end of semester project

7/28/2019 End of Semester Project

1/11

LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT

Ir. Suciana Wijirahayu, S.Pd

Name : Evi Sofiawati

NIM : 1108066018

Program : PPS English Language Education (Non Regular)

End of Semester Project

Using Peer Assessment As an Alternative Assessment

to Assess Group Work in Secondary School

Introduction

Assessment is the process in collecting information about a given object of interest according to

procedures that are systematic and substantively grounded (Bachman 2004, pp. 6 10). In EFL

classrooms where most students having acquired above average level of proficiency as in the

writers classroom, assessments can be conducted in various ways. Applying group work

assessment as a form of formative assessment has so far proven effective in optimizing the

students chance in learning since they have the freedom in trying out their own understanding

about language without feeling that their overall competence is being judged in terms of those

trial and errors (Brown, 2004, p. 4). The purpose of this study is to explore some aspects in

conducting formative assessment by using peer assessment as alternative assessment to assess

group work in tenth grade classrooms of Madania Secondary High School in Parung, Bogor. The

expected results are that both parties find group work assessment useful and that there is

potential for greater classroom applicability.

The function of the assessment in this study is formative assessment. Formative assessment,

which is evaluating students in the process of forming their competence and skills with the

goal of helping them to continue the growth, should be done focusing on the ongoing

development of the learners language (Brown, 2004, p. 6). Group work, as an alternative

assessment, is very suitable for this purpose. Alternative assessment refers to procedures and

techniques which can be used within the context of instruction and can be easily incorporated


2/11

into the daily activities of the school or classroom" (Hamayan, 1995, p. 213). The main goal of

alternative assessment is to "gather evidence about how students are approaching, processing,

and completing real-life tasks in a particular domain" (Huerta-Macias, 1995, p. 9). So, the use of

alternative assessment, in this case group work assessment, is in line with the primary purpose of

a formative assessment.

Working in groups has become an accepted part of learning at various educational institutions as

a consequence of the widely recognized benefits of collaborative group work for student

learning. When groups work well, students learn more and produce higher quality learning

outcomes. The use of group work has been widely accepted as an effective teaching and learning

tool (Conway, Kember, Sivan, & Wu, 1993; Freeman, 1995). Mello (1994) identified five major

benefits for students working in groups being; (1) students can gain an insight into group

dynamics, (2) they can tackle a more comprehensive assignments, (3) interpersonal skills can be

developed, (4) students are more exposed to others points of view and (5) be more prepared for

the commercial

world.

A brief feedback form given to 50 heterogenic students, students of various level of proficiency,

in a mini research prior to the study, the writer discovered that most of them benefit from

learning in groups as long as the groups are well organized, and there are clear and fair

assessment criteria. In a group assignment, the students want a system that gives them every

opportunity to receive a high grade that also reflects the level of contribution made by individual

students. Based on these facts, the writer wants to find out if solutions to these concerns will

make the group work assessment more effective. Therefore, this study will try to formulate an

appropriate design in assessing group work by (1) helping students understand the criteria for the

group product and processes, (2) informing them how the teacher intends to measure individual

contributions to the group, and (3) informing them how the teacher allocate the grades between

individuals in the group.

In addition to the advantages experienced by students, one explicit benefit for teachers in setting

group work tasks is that it can significantly reduce ones workload. For example, if a written

assignment is set for a 150 students, 150 individual assignments or exam scripts would need to


3/11

be marked. Should this be set as a group task, with 5 members in each team, only 30 written

assignments would need marking. Whilst the group report is likely to be longer, it is not 5 times

as long. Setting a group task would considerably reduce the amount of marking if each group

submitted one output between them.

Although there have been researches discussing group work assessment, this study intends to

figure out the particular method used in this assessment design will work out when adapted to the

writers own classrooms. Another reason is also because from the group work assignments given

previously, so far the writer has often encounter problematic situations in assessing group works

efficiently and effectively. This fact is also experienced by quite a number of the writers fellow

teachers at the same high school.

Related Literature

Generally, group work is means several students working together and working together doesn't

necessarily involve cooperation. However, the term group work in this study refers to

cooperation as in working together to accomplish shared goals. Within cooperative situations,

individuals seek outcomes that are beneficial to themselves and beneficial to all other group

members. Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups so that students work

together to maximize their own and each others learning. (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec 1998

p.1:5).

In order to be able to achieve the purpose of assessing the group work effectively, the assignment

given for sure must be designed as proper cooperative learning groups. The Johnson and Johnson

Model (1999) includes five criteria that define true cooperative learning groups: (1) positive

interdependence, members understand that they must learn together to accomplish the goal and

they need each other for support, explanations, and guidance; (2) individual accountability, the

performance of each group member is assessed against a standard, and members are held

responsible for their contribution to achieving goals; (3) promotive interaction, students interact


4/11

face-to-face and close together, not across the room; (4) group processing, groups reflect on their

collaborative efforts and decide on ways to improve effectiveness; and (5) development of small-

group interpersonal skills, skills, such as giving constructive feedback, reaching consensus, and

involving every member, necessary for effective group functioning.

The fairness of allocating equal marks for group projects has been questioned by Willmot &

Crawford (2004) who believe that a lazy student might benefit from the efforts of team-mates or

particularly diligent students may have their efforts diluted by weaker team members. This is

logical because those students that contribute the most do not get the recognition they deserve

and those that contribute less do not get penalised accordingly. Pond et al. (2007 p.11), found

that bunched group marks often show a low standard deviation and the use of peer review

[assessment] can help to spread this when marks are reviewed at an individual level, identifying

that peer assessment may be one solution.

The benefits to students of group based study and group project work have been

comprehensively demonstrated both in general (Johnson et al 1991) and in many varied specific

contexts. Meta analyses of large numbers of studies of the implementation of small group

learning within individual discipline areas usually show large positive impacts on student

performance, marks, attitudes towards learning and persistence or retention. In addition, from the

students perspective, as revealed in the feedback form mentioned previously in the Introduction

section, most of them benefit from learning in groups as long as the groups are well organized,

and there are clear and fair assessment criteria.

One important aspect to consider in group work assessment is grouping the students. The way

student groups are constructed has a marked impact on the quality of the end product

that is assessed. High ability students gain higher grades when in streamed groups of similarly

high ability students than when they are in mixed ability groups. The reverse is the case for low

ability students: they benefit from working in mixed ability groups and suffer from being in

streamed low ability groups. Furthermore, low ability students will suffer in subsequent

examination when they have been working in streamed low ability groups, compared with

having worked in mixed ability groups (Lejk et al 1999). Allowing students to form their own


5/11

groups is likely to have a similar impact as streaming the high ability students will tend to form

groups with each other and the low ability students will be left with other low ability students to

work with. The fairest option is therefore to construct mixed ability groups but to make sure that

high ability students who contribute more have their greater contribution recognized in their

individual mark so that they are not unfairly penalized by being obliged to work with lower

ability students.

Once group work has been selected as an appropriate assessment in the learning process, a

decision is required on what aspects of the group work activity will be assessed. Teachers can

assess the product of the group work and the process of group work or observing the group

dynamics first hand (Nightingale et al, 1998). The product of group work might be a report,

project or poster. The process of group work would include how well the students collaborated

with each other.

When the product of group work is the only element assessed, the unintended effect can be that

students tend to work individually and then combine their contributions for the final mark. This

discourages collaboration and with less commitment to the group outcomes some of the group

members may not contribute equally to the final assignment, perhaps withholding resources from

one another or complain about "free-riders" not contributing to the final product (Habeshaw, et

al, 1995). Assessing the product alone also has significant consequences for learning as students

rely on their recognized strengths and are only effectively assessed on a limited part of the

subject's learning objectives.

If the group process will be assessed, students need to be clear about the criteria. Criteria usually

refer to the evidence of learning (Brown Bull & Pendlebury, 1997). Criteria for group

contributions would be decided by the teacher, the teacher in consultation with the student or bystudents. If the students have some experience of group work, the group itself can be involved in

process of setting the criteria for group participation (Brown, Race & Smith, 1996: 123).

Merely stating the assessment criteria can encourage some potential non-participants to

contribute to the group work (Race, 2000). Criteria, which are too detailed, can encourage low


6/11

level learning outcomes as students adopt a surface approach to learning and simply check off

the assessment requirements. Developing general criteria for learning about team-work is more

important than developing an exhaustive list of requirements (Winter, 1995: 66). An example of

these general criteria might include: (1) the ability to work with other people, (2) the ability to

motivate other people, (3) the ability to overcome difficulties, (4) the ability to generate idea, (5)

attendance and time-keeping, and (5) taking a fair share of the work (Brown, Bull & Pendlebury,

1997: 175).

As learning about team processes is one of the critical aims of the group assignments, it will need

to be monitored and assessed. Once evidence on the final outcomes of the group work has been

collected, marks need to be allocated to individual students. By far the most common approach

for allocating marks is to provide a single mark to all the members of a group. The lecturerwould only adjust the mark on a case-by-case basis should a major problem in the group process

become evident. This is a widely used method but leads to considerable dissatisfaction if

students feel that marks do not fairly reflect individual contribution.

Another popular method is a combination of group and individual activities. Students receive

marks awarded for a series of individual tasks that are combined with a single group mark from

the group component. Gibbs (1992) cautions that any averaging of assessment items needs to be

undertaken in a way that does not to bias any single task by providing it with a disproportionate

weighting in relation to the other tasks. A variation on this method is to assign specific roles in

the group such as coordinator, time keeper or note-taker and provide an individual mark for these

roles.

Falchikov (1995) identifies two distinct types of peer assessment; the peer assessment of product

and peer assessment of performance. Peer assessment of product is wherestudents assess other

students work:either a finished product (in case of summative assessment) or a work in

progress (in case of formative assessment). In this study, the writer is focusing on the later, peer

assessment of performance.

Lejk & Wyvill (1996) outline nine methods of deriving individual grades from group

assessments. Most involve the students deciding on how a single group mark is to be


7/11

redistributed among the other group members. As a result of the reallocation some students will

receive a final score above or below the group average based on the students' assessment of each

other's performance. One of the widely used methods by Lejk & Wyvill that will be used in this

study is Peer Assessment Factors, a simplified version of Goldfinch & Raesides method in peer

assessment (2006).

using Peer Assessment Factor, a.

Goldfinch & Raeside present a widely used scheme for determining the individual's effort in

comparison with other members of the group. To calculate the final individual mark, a group

product mark is given by a teacher and then manipulated to derive an individual mark by

multiplying a peer assessment factor with the group product mark. The peer assessment factor isa confidential score nominated anonymously by each of the other group members.

Peer assessments are usually intended as formative assessment early in the learning process

(Johnson, 2004). So, it is in line with the idea of this study which is dealing with formative

assessment. Peer assessments used as formative evaluations are especially useful with group

instruction and can both enhance the learning experience and positively influence student

achievement (Johnson, 2004).

There is also another reason for using peer assessment in assessing group work. The fairness of

allocating equal marks for group projects has been questioned by Willmot & Crawford (2004)

who believe that a lazy student might benefit from the efforts of team-mates or particularly

diligent students may have their efforts diluted by weaker team members. This is logical

because those students that contribute the most do not get the recognition they deserve and those

that contribute less do not get penalized accordingly. Pond et al. (2007 p.11), found that

bunched group marks often show a low standard deviation and the use of peer review

assessment can help to spread this when marks are reviewed at an individual level, identifying

that peer assessment may be one solution. Thus, based on this ground, the writer believes that the

reliability of peer assessment is high enough to be considered as a proper evaluation process.

Still concerning keeping the reliability high, this study reinforce the use of scoring criteria by

providing score range explanatory text to ensure good rater reliability (Brown, 2004). By


8/11

referring to the score range explanatory text consistently, the students are expected to perform

the peer assessment more reliably. Thus, the rater reliability can be assured.

principles of language assessment:

1. Practicality

2. Reliability

3. Validity

4. Authenticity

5. Washback

In summary, as an alternative assessment, group work assessment provides a perspective on the

extent to which formative assessment reform is influencing teachers classroom assessment

practice as well as students success in their learning process. Specifically group work

assessment provides a basis for examining the usefulness of formative assessment and

assessmentforlearning as promoted by Stiggins (2002), Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall and

Wiliam (2004) and others. The purpose of this study is to explore some aspects in assessing

group work by reinforcing peer assessment in conducting formative assessment for both the

teacher and the students.

Method

The main group based assessment task in this study is an advertisement poster. Students are

expected to apply all the language frameworks learnt during the semester to create such anadvertisement poster that interest the target audience assigned. Preparation for the group work

takes place in two weeks. In the first activity students clarify the kind of product to advertise and

the target audience, what they want from their peers regarding the general peer assessment

criteria, what the teacher expect of group work, and the assessment criteria and method.


9/11

The general criteria, as mentioned in Related Literature section, are: (1) the ability to work with

other people, (2) the ability to motivate other people, (3) the ability to overcome difficulties, (4)

the ability to generate idea, (5) attendance and time-keeping, and (6) taking a fair share of the

work. Each of the criteria is equipped with the score range explanatory text as shown in the

following table.

Criteria Score Range Explanatory Text

The ability to work with other people 1. Never cooperate with others

2. Seldom cooperate with others

3. Often cooperate with others

4. Always cooperate with others

The ability to motivate other people 1. Never encourage others to participate

2. Seldom encourage others to participate

3. Often encourage others to participate

4. Always encourage others to participate

The ability to overcome difficulties 1. Never find solutions to difficulties

2. Seldom find solutions to difficulties

3. Often find solutions to difficulties

4. Always find solutions to difficulties

The ability to generate idea1. Contributed no idea

2. Contributed no useful original ideas

3. Made an average contribution in this respect

4. Generated a wealth of realistic ideas and design

concepts throughout

Attendance1. Only show up once

2. Very often absent3. Often present

4. Always present

Taking a fair share of the work 1. Made no contribution in completing the project

2. Made only a small contribution to a poor standard

3. Made an average contribution in completing the


10/11

project

4. Completed some of the most challenging sections

to a high standard

As mentioned in the Related Literature section, this study uses a simplified Peer Assessment

Factor (PAF) method developed by Goldfinch &Raeside. This peer assessment form is rating

other team members contributions to group work in relation to the general criteria stated above.

The formula isIndividual mark = Group mark x Individuals PAF. For example, a student gets

an average individual effort rating of 3, and the average group effort rating is 3.4. His

individuals PA factor is 3 divided by 3.4, which is equal to 0.9, reflecting a lower than average

team contribution as perceived by a combination of themselves and their peers. If for example,

the group product mark is 80, he would receive an individual mark of 72.

This activity takes place after the review of the semester materials. Students form into mixed-

ability groups of four of to work through some guided questions related to the work assigned.

This provides them with their first experience of working in groups and at the end of that session

they explore any problems they had with group processes. They do this by getting 3 or 4

different post-it note sheets and write down the expectations they have of their peers, what they

want their tutors or teacher to do for them and anything they do not want to happen in the

project.

The students then attach the post-its on a sheet of cardboard and the teacher read through the

responses to get a sense of the issues of group work and their expectations of the project from the

students' perspective. All the students' comments are transcribes onto a sheet of paper and

returned to them in the following teaching session. This provides another opportunity to discuss

any of the issues raised by the students' comments.

If some group work process is not working later during the preparation period, the record of the

student's expectations can be used to clarify expectations of effective group work. The group

processes are not formally assessed. However, there is an opportunity for the teacher to ask

questions about the group processes in the interview when the poster is assessed.


11/11

Throughout the project there is a leader who is the supervisor liaison and works closely with the

teacher to ensure that the process is functioning well. If students complain that one of the group

member has not contributed to the assignment they would ask to see the evidence. Each group

has to keep a minute book that documents all discussion periods they have, as they would for any

organization that keeps formal minutes. Everyone in the group is expected to make at least one

statement in the minute book. Each of them has to sign off on the minute book that they have

noted these comments. Should there be any disagreement with what the secretary of the group is

stating, it is absolutely acceptable to note down, "I totally disagree".

end of semester project

Documents