Cited by 134Student Assessment and FeedbackEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningEnglish Language Learning and Teaching

The role of self-, peer and teacher assessment in promoting Iranian EFL learners’ writing performance

Birjandi, Parviz, Hadidi Tamjid, Nasrin·2012·Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

Abstract

In the last decade, with the increased attention to learner-centred curricula, the topic of self-assessment and peer assessment has become of particular interest in testing and evaluation. The present study explores the role of self-assessment, and peer assessment in promoting writing performance of language learners. To do this, 157 intermediate TEFL (Teaching English as Foreign Language) students were assigned to five different treatments in five groups: four experimental groups and one control group. The first experimental group did journal writing as a self-assessment technique, the second group self-assessed their own writings, the third group employed peer assessment, and the fourth group had both self- and peer assessment. Moreover, there was teacher assessment in all experimental groups, except the fourth group, i.e., the self- and peer assessment group. In the control group, there was only teacher assessment. Also, at the beginning and end of the semester, all participants took a writing test. The design of the study was quasi-experimental, non-randomised control group, pre-test–post-test design. The results revealed that in the second and third groups, in which the students employed self-assessment and peer assessment, together with teacher assessment, we observed the maximum improvement in writing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02602938.2010.549204

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Peer feedback compared to feedback from teaching staff showed an intermediate sized, non-significant composite effect size of 0.46 (95% CI -0.44 to 1.36) based on three studies (Cho and Schunn 2007; Hartberg et al. 2008; Birjandi and Tamjid 2012).

    “The third comparison was that between peer feedback and feedback from teaching staff. Here, the direction of effects was mixed across the three studies (Cho and Schunn 2007; Hartberg et al. 2008; Birjandi and Tamjid 2012), resulting in an intermediate sized, though non-significant composite effect size of 0.46 [-0.44, 1.36].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Birjandi, P., & Hadidi Tamjid, N.
Affiliations
Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch (IR)
Venue
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
Published
2012-08
Volume
37
Issue
5
Pages
513-533
ISSN
  • 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-297X
OpenAlex
W2170582863
Cited by
134
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 7
FWCI
15.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
Keywords
self-assessment, peer assessment, teacher assessment, EFL writing, writing performance, journaling, learner-centred curriculum, Iranian EFL learners, writing instruction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review