• No results found

The Power of Peers: A study on teachers' beliefs on peer and self-assessment in the EFL upper-secondary school classroom in Sweden

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The Power of Peers: A study on teachers' beliefs on peer and self-assessment in the EFL upper-secondary school classroom in Sweden"

Copied!
63
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Degree Project with specialization in the major subject

English and Education

15 Credits, Advanced Level

The Power of Peers

A study on teachers’ beliefs on peer and self-assessment in the EFL

upper-secondary school classroom in Sweden

Styrkan av Kamrater

En studie om lärares övertygelser om kamrat- och själv bedömning i

gymnasieskolans klassrum i Sverige

Carolina Balboa Álvarez

Master of Arts/Science in Upper-Secondary Education,

300/330 Credits

Examiner: Damon Tutunjian

Advanced Level Degree Project in the Major Subject (15

credits) Supervisor: Shaun Nolan

Date for the Opposition Seminar: 2 June 2020

FACULTY OF EDUCATION AND SOCIETY

Department of Culture, Languages and Media

(2)

Abstract

This study investigates teachers’ perceptions about the value of peer and self-assessment as tools for enhancing EFL writing in the context of upper-secondary education in Sweden. In addition, this study examines the relationship between teachers’ beliefs, knowledge of the methods, and their reported teaching practices. Based on teachers’ comments, this paper identifies the ways in which peer and self-assessment can be effectively implemented in EFL classrooms. A mixed-methods approach was used in the study. Three qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted. The interviews were complemented with a questionnaire survey in order to check the generality of the interview findings. Through a process of triangulation, the datasets obtained from the questionnaires and interviews were analysed and interpreted in light of theory and recent research on peer and self-assessment. Results show that these teaching and learning tools are appreciated by teachers as a way to enhance learning in relation to EFL writing. However, the investigation showed significant inconsistencies regarding teachers’ usage of the method. The results obtained showed that, in order for these practices to be effective, careful training is needed. Moreover, in order to provide proper training for their students, teachers themselves need to understand the value of the tools, and to be trained in how to effectively implement them. Therefore, the study concluded that information about peer and self-assessment should be included in teacher education and in-service training in Sweden.

Keywords: Peer assessment, self-assessment, teachers’ perceptions, EFL, language development, formative assessment, learner autonomy

(3)

Table of contents

1. Introduction ... 1

2. Aim and research questions ... 4

3. Background ... 5

3.1 Peer and self-assessment ... 5

3.2 Peer and self-assessment in the curriculum ... 5

3.3 Second language learning theories underpinning peer and self-assessment ... 7

3.3.1. Cooperative Learning, Social Interdependence Theory and Long’s Interaction Hypothesis ... 7

3.3.2 Communicative Language Teaching, the cognitive perspective and Swain’s Output Hypothesis ... 8

3.3.3 Learner-Centred Teaching, Self-Regulated Learning, autonomy and metacognition ... 9

3.3.4 Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory ... 9

3.4 Previous research ... 10

4. Method ... 15

4.1 Participants ... 15

4.2 Materials and procedure ... 17

4.2.1 Semi-structured interviews ... 17

4.2.2 Questionnaires ... 18

4.3 Data analysis ... 19

4.3.1 Analysis of interview data ... 19

4.3.2 Analysis of questionnaire data ... 20

4.3.3 Triangulation Method ... 20

4.4 Ethical considerations ... 21

5. Results and discussion ... 23

5.1 Teachers’ self-reported knowledge about peer and assessment ... 23

5.1.1 Teacher interviews ... 23

5.1.2 The questionnaire ... 24

5.1.3 Implications ... 27

5.2 Teachers’ perceived value of peer and self-assessment as teaching and learning tools in relation to EFL writing ... 28

5.2.1 Teacher interviews ... 28

5.2.2 The questionnaires ... 30

5.2.3 Implications ... 33

5.3 Implementation of peer and self-assessment – Teachers’ self-reported practices ... 35

5.3.1 Teacher interviews ... 35

5.3.2 The questionnaires ... 38

5.3.3 Implications ... 40

5.4 Perceived challenges about peer and self-assessment, and possible ways to overcome these challenges 41 5.4.1 Teacher interviews ... 41

5.4.2 The questionnaires ... 42

5.4.3 Implications ... 44

6. Conclusion ... 47

(4)

Appendices ... 53

(5)

1. Introduction

During the last few decades, alternative forms of assessment such as peer and self-assessment have gained an increased international interest in the field of second language (L2) instruction. In the English as a foreign language (EFL) writing classroom, these assessment practices are currently viewed as effective tools to support and enhance learning. Extensive research shows that, while engaged in peer and self-assessment, students participate in different classroom activities through which they take active part in their own learning process through interaction with their peers (Berg, 1999; De Guerrero & Villamil, 2000; De Guerrero & Villamil, 1994; Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Liu & Hansen, 2002; Liu & Carless, 2006; Min, 2006; Lundstrom & Baker, 2009). By identifying and internalising the qualities of their own and others’ work, students develop their own language skills, which in turn contributes to their autonomy as learners (Berg, 1999; Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Lundstrom & Baker, 2009).

Assessment practices are vital to the education process, since they have the capacity to facilitate or hinder student learning (Black & William, 1998). Traditionally, the most visible assessment in schools are summative, that is to say, they are used to measure what students have learned at the end of a unit, and to ensure that they have met required standards (OECD/CERI, 2008). However, current approaches to assessment encourage the formative function of classroom assessment. In the EFL classroom, formative assessment refers to the frequent, interactive assessment practices aimed at understanding student progress and learning needs, at raising overall levels of student achievement, and at promoting higher equity of student outcomes (OECD/CERI, 2008; Black & William, 1998). At an international level, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recommends such approaches to assessment as a means for encouraging lifelong learning and learner autonomy, that is to say, for promoting students’ skills for learning to learn. Explicitly, building students’ skills for peer and self-assessment has emerged as a key element for promoting these goals (OECD, 2003; OECD/CERI, 2008; Black & William, 1998; Bishop & Glynn, 1999).

This approach to learning constitutes an underlying idea of both the national curriculum and the syllabus for English for upper-secondary school in Sweden, where social interaction, self-awareness and learner autonomy are viewed as fundamental elements of language education (Skolverket, 2013; Skolverket, 2018). In line with this idea, the current educational guidelines in Sweden, highly influenced by a Vygotskian, student-centred approach to learning,

(6)

recommend work with peer and self-assessment as a complement to teacher assessment in the EFL communicative classroom (Skolverket, 2011; Skolverket, 2013; Skolverket, 2016). In light of this, it is plausible to assume that peer and self-assessment would be appreciated by teachers and students as a good complement to teaching and learning. However, research has reported important inconsistencies regarding their use by EFL secondary school teachers in Sweden. Studies show that many upper-secondary school teachers in Sweden are reluctant to apply peer and self-assessment methods in their classrooms. This is due to their doubts regarding the effectiveness of such practices and to the fact that they are time-consuming (Oscarson & Apelgren, 2011; Rollinson, 2005). Indeed, the process of peer and self-assessment is complex, and requires time and effort, not only from students but also from teachers (Berg, 1999; Rollinson, 2005). For these and other reasons, teacher practices vary regarding the implementation of such methods. While certain English teachers value peer and self-assessment as a good complement to their teaching, as they find those practices in line with the core content and the knowledge requirements of the subject, others totally exclude the use of such tools in their classrooms. Those inconsistencies regarding the implementation of peer and self-assessment in the EFL secondary school classrooms were also observed by the writer of the present study while working as a substitute teacher, and during teacher in-service training periods at her assigned partner school.

This brings up a natural question: Why are peer and self-assessment so irregularly applied by teachers in their EFL classrooms in Sweden? In fact, those teaching and learning tools seem to be a logical assumption of an important underlying idea of the current curriculum, namely Vygotsky´s sociocultural theory, which includes student interaction and participation in the learning process as an important means for developing learners’ language abilities (Mendonça & Johnson, 1994; Vygotsky 1978; Skolverket, 2016). Moreover, peer and self-assessment are explicitly recommended by the Swedish National Agency of Education (hereafter Skolverket) as a good complement to teaching for promoting learning autonomy and life-long learning (Skolverket, 2011; Skolverket, 2016). However, even though the use of such methods is widely seen as a potentially valuable aid for enhancing learners’ writing skills, research has also reported some inconsistencies regarding their efficacy in the EFL classroom (Mendonça & Johnson, 1994; Berg, 1999; McGarrell, 2010; Zhao, 2014). Perhaps, then, it is not surprising that teachers are uncertain about the implementation and effectiveness of peer and self-assessment in their classrooms.

(7)

At the same time, little attention has been paid to how these alternative assessment tools are perceived by teachers (Borg, 2003; Shulin, 2013). Since research has revealed a strong influence of teachers’ beliefs in their classroom practices (Borg, 2003; Borg, 2011; Shulin, 2013), it becomes highly relevant to gain an insight into their views on the implementation of peer and self-assessment in the English classroom. Therefore, the present study intends to shed light on the issue by investigating and analysing teachers’ beliefs on using these tools in relation to writing, and on how these beliefs correlate to their reported teaching practices. Last but not least, this study intends to identify and discuss the possible ways in which peer and self-assessment can work as effective tools for enhancing learning in the context of EFL upper-secondary education in Sweden, as well as to explore the possible implications of the implementation of such practices within the national guidelines and the syllabus for English.

(8)

2. Aim and research questions

The aim of the present study is, thus, to explore teachers’ perceptions on peer and self-assessment as tools for enhancing EFL writing in the context of upper-secondary education in Sweden, and to examine the relationship between teachers’ beliefs, knowledge of the method, and their reported teaching practices. Based on their comments, this paper aims to identify a number of success and non-success factors of the implementation of peer response in relation to student writing. In order to fulfil this purpose, the following research questions are addressed: 1. What is teachers’ reported knowledge of peer and self-assessment?

2. To what extent do teachers value peer and self-assessment as effective tools for the development of learners’ writing skills in the EFL classroom?

3. How do teachers’ beliefs correlate to their reported teaching practices?

4. In which ways can secondary school teachers implement effective peer and self-assessment practices for developing learners’ writing skills?

(9)

3. Background

This section will be divided into four sub-sections. In the first one, relevant terminology and concepts related to peer and self-assessment will be presented. The second sub-section will describe the role of these assessment tools in the curriculum for the upper-secondary school and the in the syllabus for English. The third one will give an overview of the learning theories underpinning peer and self-assessment. Finally, the fourth sub-section will provide a review of relevant previous research about these alternative classroom assessment tools.

3.1 Peer and self-assessment

A number of different terms and definitions are associated with peer assessment in the literature, sometimes to highlight subtle differences regarding the goals and outcomes involved, but often used as simple stylistic variables (McGarrell, 2010; Lundstrom & Baker, 2009). The present study, however, will use the terms peer assessment, peer review, peer feedback and peer response interchangeably, as it views all these terms as related to the dynamic process where students critically evaluate each other’s work with the purpose of exchanging help for revision (Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Liu & Hansen, 2002; Mc Garrell, 2010). In the EFL writing class, peer assessment refers to the activities through which learners interact and support each other by reviewing and commenting each other’s drafts in the process of writing (Liu & Hansen, 2002; Hyland & Hyland, 2006).

By taking the reviewer’s role, learners develop a better understanding of their own language production, which in turn contributes to the development of their self-assessment skills (De Guerrero & Villamil, 2000; De Guerrero & Villamil, 1994; Hyland, 2000; Lundstrom & Baker, 2009). The peer review sessions allow for a meaningful student interaction, where learners discuss and evaluate the criteria required for a specific assignment. By doing so, learners are ultimately able to make a judgement about their own work and to identify their strengths and weaknesses (Berg, 1999; Min, 2006; Liu & Carless, 2006; Lundstrom & Baker, 2009). Self-assessment can be described as the procedure by which students evaluate their own language skills, and it is a natural complement to the peer assessment practices in the classroom (Min, 2006; Liu & Carless, 2006; Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Lundstrom & Baker, 2009).

3.2 Peer and self-assessment in the curriculum

At an international level, educational guidelines promote peer and self-assessment as essential elements of the formative perspective on classroom assessment, and as a means to raise levels of student achievement and to create greater equity of student outcomes (OECD/CERI, 2008;

(10)

OECD, 2003). Indeed, actively involving students in the assessment processes that take place in the classroom enhances their “learning to learn” skills, which at the same time contributes to the development of their lifelong learning skills and learner autonomy. OECD education experts emphasize the importance of helping learners to develop the confidence to use their own judgement regarding the quality of their peers and their own work, to identify gaps in their learning, and to develop appropriate strategies for filling these gaps (OECD/CERI, 2008; OECD, 2003).

In line with OECD’s recommendations, the steering school documents in Sweden advocate for a formative approach to assessment as a means for students to become involved in their own learning process and thereby gain learner autonomy (Skolverket, 2011; Lundahl, 2019). Formative assessment is the assessment whose purpose is to support and enhance learning by providing students with useful feedback to their work, which will help them develop an understanding of what quality means for the learning objectives of each subject (Wiliam, 2018; OECD/CERI, 2018). In fact, peer and self-assessment are explicitly presented in the steering documents as significant tools for facilitating formative assessment in the classrooms. Their significance can be found in the syllabus for English 5-7, which states that teaching should give students the opportunity to process “their own and others' oral and written communications […]” (Skolverket, 2018, p. 4). By evaluating their own work, students demonstrate what they have understood during the lesson, and teachers can use this new information to plan for future lessons (Skolverket, 2011). Moreover, the National Agency for Education explicitly encourages teachers to reflect on their planning so that it gives students the chance to use peer and self-assessment (Skolverket, 2011). This is further supported by recent research at a national and international level, which has shown how peer and self-assessment lead to students being able to develop strategies and skills to become responsible of their own learning, which should be the final goal of all educational systems (Hyland and Hyland, 2006; Lundstrom and Baker, 2009; Wakabayashi, 2013).

In recent decades, Swedish educational reforms have also incorporated a student-centred approach to learning, where student autonomy and interactional abilities are treated as valuable learning goals. Increasingly, essential features of contemporary society point out the need of an English-proficient workforce in key sectors of the world economy. In a world where English has positioned itself as the global language, interactional English skills are essential competences for today’s global citizens (Richards & Rodgers, 2014; Lundahl, 2019). Consequently, the curriculum and the syllabuses for English for upper-secondary school in

(11)

Sweden highlight the importance for students to acquire knowledge through interaction and with their peers (Skolverket, 2013; Skolverket, 2018). This is evident as the Swedish National Agency for Education points out that “students should be given the opportunity to interact in speech and writing […], both on their own and together with others […]” (Skolverket, 2018, p. 1). In the EFL communicative classroom, the functional approach to L2 learning aims at developing learners’ communicative competence in speech and writing. Accordingly, the Swedish educational guidelines recommend work with peer and self-assessment as a means for promoting the collaborative creation of meaning, and for creating meaningful and purposeful interaction through language. Language use and form are in focus, and negotiation of meaning through social mediation among learners and users of language becomes an essential part of EFL education (Lundahl, 2019; Skolverket, 2011; Skolverket, 2016).

3.3 Second language learning theories underpinning peer and

self-assessment

3.3.1. Cooperative Learning, Social Interdependence Theory and Long’s

Interaction Hypothesis

Cooperative learning has been repeatedly shown to have strong positive effects for language development (Baker & Clark, 2010; Chamberlin-Quinlisk, 2010; Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Richards & Rodgers, 2014; Wiliam, 2018). Authors such as Slavin (1995), Kagan (1994) and Johnson and Johnson (2009) argue that, apart from its academic benefits, cooperative learning plays a crucial role in developing increased intercultural understanding and interpersonal skills, which are central goals in today’s educational systems. In turn, these skills are essential for preparing students for the modern participative workplace, and for their role as participant members of a democratic society. Moreover, cooperative learning has shown to enhance student outcomes and equity among diverse student populations and school contexts (Baker & Clark, 2010; Chamberlin-Quinlisk, 2010; Wiliam, 2018). As opposed to individualistic learning, cooperative learning emphasizes the essential role of peer interaction and collaboration in socialization and learning (Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Long, 1996). This approach has his theoretical foundation in social interdependence theory, which in turn is based on the idea that humans perform best when collaborating with others towards a common goal (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). In turn, social interdependence theory has its base in Long’s interaction hypothesis (1996), which emphasizes interaction and communication as a prerequisite for language development.

(12)

A central idea of such educational approach is the use of peer and self-assessment as the means for activating learners as meaningful and valuable instructional resources for one another (Wiliam, 2018; Richards & Rodgers, 2014). Through collaboration towards a common goal, as opposed to competition, learners improve their peers and their own language skills. Instead of working against each other, students work together in groups to accomplish shared goals, as they maximize each other’s language learning and cognitive development by working as a dynamic whole (Richards & Rodgers, 2014; Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Burns & Richards, 2012). In such approaches to EFL learning, communication is emphasized, and interaction is seen as a crucial element for the construction of language. This is also in line with the language in use approach to language instruction, which focuses on how language is used for communication and provides learners with an insight into what is actually done when language is used for a particular type of communication (Coxhead & Bird, 2007).

3.3.2 Communicative Language Teaching, the cognitive perspective and

Swain’s Output Hypothesis

The Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach to L2 learning is based on a functional theory of language, which focuses on a view of language as a means for communication (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). While engaged in communication, learners are forced to produce comprehensible language, something that Swain (1995; 2000) explained through his Output Hypothesis. According to Swain, the production of comprehensible language or output (speaking or writing) triggers some functions that are essential for language learning (Swain, 1995; Swain, 2000; Richards & Rodgers, 2014). Moreover, CLT draws from a cognitive perspective to L2 acquisition, which claims that language learning is promoted by the activation of internal metacognition and consciousness-raising processes. These processes, in turn, are activated by a focus on form through classroom activities that arise from meaningful communication, while maintaining emphasis on meaning (Richards & Rodgers, 2014; Lundahl, 2019; North, 2006).

Peer and self-assessment are considered essential classroom activities to promote language learning from a CLT approach. Through peer and self-assessment sessions, EFL learners engage in communicative activities that encourage a focus on form regarding their and their peers’ language production (Richards & Rodgers, 2014; Burns & Richards, 2012; Lundahl, 2019; Wiliam, 2018). As a result, learners enhance their language skills through a process of negotiation of meaning with their peers. As learners engage in communication, their language output is stretched (in line with Swain’s pushed output idea), and they acquire new linguistic

(13)

resources. Indeed, peer assessment activities provide opportunities for EFL students to notice the gaps in their linguistic repertoire while being interactionally supported by their peers (Richards & Rodgers, 2014; Lundahl, 2019; Wiliam, 2018). Besides, students engage in a number of cognitive activities that activate their internal language acquisition processes that involve noticing and consciousness-raising, which in turn enhance their self-assessment skills. In turn, these processes encourage a reflection on language usage, a common metalanguage to talk about it, and a common set of reference points for profiling learning objectives and achievements (North, 2006).

3.3.3 Learner-Centred Teaching, Self-Regulated Learning, autonomy and

metacognition

A central idea of the learner-centred approach is learner autonomy, which is the ultimate goal of most educational systems today (Nunan, 1988; Benson, 2012; Lundahl, 2019). In order to achieve that goal, learners must “become analysts of their own practice” (Vieira et al., 2008, p. 233), an idea that is closely related with the concepts of reflection and self-regulation. At the level of classroom practice, peer and self-assessment are essential activities for developing learner autonomy (Benson, 2012; Vieira et al., 2008), since they contribute to the development of many of the goals of the learner-centred approach to education. This approach becomes essential in today’s EFL classrooms, where student populations are increasingly diverse, both culturally and linguistically. Explicitly, the learner-centred approach to language learning emphasizes the importance of allowing students to take on teaching and assessment roles in the classroom (Burns & Richards, 2012; Nunan, 1988). By taking on classroom assessment roles, students become aware of the language requirements, and take an active role in monitoring their performance and achievements (Benson, 2012; Lundahl, 2019). As a result, transparency about learning objectives is enhanced.

3.3.4 Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory

The foundation upon which the approaches to language learning described above in this section are constructed is Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory. This views EFL acquisition as a social activity that takes place when learners are assisted by a more expert learner within their zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Burns & Richards, 2012; Lightbown & Spada, 2013; Richards & Rodgers, 2014). The use of peer assessment in the EFL classroom is, thus, supported by Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning, which is based on the concept of social interaction where language functions as a medium in order to develop knowledge and abilities (Vygotsky, 1978). In the ZPD, the expert (a more knowledgeable person) helps guide the learner through a

(14)

co-construction of their knowledge, and with progress to being able to internalise the knowledge either with very little help from the expert or independently (Lightbown & Spada, 2013; Burns & Richards, 2012; Richards & Rodgers, 2014). The support offered by the expert is referred to as scaffolding.

3.4 Previous research

In recent years, multiple benefits of peer and self-assessment in the EFL classroom have been reported by research (See, for example, Berg, 1999; Hyland, 2000; Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Rollinson, 2005; Black & Jones, 2006; Liu & Carless, 2006; Lundstrom and Baker, 2009; Oscarson & Apelgren, 2011; Wiliam, 2018; Mendonça & Johnson, 1994; Villamil & de Guerrero, 1996; Schmid, 1999; Berggren, 2014; McGarrell, 2010). Many of these studies emphasize the role of such assessment methods as an essential element of the formative assessment perspective that impregnates the philosophy of the current educational theories. While assessment has traditionally been linked to the purpose of collecting information for measuring student outcomes, recent research has focused on assessment processes as a way to improve student performance (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Jones & Wiliam, 2008). With emphasis on assessment related to promotion of learning (assessment for learning), practices such as peer and self-assessment are reported to develop learner autonomy and higher order thinking by transferring responsibility from the teacher (Hyland, 2000; Rollinson, 2005; Black & Jones, 2006; Liu & Carless, 2006; Lundstrom and Baker, 2009; Oscarson & Apelgren, 2011). Moreover, these feedback activities have shown to have a powerful effect on learners’ effective use of the feedback received, which is often not the case with regards to the comments received from teachers (Cartney, 2010; Schmid, 1999; Mendonça & Johnson, 1994; Berggren, 2014). By actively analysing a range of language skills, learners get actively engaged in the learning process, which enhances their critical thinking skills. This, in turn, promotes learner autonomy, which is the ultimate goal of today’s student-centred educational policies (Berg, 1999; Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Rollinson, 2005; Matsuno, 2009).

Through peer assessment activities, students get feedback from more people than the teacher, which gives them a sense of a real audience for their work. Learners develop an awareness of their audience and audience needs (Rollinson, 2005; Mangelsdorf & Schlumberger, 1992), which in turn promotes learners’ own revision skills, and improves their writing quality (Lundstrom & Baker, 2009; Zhao, 2014; Berg, 1999; Liu & Hansen, 2002; Mendonça & Johnson, 1994; Schmid, 1999; Berggren, 2014). As opposed to traditional teacher-student relationships, often focused on the view of feedback as a fairly passive process (Hyland, 2000;

(15)

Oscarson and Apelgren, 2011), peer feedback gives the students more control over their work, and engages them actively in the classroom assessment processes (Berg, 1999; Rollinson, 2005; Matsuno, 2009; Afitska, 2014; Mendonça & Johnson, 1994; Schmid, 1999). As a result, they learn to understand the success factors in relation to the various classroom assignments, which in turn contributes to the transparency about the learning goals established by course plans and teachers (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Jones & Wiliam, 2008; Liu & Carless, 2006; Afitska, 2014). Moreover, peer feedback activities engage students in a collaborative two-way interaction where “meaning is negotiated between the two parties” (Rollinson, 2005, p. 25), which is widely seen by research as an important factor for language development (Mendonça & Johnson, 1994; Villamil & de Guerrero, 1996; Rollinson, 2005; Lundstrom & Baker, 2009). Such communicative behaviours give students the opportunity to develop their metacognitive skills, which in turn promotes the development of a metalanguage about focus aspects of writing that becomes common for teachers and students (Villamil & de Guerrero, 1996; Lundstrom & Baker, 2009; Hyland, 2000).

The positive impact of peer and self-assessment on student writing was analysed by Mendonça and Johnson (1994). They conducted a study on 12 international ESL advanced graduate students enrolled in a writing course at a U.S. university, who participated in peer review activities. In the study, students’ first and revised drafts were analysed, and post interviews were conducted. Results showed that all subjects found peer review helpful, and that 53% of peer suggestions were incorporated in revision. Moreover, the negotiation of meaning occurred during the peer review interactions seemed to play a crucial role for the incorporation of peer comments on revisions and for the quality of students’ revised texts. The findings of the study supported the need to include peer review in L2 writing instruction, and showed important improvements on students’ revised texts based on peers’ comments. Most revised drafts were modified to meet the needs of their audience, and learners showed an increased audience awareness as a result of a negotiation of meaning and ideas occurred during the peer review sessions. Replicating Mendonça and Johnson’s study (1994), Schmid (1999) examined the link between peer response characteristics and outcomes. In this case, her subjects were 12 intermediate undergraduate students enrolled in a pre-freshman composition university ESL writing course. She used Mendonça and Johnson’s methodology in classifying peer review negotiations and their effects on revisions. Peer response was used consistently, and students had discussion and modelling with their teacher before the first peer review session. Clear feedback forms were also provided by the teacher. She found that undergraduate students were far more likely to incorporate peer feedback suggestions (70%) in revision than graduate

(16)

students (53%), and that the revisions made by the participants in her study improved essay quality more than the ones made by Mendonça and Johnson’s (1994) advanced graduate students.

Similarly, Lundstrom and Baker (2009) conducted a study were 91 EFL university writing students in the U.S. were trained in how to give peer response. This was done by giving them clear instructions about macro-level aspects of writing. They were divided into lower and higher-level groups, and “givers” and “receivers” of peer feedback. The study revealed that the givers of feedback improved their writing skills more significantly than the receivers, a finding that supports the idea that “reviewing other students’ papers is a viable and important activity to improving one’s own writing” (p. 39). Results showed important improvements on revised drafts for students at several levels regarding organisation, cohesion and vocabulary. However, it seemed to be even more beneficial for lower-level students. With this in mind, it is feasible to deduce that Swedish upper-secondary students in Sweden could benefit from these practices. Indeed, one of the few field studies on the topic conducted on secondary level students in Sweden confirms this idea. Berggren (2014) conducted an empirical study carried out with 14 to 15-year-old students in two Swedish EFL classrooms, and investigated the ways in which peer review can reinforce teenage learners’ writing ability. She analysed first and final students’ drafts, and findings suggested that the peer review sessions increased learners’ audience awareness and promoted important revision changes, particularly on macro-level aspects of writing.

Nevertheless, some disadvantages of peer and self-assessment have also been considered in the literature. Time constraints about the pre-training of students and about the review process itself have been reported by teachers and researchers (Rollinson, 2005). Besides, student reluctance to participate in peer assessment activities has been identified. Studies have shown student concerns about the damaged social relationships resulting from their critique on their peers’ work (Carson & Nelson, 1996; Leki, 1999). Learners might also feel insecure about their own ability to provide useful feedback to peers (McGarrell, 2010; Min, 2005; Mangelsdorf & Schlumberger, 1992). Moreover, some students might appear unconvinced of the value of peer feedback, and of their peers’ ability to offer useful and constructive feedback (Mendonça and Johnson, 1994; Rollinson, 2005). In Sweden, research has shown that upper-secondary school teachers experienced difficulties in knowing how to integrate and implement peer and self-assessment in their classrooms (Oscarson and Apelgren, 2011). Besides the mentioned above, teachers showed concerns about the actual effectiveness of such practices, and about the

(17)

methods taking a considerable amount of time from the stated curriculum. In fact, research has shown that not all peer assessment activities result in learning (Mendonça & Johnson, 1994; Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Mc Garrell, 2010; Afitska, 2014).

In line with this, McGarrell (2010) examined the issue of teachers themselves being ill prepared for peer and self-assessment activities and therefore experiencing difficulties about how to implement them in their classrooms. In his study, 54 native and non-native ESL/EFL teacher students enrolled in a writing course at a U. S. university (who initially had little or no experience in peer and self-assessment) got engaged in such activities. Drawing on data from questionnaires and participant discussions, the study explored their perceived value of these assessment practices. After receiving proper information and training in peer and self-assessment, their perceived value of the method raised from a 35% of them who initially found it useful to a great majority of them (an average of 87%) who found the method highly valuable in relation to EFL writing. Therefore, the study concludes that, in order to be able to train their students for peer feedback, student teachers need to understand the value of such practices and to be trained in how to effectively implement them. Similarly, a study conducted by Rotsaert et al. (2018) explored the challenges faced by teachers in relation to the implementation of peer assessment in their classrooms. Their quantitative survey study focused on the use and format of peer assessment among 225 secondary school teachers in Flanders, and explored their knowledge of the method and their awareness of the challenges related to its implementation. The study concluded that teachers’ perceived awareness of these challenges of peer assessment is a major predictor of their beliefs in the educational value of the method, and that it highly impacts their usage of it in their classrooms.

In a Swedish context, a study conducted by Oscarson and Apelgren (2011) analysed language teachers’ experiences and views of various classroom assessment principles and procedures. A questionnaire survey on 605 language education teachers in Sweden was conducted. This survey was complemented by an interview study with a sub-sample of 20 teachers in order to delve deeper into the issues. Results indicated that many teachers found difficulties in implementing peer and self-assessment as a part of the learner-centred, formative assessment approach to language learning stated in the language curriculums and syllabuses in Sweden, and initiated by the Council of Europe. Indeed, results showed that teachers in Sweden rarely used “assessment tools which enhance learner autonomy, language learning awareness, and the ability of learning to learn” (p. 14). Specifically, peer assessment and self-assessment were among the least used and preferred assessment methods in the study. Besides, the study showed

(18)

that language teachers in Sweden highlighted the need of in-service training in how to use such methods.

In all, it has been shown by research that, in many of the previously mentioned studies, both students and teachers seemed to be ill prepared for giving kind and specific comments due to the lack of pre-training (Min, 2005; Mangelsdorf & Schlumberger, 1992). In relation to this, relevant training on the purpose of peer feedback, the value of collaboration, and specific training on the adequate techniques for giving and receiving feedback have shown to be essential for a successful implementation of the activities (Berg, 1999; Liu & Hansen, 2002; Min, 2005; McGarrell, 2010). Research has also emphasised the issue of teachers themselves being ill prepared for peer assessment activities, and therefore experiencing difficulties about how to implement them in their classrooms. Adequate teacher training leads to a more frequent use of the tools, as well as to effectiveness in their implementation (McGarrell, 2010; Berg, 1999; Rotsaert et al., 2018). In fact, research has shown that there are important decisions for teachers to consider in order to organize successful peer feedback sessions (Rollinson, 2005; Lundstrom and Baker, 2009; Jones and Williams, 2008; Oscarson and Apelgren, 2011). Fundamental factors to consider are, for example, the organization of the peer review groups (Rollinson, 2005), the type of instructions given to students, decisions made about individual or group assessment of students’ texts (Rollinson, 2005; Kim, 2015), types of follow-up activities related to self-evaluation and revision, etc.

As seen above, the multiple benefits and also the drawbacks of peer and self-assessment have been well investigated by research. However, the great majority of these studies have been done at a university level, and the relevance of peer feedback for upper-secondary EFL students has scarcely been examined. Moreover, many of these studies have been based on students’ experiences with the method and on the quality and use of revision on students’ drafts. Therefore, studies investigating teachers’ views are needed. Since teachers are responsible for the successful application of these activities in the classrooms, information about their knowledge, beliefs and reported practices becomes essential. Finally, most studies have been conducted at an international level, with only a few exceptions (Berggren, 2014; Rollinson, 2005; Oscarson & Apelgren, 2011). Therefore, there is a clear need of contextualized studies, which can provide relevant and useful information about issues related to the implementation of peer and self-assessment at an upper-secondary school level in Sweden.

(19)

4. Method

As mentioned above, the present research project intends to serve a double purpose. First, it intends to explore upper-secondary school teachers’ perceptions and practices about the effectiveness and use of peer and self-assessment in their EFL classrooms in Sweden, and how these perceptions and practices might relate to their knowledge about these alternative assessment tools in relation to writing. Secondly, the study intends to analyse the value of peer and self-assessment as pedagogical and collaborative learning activities in situated contexts in EFL upper-secondary school classrooms in Sweden. In order to fulfil that double purpose, a mixed-methods design was used in the study. Interviews with teachers were used to explore teachers’ beliefs about peer and self-assessment. In addition, a quantitative method in the form of a questionnaire survey was used in order to check the generality of the interview findings, a generality that would require too many resources to test by the more time demanding qualitative interviews (Kvale, 2007; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Bryman, 2018). While the interviews provided rich data on teachers’ beliefs about the effectivity and implementation of peer and self-assessment as contributing tools to the development of learners’ writing skills, the questionnaire made it possible to test how prevalent these beliefs were among a larger number of teachers at a national level. This mixed-methods approach was chosen in order to offset the weaknesses of both quantitative and qualitative research (Bryman, 2018).

4.1 Participants

The participants of the interviews consisted of three EFL teachers from two different upper-secondary schools located in the same municipality in the south of Sweden. The selection process was first based on finding out, through email and personal contact, respondents who had previous experience with peer and self-assessment. The selection process regarding the interviews was, thus, strategic. Due to the nature of the study, teachers with specific experiences and knowledge of the method were strategically chosen in order to obtain rich information about the purpose of the study (Alvehus, 2019). The three teachers taught English at an upper-secondary school level, and had an overall teaching experience that ranged from 20 to 30 years. Two of the respondents (hereafter referred to as Teacher 1A and Teacher 2A) taught English in an upper-secondary school that prepared students for university studies in Sweden. Their school has a relatively homogeneous student population, mostly with a high socioeconomic background (hereafter referred to as School A). Teacher 1A taught English and French, while Teacher 2A taught English and Swedish. The third respondent (henceforth referred to as Teacher 3B) taught English and Swedish in a school with both university and vocational

(20)

preparation programs, which counted with a diverse and heterogeneous student population with mixed socioeconomic status (henceforth referred to as School B). The two different schools were chosen in order to get a richer view of the ways in which peer and self-assessment can be implemented in different school environments.

The number of interview subjects necessary in a qualitative study depends, of course, on the purpose of the study, and on a combination of the time and resources available for the investigation (Kvale, 2007; Bryman, 2018). If the number of subjects is too small, it might be difficult to make generalizations from the data findings. Conversely, if the number of subjects is too big, there will be hardly time to make penetrating analyses of the data obtained in the interviews. Besides, time and resource constraints need to be taken into account. With little time available for a project, a high number of time-consuming qualitative interviews would challenge the quality of the study, and compromise the deepness of the data analysis (Kvale, 2007; Richards, 2009). In this case, three interviews were considered an appropriate number for the purpose of the study, whose aim was to extract rich data about the respondents’ understandings and experiences of the peer and self-assessment processes in their classrooms. This way, enough time was taken to prepare the interviews and to analyse them in depth. The participants of the questionnaires were 29 upper-secondary school teachers spread all over Sweden. However, their working locations and were not relevant for the study, so that question was not included in the questionnaire. Since teachers’ professional background was not the main focus of this investigation (although it could be relevant for future studies), questions about that topic were not either included. The only relevant delimitation for the questionnaire

(21)

sampling was, thus, the participants’ definition as “EFL upper-secondary school teachers working in upper-secondary schools in Sweden” (Appendix B).

4.2 Materials and procedure

As mentioned above, in order to illustrate teachers’ perceptions about peer and self-assessment as teaching and learning tools in the EFL classroom, and to analyse the ways in which such practices can contribute to language development, a mixed-methods approach using both interviews and questionnaires was chosen in the study.

4.2.1 Semi-structured interviews

In order to illustrate the complexity and the richness of teachers’ perceptions, three qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted, partially transcribed and analysed. The qualitative research interview method was chosen for this study for constituting a powerful tool for extracting information about social and pedagogical issues, which draws upon a postmodern conception of knowledge as socially constructed (Richards, 2009; Kvale, 2007). As Kvale (2007) points out, as a co-construction method where both the interviewer and the interviewee are knowledgeable experts and contributing participants, qualitative interviews are appropriate for research that aims at extracting rich, qualitative data. In turn, the semi-structured format was chosen because it allows for rich, in-depth responses (Richards, 2009; Kvale, 2007). Through open-ended and follow-up questions, this format invited elaboration and discussion about the selected object of inquiry (Richards, 2009; Kvale, 2007). Mostly open questions were asked in order to allow extensive, non-directed responses, and enough time was given for the respondent to elaborate on particular issues (Robson, 2011; Dörnyei, 2007; Kvale, 2007).

The dimensions and themes for the interview were designed in accordance to the five different phases recommended by Robson (2011). To begin with, the baseline for the interview was established as an introduction. The terms peer and self-assessment were defined and agreed upon for common understanding, and the respondent was informed about the means and the ends of the study (Kvale, 2007). In this phase, warm-up questions about the teachers’ professional background were formulated. In a second phase of the interview, questions about the teachers’ self-reported knowledge about the method were included. The third phase dealt with relevant aspects of peer and self-assessment in relation to writing. Here, central aspects about teachers’ beliefs about peer and self-assessment were investigated. The fourth phase, dealt with teachers’ self-reported implementation of the method. In this phase, relations between their reported knowledge and their reported teaching practices were established. In the

(22)

fifth phase, teachers’ perceptions about the benefits and challenges of peer and self-assessment were explored. With the purpose of identifying the possible ways in which peer and self-assessment can be effectively implemented in EFL upper-secondary schools in Sweden, this phase included a question about teachers’ perceived strategies for overcoming the challenges related to their implementation in their classrooms. Finally, the interview came to a closure where the interviewer thanked the respondents for their valuable contribution (Appendix A). The first interview was conducted in May 2019, and was audio-recorded through the Voice Memos app for iPhone, and afterwards stored safely in the researcher’s home directory on the servers of Malmö University. The other two interviews, held in April 2020, were recorded through video conferencing software. This was due to the distance education situation at upper-secondary school level in Sweden at the time the study was carried out. The platform chosen was Google Hangouts Meet, since it was the one used by teachers at work and it therefore provided them with a comfortable and familiar environment. Besides, Hangouts Meets video meetings are encrypted in transit, which guarantees data security and confidentiality. Moreover, the Google meeting room links were only available within the G Suite school organization, which gave extra security to the chosen conferencing software. The video meetings were recorded with the explicit consent from the participants, and stored in the Google Drive storage room ascribed to the participants’ G Suite teacher accounts. Participants gave their written and oral consent for their participation in the study and for the audio and video recording of their statements (Appendix C). The participants were given the option of responding to the interview in either Swedish or English. This option was given so that each participant could choose the language they were most comfortable with and to minimize any misunderstandings and worries that they might have during the process. The first participant (Teacher 1A) chose to answer in English, while the other two (Teachers 2A and 3B) chose to answer in Swedish.

4.2.2 Questionnaires

Additionally, in order to be able to check the generality of the views stated by the respondents, a questionnaire was developed on the basis of the interviews (Appendix B). In social science today, interviews are frequently used in combination with other methods, such as questionnaires, for producing and validating data (Kvale, 2007; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Bryman, 2018). Questionnaires are, indeed, faster to administer, analyse and report than qualitative interviews, and were therefore considered a good complement to the investigation. However, questionnaire questions need to be thoroughly thought through and tested. Indeed, testing is the only way of assuring that the questions written do communicate to respondents as

(23)

intended (de Leeuw, Hox & Dillman, 2008). Therefore, at the construction of the questionnaire, pilot interviews were used to test how the questions were understood. Before the question testing stage, some informal testing methods were also used. To begin with, the author of the study interviewed herself by playing the role of the respondent, reading through the questionnaire and trying to answer each question in order to identify the difficulties or ambiguities in the question-answer process (de Leeuw, Hox & Dillman, 2008). Secondly, the researcher arranged a mock interview with a colleague, in order to hear the questions aloud and to see how they were answered. Thirdly, the supervisor of the present study made some recommendations about the re-wording of some questions, and answered the questionnaire himself. As a last testing stage, email lists from the two schools chosen in the study were used in order to run a last pilot test emulating real survey conditions (or as close as possible) among schools’ English teachers. Respondent debriefing sessions were conducted afterwards via email, and problem or ambiguous questions were re-worded after that.

Finally, the questionnaire was administered through three Facebook private groups of English teachers in Sweden: Nätverk för lärare i engelska, Språklärarnas riksförbund and Gymnasielärare i svenska och/eller engelska. This method was selected for being suitable for reaching out to a large population of English teachers at a national level, and for offering a useful sampling frame covering the target population into the reliability of a private group format where only teachers were allowed. Indeed, online social media provide new and specific recruitment potentials for investigation, because of the increased engagement of units in online communities, social network sites, and other collaboration platforms. This allows for effectively finding, with relatively few resources, very narrow target populations through their membership in specific interest groups (Callegaro, Lozar Manfreda & Vehovar, 2015). In this case, sampling and recruitment was done through a direct invitation (posting a message) by the researcher. The questionnaire was designed and administered through a Google Form (Appendix B), and a total of 29 answers from upper-secondary school teachers of English were registered and analysed.

4.3 Data analysis

4.3.1 Analysis of interview data

As mentioned above, and since note-taking is not enough in qualitative research due to the huge amount of data received (Robson, 2011; Kvale, 2007), the interviews were video-recorded. The interviews were transcribed and read though, first without any notes and then with annotations. The data obtained from the interviews were classified in relation to the main themes identified

(24)

and connected to the study’s purpose and research questions (Robson, 2011). In turn, these themes followed the questions of the interview design (Appendix A). Due to time constraints, and to best serve the purpose of the research, a broad approach to transcription was selected, with a main focus on content and not on detail (Kvale, 2011).

4.3.2 Analysis of questionnaire data

The questionnaire was developed on the basis of the interviews, and divided in sections in accordance with the interview themes regarding specific information about teachers’ perceptions and use of peer and self-assessment (Appendix A; Appendix B). However, as mentioned above, since geographical location and years of experience were not the focus of this investigation, the first interview theme about teachers’ professional background was not included in the questionnaire (Appendix B). The data obtained were collected and stored in a spreadsheet that could only be accessed through the investigator’s Google account login. As a second step, the collected data were read and reviewed, and notes were written on items while reading it through. The data were made manageable by finding key passages in the answers and by highlighting them. Teacher statements about the different themes were coded and categorized into relevant sub-themes related to different aspects of peer and self-assessment. Finally, different explanations to the findings were thought through, identified, and listed.

4.3.3 Triangulation Method

In ethnographic studies, the mixed-methods approach aims at ensuring that fundamental biases that normally arise from the use of a single method are overcome (Kvale, 2007; Alvehus, 2019; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). In this study, different types of data were used to examine teachers’ views and practices in relation to peer and self-assessment in the context of the EFL upper-secondary school classrooms in Sweden. These data were interpreted in light of the theories and studies that constitute the theoretical background of the investigation though a process of triangulation. In the analysis, the quantitative results from the questionnaires and the qualitative data from the interviews constructed a new understanding of how peer and self-assessment are valued and utilized by teachers. The two different but complementary datasets which were obtained merged into a deepened and more complex understanding of the research topic, and allowed for a broader generalization of the interview findings (Kvale, 2007; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). This picture of the situation was then placed in the context of the knowledge gained from the analysis of the theoretical background of the study through a process of triangulation (Figure 1), where the obtained information was integrated into an

(25)

overall interpretation of the findings (Figure 1) (Kvale, 2007; Alvehus, 2019; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

Figure 1. Triangulation Method

4.4 Ethical considerations

Ethical considerations are important when conducting this type of study, and some demands need to be followed for the protection of the participants in the investigation (Kvale, 2007; Bryman, 2018). Ethical considerations in line with the Swedish Research Council’s ethics rules for research (2002) were taken into account during the study. Before starting the interviews, the participants were informed about the purpose of the study, that their participation was voluntary, and that they could stop their participation at any given time without reason and without any repercussions. Also, confidentiality about the private data used was guaranteed, including their names and place of work. Finally, participants were informed that the collection of data would only be used for its original purpose, and not for commercial or other non-specific purposes. Informed written consent to record the interviews and to use the data obtained in the investigation was previously given by each participant (see Appendix C). Besides, consent was given orally at the beginning of the recorded interviews.

Regarding the questionnaires, ethical principles of conducting survey research on the Internet were followed (de Leeuw, Hox & Dillman, 2008; Callegaro, Lozar Manfreda & Vehovar,

Theoretical background

Interviews

Triangulation

(26)

2015). In order to obtain respondents’ trust and cooperation via Internet, a paragraph introducing the questionnaire assured them that the data would be kept secure (secured during transport and when stored in the server) and anonymous (responses not linked to their names) (de Leeuw, Hox & Dillman, 2008). The questionnaire was administered through a Google Form, which offers adequate cryptographic protection during the transmission of data and protects the server against unauthorized invasions. Responses were stored securely in the Google server that can only be accessed through the researcher’s Google account log in, and personal information that would normally be encrypted was not required. Information about data security was also provided in the paragraph introducing the questionnaire and informing about the purpose of the study.

(27)

5. Results and discussion

This section is divided into four sections, which correspond to the main themes analysed in relation to both the interviews and questionnaires (see Appendices A & B). In turn, these themes were designed with the purpose of investigating the questions addressed in the research questions guiding this study. Ultimately, these research questions aimed at exploring teachers’ perceptions on peer and self-assessment as tools for enhancing EFL writing in the context of upper-secondary education in Sweden, and to examine the relationship between teachers’ beliefs, knowledge of the method, and their reported teaching practices. Eventually, based on the findings, this paper intends to identify a number of success and non-success factors of the implementation of peer response in the EFL classrooms in Sweden. In order to do that, the results will be presented as follows: The first section will provide relevant information about the teachers’ self-rated knowledge of peer and self-assessment. The second section will present significant findings about teachers’ self-reported classroom practices. The third one will provide relevant data about respondents’ perceived benefits of peer and self-assessment in the context of the EFL upper-secondary school classroom. Finally, the fourth section will present their thoughts about the challenges related to the implementation of such practices, and about possible ways to overcome these challenges. In turn, each of these four sections will be divided into three subsections, where results from both the interview questions and questionnaires will be presented, discussed and analysed. This analysis will be done in light of the previously described background literature that constitutes the theoretical foundation of the study, and in the context of the steering documents for the upper-secondary school in Sweden.

5.1 Teachers’ self-reported knowledge about peer and

assessment

5.1.1 Teacher interviews

All three teachers who participated in the interviews had long work experience as fully qualified upper-secondary school teachers in Sweden (see Table 1 above). Teachers 1A and 2A rated their knowledge about peer and self-assessment and their experience in working with these tools as very high, while Teacher 3B considered her knowledge and experience with the tools as moderately high to high. Since peer and self-assessment are relatively new teaching and learning tools in the context of EFL, information about these tools was not included in their teacher education. The three teachers described their initial engagement with these alternative assessment tools as a result of their own interest in the new arising formative assessment

(28)

strategies to improve the quality of teaching and student learning. Teacher 1A described this interest with the following words:

I love this job and I want to develop, to find new ways that suit today’s learners, learning environments, and what is stated in the steering documents. Reading, talking, being in a group of people wanting the same thing. And that is so wonderful, that’s an important part of this job, because that’s when you can really make a difference. I still learn things, and that’s why this job is so fantastic. It would be so boring to go to your job and to be doing the same things that you’ve done for thirty-five years, wouldn’t it? (Teacher 1A: Interview 1).

Additionally, teachers 1A and 2A had developed their skills in using peer and self-assessment through in-service training and through collaboration with other colleagues at their working place. Their school provided some extra time outside their teaching hours for collaborative teaching sessions about the implementation of the tools, where they could discuss “your planning and the results of your own teaching with other colleagues, which things you did worked and which didn’t and why” (Teacher 1A: Interview 1). Moreover, Teacher 1A had the opportunity to develop her skills together with her working team at the school in a three-year project about how to improve students’ writing skills according to Wiliam’s formative assessment strategies. In contrast, Teacher 3B had developed her skills though a self-learning process aimed at optimizing her teaching and her students’ learning, also in connection with “the formative assessment approach that became popular in Sweden about ten years ago, and of the language developing approach recommended by the National Educational Guidelines in Sweden” (Interview 3; author’s translation). In her case, this interest was closely linked to the need for developing the writing skills of the widely diverse student population that characterized her school, where the idea of activating students as learning resources for one another seemed fundamental to her. However, the three teachers agreed on the need for Swedish teachers’ in general to develop their knowledge and skills regarding peer and self-assessment. They also thought that these techniques should be included in teacher education in Sweden, and be promoted by schools through in-service teacher courses.

5.1.2 The questionnaire

Teachers responding to the questionnaires were required to rate their own knowledge about how to implement peer and self-assessment on a 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good) point Likert scale (Figure 2). Three of the respondents (10,3 %) rated their knowledge as poor (with 2 points in the scale). Out of these three respondents, two answered “no” when asked if they used peer

(29)

and self-assessment in their EFL classrooms. The third of them responded “yes” to that question, but was found to “seldom” implement the method when asked about the frequency of this implementation, with two points (seldom) on a Likert scale from 1 (never) to 5 (very frequently) points (see below, section 5.3.2, Figure 5). In all, only these three teachers (10,3 %) rated their knowledge as “poor”. Nine teachers (31 %) rated their knowledge as “fair”, while 11 of them (37,9 %) rated it as “good”. Finally, only 6 teachers (20,7 %) described their knowledge about how to implement the method as “very good”. Logically, teachers who rated their knowledge about the method as “very poor” or “poor” were also the ones who reported a less frequent implementation of peer and self-assessment in their classrooms. However, not all six teachers who reported a “very good” knowledge of the method indicated a frequent use of it. Conversely, two of them said that they seldom used peer and self-assessment, another two of used it “sometimes”, and only the two left reported a “very frequent” use of the method in their EFL classrooms.

1 = very poor 2 = poor 3 = fair 4 = good 5 = very good

Figure 2. Teachers’ self-reported knowledge about how to implement peer and self-assessment

Teachers were also asked about the ways in which they had acquired/developed their knowledge about peer and self-assessment as teaching and learning tools in relation to English writing. The aim of this question was to get an overview of Swedish teachers’ development of these skills, and to try to establish a connection between their self-reported knowledge and their additional training on these assessment methods. When analysing the data obtained, it became clear that a great majority of teachers (18 of 27) who had reported a “fair” to “very good” knowledge of the method had acquired the knowledge through their university studies or other

(30)

additional teacher training courses, and/or in collaboration with colleagues at their working places. Moreover, when comparing this information with their self-reported frequency of use of peer and self-assessment as presented in Figure 5 below (section 5.3.2), it was observed that half of these teachers (9 of 18) used the tools from “often” to “very frequently” in their classrooms. A summary of teachers’ statements regarding their acquisition of knowledge about the tools are presented in Table 2.

(31)

5.1.3 Implications

The three interviewed teachers participating in the study emphasized the importance of peer and self-assessment in the context of today’s formative assessment approaches to classroom practice. However, they all considered that they had experienced difficulties in finding the time and resources to develop their skills regarding the tools, and that their own interest and classroom practice might not be enough for teachers in general to learn how to successfully implement them in their classrooms. These difficulties were confirmed by the results of the questionnaires, where a large proportion of teachers indicated that they had acquired their skills through reading about it and through classroom experience. These results are in line by those described by McGarrell (2010), who highlighted the need of in-service training in how to use such methods. Moreover, a correlation was found between teachers’ knowledge of the tools and their implementation in their classrooms. As shown in the interviews, the two teachers who had opportunities to develop their skills though proper in-service training provided by their schools implemented the tools in a comprehensive and systematic way. However, Teacher 3B, who had developed her skills through reading and personal engagement, implemented the tools less frequently. The same results could be deduced from the analysis of teachers’ answers to the questionnaires, where a clear correlation was found between teachers’ knowledge and their implementation of the method. This is in line with results reported by Oscarson and Apelgren (2011), who concluded that teachers’ lack of knowledge about these alternative assessment practices was the main reason for their reluctance to use them in their classrooms. Moreover, in the same way in which students could benefit from learning in collaboration, both the interviewed teachers and the respondents to the questionnaires valued collaboration among teachers at schools as a good way to develop their skills and knowledge about the tools. Finally, the inclusion of information about peer and self-assessment in teacher education was shown to be significant for teachers’ usage of the method. Furthermore, these factors seemed to be relevant in relation to teachers’ perceived value of these alternative classroom assessment practices, as it will be shown in section 5.2 below.

According to the interviewed teachers, peer and self-assessment are essential educational tools in relation to the formative assessment perspective that impregnates the Swedish educational guidelines (Skolverket, 2011; Lundahl, 2019). In turn, the curriculum in Sweden is developed in accordance with OECD’s guidelines, which also recommend these formative assessment techniques as a means for enhancing students’ “learning to learn” skills and higher achievement levels among diverse learner groups (Wiliam, 2018; OECD/CERI, 2018). This idea was confirmed by teacher 3B, who found the tools essential for developing the writing skills of the

Figure

Figure 1. Triangulation Method
Figure 2.  Teachers’ self-reported knowledge about how to implement peer and self-assessment
Figure 3.  Teachers’ perceived value of peer and self-assessment in their teaching of EFL writing
Figure 4. Teachers’ use of peer and self-assessment in relation to EFL writing
+2

References

Related documents

I just adapted to what the company says. But now I do on my own, and I talk to my 

Using a semi-logarithmic wage equation and cross-sectional individual data we found that upper-secondary school teachers employed in 2010 in the region

The History Hunt project indicates that teaching digital literacy making use of digital resources augments traditional assessment, helping to ensure authenticity, preparing pupils

Furthermore, the results showed that students of lower English proficiency felt uncomfortable giving feedback to peers with a higher English proficiency, and instead of trying to

The purpose of this study was to elicit what Swedish upper secondary school students think of using peer response in the classroom, both as givers and receivers, as well

Overall, Tables 5-7 present high mean values in all questions across the four schools, suggesting that the students who participated in this study believe that

Som en givande och högst intressant röd tråd löper genom boken en reflexiv berättelse om Rosengrens personliga förhållande till och intresse för sin första bil, som inte

Utredningens för- slag innebär ju en viss förbättring, men det torde icke vara tillräckligt för att nämnden som »krisorgan» i fortsättningen skall kunna spela den