Self-assessment
The previous section has shown how computerbased
testing can incorporate test takers self-assessment
of their abilities in the target language. Until
the 1980s references to self-assessment were rare but
since then interest in self-assessment has increased.
This increase can at least in part be attributed to an
increased interest in involving the learner in all phases
of the learning process and in encouraging learner
autonomy and decision making in (and outside) the
language classroom (e.g., Blanche & Merino, 1989).
The introduction of self-assessment was viewed as
promising by many, especially in formative assessment
contexts (Oscarson, 1989). It was considered to
encourage increasing sophistication in learner awareness,
helping learners to: gain confidence in their
own judgement; acquire a view of evaluation that
covers the whole learning process; and see errors as
something helpful. It was also seen to be potentially
useful to teachers, providing information on learning
styles, on areas needing remediation and feedback on
teaching
However, self-assessment also met with considerable
scepticism, largely due to concerns about the
ability of learners to provide accurate judgements of
their achievement and proficiency. For instance, Blue
(1988), while acknowledging that self-assessment is
an important element in self-directed learning and
that learners can play an active role in the assessment
of their own language learning, argues that learners
cannot self-assess unaided. Taking self-assessment
data gathered from students on a pre-sessional EAP
programme, he reports a poor correlation between
teachers assessments of the students and their own
self-assessments. He also shows that in multicultural
groups such as those typical of pre-sessional EAP
courses, overestimates of language proficiency are
more common than underestimates. Finally, he
argues that learners lack of familiarity with metalanguage
and with the practice of discussing language
proficiency in terms of its composite skills impairs
their capacity for identifying their precise language
learning needs.
Such concerns, however, did not dampen enthusiasm
for investigations in this area and research in the
1980s was concerned with the development of selfassessment
instruments and their validation (e.g.,
Oscarson, 1984; Lewkowicz & Moon, 1985). Consequently,
a variety of approaches were developed
including pupil progress cards, learning diaries, log
books, rating scales and questionnaires. In the last
decade the research focus has shifted towards
enhancing our understanding of the evaluation techniques
that were already in existence through
continued validation exercises and by applying selfassessment
in new contexts or in new ways.
For instance, Blanche (1990) uses standardised
achievement and oral proficiency tests both for testing
and for self-assessment purposes, arguing that this
approach helps to circumvent the problems of training
that are associated with self-assessment questionnaires.
Hargan (1994) documents the use of a
do-it-yourself instrument for placement purposes,
reporting that it results in much the same placement
levels as suggested by a traditional multiple-choice
test. Hargun argues that placement testing for large
numbers in her context has resulted in the implementation
of a traditional multiple-choice grammarbased
placement test and a consequent emphasis on
teaching analytic grammar skills. She believes that
the do-it-yourself-placement instrument might help
to redress the emphasis on grammar and stem the
neglect of reading and writing skills in the classroom.
Carton (1993) discusses how self-assessment can
become part of the learning process. He describes his
use of questionnaires to encourage learners to reflect
on their learning objectives and preferred modes of
learning. He also presents an approach to monitoring
learning that involves the learners in devising their
own criteria, an approach that he argues helps learners
to become more aware of their own cognitive
processes.
A typical approach to validating self-assessment
instruments has been to obtain concurrent validity
statistics by correlating the self-assessment measure
with one or more external measures of student performance
(e.g., Shameem, 1998; Ross, 1998). Other
approaches have included the use of multi-trait
multi-method (MTMM) designs and factor analysis
(Bachman & Palmer, 1989) and a split-ballot technique
(Heilenman, 1990). In general, these studies
have found self-assessment to be a robust method for
gathering information about learner proficiency and
that the risk of cheating is low (see Barbot, 1991).
However, they also indicate that some approaches to
gathering self-assessment data are more effective than
others. Bachman and Palmer (1989) report that
learners were more able to identify what they found
difficult to do in a language than what they found
easy. Therefore, Can-do questions were the least
effective question type of the three they used in their
MTMM study, while the most effective question
type appeared to be that which asked about the
learners perceived difficulties with aspects of the
language.
Additionally, learner experience of the selfassessment
procedure and/or the language skill being
assessed has been found to affect self-assessments.
Heilenman (1990), in a study of the role of response
effects, reports both an acquiescence effect (the tendency
to respond positively to an item regardless of
its content) and a tendency to overestimate ability,
these tendencies being more marked among less
experienced learners. Ross (1998) has found that the
reliability of learners self-assessments is affected
by their experience of the skill being assessed. He
suggests that when learners do not have memory of a
criterion, they resort to recollections of their general
proficiency in order to make their judgement. This
process is more likely to be affected by the method
of the self-assessment instrument and by factors such
as self-flattery. He argues, therefore, for the design of
instruments that are cast in terms which offer learners
a reference point such as specific curricular content.
In a similar finding Shameem (1998) reports
that respondents self-assessments of their oral proficiency
in Fijian Hindi are less reliable at the highest
levels of the self-assessment scale. Like Ross, he
attributes this slip in accuracy to the respondents
lack of familiarity with the criterion measure.
Oscarson (1997) sums up progress in this area by
reminding us that research in self-assessment is still
relatively new. He acknowledges that conundrums
remain. For instance, learner goals and interpretations
need to be reconciled with external imperatives.
Also self-assessment is not self-explanatory; it
must be introduced slowly and learners need to be
guided and supported in their use of the instruments.
Furthermore, particularly when using self-assessment
in multicultural groups, it is important to consider
the cultural influences on self-assessment. Nevertheless,
he considers the research so far to be promising.
Despite residual concerns about the accuracy of
self-assessment, the majority of studies report favourable
results and we have already learned a great deal
about the appropriate methodology to use for capturing
self-assessments. However, as Oscarson points
out, more work is needed, both in the study of factors
that influence self-assessment ratings in various
contexts and in the selection and design of materials
المادة المعروضة اعلاه هي مدخل الى المحاضرة المرفوعة بواسطة استاذ(ة) المادة . وقد تبدو لك غير متكاملة . حيث يضع استاذ المادة في بعض الاحيان فقط الجزء الاول من المحاضرة من اجل الاطلاع على ما ستقوم بتحميله لاحقا . في نظام التعليم الالكتروني نوفر هذه الخدمة لكي نبقيك على اطلاع حول محتوى الملف الذي ستقوم بتحميله .
|