LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT

Ir. Suciana Wijirahayu, S.Pd

Name NIM Program

: Evi Sofiawati : 1108066018 : 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

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

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

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 smallgroup 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

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 by students. 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

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 lecturer would 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 where students 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

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 is a 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

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 assessment for learning 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 an advertisement 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.

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 The ability to work with other people Score Range Explanatory Text 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 idea 1. 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 Attendance 1. Only show up once 2. Very often absent 3. 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

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 is Individual 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 mixedability 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.

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".