Abstract
This chapter will explore the use of reading and writing skills when learners collaborate to create their own assessment rubric for peer assessment. The learners in this study underwent a number of tasks throughout their 15-week term, and of these tasks, two involved the creation of an assessment rubric for peer assessment of a presentation. The reason for the development of the rubrics was twofold; one, the foremost is to have the learners themselves be involved in the assessment process and be aware of the assessment criteria and two, to identify the differences between the first rubric, prior to any experience in the tasks being evaluated, and the second rubric, where learners have been able to learn skills and gather experience in the tasks being assessed. There is a third item for measurement, and this is the differences between the actual rubrics themselves, which demonstrate the extent to which the students became more aware of different criteria that can be assessed and added these different criteria to their rubrics.
The research focused on the use of language in the online forum during the collaboration to create each rubric, the language in the rubric itself which is directed at the assessment of the task, and the differences between the first rubric and second rubric, based on the experience the learners acquired during the 13 weeks of instruction between the two rubrics while undergoing additional tasks that enabled them to gain experience which contributed toward the final assessed activity: a presentation which was peer-assessed with the second rubric. This research aimed to contribute to identifying the usefulness of learner involvement in the assessment process and also to helping to identify what learners learnt from their experiences in the course, which was reflected in the differences between the two rubrics. In the chapter, the course will be outlined, in terms of all the activities the learners participated in throughout the term, the activities used for peer assessment, and the relationship between the language in the rubric and the type of activity being peer-assessed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
deBoer, M. (2013). Revisiting English education at the university level. In N. Sonda & A. Stewart (Eds.), JALT2012 conference proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.
deBoer, M. (2017). Dialogic inquiry as a process in the flipped classroom. In J. G. Mehring & A. Leis (Eds.), Innovations in flipped learning in the language classroom: Theories and practice. New York: Springer.
deBoer, M., Onaka, N., & Nakanishi, T. (2012). English ICT contents program development through collaboration at Iwate University. In A. Stewart & N. Sonda (Eds.), JALT2011 conference proceedings (pp. 229–240). Tokyo: JALT.
Dougiamas, M. (2011). Moodle (Version 2.x) [Computer software]. Perth, Australia.
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141–172.
Engeström, Y. (2016). Studies in expansive learning: Learning what is not yet there. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Suntio, A. (2002). Can a school community learn to master its own future? An activity-theoretical study of expansive learning among middle school teachers. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century (pp. 211–224). Malden: Blackwell Publishers Ltd..
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5, 1–24.
Gentry, C. G. (1995). Educational technology. A question of meaning. In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present and future (pp. 1–10). Englewood: Libraries Unlimited.
Gorsuch, G. J. (1998). Yakudoku EFL instruction in two Japanese high school classrooms: An exploratory study. JALT Journal, 20(1), 6–32.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. London: Edward Arnold.
Hino, N. (1988). Japan’s dominant tradition in foreign language learning. The Japan Association for Language Teaching Journal, 10(1), 45–55.
Hull, D. M., & Saxon, T. F. (2009). Negotiation of meaning and co-construction of knowledge: An experimental analysis of asynchronous online instruction. Computers and Education, 52, 624–639.
Jones, C., Cook, J., Jones, A., & De Laat, M. (2007). Collaboration. In G. Conole & M. Oliver (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research: Themes, methods and impact on practice (pp. 174–189). Oxon: Routledge.
Kikuchi, K., & Browne, C. (2009). English educational policy for high schools in Japan. Regional Language Center Journal, 40(2), 172–191.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McConnell, D. (2002). The experience of collaborative assessment in e-learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 24(1), 73–92.
McConnell, D. (2006). E-learning groups and communities. New York: Open University Press.
Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2013). Second language learning theories (3rd ed.). Oxon: Routledge.
Oxford, R. L. (2003). Toward a more systematic model of L2 learner autonomy. In D. Palfreyman & R. C. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures: Language education perspectives (pp. 75–91). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pearson ELT. (2017). Pearson English Readers. Retrieved from http://readers.english.com/
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. Norwell: Springer.
Resnick, L. B. (1987). The 1987 presidential address: Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13–20.
Richards, J. C. (2012). New Interchange 1 (4th ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
van Lier, L. (2008). Agency in the classroom. In J. P. Lantolf & M. E. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 163–186). London: Equinox Publishing Ltd..
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). Educational psychology. Boca Raton: St. Lucie Press.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wells, G. (2009). The meaning makers: Learning to talk and talking to learn (2nd ed.). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Wells, G., & Claxton, G. (2002). Introduction: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century (pp. 1–17). Oxford: Blackwell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
deBoer, M. (2018). Expansive Learning: Assessment Recapitulates Experience. In: Ruegg, R., Williams, C. (eds) Teaching English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in Japan. English Language Education, vol 14. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8264-1_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8264-1_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-8263-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-8264-1
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)