| . |
. |
. |
|
Continuous
Assessment in the ESL Classroom
|
|
|
|
One suspects that the global
influences affecting education and how we assess it will soon reach into most classes in
the world. One consequence of these global influences, such as changes in the world
economy, the information revolution, environmentalism, and cross-national health threats,
is the move away from the heavy use of traditional, more judgmental approaches to
assessment toward alternative, more inclusive means of determining what learners know and
can do. Along with this move is a thoughtful re-examination of just what we want from our
learners in our English language classrooms worldwide.
In 1994 South Africa held the first truly democratic election ever. The country’s new
constitution, adopted in December 1996, was framed with input and discussion at all
levels. With emphasis on human rights, it was created by drawing on the best democracies
in the world. In this same spirit South Africa has committed to not just reforming but
transforming its educational system nation-wide by the year 2003. Its major policies,
outcomes-based education and continuous assessment, offer relevance to teachers and
learners worldwide.
The focus of this article is on one aspect of this transformation, the implementation of
continuous assessment in the ESL classroom. In a country of eleven official languages,
where about 92% of the 44 million people have a mother tongue other than English and where
English seems to be functioning as an unofficial language of wider communication, this is
no small matter.
|
|
|
|
Why continuous assessment is
important
|
|
|
Continuous assessment (CA) acknowledges that we
cannot change the instructional process unless we change the assessment process. It has
been widely accepted that testing greatly influences instruction; and narrow testing has
meant narrow instruction, teaching done “to the test.” In order to transform the
whole educational process, the change to assessment is being made hand-in-hand with the
change to outcomes-based education.
Outcomes-based education (OBE) in many places offers broad cross-curricular statements, or
“essential outcomes,” of how we want our learners to be, resulting from formal
education and from life-long learning. Some examples of essential outcomes from 1996 South
African national education documents include the following abilities of learners:
|
|
|
- Reflect on and use a variety of learning strategies and enhance lifelong learning;
- Solve problems and make responsible decisions using critical and creative thinking;
- Work with others as a member of a team/group/organization/community;
- Deal with information critically;
- Communicate effectively using visual, mathematical, and language skills;
- Use science and technology critically, showing responsibility towards the environment
and the health of others;
- Participate as responsible citizens locally, nationally, and globally;
- Show culture and aesthetic sensitivity;
- Make wise and safe choices for healthy living;
- Explore education and career opportunities;
- Appreciate the links between mental conceptions of knowledge and manual tasks informed
by such knowledge;
- Act in a way that reflects justice, demo-cratic values, and respect for human dignity
(the African concept of Ubuntu, respect, even reverence for others).
|
|
|
These outcomes are being made more specific in
the context of various disciplines. We can see that content is de-emphasized, and that a
range of attitudes, emotions, and social skills will somehow need to be “caught”
by the assessment process. Traditional ways of testing, such as essay or multiple choice
exams, can sample only a fraction of what we want to produce. Assessment must become
wider. While a wider means of assessment must be conducted in some formal way using
credits, it must also be practiced in the very arena of educational development—the
classroom.
The concept of CA itself holds rich potential for teachers because it affirms high-order
creative and critical thinking and because it embraces not only cognitive outcomes but
affective and behavioral outcomes as well. It puts the learner more in control of his/her
own learning. And while one cannot promise it will reduce the work for teachers, I have
found, from observation as well as personal experiences, that it changes the work teachers
do so that it reduces instructional drudgery and increases professional satisfaction. CA
in practice can embody the global changes that affect the very nature of the classroom
process, bringing it away from education as information and toward the full development of
learner potential. It offers a way to provide differential input depending on the needs of
learners, and can help to improve the quality of instruction even with large classes.
A CA approach can help to rectify the problem of mismatches between tests and classroom
activities (Chapelle and Douglas 1993). When assessment is built into the instructional
process, the confusion and frustration that test takers often face is reduced.
South Africa, like many other countries, has relied almost exclusively on a system of
national examinations to identify the learner who “passes,” meaning the learner
who advances to the next level; who receives a qualification; who is admitted to a
university or other tertiary institution; and even who may receive a bursary. These
examinations were invariably written; they usually emphasised the essay, and they depended
heavily on recall. Whatever the intent, the effect penalized unfairly those learners who
could not express themselves fluently and accurately in their second language. It would
not be far-fetched to suggest that South African education has not been unique in this
regard.
The new policy of CA is aimed to bring out a paradigm shift in educational assessment in
several ways. The central characteristic of this shift is the moving of assessment from a
judgmental role to a developmental role (National Education Ministry 1996b). This move
reflects evolving ideas on the nature of assessment and its purposes.
In this article, key aspects of this paradigm are explored, followed by a case study
involving ESL writing, a deeper look at the key strategies of self assessment and
peer-assessment, and a word about the role of portfolios in continuous assessment.
|
|
|
Continuous assessment defined
|
|
|
As defined in the South African context, CA is
conceptually similar to a term in wider use, alternative assessment. Following McTighe and
Ferrara (1994), assessment refers to the process of gathering and integrating information
about learners from various sources to help us understand these students and describe
them. Teaching is one type of assessment. Evaluation is the process of making a judgment
of a product, a response, or a performance based on criteria. CA in the classroom can be
characterized as ongoing, informal assessment and evaluation combined.
CA can easily co-exist with traditional assessment. In fact, it needs many concepts of
assessment to be effective, such as validity, reliability, and efficiency. Rather than
select a few items for testing, CA focuses on tasks or projects which demand performance
of the learners, as in Figure 1 .
Such activities allow the learner to demonstrate understanding and personal meaning of
what has been taught. This approach is essential in a language classroom.
It is a challenge to the teacher to create authentic, engaging tasks that challenge the
learner to use the language and develop related communicative abilities. CA can be further
explored by contrasting it with traditional assessment, as in Figure 2 .
The first dimension shown is the purpose of a test that we give to our learners.
Traditional assessment is summative, meaning it can be seen as the culmination or
“bottom line” of a unit of work that was covered. What the learner has done (or
not done) remains unchangeable. If the test is along the lines of continuous assessment,
it will probably be more formative, meaning that it is not the end of the line and that
there is still time to change what learner and teacher have been doing in order to
increase the likelihood of achievement.
The second dimension concerns the focus of attention of people interested in what goes on
in the classroom, mainly the learners and the teacher, but including other stakeholders
(see the very last dimension). At the traditional end, we concentrate on the product of
instruction, usually the test. We look to the test to tell us how we have done. At the
opposite CA end of the line, we centre our attention on the process of instruction. We
look at how well the learner completed learning proj-ects and tasks during the course. We
could look at the attitude s/he developed toward English, for this may presage ongoing
language development. We could note whether the learner showed initiative, for example, by
choosing extra reading, or by spending more time with English-speaking friends, or by
using movies as a learning tool.
The rest of the dimensions represent further aspects on which to contrast continuous
assessment against more familiar ways of testing. The reason for setting up such contrasts
is to explore various meanings of continuous assessment. It can be readily seen that CA is
not a one dimensional term.
|
|
|
Case study: CA and ESL
writing
|
|
|
CA was applied to primary education students
enrolled in a semester-long second-year ESL writing course at the university level. This
course focused on personal development in English. Specific semester objectives centered
on narrative and descriptive skills. Most learners were 19 years old, some not very mature
about their goals. Most had English as their second language.
We, the two lecturers teaching different sections of the course, were tired of our
students’ repeating the same errors and having only modest commitment to their work.
Typically, most of these learners wanted to know, “What do I have to do to
pass?” But in contrast, we wanted them to understand that they were here to learn. We
also wanted to reach more than the good learners, for whom method is less important.
Therefore, we aimed for the middle group, the ones we felt needed us in order to learn.
(We were not quite sure how we could help the poorest ones.)
We used these CA devices: self-assessment, peer-assessment, assessment by lecturer,
portfolio, and reflective statement. We incorporated mid-term feedback from them in
groups, and individual reflective questionnaires at the end of the term. More traditional
assessments were the usual mandates of the university: a mid-term test and a final exam.
The students’ assignment was to produce four short stories on topics of their own
choice. We encouraged them to tell their own true stories, because truth can be stranger
than fiction. We planned each class for the semester, specifying due dates, and we used
our weekly class period to assist students in their work, helping them choose their
topics, critiquing stories as examples, and teaching them aspects of narration,
description, and, of course, English.
When the students brought in their first story (Draft 1), they filled out a
self-assessment sheet, (See Figure 3 )
obviously on their own story. Then they rewrote their story in light of this assessment.
They brought in Draft 2, exchanged stories, and filled out a peer-assessment form on
someone else’s story (See Figure
4 .). We encouraged them to do the assessment in pairs or groups. In light of their
peer feedback, they rewrote and turned in the Final Draft, together with the other two
drafts and two assessments, to be assessed by us, using the Evaluating by Lecturer form
(See Figure 5 .). They kept each
story packet to include in their portfolio. At the end they chose one story to be
“published” in a class book (photocopied and plastic bound), and they submitted
their portfolio, which included the typed story of their choice and a one-page written
reflection explaining why they selected that story.
While we felt we had incorporated many aspects of good teaching ( a genre approach, a
process approach, a well organised course, appropriate exams, publication of the story),
what made the course a resounding success (“a real hit,” as one student said)
was, in our opinion, the continuous assessment devices that we used. The most successful
of those seemed to be the peer-assessment. Most students gave it the top rating. For
example, when they saw what their peers did not understand from their story, they worked
hard to make their own feelings clear to the readers (peers rather than teachers).
The self-assessment forced them to reread their stories and make some improvements. By the
time the instructors received these stories, they had been re-worked with most of the
ordinary problems already solved. That left us free to concentrate on higher-level
matters.
As the semester went on, we could see how the students took increasing ownership of their
work. They wrote less for “homework” and more for their readers and themselves.
They did soul-searching; they worked to find the best words. Contrary to previous genres,
this program succeeded in engaging the students in the process. The difference
was—continuous assessment.
Grading, the bane of teaching, actually became a joy; it was pleasurable to sit down to
read decently written stories, to know the students better through their writing, and to
see their progress through their drafts. We felt relieved of much of the
“drudgery” of teaching. We created and displayed the specific marking criteria
we used. Without making it a conscious objective, we had taught students how writing
develops through drafts. It seemed to be a new learning experience, and a valuable,
realistic one for them.
This example, sketchy though it is, shows some of the benefits inherent in the process of
using CA:
|
|
|
- Students began to work to communicate something of importance to themselves, rather than
mainly to an authority figure. They began to do their work, not ours. The focus of
evaluation shifted more to learners—and this, without our even discussing it.
- A community of learners developed, through peer-assessment in giving and receiving
extended written feedback. Class attendance improved, and sometimes the students sent the
work to class even if the writer could not make it!
- Students began to experience the drafts not as required rewrites (which they were), but
as yet another chance to produce their best.
|
|
|
Self- and peer-assessment
devices
|
|
|
These two devices are crucial to the continuous
process. They provide for a wider range of input to learners than one person alone, such
as the teacher, can give. They are skills to be developed that learners can take with them
when they leave school and then use for life-long learning. They help one take control of
one’s own learning. As the South African education documents say, there is no
underestimating their importance.
Both self- and peer-assessment devices are closely tied to specific classroom projects or
tasks. One can get ideas from examples, but the teacher (in conjunction with the learner)
must generate these devices based on the specific nature of the course. When learners
understand how these devices work, they should be asked for their input in generating
self- and peer-assessment devices. Teachers need to work along with learners in using
these devices, especially at the beginning. For the most part this work should be done
within class time.
Self-assessment in language learning was pioneered by Oskarson (1978, 1984),
an assessment which offers, among other things, numerical scales and checklists, many with
examples connected to each question. This level of specificity seems quite useful as a
model. In a literature review, Blanche and Merino (1989) found that self-appraisal
exercises are likely to increase the motivation of the language learner. They also showed
that people can assess themselves quite accurately, given the proper conditions. The most
accurate self-test items described “concrete linguistic situations that the learner
can size up in behavioral terms” (1989:324). This shows the value of a continuum of
clear responses, which learners can use in assessing their own position.
Self-assessment can use a yes-no checklist, or have an open-ended format. There is really
no “one right way,” rather, something is needed to guide the learner’s
attention and stimulate thinking.
In our writing course, we found a checklist useful. It helped the students be sure the
basics were there, such as the title, introduction, and conclusion. The best part was the
“comment,” where the writer offered his/her thoughts on the story or the writing
process. The following are some sample entries: “After I reread it, I felt like I
left out a few things. I don’t know what. I’m working on it.” “With
this story, I’ve really opened my heart and written a part of my life.” These
comments show metacognition. They made the stories even more interesting for us to read
and consider.
Our students, however, were not so impressed with the self-assessment device. They felt
they were still blind to their own mistakes. However, it did make them reread their work,
although they may not have seen the value of it.
Peer-assessment can be defined as a response in some form to other
learners’ work. It can be given by a group or an individual, and it can take any of a
variety of coding systems: the spoken word, the written word, checklists, questionnaires,
nonverbal symbols, numbers along a scale, colours, etc. Like anything else regarding
communication, the choice of code depends on abilities of peer assessors at this point, on
purpose, on topic, on teacher guidance, and on sensitivities in- volved. As in
self-assessment, responses are guided by the teacher, or negotiated with other learners,
so that assessors can find a direction for their feedback.
|
|
|
- reminds learners they are not working in isolation;
- helps create a community of learners,
- encourages interactive reading with reading logs;
- improves the product (“Two heads are better than one.”);
- improves the process; motivates, even inspires;
- helps learners be reflective; and
- stimulates meta-cognition.
|
|
|
A literature review of peer-assessment in
education indicates that most of what is reported comes from the workplace, some from
tertiary education, and a bit from the school setting. Hence this seems to be a topic that
is wide open for research, especially as applied to second language learning. Given the
increase in using groups in the classroom, however, perhaps important peer-assessment is
being carried out in unreported, informal ways.
In our writing course example, we could find no existent peer-assessment form. We had to
create our own, a three-page series of questions. In previous years, we observed learners
making bland, even meaningless comments on the work of others, and sometimes the same
comment on different pieces of writing. So we asked students to consider aspects of plot,
theme, and character. We left blanks for them to quote the best descriptive passage and
explain how it added to the story. We also asked for their personal reaction to the
writing.
|
|
|
- Be sure that it is directed at the work rather than the person.
- Teach learners how to respond to the work of others.
- Focus on the positive (but do not omit the negative).
- Be authentic and tactful
|
|
|
The students found peer-assessment the most
helpful. Many were amazed at finding different interpretations of what they had written.
|
|
|
A nod to portfolio assessment
|
|
|
A portfolio can be defined as a meaningful
collection of student work to give a fuller picture of what a learner has achieved.
Gottlieb (1995) lists six portfolio prototypes in ascending order of complexity, depending
on purpose: collecting, reflecting, assessing, documenting, thinking, and evaluating.
Limited space prevents full explication, but it must be said that portfolios have come
into wide use as, according to Gottlieb, “the vehicle by which students and teachers
can organize, manage, and analyze life inside and out of school” (1995:12). Certainly
portfolios embrace peer- and self-assessment, and they may become a workhorse of CA.
In our case study, we had students make up a portfolio of their four stories and related
assessments (collecting), and they had to consider and choose one story for class
publication, and tell us why they chose it (reflecting). They could see their own growth
over time. As they put it, “The final story came more clearly to my mind and I
thought about it much more.” “I have grown more in touch with personal fears and
thoughts, more able to access inner feelings.” We defined criteria and displayed them
in the classroom so that students could see what we thought was important in a story in
this learning context, and we added our evaluations to the self- and peer-assessments
(assessing). In future courses we plan to incorporate student ideas into these criteria.
This “assessment portfolio” gave us a picture of what learners had accomplished
over the semester, from the first to the fourth story. The act of choosing the best story
for publication gave the learner a real-life chance to think and choose.
We used portfolios for Gottlieb’s first three purposes. However, as the focus of CA
moves from the classroom to the school and workplace, other types of portfolios come into
play.
|
|
|
Implications of continuous
assessment for teachers
|
|
|
While CA is not a panacea for all that is wrong
with education, nor for meeting all the needs of diverse learners in diverse societies, it
does offer a great many benefits. CA reflects evolving theories of learning and teaching
and educational outcomes and assessment. Underneath is a major paradigm shift involving
less a transmission model of learning and more an active, constructive, questioning model
which works toward developing the full potential of our learners. We need to familiarize
ourselves with CA, to experiment with it.
As it is a change from the familiar authoritarian classroom that so many of us have
experienced, we can expect some resistance. Such change has to be understood and accepted
by society, and this demands a generous amount of communication with various stakeholders:
parents, school governing bodies, administrators, funders, and not least, teachers and
learners themselves. We can expect the suspicion that comes with change, as happened in
the state of California (Baker, Linn, and Herman 1996:5), where subsequent research
suggested that “lack of information and misunderstanding of the (new performance)
assessment contributed as much to parental concerns as did the content and new format of
the test.”
Classroom teachers might introduce CA gradually, perhaps experimenting with
self-assessment. One can give the learners a brief questionnaire asking them about their
perceptions of progress and achievement and their attitude and values regarding a
particular unit. One might help learners generate questions about one another’s work
for peer-assessment purposes. A teacher could write down his/her own criteria describing a
good piece of work, an average piece, and an unsatisfactory piece. Examples of each stage
would be even better. Let the learners add to the criteria, and use them for
peer-assessment as well as for evaluation by teachers. Together with the learners,
teachers can generate creative, authentic learning tasks that can be used as assessment
tasks. In South Africa, where CA policy is soon to be fully implemented, whole schools are
orienting themselves as a group to this assessment approach.
CA offers a way to cater to a diversity of learners in the language class. Diversity can
derive from sociological factors, such as mother-tongue differences, culture, and place of
origin, as well as individual factors, such as differing abilities, interests, and
motivations, which arise in most classes anyway, no matter how homogeneously students are
grouped. Assessment tasks can be done in various ways, and learners can select approaches
that suit their interests and abilities. For example, in outlining a reading on transport
in America, one learner may relate key ideas in a flow chart, another may use annotated
drawings, and a third may use key phrases in point form. Others may even dramatize it.
Especially with large classes, learners can be assessed in groups as well as individually.
Group process itself becomes part of the content to be assessed. Learning is social in
nature; effective participation in class groups is known to bring about learning, and the
ability to work as a cooperative team member is an essential skill not only for the class
but also for enabling people to contribute to society. People learn by doing, and need to
work together in a meaningful way in class.
Transformation of assessment is essential to the transformation of curriculum. CA in the
English language classroom is one response to new global realities as they shape the
classroom. As we move away from sitting in judgment on our learners, we need to keep
finding and researching creative and authentic ways to make their development the primary
focus of the assessment process.
|
|
|
CAROL A.
PUHL teaches at the University of Stellenbosch. Her interests include teacher preparation
and second language assessment for educational transformation. |
|
|
Return
|
|
|
- Baker, E., R. Linn, and I. H. 1996. Crest: A continuing mission to improve educational
assessment. In Evaluation Comment. University of California at Los Angeles.
- Blanche, P., and B. Meríno. 1989. Self-assessment of foreign language skills:
Implications for teachers and researchers. Language Learning, 39, 3, pp. 313–340.
- Chapelle, C., and D. Douglas. 1993. A new decade of language testing research.
Alexandria, Virginia. USA. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL).
- McTighe, J., and S. Ferrara. 1994. Assessing learning in the classroom. Washington, D C:
National Educational Association, Professional Standards and Practice Report.
- National Education Ministry. 1996. Curriculum framework for general and further
education and training. Pretoria, Republic of South Africa.
- ———. 1996. Draft recommendations for the development and implementation
of assessment policy. Pretoria, Republic of South Africa.
- Oskarsson, M. 1978–1984. Approaches to self-assessment in foreign language
learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
- Western Cape Education Department. 1996. Continuous assessment. Communiqué 1. Cape
Town, Republic of South Africa.
|
|
Figure 1
|
| SOME CA DEVICES |
CHECKLIST OF LEARNER BEHAVIORS OR PRODUCTS
Journals
Reading logs
Videos of discussion of role play
Work samples
Dramatizations
Teacher observation
Anecdotal records
Interviews
Learner profiles
Progress cards
Reflective responses
Self-evaluation questionnaires
Peer-evaluation questionnaires
Portfolios |
|
|
|
Figure 2
| SOME
CONTRASTS: TRADITIONAL VS. CONTINUOUS CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT |
| DIMENSION |
TRADITIONAL ASSESSMENT |
CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT |
| Purpose of test |
Summative; if "sums
up" what has been happening |
Formative; it generates input to
inform and guide teaching |
| Judgemental; forces learnersto
study |
Developmental; diagnostic:
directs instructional attention |
| Focus |
Product of instruction |
Process of instuction |
| Teacher-created activity |
Learner-created activity |
| Heavy on memorization |
Heavy on thinking, integration |
| De-ccontextualised |
Holistic |
| Feedback |
A score or mark; final, no
changing it. |
A range of comments rom peers,
teachers; happens during the process while still time to change |
| Test task |
Typically written work |
Typically range of tasks |
| Medium: paper and pencil |
Multimedia |
| Narrow focus |
Multidimensional |
| Exercises (for the future) |
Authentic (real life tasks for
now) |
| Formal |
Informal |
| Classroom Management |
Instrusive; interrupts class
process |
Integrated;part of class routine |
| One-shot; only one chance to
show comptence |
Over time; chance to revise,
improve, add |
| Results need time to be
determined |
Feedback comes quickly |
| Books closed |
Reference available |
| Frame of Reference |
Norm-reference |
Croterion-reference |
| Learner compared against norms
based on other test-takers |
Learner compared against
specified criteria of achievement |
| Stakeholders |
Learners, parents, principal
receive results |
Learners, parents, principal
invited to help assess |
|
|
Figure 3
|
SELF-ASSESSMENT:
WRITING THE SHORT STORY |
|
My name: |
|
|
|
| Student |
My story: |
|
|
|
| Number of Story: 1 2 3 4 |
|
|
|
| Date: |
|
|
|
| Overview |
1. Does my story have a
wholeness to it? |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Beginning |
Yes |
No |
|
Middle |
Yes |
No |
|
High point |
Yes |
No |
|
Ending |
Yes |
No |
|
Title |
Yes |
No |
| 2. Have I edited it for
language base? |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Verb tense-consistent
throughout |
Yes |
No |
|
Person-consistent throughout |
Yes |
No |
|
Grammatical correctness |
Yes |
No |
| Focus |
3. Have I read over my story
for word choice? |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Economy of words |
Yes |
No |
|
Vivid words (sense imagery) |
Yes |
No |
|
Good use of idiom |
Yes |
No |
| Satisfaction |
4. Am I satisfied that my story
says what I want it to say? |
|
Yes |
No |
| 5. Have I opened up my heart? |
|
Yes |
No |
| Comments |
|
|
|
| _____________________________________________ |
| _____________________________________________ |
| _____________________________________________ |
| _____________________________________________ |
| _____________________________________________ |
| _____________________________________________ |
| _____________________________________________ |
| _____________________________________________ |
|
|
Figure 4
|
PEER-ASSESSMENT:
WRITING THE SHORT STORY |
| Story |
Name of story: |
_________________________________ |
| Writer of story: |
_________________________________ |
| Number of Story: |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| Date: |
_________________________________ |
| Plot |
WHAT HAPPENS IN THE
STORY. |
| 1 |
Introduction |
|
• |
Does it introduce
the main characters? |
Yes |
No |
|
• |
Does it show the
setting? |
Yes |
No |
|
• |
Does it begin the
conflict? |
Yes |
No |
| 2 |
Climax-Moment of
intensity, crisis, point of change. |
|
• |
What is it in this
story? |
|
|
_________________________________ |
| 3 |
Conclusion |
|
• |
Does the story
"feel" finished? |
Yes |
No |
|
• |
Explain |
________________________ |
| Charaters |
4 |
Give the main
characters (one, at most two) and describe each, using the following terms: (round
characters, flat characters, caricatures, stereotypes [predictable, uninteresting, etc.]) |
|
• |
_________________________________ |
| 5 |
What is your (the
reader's) feeling toward each of the main characters? |
|
• |
_________________________________ |
| Point of View |
6 |
Who is telling the
story? (omniscient narrator, first person a character in the story, other) What effect
does this point of view achieve? |
|
• |
_________________________________ |
| 7 |
Does the writer
change person anywhere in the story? |
Yes |
No |
|
• |
If so, quote one
example. |
|
|
_________________________________ |
| Theme |
8 |
What deeper human
truth does this story explore? |
|
• |
_________________________________ |
| Description |
9 |
Does the writer
show rather than tell? |
|
|
Yes |
A lot |
A bit |
No |
| 10 |
Quote the most
vivid passage from this story. |
|
• |
_________________________________ |
| 11 |
Explain 2 or 3 of
the means that the writer uses to achieve this vivid description. |
|
• |
_________________________________ |
| 12 |
What does this
passage contribute to this story? |
|
• |
_________________________________ |
| 13 |
Quote one passage
in which the writer shows rather than tells. |
|
• |
_________________________________ |
| 14 |
Please mark any
language errors you found in the story. Quote two language errors that detracted from the
story. |
|
• |
_________________________________ |
|
• |
How would you
correct these errors? |
|
|
_________________________________ |
| Overall |
15 |
Do you like this
story? |
|
• |
Explain |
________________________ |
|
• |
What did you enjoy
most? |
|
|
_________________________________ |
|
• |
What did you enjoy
least? |
|
|
_________________________________ |
| 16 |
Does the title
"work" (reflect the main issue, draw the reader into the story,
"catch" the reader)? |
|
• |
Explain |
________________________ |
| 17 |
What are the
story's strengths? |
|
• |
_________________________________ |
| 18 |
How can this story
be improved? |
|
• |
_________________________________ |
| 19 |
Please make a
final, thoughtful comment to the writer. |
|
• |
_________________________________ |
|
|
Figure 5
|
LECTURER
EVALUATION WRITING |
| Student |
Name: _____________________ |
| Date: _____________________ |
| Course Number:
_____________________ |
| Semester:
_____________________ |
| Evaluation |
1. What you did particularly
well. |
| ___________________________________ |
| ___________________________________ |
| ___________________________________ |
| ___________________________________ |
| 2. What you particularly
need. |
| ___________________________________ |
| ___________________________________ |
| ___________________________________ |
| ___________________________________ |
| 3. Control of the English
language. |
| ___________________________________ |
| ___________________________________ |
| ___________________________________ |
| ___________________________________ |
| 4. Self-assessment. |
| ___________________________________ |
| ___________________________________ |
| ___________________________________ |
| ___________________________________ |
| 5. Peer-assessment. |
| ___________________________________ |
| ___________________________________ |
| ___________________________________ |
| ___________________________________ |
| Lecturer |
Overall mark:
_____________________ |
| Lecturer:
_____________________ |
|
|
Back to Article
|
. |
. |