Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Language Testing
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cheng, W.
Right arrow Articles by Warren, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Peer assessment of language proficiency

Winnie Cheng

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, egwcheng{at}polyu.edu.hk

Martin Warren

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

This 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 article compares the students’ attitudes towards assessing both the English language proficiency and other aspects of the 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.

Language Testing, Vol. 22, No. 1, 93-121 (2005)
DOI: 10.1191/0265532205lt298oa
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RELC JournalHome page
H. Saito and T. Fujita
Peer-Assessing Peers' Contribution to EFL Group Presentations
RELC Journal, August 1, 2009; 40(2): 149 - 171.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
S. Matsuno
Self-, peer-, and teacher-assessments in Japanese university EFL writing classrooms
Language Testing, January 1, 2009; 26(1): 075 - 100.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
H. Saito
EFL classroom peer assessment: Training effects on rating and commenting
Language Testing, October 1, 2008; 25(4): 553 - 581.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 ELT JHome page
S. Issitt
Improving scores on the IELTS speaking test
ELT J, April 1, 2008; 62(2): 131 - 138.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]