Pi-Ying Hsu
ABSTRACT
Effective oral presentation skill is vital for a college student's success in educational, social, and professional life. There is a great deal of research interest focusing on English speaking performance and yet there are relatively few studies suggesting effective teaching approaches how instructors cope with the restrictions in current classroom settings to enhance English as a foreign (EFL) college students’ English Speech performance and motivation. The utilization of videotaped peer evaluation is recognized as having significant pedagogic value and has gained much attention in recent years due to the increasing emphasis on learner self-regulation and the rapid development of advanced social networking technology (SNT). Instructors in a number of universities have tried out videotaped peer evaluation in online collaborative team projects to evaluate student contributions to both process and task. This current study was designed to (1) investigate if the EFL college students were competent in evaluating their peers’ oral performance alongside their instructor in English Speech class, and (2) to explore EFL college students’ perceptions and attitudes towards the incorporation of videotaped peer evaluation and the potential of Social Networking Technology as academic learning tool in English Speech Class. Ninety-two junior English majors enrolled in English Speech courses were recruited to participate in this study. Data was collected via video recording of students’ oral presentations, students’ videotaped peer feedback, students’ English speech evaluations forms. A questionnaire-based survey was also administrated to better understand and measure students’ perceptions towards the videotaped peer evaluation and the academic use of Social Networking Technology in English Speech Class. Some statistical analyses were employed. The researcher first compared the means and standard deviations of the instructor and videotaped peer evaluations to determine the levels of agreement between the two sets of marks of the individual speech. Next, independent t-tests were conducted to examine if there were any significant differences between the instructor and videotaped peer evaluation of English speech performance. Then, the Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficients were computed to test the relationship between instructor- and videotaped peer-evaluation. Finally, descriptive statistical analysis was carried out to analyze EFL college students’ view on videotaped peer evaluation and social networking sites as instructional tool for English Speech. The results revealed that the videotaped peer evaluation was similar to the instructor's assessment. Students’ competencies in peer evaluation appear to be independent on the oral performance. Students held a positive orientation toward implementing videotaped peer evaluation through social networking technology and agreed on the positive impact of videotaped peer evaluation on the use of appropriate organizational pattern, pronunciation, body languages, confidence, and eye contact. The results provide preliminary evidence that the instructor's evaluation can be supplemented with videotaped peer evaluation and practical implications for the implementation of SNT in EFL English Speech class.
- Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Brick, B. (2011). How effective are Web 2.0 language learning sites in facilitating language learning? Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching 2, 57-63.Google Scholar
- Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1999). Peer and teacher assessment of the oral and written tasks of a group project. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24, 301-314.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cohen, L.C., & Spenciner, L. J. (2007). Assessment of children and youth with special needs (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
- Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J.(2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: a meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287-322.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Greenan, K., Humphreys, P., & McIlveen, H.(1997). Developing transferable personal skills: Part of the graduate toolkit. Education & Training, 39, 71-78.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Holroyd, C. (2000). Are assessors professional? Student assessment and the professionalism of academics. Active Learning in Higher Education, 1, 28-44.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hsu, P. Y. (2008). Training college students to use self-monitoring strategies in English speech. Chaoyang Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 6(1), 1-18.Google Scholar
- Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (2004). Assessing students in groups: Promoting group responsibility and individual accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
- Johnson, C. B., & Smith, F. I. (1997). Assessment of a complex peer evaluation instrument for team learning and group processes. Accounting Education, 2, 21-41.Google Scholar
- Kabilan, M.K, Ahmad N., Abidin,M.J.Z. (2010). Facebook: An online environmentfor learning of English in institutions of higher education? Internet and Higher Education, 13, 179-187.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kwan, K. P., & Leung, R. (1996). Tutor versus peer group assessment of student performance in a simulation exercise. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(3), 205-214.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lisk, A. R. (2000). Using teams to enhance learning in management education. Retrieved March 9, 2008, from http://cobacourse.creighton.edu/MAM/2003/papers/lisk.doc.Google Scholar
- Maclntyre, P. D., Noels, K. A., & Clement, R. (2002). Biases in Self-Ratings of Second Language Proficiency: The Role of Language Anxiety, Language Learning, 265-287.Google Scholar
- May, G. L.(2008). The effect of rater training on reducing social style bias in peer evaluation. Business Communication Quarterly, 71(3), 297-313.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Manasijevi, D., Zivkovi, D., Arsi, S., Milosevic, I. (2016) Exploring students’ purposes of usage and educational usage of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 441-450.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Omelicheva, M. Y. (2005). Self and peer evaluation in undergraduate education: Structuring conditions that maximize its promises and minimize the perils. Journal of Political Science Education, 1, 191-205.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pond, K., & Ul-Haq, R. (1997). Learning to assess students using peer review. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 331-348.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Saavedra, R., & Kwun, S. K. (1993). Peer evaluation in self managing work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(3), 450-462.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 6, 249-276.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179-200.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining Self-Regulation: A Social Cognitive Perspective, Handbook of Self-Regulation, Academic Press.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Academic use of Social Networking Technology for English Learning: Implementing Videotaped Peer Evaluation into English Speech Class
Recommendations
English Writing via a Social Networking Platform
This study examined students' perceptions of completing an English writing class via a social networking platform. Participants were 162 aboriginal students between 18 and 23 years of age at a nursing college in southern Taiwan. Different ethnicities ...
Comments