion 4.1 Students’ Feelings Toward the Validity and Consistency of PA

Four questions were composed to determine students’ feelings toward the validity and the reliability of their own PA. Question 18 asked the participants whether they were able to conduct PA in a valid manner. Table 1 shows the results of the students’ answers: 46.6% (disagree 45.2%, strongly disagree 1.4%) of the participants did not think that they could evaluate their peers’ speeches validly, while 43.9% (agree 38.4%, strongly agree 5.5%) of them thought that their PA was more or less valid. Thirty-four students who said that they could not validly perform the evaluation stated a reason in Question 19. There were five choices given as responses: (1) friendship, (2) the student’s own English proficiency, (3) lack of concentration, (4) influence of the previous speech (i.e., judging a speech in relation to the performance given by a previous speaker), and (5) other (students provided their own reasons). Half of them (50.0%) chose “influence from a previous speech” as the reason for their invalid judgments (see Table 2). Another 41.2% answered that they did not have sufficient English proficiency to validly evaluate their peers. These two were the most common responses, while only a few students chose “lack of concentration” (5.9%) or “friendship” (2.9%). Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of Q18: I was able to access my peers’ speeches validly. (N = 73)

n % Strongly agree 4 5.5 Agree 28 38.4 Disagree 33 45.2 Strongly disagree 1 1.4 I don’t know 7 9.6

Table 2Descriptive Statistics of Q19: The reason that I could not access my peers’ speeches validly. (N = 34)

5

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics of Q19: The reason that I could not access my peers’ speeches validly. (N = 34)

n % Friendship 1 2.9 English proficiency 14 41.2 Lack of concentration 2 5.9 Influence of previous speech 17 50.0 Others 0 0.0

Question 20 asked whether students were able to assess their peers’

speeches in a consistent way. This question asked students’ feelings about the reliability of their own PA. According to the results (see Table 3), 53.4% students (disagree 50.7%, strongly disagree 2.7%) thought their PA was somewhat unreliable. On the other hand, 39.7% (agree 35.6%; strongly agree 4.1%) of the participants had the impression that their PA was more or less reliable. Those who thought their PA unreliable gave their reasons in Question 21. The options given for answers were the same as in Question 19. Table 4 shows that the most common reason was the “influence of a previous speech” (55.3%). Other participants chose “lack of concentration” (23.7%), and still others “their own English proficiency” (18.4%). Only one student (2.6%) chose “friendship” as the reason for unreliable judgment. Table 3 Descriptive Statistics of Q20: I was able to access peers’ speeches consistently. (N = 73)


Table 4 Descriptive Statistics of Q21: The reason that I could not access my peers’ speeches consistently. (N = 38)


5








Table 3Descriptive Statistics of Q20: I was able to access peers’ speeches consistently. (N = 73)

5








Table 4Descriptive Statistics of Q21: The reason that I could not access my peers’ speeches consistently. (N = 38)

―96―


The students’ answers indicate that many of them lack confidence in their own ability to conduct PA in terms of both validity and consistency. This finding agrees with Miller and Ng (1996), who state that students think they are not qualified to do PA and are more comfortable with being assessed by a teacher. In addition, it was interesting to find that students felt previous speeches had the strongest influence on the validity and reliability of PA.

4.2 Students’ Feelings Toward Assessment CriteriaQuestions 22 to 26 asked how easy it was for students to perform assessment in terms of

pronunciation, grammar, fluency, delivery, and overall evaluation. In cases where students found it difficult to assess a criterion, they were asked to include the reasons for their opinions.

According to the results (see Table 5), 89.0% of the participants (agree 54.8%, strongly agree 34.2%) thought it easy to assess pronunciation. In the case of grammar, however, 78.1% (disagree 69.9%, strongly disagree 8.2%) of the students thought it difficult to evaluate, while only one-fifth had positive impressions. As for evaluating fluency, 95.9% (agree 54.8%, strongly agree 34.2%) of the students more or less agreed that assessing fluency was easy. Delivery was also considered easy to assess by 91.8% (agree 65.8%, strongly agree 26.0%) of the participants. In addition, 86.3% (agree 65.8%, strongly agree 20.5%) of the students felt the overall evaluation was easy to perform.

Given the results of the questionnaire, assessing grammar was considered difficult by almost 80% of the students, although other criteria were considered easy to assess. In Question 23, among the students who replied that assessing speaking in terms of grammar was difficult (n = 57), 32 students included their reasons on the questionnaire. According to their feedback, the reasons given were mainly divided into four categories: (1) lack of grammatical knowledge, (2) lack of listening skill, (3) difficulty of finding mistakes, and (4) the difficulty of doing two things at the same time. The first main reason was that students did not think they had adequate grammatical knowledge (n = 17). One student answered, “I don’t have confidence in grammar.” Another wrote, “Because of my English proficiency level, I was not sure that the grammar was correct or not.” Students’ reflections suggest that they thought their English proficiency was not high enough to assess speaking, and also show their lack of confidence in PA. This corresponds to the students’ impressions of PA where they felt unqualified as raters because of their proficiency reported in Miller and Ng (1996).

Second, some students (n = 14) stated that they had a problem listening to speeches for PA for three reasons. One is that students simply felt that their listening ability was not sufficient. One of the students mentioned, “I could not understand everything because of my listening skill.” This is connected to one of the difficulties of assessing speaking. In order to assess speaking performance, listening skill is

Table 5Descriptive Statistics of Q22‒26: Were the criteria easy to assess? (N = 73)

6

The students’ answers indicate that many of them lack confidence in their own ability to conduct PA in terms of both validity and consistency. This finding agrees with Miller and Ng (1996), who state that students think they are not qualified to do PA and are more comfortable with being assessed by a teacher. In addition, it was interesting to find that students felt previous speeches had the strongest influence on the validity and reliability of PA. 4.2 Students’ Feelings Toward Assessment Criteria

Questions 22 to 26 asked how easy it was for students to perform assessment in terms of pronunciation, grammar, fluency, delivery, and overall evaluation. In cases where students found it difficult to assess a criterion, they were asked to include the reasons for their opinions.

According to the results (see Table 5), 89.0% of the participants (agree 54.8%, strongly agree 34.2%) thought it easy to assess pronunciation. In the case of grammar, however, 78.1% (disagree 69.9%, strongly disagree 8.2%) of the students thought it difficult to evaluate, while only one-fifth had positive impressions. As for evaluating fluency, 95.9% (agree 54.8%, strongly agree 34.2%) of the students more or less agreed that assessing fluency was easy. Delivery was also considered easy to assess by 91.8% (agree 65.8%, strongly agree 26.0%) of the participants. In addition, 86.3% (agree 65.8%, strongly agree 20.5%) of the students felt the overall evaluation was easy to perform. Table 5 Descriptive Statistics of Q22‒26: Were the criteria easy to assess? (N = 73)

Pronunciation Grammar Fluency Delivery Overall n % n % n % n % n %

Strongly agree 25 34.2 4 5.5 27 37.0 19 26.0 15 20.5 Agree 40 54.8 11 15.1 43 58.9 48 65.8 48 65.8 Disagree 5 6.8 51 69.9 3 4.1 4 5.5 8 11.0 Strongly disagree 2 2.7 6 8.2 0 0.0 1 1.4 0 0.0 I don’t know 1 1.4 1 1.4 0 0.0 1 1.4 2 2.7

Given the results of the questionnaire, assessing grammar was considered

difficult by almost 80% of the students, although other criteria were considered easy to assess. In Question 23, among the students who replied that assessing speaking in terms of grammar was difficult (n = 57), 32 students included their reasons on the questionnaire. According to their feedback, the reasons given were mainly divided into four categories: (1) lack of grammatical knowledge, (2) lack of listening skill, (3) difficulty of finding mistakes, and (4) the difficulty of doing two things at the same time. The first main reason was that students did not think they had adequate grammatical knowledge (n = 17). One student answered, “I don’t have confidence in grammar.” Another wrote, “Because of my English proficiency level, I was not sure that the grammar was correct or not.” Students’

Question 20 asked whether students were able to assess their peers’ speeches in a consistent way. This question asked students’ feelings about the reliability of their own PA. According to the results (see Table 3), 53.4% students (disagree 50.7%, strongly disagree 2.7%) thought their PA was somewhat unreliable. On the other hand, 39.7% (agree 35.6%; strongly agree 4.1%) of the participants had the impression that their PA was more or less reliable. Those who thought their PA unreliable gave their reasons in Question 21. The options given for answers were the same as in Question 19. Table 4 shows that the most common reason was the “influence of a previous speech” (55.3%). Other participants chose “lack of concentration” (23.7%), and still others “their own English proficiency” (18.4%). Only one student (2.6%) chose “friendship” as the reason for unreliable judgment.

Table 1Descriptive Statistics of Q18: I was able to access my peers’ speeches validly. (N = 73)

4

performance according to five criteria—pronunciation, fluency, grammar, delivery, and overall evaluation. Within a week after the speech project, the questionnaire was conducted. The data from the questionnaire were then analyzed. 3.4 Analyses

As is standard in this kind of investigation, the questionnaire in this study was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The number of students who answered the questionnaire was 73. The students’ comments on the questionnaire were also analyzed. To better analyze these comments related to the research questions 2 and 5, they were categorized by the researcher.

4. Results and Discussion 4.1 Students’ Feelings Toward the Validity and Consistency of PA

Four questions were composed to determine students’ feelings toward the validity and the reliability of their own PA. Question 18 asked the participants whether they were able to conduct PA in a valid manner. Table 1 shows the results of the students’ answers: 46.6% (disagree 45.2%, strongly disagree 1.4%) of the participants did not think that they could evaluate their peers’ speeches validly, while 43.9% (agree 38.4%, strongly agree 5.5%) of them thought that their PA was more or less valid. Thirty-four students who said that they could not validly perform the evaluation stated a reason in Question 19. There were five choices given as responses: (1) friendship, (2) the student’s own English proficiency, (3) lack of concentration, (4) influence of the previous speech (i.e., judging a speech in relation to the performance given by a previous speaker), and (5) other (students provided their own reasons). Half of them (50.0%) chose “influence from a previous speech” as the reason for their invalid judgments (see Table 2). Another 41.2% answered that they did not have sufficient English proficiency to validly evaluate their peers. These two were the most common responses, while only a few students chose “lack of concentration” (5.9%) or “friendship” (2.9%). Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of Q18: I was able to access my peers’ speeches validly. (N = 73)


Table 2Descriptive Statistics of Q19: The reason that I could not access my peers’ speeches validly. (N = 34)

5








―97―


also required (Baba et al., 1997). The other reasons were volume and pronunciation. A student commented, “It was difficult to judge speaking from a grammatical perspective because words were not written, and I could not catch mistakes if the volume of the voice was too small.” Another student also mentioned that assessing speaking in terms of grammar was difficult when pronunciations were not clear.

The third reason is that it was difficult for students to find or notice grammatical mistakes (n = 15). The statements “With only listening, it was hard to judge whether what a speaker said was grammatically correct or not” and “It was difficult to check grammar without the transcript of a speech” explain the reasoning. Baba et al. (1997) and Weir (1990) point out this difficulty and state that spoken language disappears immediately, making speaking assessment difficult.

The last category of reasons was that students simply cannot do two things at once, understanding the content of the speech while judging grammar quality (n = 4). In other words, student raters must focus on the meaning and form of the language at the same time. Student comments like “It was difficult to be conscious of the grammar while concentrating on listening” or “Even if there were some grammatical mistakes, I had my hands full understanding the content” are examples. Assessing speaking is a complex task (Baba et al., 1997), and students tend to concentrate on the message, not on grammar, especially in the case of communication. Therefore, if students try to do these two things at once, the cognitive load for the assessment increases, leaving them feeling that grammar assessment is difficult.

According to the results, it was found that students felt it easy to assess pronunciation, fluency, delivery, and overall evaluation, while they thought it was difficult to assess grammar.

4.3 Students’ Attitudes Toward PAQuestion 28 on the questionnaire asked the students’ attitudes toward PA. As is shown in Table

6, 53.4% (agree 34.2%, strongly agree 19.2%) of the students answered that they were more or less reluctant to conduct PA if the result would be part of their classmates’ grade. On the other hand, 43.8% (disagree 37.0%, strongly disagree 6.8%) of the students did not feel hesitation toward PA. The result indicates that more students had negative attitude toward PA, which supports Cheng and Warren (2005), although 40% of the students thought they would not feel reluctant to assess their classmates as raters.

8

strongly disagree 6.8%) of the students did not feel hesitation toward PA. The result indicates that more students had negative attitude toward PA, which supports Cheng and Warren (2005), although 40% of the students thought they would not feel reluctant to assess their classmates as raters. Table 6 Descriptive Statistics of Q28: I hesitate to assess my classmates’ speech if the scores on PA become part of the grade. (N = 73)


4.4 Influence of Friendship on PA Question 27 asked about friendship marking in PA, and Table 7 shows the

results. Of the participants, 91.8% (agree 49.3%, strongly agree 42.5%) answered that they were able to evaluate their peers’ speeches without consideration of their friendship with the speakers. Those who thought friendship had some effect on their assessment comprised only 6.8%. This result corresponds with the results for Questions 19 and 21 that only a small proportion of the students (2.9% and 2.6%, respectively) answered “friendship” as a cause of invalid or unreliable assessments. Therefore, it was reasonable to conclude that the students were able to judge as objectively as possible, at least on a conscious level. Table 7 Descriptive Statistics of Q27: I was able to assess peers’ speeches fairly regardless of friendship. (N = 73)


4.5 Students’ Motivation

Question 29 asks whether there was any useful influence of PA on students’ language learning. Of the 72.6% of the participants (n = 53) answered the question, 67.1% (n = 49) had positive opinions and 5.5% (n = 4) were neutral. The positive opinions can be divided into two main categories. One category is comprised of opinions related to speaking (n = 26). For example, one of the

Table 6Descriptive Statistics of Q28: I hesitate to assess my classmates’ speech if the scores on PA become part of the grade. (N = 73)

―98―


4.4 Influence of Friendship on PAQuestion 27 asked about friendship marking in PA, and Table 7 shows the results. Of the

participants, 91.8% (agree 49.3%, strongly agree 42.5%) answered that they were able to evaluate their peers’ speeches without consideration of their friendship with the speakers. Those who thought friendship had some effect on their assessment comprised only 6.8%. This result corresponds with the results for Questions 19 and 21 that only a small proportion of the students (2.9% and 2.6%, respectively) answered “friendship” as a cause of invalid or unreliable assessments. Therefore, it was reasonable to conclude that the students were able to judge as objectively as possible, at least on a conscious level.

4.5 Students’ MotivationQuestion 29 asks whether there was any useful influence of PA on students’ language learning.

Of the 72.6% of the participants (n = 53) answered the question, 67.1% (n = 49) had positive opinions and 5.5% (n = 4) were neutral. The positive opinions can be divided into two main categories. One category is comprised of opinions related to speaking (n = 26). For example, one of the students wrote, “Since I have come to know my peers’ speaking skills, I take them as my standard and work hard to improve my practical communication skills.” Another student commented, “Through peer assessment, I discovered a weak point I must overcome.” It seems that PA in speaking performance motivated students to improve their communication skills and suggested some hints for such improvement.

Another category within the positive opinions (n = 10) concerns listening. One student wrote, “Because of PA, I had to be conscious of various points such as pronunciation and grammar, and I was able to listen to the speeches with more concentration and understand better.” According to the comments, PA apparently increases the level of students’ attention towards their peers’ speeches.

In addition, good effects can be seen on other skills such as pronunciation (n = 3), assessing speaking (n = 3), and English in general (n = 2). One student’s comment, “By listening to my classmates’ opinions, I came to be interested in a number of challenging things and more eager to study English,” is an example of the positive opinion of English in general.

According to students’ comments above, PA seems to motivate students in terms of speaking, listening, and even English in general. It seems possible to say that PA demonstrates a beneficial backwash effect, which is a positive influence on language learners.

5. Conclusion

The main purpose of this study was to investigate students’ attitudes and feelings toward peer

8

strongly disagree 6.8%) of the students did not feel hesitation toward PA. The result indicates that more students had negative attitude toward PA, which supports Cheng and Warren (2005), although 40% of the students thought they would not feel reluctant to assess their classmates as raters. Table 6 Descriptive Statistics of Q28: I hesitate to assess my classmates’ speech if the scores on PA become part of the grade. (N = 73)


4.4 Influence of Friendship on PA Question 27 asked about friendship marking in PA, and Table 7 shows the

results. Of the participants, 91.8% (agree 49.3%, strongly agree 42.5%) answered that they were able to evaluate their peers’ speeches without consideration of their friendship with the speakers. Those who thought friendship had some effect on their assessment comprised only 6.8%. This result corresponds with the results for Questions 19 and 21 that only a small proportion of the students (2.9% and 2.6%, respectively) answered “friendship” as a cause of invalid or unreliable assessments. Therefore, it was reasonable to conclude that the students were able to judge as objectively as possible, at least on a conscious level. Table 7 Descriptive Statistics of Q27: I was able to assess peers’ speeches fairly regardless of friendship. (N = 73)


4.5 Students’ Motivation

Question 29 asks whether there was any useful influence of PA on students’ language learning. Of the 72.6% of the participants (n = 53) answered the question, 67.1% (n = 49) had positive opinions and 5.5% (n = 4) were neutral. The positive opinions can be divided into two main categories. One category is comprised of opinions related to speaking (n = 26). For example, one of the

Table 7Descriptive Statistics of Q27: I was able to assess peers’ speeches fairly regardless of friendship. (N = 73)

―99―


assessment (PA). According to the survey, first of all, it was found that students did not have confidence in their PA in terms of validity and consistency. This result supported Miller and Ng (1996), which suggested that students tend to think they are not qualified to do PA. Second, it was revealed that students feel it easier to assess certain criteria, such as fluency and pronunciation and giving an overall evaluation, but difficult to assess grammar. This result may suggest which criteria should be used when PA is conducted in a language classroom. Third, students’ attitudes toward PA were somewhat negative, which supported the findings of Cheng and Warren (2005). Although over 40% of the students did not have that feeling, it is important for the teacher to make the atmosphere of PA as positive as possible when conducting PA as a part of language assessment. The fourth finding was that most of the students (91.8%) thought that friendship did not influence their assessment of their classmates’ speech. This result contradicts Pond et al. (1995), but was encouraging information for conducting PA. Finally, many students (67.1%) had positive opinions on learning through PA. This means that it has a positive backwash effect on language learning, which supports Nakamura (2002) and Orsmond et al. (1996).

PA has the potential to make language assessment better and more dynamic. It supports teacher assessment and helps teachers and students share the same goals. Deeper understanding of PA can lead to better assessment of speaking performance for both teachers and language learners.

References

Baba, T., Katagiri, K., Komuro, T., Takayama, Y., Takei, A., Takeda, T. et al. (1997). Eigo speaking ron—Hanasu chikara no ikusei to hyouka wo kagakusuru. [English speaking: Research on the development and evaluation of speaking ability]. Tokyo: Kagensha.

Brown, J. D. (Ed.). (1998). New ways of classroom assessment. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.

Cheng, W., & Warre, M. (2005). Peer assessment of language proficiency. Language Testing, 22, 93‒121.Fukazawa, M. (2008). Validity of peer assessment of speaking performance: A case of Japanese high school

students. KATE (Kantokoshinetsu Association of Teachers of English) Bulletin, 22, 59‒70.Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Matsuzawa, S. (2002). Eigo kyoushi no tameno atarashii hyoukahou. [New ways of assessment for English

teachers]. Tokyo: Taishukan.Miller, L., & Ng, R. (1996). Autonomy in the classroom: Peer assessment. In R. Pemberton, E. S. L. Li, W.

W. F. Or, & H. D. Pierson (Eds.), Taking control: Autonomy in language learning (pp. 133‒146). Hong Kong: Hong Kong

University Press.Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, & Technology (MEXT). (2009). Koutougakkou gakushuu

shidou youryou kaisetu—gaikokugo hen—eigo hen [The Course of Study for Upper Secondary School: Foreign Languages—English]. Tokyo: Kairyudo.

Nakamura, Y. (2002). Teacher assessment and peer assessment in practice. Educational Studies, 44, 203‒215.

Oka, H., Nakamura, Y., Fukazawa, S., Hirose, K., Hatano, I., Tsuido, K., et al. (1984). Eigo no speaking [Speaking English]. Tokyo: Taishuukan.

Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (1996). The importance of marking criteria in the use of peer

―100―


assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21, 239‒250.Pond, K., Ul-Haq, R., & Wade, W. (1995). Peer review: A precursor to peer assessment. Innovations in

Education and Training International, 32, 314‒323.Weir, C. J. (1990). Communicative language testing. New York: Prentice Hall.

11

Appendix: Questionnaire

★最も良く当てはまると思う番号に○を付けて，答えて下さい。また，記述解答も丁寧に解答して

下さい。（はっきり読み取れるように解答して下さい。）

（18）評価基準に従って，適正に（例えば，Ｂ２レベルのスピーチをＢ１レベルやＣ２レベルとし

てでなく，Ｂ２レベルとして）スピーチを評価できたと思う。 ①とてもそう思う ②ややそう思う ③あまりそう思わない ④全くそう思わない ⑤わからない（19）③，④と答えた人は答えて下さい。適正にスピーチを評価できなかった理由として，最も当てはまるものを１つ答えて下さい。 ①友人関係 (例：仲の良い友人の発表だったなど。) ②自分の英語力（例：リスニング力が足りず，十分理解できなかったなど。） ③集中力の欠如（例：発表が連続し，集中力が続かなかったなど。） ④前のスピーチの影響（例：前の発表者が上手で，次の発表者を厳しく評価してしまったなど。）（その他）（20）最初から最後まで一貫した（例えば，同じＢ２のスピーチであれば１時間目でも３時間目で

も同じように）スピーチの評価を行うことができたと思う。 ①とてもそう思う ②ややそう思う ③あまりそう思わない ④全くそう思わない ⑤わからない（21）③，④と答えた人は答えて下さい。一貫したスピーチの評価ができなかった理由として，最も当てはまるものを１つ答えて下さい。 ①友人関係 (例：仲の良い友人の発表だったなど。) ②自分の英語力（例：リスニング力が足りず，十分理解できなかったなど。） ③集中力の欠如（例：発表が連続し，集中力が続かなかったなど。） ④前のスピーチの影響（例：前の発表者が上手で，次の発表者を厳しく評価してしまったなど。）（その他）（22）評価項目のうち，「発音」（声の大きさ・発音の明瞭さ）は評価しやすかった。 ①とてもそう思う ②ややそう思う ③あまりそう思わない ④全くそう思わない ⑤わからない＊③，④と答えた人は評価しづらかった理由を記入して下さい。

( ) （23）評価項目のうち，「文法」は評価しやすかった。 ①とてもそう思う ②ややそう思う ③あまりそう思わない ④全くそう思わない ⑤わからない＊③，④と答えた人は評価しづらかった理由を記入して下さい。 ( ) （24）評価項目のうち，「流暢さ」（とぎれのなさ・強弱のアクセント）は評価しやすかった。 ①とてもそう思う ②ややそう思う ③あまりそう思わない ④全くそう思わない ⑤わからない＊③，④と答えた人は評価しづらかった理由を記入して下さい。 ( )

―101―

AJPJPiendl立：◎1111PJSもfonnai.なe


11

Appendix: Questionnaire

★最も良く当てはまると思う番号に○を付けて，答えて下さい。また，記述解答も丁寧に解答して

下さい。（はっきり読み取れるように解答して下さい。）

（18）評価基準に従って，適正に（例えば，Ｂ２レベルのスピーチをＢ１レベルやＣ２レベルとし

てでなく，Ｂ２レベルとして）スピーチを評価できたと思う。

①とてもそう思う ②ややそう思う

③あまりそう思わない ④全くそう思わない ⑤わからない

（19）③，④と答えた人は答えて下さい。

適正にスピーチを評価できなかった理由として，最も当てはまるものを１つ答えて下さい。

①友人関係 (例：仲の良い友人の発表だったなど。) ②自分の英語力（例：リスニング力が足りず，十分理解できなかったなど。）

③集中力の欠如（例：発表が連続し，集中力が続かなかったなど。）

④前のスピーチの影響（例：前の発表者が上手で，次の発表者を厳しく評価してしまったなど。）

（その他）

（20）最初から最後まで一貫した（例えば，同じＢ２のスピーチであれば１時間目でも３時間目で

も同じように）スピーチの評価を行うことができたと思う。



（21）③，④と答えた人は答えて下さい。

一貫したスピーチの評価ができなかった理由として，最も当てはまるものを１つ答えて下さい。

①友人関係 (例：仲の良い友人の発表だったなど。) ②自分の英語力（例：リスニング力が足りず，十分理解できなかったなど。）

③集中力の欠如（例：発表が連続し，集中力が続かなかったなど。）

④前のスピーチの影響（例：前の発表者が上手で，次の発表者を厳しく評価してしまったなど。）

（その他）

（22）評価項目のうち，「発音」（声の大きさ・発音の明瞭さ）は評価しやすかった。



＊③，④と答えた人は評価しづらかった理由を記入して下さい。

( )

（23）評価項目のうち，「文法」は評価しやすかった。




( )

（24）評価項目のうち，「流暢さ」（とぎれのなさ・強弱のアクセント）は評価しやすかった。 ①とてもそう思う ②ややそう思う



( )

12

（25）評価項目のうち，「態度」（アイコンタクト・ジェスチャー・積極性）は評価しやすかった。 ①とてもそう思う ②ややそう思う ③あまりそう思わない ④全くそう思わない ⑤わからない


( )

（26）評価項目のうち，「総合評価」（上記項目＋内容・構成等）は評価しやすかった。 ①とてもそう思う ②ややそう思う



( )

（27）友人関係に左右されず，公正にクラスメイトのスピーチを評価することができたと思う。 ①とてもそう思う ②ややそう思う


＊③，④と答えた人は理由を記入して下さい。

( )

（28）相互評価の結果が成績の一部に含まれるとしたら，スピーチを相互評価することについて気

が引ける。



( )

（29）相互評価をすることで，英語学習や他の面で勉強になった点があれば記入して下さい。

( )

―102―

what is going on in students' minds: students'...

Documents