資料

Reflections on Peer Evaluation in an English Language CourseDavid Evans
National College of Nursing, Japan；1-2-1 Umezono, Kiyose-shi, Tokyo, 〒 204-8575, Japanevans@adm.ncn.ac.jp【Abstract】 This paper reports the experiences of both a 4th year elective English discussion class and its teacher on peer and self evaluation. The
students were asked to award two grades to each student, one for their ability an effort during course-work and the other for a presentation of thestudentʼs graduate thesis. There views on the experience of peer evaluation were canvassed through an optional questionnaire. A brief review of therelevant literature is discussed, and the results of the peer evaluation are presented in terms of the student rankings. These show that there are great
similarities between the teacher evaluation and the student evaluation, and that the teachers can become aware of their own idiosyncrasies. The
students, on the whole, found peer evaluation to be beneﬁcial and fair, and made suggestions as to how the process could be improved for future
courses. The teacherʼs recommendations for the course are also included and these include classroom management and clearer instruction onchoosing criteria.

【Keywords】 peer evaluation，self evaluation，student feedback

Introduction（2001）in a review of previous research found two studies had
deemed peer evaluation as too unreliable to have a significant

Peer and self evaluation have always existed informally asrole in ﬁnal assessment, but also cautions that another study also

students constantly compare their own performance with thosefound it no less reliable than tutor marks. Cohen（1994）cites aof their classmates（Underhill, 1987; Race, Brown & Smith,study by Rolfe that found that in language learning the2005）. Peer assessment naturally helps self-assessment, as bycorrelation between tutor and peer evaluation was consistently

becoming aware of othersʼ performance students will reﬂect onhigh, and that they were as reliable as the tutors, if not more so,their own. Peer and self assessment are skills that should beneﬁt

as the students spent more time interacting with each other than

the student throughout their studies and professional life

the teacher did.

（Brown, Rust & Gibbs, 1994）.

In high stakes testing it is easy to see why there is a reluctance

There are many different ways in which both are used by

to base life changing decisions on ʻnon-expertsʼ（even though

educators, sometimes as isolated activities within a course but

there are doubts about the reliability of multiple choice exams

also for final assessment. For self evaluation it is common for（Hughes, 1989））, but in low stakes testing, such as an optional

students to rate what they feel are their strengths andEnglish course in a college, with highly motivated students, thisweaknesses, whereas in peer evaluation, students may provide

risk is less severe.

feedback to fellow students. Some academics caution against

Additionally, in testing spoken ability in English, there isusing student assessments for ﬁnal assessment, as self-evaluation

inevitably going to be an element of subjectivity, no matter how

is clearly open to abuse as students could award themselves

rigorous the training of testers, be they professionals or students

undeservedly high marks; similarly there are doubts about theas speech can not be easily broken down into a series of discretereliability of peer evaluation and consequently the degree toitems. However, as this author has argued previously（Evans,which it should be used in assessment.

2003a; Evans, 2003b; Evans & Herbert, 2003）, a test of spoken

Luoma（2004）believes that peer evaluation can be used as aability does need to be done directly, as the fundamentals of

supplement to teacher evaluation but should not replace it,

speaking can not be successfully measured in a grammar or

whereas Race, et al.（2005）argues that it should be included inreading exam. Students who score highly in tests such as TOEIC

the final assessment to make the process meaningful. Walker

do not necessarily do well in oral tests and vice versa.

− 41 −J Nurs Studies N C N J Vol. 7 No. 1 2008

The advantages and disadvantages of peer evaluation

solely in the ﬁnal test. By doing peer evaluation for class work,

Benefits

such problems are avoided.

1．Developing studentsʼ critical faculties

7．Fairness

By becoming more aware of the strengths and weaknesses of

Although the teacher should be best able to evaluate students

classmates, students will become more reflective of their own

overall proficiency in English, as they possess better English（English, Brookes, Avery, Blazeby & Ben-Shlomo, 2006）whichskills, coursework should be about achievement during thatshould help them to become better speakers of English. Insteadcourse and that course only. If proficiency is measured in aof simply thinking that another student is better, students shouldcollege course, a returnee student（one who has been schooledbe asking themselves why they are better and then endeavour toabroad, and then returned home）should be able to get theemulate them.

highest grades in a ﬁnal exam, regardless of whether or not the2．Autonomous learning

student has attended the class. By evaluating achievement, allAutonomous learning is a potential benefit as described by

students will know what has been done in the class, and aremany experts including Brown, et al.（1994）. As students

therefore more able to grade achievement than proﬁciency.

develop their critical faculties they should become less reliant on

Teachers also suffer from what is called the ʻhalo effectʼ, ateachers for guidance and more able to know direct their own

term used by a psychologist called Thorndike in the 1920ʼs, tolearning. There is a limit to how much a teacher can help

explain the phenomenon of generalising from an initial

improve a studentʼs English, and furthermore the teacher can not

impression. If a ﬁrst impression of an individual is good, otherbe with the students outside of the classroom.

actions are seen positively. In English language teaching, this

3．Developing leadership skillsmeans that once a teacher forms a positive opinion of a student

By developing the ability to appraise oneʼs own and othersʼ

they continue to hold it. The opposite is also true. Thorndike

performance, students should be able to transfer this skill into

calls this the ʻdevil effectʼ, and although this term in not used inother realms, such as work. One of the aims of this college is to

the English teaching community, students do have difﬁculties in

produce nursing leaders, and by becoming aware of individualʼsoverturning an initial negative impression. Using peer evaluation

strengths and weaknesses, this should help students when they

prevents such a problem.

are in senior positions, as Topping（1998）reports in his review

A second way, in which peer evaluation is fairer, is that just asof peer evaluation. By doing peer evaluation students ask

the ʻwhite coat effectʼ is acknowledged in medicine to explainclassmates informally how they can improve and also give andatypical results when a doctor is present, a teacher can have an

receive advice. This experience should enhance their leadershipinhibiting inﬂuence on some students who become tongue-tiedabilities.

and who under-perform when a teacher is monitoring.

4．Motivation

8．Classroom management

In teacher evaluation it is only necessary for the student to be

Because of the need for students to assess all their classmates,

actively engaged when the teacher is present. Motivation

this means that the seating positions change on a weekly basis.

increases（Abson, 1994 cited in Topping, 1998）when students

For well motivated students, this is of little consequence, but forare continually being assessed. Peer evaluation also means thatless eager students, it is a very useful tool for breaking up small

students need to listen to classmates which keeps them involved

groups that do not otherwise participate in classes. A second

at all times.

advantage of changing seating positions is that students get to

5．Multiple assessors

hear different accents and different pronunciations. A final

The danger with having one assessor only, even if it is theadvantage is that changing seating positions gives students theteacher, is that should the teacher make a mistake, there is noopportunity to develop relationships with classmates that they dochance for it to be rectiﬁed. With a class of assessors, assuming

not know so well.

that they are capable of performing such a role, the assessment

9．Attendance and Punctuality

should be fairer.

These are always vexing issues for a teacher, ﬁrstly, because

6．Continual assessment

the ideal is for a student to attend every class punctually, but also

If a course finishes only with a final exam it is possible forbecause for some students, perfect or near perfect attendance isstudents who have performed well over the course to have ʻa badseen to compensate for a lack of ability. With peer evaluation,dayʼ and consequently receive a poor grade, or conversely, for athis aspect can be included in class work assessment by a jury ofstudent who has made little effort during the course to do wellpeers.

国立看護大学校研究紀要

第7巻

第1号

2008 年− 42 −

10．Ownership

The teachers

The evaluation process is shrouded in mystery for many

The two teachers for this course are the author, a native

students, and to be included in the process not only gives themEnglish speaker, and a Japanese English teacher. The author isan understanding of what it entails, but also it values their

the main teacher for the course and both teachers monitor thecontribution.

students.

Concerns

The course

1．Maturity

The course is an elective subject for 4th year students. The

Assessing is a difficult skill, and it is possible that students

course is primarily designed to be a discussion course, and themain course book is ʻImpact Valuesʼ by Day, Yamanaka &might show favouritism to friends.
2．Ability to assess

Shaules（2003）. The book is divided into 5 sections and has

Assessing someone who has less ability than oneself is much

topics on values for people, relationships, the work place, theeasier than assessing who has more ability. To differentiatefamily and in society. In pre-course feedback, each student

between better speakers is extremely difﬁcult for someone withselects two topics from each section that are of most interest,a lower ability level.

then, all students choices are totalled, and the most popular are

3．Student reaction

chosen.

Students might feel it was an abrogation of teacher

Each week students either listen to the individual topics or

responsibility to involve students in the assessment process. Anyread them. Fixed expressions and phrases, or alternative

test needs ʻface validityʼ, which means the students must believe

expressions are selected from each unit and presented to theit is a ʻproperʼ test. If students do not have conﬁdence in the style

students in handouts. Any problematic language is discussed andof the test, or its graders, it will not be successful. Rollinson

useful patterns highlighted, and students are encouraged, but not（2005）points out that students might feel only a teacher or aobliged, to use them. Students then divide into three groups ofbetter speaker is capable of grading accurately.

ﬁve. They are also given a list of potential questions to discuss,

A second potential problem is that students might feel the

but are encouraged to lead the conversation in which ever way

responsibility too great.

they like. The students typically discuss the subject for about 45

4．Stereotyping

minutes. One student in each group makes notes and reports

In the same way that teachers can suffer from the ʻhalo effectʼ

back to the class for 5 minutes and, if time permits, students

so can students. It is important that a student is evaluated only

from other groups ask questions. By the end of the course allon their performance in the course being evaluated and not on

students had reported back their findings to the class at least

how they performed in previous courses. If students are unsure

once.

about their ability to grade fairly they might rely on past
performance.

The second major element to the course is presentation skills
in English. The students present their graduation thesis to theclass. As all the students are training to be nurses the topics are

Methods

on nursing, and as such, are of relevance to their classmates.
They are given handouts about what constitutes a good

The students

presentation, and also on how to construct a presentation with

There were 15 students; 14 female and one male. All thestudents were 4 years in a nursing college.
thappropriate language and signposting. Students are not allowed
to read their presentation, but they can have a list of bullet points
to refer to when speaking. Memorization is discouraged.

Ethical considerations

In the second term, two or three students presented their work

Approval was sought and granted by the collegeʼs ethics

each week which not only gave the students presenting thecommittee. Students were asked in writing if they would allow

opportunity to improve for the final exam, but also gave their

their data relating to both the scores and to the questionnaire topeers the opportunity to improve as graders（Norcini, 2003）.

be used for research purposes. There was no pressure for

After their presentation, other students asked questions about

students to agree to this. All students were content for their

their graduation topic. English was spoken at all times. They

grades and questionnaire comments to be used anonymously.

received individual written feedback by email the day after theclass, including both strengths and weakness in their− 43 −J Nurs Studies N C N J Vol. 7 No. 1 2008

performance. In addition, points that were regarded as being

evaluation process. The questions that the students were asked

beneficial to all students in improving their performance were

were;

given by both the Japanese teacher of English,（focusing on

1．Do you feel that peer evaluation was worth doing? Why?
Why not?

lexical and grammatical areas）, and from the native English
speaker（on organisational and presentational issues）both orally

2．Which was easier to evaluate, class work or presentations?

and in handout form.

3．What did you find the most difficult thing in assessing the

The presentations were expected to be between 10 and 15

presentations?
4．What did you find the most difficult thing in assessing classminutes. They were asked not to rely on visual aids, as this could

work?

have been a distraction from their speaking skills.

5．Would you have liked to have had stricter criteria for the

The final strand to the course was the development of theevaluations?

studentsʼ nursing and technical knowledge. Students would

6．Do you think peer evaluation should be continued next

prepare a worksheet before the class and the answers would be
discussed at the beginning. This lasted for about 20 minutes eachyear?

week until the presentation practice began.
Results and Discussion
Preparation of students for peer evaluation
In the first class the students were told that they would beClass work

doing peer evaluation, for both class work and for a presentation,

The results are presented according to rank, rather than theand they were provided with information about important

raw scores, as the marking scales employed varied between the

aspects of peer evaluation at regular intervals as the course

students. Nearly all students graded within a 30% range, fromprogressed.

70-100%, but in one case grades of 30% were given, so this was

The information given to the students included a literature

excluded, as the inﬂuence on the overall scores would have beenreview which highlighted the benefit and problems with peer

too great. This shows how important it is for students to use

evaluation. Other discussions and handouts focused upon

similar ranges when assessing.

choosing assessment criteria and the potential difficulties in

The columns indicate the rankings awarded by the students（represented by capital letters）and the rows represent thegrading.

ranking they received from fellow classmates. T1 in the 3rd
Evaluation day

column from the right represents the ranks as awarded by the

The evaluations took place in the last class. The order for theJapanese teacher of English and T2 represents those of thepresentations was decided by drawing lots. Each student had anative, British teacher. The ʻAllʼ column is the combined ranking

form in which to keep notes on the performance of each speakerawarded by both students and teachers.

which were collected in afterwards.

The rankings given by the two teachers are remarkably similar

The students were told that an A grade was equivalent to 80%

except in the case of student N（underlined）. This anomaly

and above, a B from 70-79%, and a C（should it be necessary）

might be explained by the halo effect from a very impressive

was below 70%. They were asked to record their evaluation inpractice presentation the week before.
Although the rankings for the other 13 students by thepercentage terms and asked not to use the same percentage
twice. Students were asked to self evaluate as well.

teachers are remarkably similar, this case shows that evaluation

Class work and presentation were to account for 50% each ofis necessarily subjective, no matter who is evaluating, student or

the final percentage score, so to calculate the studentsʼ final

teacher. This highlights an advantage of peer evaluation as byscores the averaged mark for each was added and divided byusing the rankings given by peers, that ʻmistakeʼ is moderated bytwo. Both teachers also graded the students so that any

the other graders. Conversely, a disadvantage of peer assessment

irregularities could be double-checked.

is that because there are multiple assessors the higher scores,（inpercentages）are lower than they would be with only one

The questionnaire

assessor, as are the lowest scores. As a consequence of both this,Once the students had completed their presentations and theirand the fact that the students generally graded lower than theirpeer evaluations, they were asked to complete a simple

teachers, it was felt necessary to delete each individualʼs threequestionnaire, designed to record their feelings towards thelowest scores in order to boost the ﬁnal percentage mark.

国立看護大学校研究紀要

第7巻

第1号

2008 年− 44 −

Table 1

Ranking for class work
A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

*J

K

*L

M

N

T1

T2

All

A

6

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

1

5

1

9

1

2

1

1

1

B

3

4

2

2

4

7

3

6

6

1

5

4

2

4

2

3

2

C

5

3

5

4

2

2

7

2

1

8

2

6

4

3

4

7

2

D

8

8

11

11

3

3

1

5

5

4

7

2

7

5

9

6

4

E

4

7

6

10

9

6

6

7

4

2

4

11

3

1

2

2

5

F

7

2

4

3

7

13

5

1

3

11

14

3

11

7

7

4

6

G

2

5

8

7

6

4

8

8

9

7

6

1

8

10

10

5

7

H

1

6

13

9

10

9

4

11

10

3

3

8

5

8

8

8

8

I

9

12

7

13

5

5

12

14

14

10

11

7

10

6

11

10

9

J

11

9

10

5

11

10

9

9

8

14

10

12

9

14

14

9

11

K

10

13

9

15

13

15

10

12

13

9

15

13

13

15

12

13

12

L

15

11

15

12

12

14

13

13

12

13

13

10

12

12

13

13

13

M

14

14

14

14

14

12

11

15

11

12

9

14

14

13

15

15

14

N

12

10

12

8

8

11

14

10

7

6

8

5

15

11

4

12

10

Table 2

Ranking for presentation
A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

T1

T2

All

A

10

7

5

6

8

6

2

5

6

8

9

4

4

3

3

3

6

B

4

5

2

2

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

5

3

2

1

2

1

C

8

2

7

3

6

2

5

2

3

5

5

3

2

5

8

5

4

D

2

1

3

9

2

7

1

6

5

4

3

1

5

4

5

1

3

E

1

3

6

1

10

1

7

4

2

2

2

2

1

1

2

4

2

F

7

11

10

10

11

10

8

10

7

11

12

7

8

9

9

7

10

G

9

6

4

7

5

4

9

8

9

9

7

6

6

6

7

6

8

H

5

4

1

4

4

5

6

7

4

3

6

8

9

7

4

11

5

I

11

10

12

14

7

11

14

11

14

14

11

13

13

11

10

9

13

J

12

12

14

13

12

8

13

9

12

10

8

12

10

12

14

14

11

K

6

9

13

12

9

12

11

13

10

7

14

9

12

14

13

8

9

L

14

13

9

8

14

13

10

12

11

12

10

14

11

10

11

12

12

M

13

14

11

11

13

14

12

14

13

13

13

11

14

13

12

13

14

N

3

8

8

5

1

9

4

3

8

6

4

10

7

8

6

10

7

The two columns with asterisks（J and L）show the rankings

Presentations

most divergent from the norm for the top ranked student. Both

When comparing the two teachers scores, the vast majority ofof these students were among the weaker students in the class,students are ranked consistently, however, there is one obvious

and as mentioned earlier, this suggests there is a problem in

exception, student H（underlined）, in which this authorʼsevaluating upwards. By contrast the students are fairly

ranking is signiﬁcantly wayward compared both to the Japaneseunanimous in identifying the weaker students.

teacher and the students. Student H is an excellent speaker of

In each column the ﬁgure in bold is the self-evaluation rank.

English, but the author felt the student underperformed, and, it

What can immediately be seen from this is that as a means ofwould seem, judged the student more critically than otherassessment, self-assessment was not worthwhile. The percentage

students. Being able to make a comparison with other gradersscores for self-evaluation were excluded from the final

allows a teacher to understand their own grading idiosyncrasies.

evaluations for this reason.

Similarly, in other cases in which the author is slightly awry
from the other graders in ʻover-gradingʼ it becomes apparent too− 45 −J Nurs Studies N C N J Vol. 7 No. 1 2008

great an emphasis has been placed on effort rather thanother.
We know our classmates very well（ As a result of the timeachievement.
Table 2 shows more consistency in grading than was the casespent working together）
Being evaluated by other students meant I knew the points

for class work, because for the presentation all graders witnessed
the same event. Even in grading ʻupwardsʼ there seems to bethat other students will evaluate carefully.

more agreement as to which were the best presentations. For the

These three comments suggest that students feel positive

weaker performances, the uniformity in ranking is particularly

about being evaluated by peers, as they are more aware of what

noticeable.

classmates regard as good practice than they are with teachers.

The self-evaluations for the presentations also show that

This could mean that teachers need to communicate their aims

students have under graded. However, in a recent peer

more clearly to the students, but it could also be that fellow

evaluation with 2 year students, in which they perform pairstudents are more realistic in what their classmates can achieve.

work for peer evaluations, it is not uncommon for students toYes, because when we did class work, teachers could not seendrank themselves and their partner as the best in the class. This

everything.

suggests that pair and group evaluation might promote a more

This shows that students are aware of the limitations of solelyndcompetitive attitude or that 2 year students may not yet bebeing evaluated by a teacher. A teacher can not see everything,sufficiently mature to undertake peer evaluation. This finding

but a fellow classmate will and in this respect peer evaluations

lends weight to Lurie, Nofziger, Meldrum, Mooney & Epstein

are fairer than only teacher evaluations.

（2006, p. 845）who found in peer evaluation among medical
students that ʻdifferent classes may tend to have different

For those who chose ʻNot sureʼ, one student did not commentand the other wrote

ʻpersonalitiesʼʼ.

For peer evaluation, I could evaluate classmates, but self-

Another pleasing result of the peer evaluation is that theevaluation was difficult.

students have, as a class, made a clear distinction between classThis suggests that students need more practice in self-

work and the presentation. There has been no assumption that aevaluation, or it might be cultural, in that it is hard for Japanese

student who excels in class work must be good at presentation,

students to appear overly conﬁdent.
2．Which was easier to evaluate, class work or presentations?

or vice versa. Furthermore, some of the more proﬁcient speakers
are not at the top of the rankings, but instead, those who worked
hardest and who took a more active part in class have fared
better, and there is no sign of any favouritism or stereotyping in
the presentation rankings. This is very reassuring.

Class work

Presentations

About the same

1

8

4

One probable reason for the preference for presentations isthat everyone sees the same performance. Also class work
evaluation is over time and performance is not consistent,

Student reaction to peer evaluation

therefore grading is harder. It is also possible that the students

The studentsʼ answers to a brief questionnaire are discussed inthis section.

were not given sufficient preparation to do class work
evaluations as conﬁdently as the presentations.

1．Do you feel peer evaluation was worth doing? Why? Why not?
Yes

No

Not Sure

11

1

1

3．What did you find the most difficult thing in assessing thepresentations?
The teacher asked us not to give the same score twice andFor those who felt it was worthwhile the following aresometimes I could not find a difference between the presentations.

representative of the comments.

This is a very valid and important point. In trials with peer

I could compare English skills between my friends and me. I

evaluation, students had often give the same grade countless

could find many good points of my classmates that I felt I should

times, rendering the task meaningless. To avoid this problem,

imitate.

students were asked not to award the same mark twice. It was

By evaluating others it became clear what my weak points
were.

hoped this would make students concentrate on ﬁne differences
between two classmates, but in truth, it is sometimes too difﬁcult

In keeping with the literature this shows that students reﬂect
on the performance of classmates and then incorporate thoseto make a distinction between two similar students. This rule
was too artiﬁcial and it will be changed in the future.
Sometimes the topics were too different. It wasn’t a problem ofstrengths into their own performance.
Classmates have a similar feeling and way of thinking as each

国立看護大学校研究紀要

第7巻

第1号

2008 年

English, but some topic areas I found difficult to understand.

− 46 −

When I couldn’t understand the research.

There was one student I wasn’t in the same group as.

Both of these comments are also very insightful. By choosing

I didn’t talk to all of my classmates.

the studentsʼ graduate thesis as the topic of the presentation there

This problem should not have arisen as students were

were both advantages and disadvantages. The key advantage

regularly reminded to work with different students each week,

was that at that stage of term, the thesis is the most importantbut is shows that studentsʼ seating positions need to be regulated

work in the studentsʼ academic lives. As Douglas（2000）points

by the teacher. There was, in fact, sufﬁcient opportunity for each

it is essential that test takers must be engaged by the task instudent to have worked with all other students at least twice.

which they are tested. Furthermore, the students are required to

However, this does highlight the difficulty of doing peer

present the thesis in a presentation（albeit in Japanese）, so theevaluation with larger class sizes.
I found it difficult to remember previous classes.

task of presenting was also relevant.

I forgot how well certain students did in detail.

The disadvantage is that the content matter was different foreach student. A student, whose graduate research was on aThis could be countered by students using records as themainstream topic, familiar to all students, was at an advantage

course progresses, but although peer evaluation proved to be acompared to those which were more specialised. This problem

positive exercise, no course should be dominated by evaluation.

should not have mattered greatly, as students were constantly

Additionally, for less mature students keeping records could

reminded about the importance of the audience, and the need to

become a cause of anguish especially if low grades are given

make the presentation accessible to all. Similarly, it was madeand talked about. Forms could be returned to the teacher at the

explicit to the students that they were not meant to be assessing

end of the class, but even this put too strong an emphasis on

the content of the presentation, but how it was presented and thegrading. Remembering how well students have done from week

English used. However, it is still the case that it is easier to listen

to week is difﬁcult even for experienced teachers so it is not so

to a familiar topic rather than an unfamiliar one.

surprising that students find it difficult. Reminding students

Sometimes I wasn’t sure if the student used good English or not.

orally each week might help to keep this information in their

Assessing the English level.

minds.

I couldn’t make judgements about grammar.

There are some students who talk a lot and some who talk a

These three comments highlight the main weakness of peer

little. I felt uncomfortable about it.

evaluation in an English language course. It is very difﬁcult forThis is an interesting point and one all teachers wrestle with.

students to assess correct usage of language. If a classmate uses

Some people might have good English but just be naturally

a phrase with which they are unfamiliar, it is not possible forquieter personalities than others. Spoken tests do favour morethem to know if it is a correct expression or an incorrect one. In

extrovert characters（Cohen, 1994）. Students need to be aware

a previous trial with presentation evaluations, students did awardof how important it is to offer more in such an exam or course.

high marks to a student who spoke fluently but whose syntax

Many students say little because of a concern of speaking

was flawed, whereas both teachers graded the student

incorrectly and being penalised, so it would be very difﬁcult forsigniﬁcantly lower. Peer evaluation might be more reliable if thea teacher to discern the correct cause of a studentʼs lack ofscores of only the better students were used. However, in low

participation.
Class work doesn’t lend itself to ranking; I think grades would

stakes testing, this is not so critical, and it would seem unfair tohave been better.

exclude weaker students from the process.
4．What did you find most difficult in assessing the class work?

This is an understandable point, but it would be very tempting

In each class we did different things so it was difficult for me

for students to give, for example, eighty percent of the students
ʻAʼ grades and the remainder ʻBʼ grades, without too muchto compare and evaluate the difference.
This is a similar point to that about difference in content in thethought. By requiring students to rank students（which is what

presentations, but students should have been assessing speaking

in effect giving percentages without repeating the sameskills rather than the ideas expressed, so more guidance on how

percentage does）they are challenged to use their criticalto evaluate seems to be necessary.

faculties more, which should be more beneﬁcial to each student.

With one student we were only together for one class, so thatmade evaluation difficult.
There were some students I hadn’t had much contact with so I
found this grading difficult.

5．Would you have liked to have strict criteria for evaluation?
Yes

No

8

5

Originally the plan was for all students to use the same criteria− 47 −J Nurs Studies N C N J Vol. 7 No. 1 2008

for grading. However, it became apparent from watching theneed meetings and training sessions to reach consistent standards

practice presentations that there were so many facets to a good

and the same will be true for students. If students begin peer

presentation that it would be impossible to distil these into 4 or 5

evaluation earlier in their college life they would be considerably

categories that all students would feel competent in judging.

better at it by the 4th year. However, issues of maturity, class size

Grammatical competence or use of high level structures andand the fact that classes are compulsory need to be consideredphrases would be difﬁcult for some students to grade. Similarly,

carefully.

judging fluency is difficult. Hesitation, should an idea
spontaneously occur, is perfectly acceptable, but students tend to

Self evaluation

regard any pause as an error. In a previous experiment with

As mentioned in the results, self-evaluation as expressed by apresentation evaluation one student was penalised by classmates

percentage mark was not a meaningful exercise and this markfor this very manoeuvre, whereas both teachers felt it to be

was not included in the ﬁnal percentatge. One student wrote;
How about writing our own good points and weak points after

commendable.
As a result of these difﬁculties students were asked to grade

our practice presentations?

the presentations holistically and to choose their own criteria.

This is an excellent suggestion and will be incorporated in the

The written comments showed the same criteria were applied fornext course. Self-evaluation in a non-grading manner would

each student. The advantage of allowing students to choose theseem to be a potentially more beneﬁcial experience.

criteria is that they will select those that they feel able to judge.
Conclusion

Class work is the area in which more help is needed forstudents when evaluating. Students need to have the elementsthat make up conversation explained to them（as this is what is
primarily what takes place）and then they can choose those

The impression of peer evaluation for both teacher andstudents was favourable.

which they feel able to judge.

The positive discoveries for the teacher were;

6．Do you think peer evaluation should be continued nextyear?

• ʻmistakesʼ in grading by the teacher are moderated by the class;• it is possible for teachers to become aware of their own*Yes, because you can see the effort your classmates make.

evaluation style;*Yes, because I could understand all my classmates skill.

• even less able students can determine who the most able

st*Yes, it’s worth doing but it should be begun in the 1 year.

students are;Yes, it was a good experience for me.

• students were able to distinguish clearly between class-work

Yes, because we could learn not only English but also how toevaluate.

and presentation evaluation.
The beneﬁts according to students are;I think it should be continued because I had to use my brain
for it.

• they became aware of what they needed to do to improve;• fellow studentʼs criteria for grading are easier to comprehend

Yes I do, because it’s good to be evaluated by all students.

than the teachers;

Yes, I think peer evaluation makes all students listen more
carefully.

• teachers can not evaluate everything as they arenʼt always
listening.

Yes, being evaluated by others is useful.

The lessons that have been learnt are;I’m not sure but I could listen carefully to each classmate’s• all students need to grade within a similar range;

presentation.

• peer evaluation moderates both the highest and lowest

Yes, but I think set criteria should be given.

scores which disadvantages the better students;

These comments show that all but one student found the peer
evaluation to be beneficial to them. The first two comments
show that peer evaluation can make students more appreciativeof the efforts of others and this is an unforeseen beneﬁt.

• using self evaluation for grades is not useful but forformative feedback it could be;• class-work evaluation will provide more erratic grades due
to its nature;

The third comment is very interesting and perceptive. Grading
becomes easier and more efficient for a teacher with more

• presentation evaluation is preferred by students, so greater
help is required with class work evaluation;

experience, and this will be even more important for novices.

• weak students do not feel capable of evaluating grammar;

Dudley-Evans & St. John（1998）point out that all examiners• it is important for the teacher to rotate the seating positions.

国立看護大学校研究紀要

第7巻

第1号

2008 年− 48 −

Peer evaluation would seem to be promising as a viable
alternative or as additional form of assessment for Japanese

4 2）Evans, D.（2003b）. Why do oral testing? ETJ Journal, （,1-3.

students. Both the teacher and the students were pleased with theEvans, D., & Herbert, J.（2003）. The Importance of Oral

results. It should be noted that this paper is concerned with one

Testing for Conversation Classes: A Framework forclass, and the experience might be different with other students.

Planning Oral Tests. The Journal of Nursing Studies,
National College of Nursing, Japan, （2 1）, 40-48.

■ References

Hughes. A.（1989）. Testing for language teachers.

Brown, S.（1996）. Assessment. http://www.city.londonmet.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Luoma, S.（2004）. Assessing speaking skills. Cambridge:

ac.uk/deliberations/assessment/invite.html
Brown, S., Rust, C., & Gibbs, G.（1994）. http://www.city.
londonmet.ac.uk/deliberations/ocsd-pubs/div-ass5.html

Cambridge University Press.
Lurie, S. J., Nofziger, A. C., Meldrum, S., Mooney, C., &Cohen, A.（1994）. Assessing language in the classroom.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Epstein, R, M.（2006）. Temporal and group-related
trends in peer assessment amongst medical students.

Day, R.R., Yamanaka, J., & Shaules, J.（2003）. Impact values.

Medical Education, 40, 840-847.
Norcini, J. J.（2003）. Peer assessment of competence.

Hong Kong: Pearson.
Douglas, D.（2000）. Assessing languages for specific

Medical Education, 37, 539-543.

purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Race, P., Brown, S., & Smith, B.（2005）.（ 500 Tips）on

Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M.J.（1998）. Developments in

Assessment（2nd edition）. Oxon: Routledge Falmer.

English for specific purposes: A multidisciplinary

Rollinson, P.（2005）. Using peer feedback in the ESL writingclass. ELT Journal, 59（1）, 23-30.

approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
English, R., Brookes, S. T., Avery, K., Blazeby, J. M., & Ben-

Topping, K.（1998）. Peer assessment between students in

Shlomo, Y.（2006）. The effectiveness and reliability ofcolleges and universities. Review of Educational

peer-marking in first-year medical students. Medical
Education, 40, 965-972.

Research, 68（3）, 249-276.
Underhill, N.（1987）. Testing spoken language. Cambridge:

Evans, D.（2003a）. Introducing oral testing for English

Cambridge University Press.

conversation classes: The reasons and the reaction. The

Walker, A.（2001）. British psychology studentsʼ perceptions

Journal of Nursing Studies, National College of Nursing,of group-work and peer assessment. Psychology

Japan, （2 1）, 49-58.

Learning and Teaching, （1 1）, 28-36.

− 49 −J Nurs Studies N C N J Vol. 7 No. 1 2008