IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Peer Assessment in L2 Pronunciation Instruction in Russia:
Students’ Attitude ResearchAlexandra Kolesnikova
Lomonosov Moscow State University
RussiaAlina Maslova
Lomonosov Moscow State University
RussiaElena Mishieva
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russia129

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Abstract
The literature review shows that the current educational paradigm with the shift to a studentoriented model has transformed the roles of both the teacher and the student, where the lattertakes a more active and conscious part in educational processes. Peer assessment has proven tohave a positive impact on L2 learning and teaching, having various benefits for both the teacher
and the student, and its usefulness and efficiency has been supported by various research. Whileeducators are aware of such positive impact, students’ attitudes towards peer assessment mayvary. This study aims to examine the attitudes towards peer assessment in an L2 phonetics classof first year undergraduate students of the Faculty of Foreign Languages and Area Studies atLomonosov Moscow State University. Thirty-four participants responded to a questionnaire,the main aim of which was to explore their attitudes towards peer assessment and its
effectiveness in terms of developing their phonological competence and also their preferences
regarding oral and written peer assessment in class. Responses were analysed through JASP
software. The results of the study prove students’ awareness of the significance of peer
assessment and their positive attitudes towards it with approximately 85% of the participants
regarding it as a useful component of constructive feedback and approximately 91% of theparticipants acknowledging the usefulness of peer assessment for the development of their own
phonological skills. The study also offers a pronunciation peer assessment scale to contributeto teaching and learning L2 phonetics.
Keywords: peer assessment, L2 learning and teaching, phonetics, students’ attitudes, Russianstudents

130

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Introduction
Teaching phonetics, being interdisciplinary by nature, is inextricably linked to second language
acquisition processes, speech sciences and L2 pedagogy (Isaacs & Trofimovich, 2016).
Therefore, new studies in the field of L2 learning and teaching, especially from the lingua
franca perspective, ignited particular interest to second language pronunciation research, which
resulted in publication of special journal issues devoted to pronunciation (e.g. Cardoso &Trofimovich, 2014), a pronunciation-focused conference in the USA (Pronunciation in Second
Language Learning and Teaching, 2015) and the foundation of the Journal of Second Language
Pronunciation in 2015.
Recently, teaching L2 pronunciation in Russia at the level of higher education has also been
receiving close attention. It attracts interest and inspires discussion regarding the contents ofcurricula and syllabi, requirements concerning L2 phonological competence development(Kolesnikova, 2015; Lavrova, 2017) in the view of worldwide use of English as a lingua franca(ELF) and the re-orientation of L2 teaching (Jenkins, 2005). Additional attention is given
regarding the methods of assessment following the changes introduced to the Common
European Framework of Reference for languages (CEFR), namely, a new set of descriptors
which now focuses not on “nativeness” but on intelligibility of the primary construct ofphonological control. Thus, the question of assessing students’ performance in L2
pronunciation instruction is quite urgent, which justifies the need for further research.
Assessment in Pronunciation
According to Isaacs and Trofimovich (2016), “there is no dedicated book on assessing L2
pronunciation in the foundational Cambridge Language Assessment series” (p. 4). Assessing
L2 pronunciation has shown to be highly problematic in terms of designing and implementing
pronunciation scales with “descriptors suffering from inconsistences, vague language,
conflated constructs and unclear trajectory” (Harding, 2013, p.14). Investigation into theusability of the CEFR Phonological control scale (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 117) by Harding(2013) explicated its limitations in ensuring valid interpretation and consistent application byraters and thus questioned the effectiveness of the scale for L2 pronunciation assessment.
Therefore, the 2001 scale of Phonological Control, which was continuously applied in Russian
linguistic higher education to measure students’ phonological competence development,(Kolesnikova, 2016) appeared to be, according to the Phonological Scale Revision Process
Report,fully unrealistic when it comes to issues such as accent, or progression, … is notconsistent as it mixes such diverse factors as stress/intonation, pronunciation, accentand intelligibility without providing clear indication of progression in any of thesefactors specifically, … is not complete which results in jeopardizing its applicability
and usefulness (Piccardo, 2016, p. 9).
The Phonological Scale Revision Process Report by E. Piccardo, which was then followed bya series of consultations and validation in 2017, comprised the study of more than 50
publications on L2 pronunciation teaching, learning and assessing over the last 50 years,
including the works of Derwing, Harding, Isaacs, Jenkins, Munro, Trofimovich, and others,
who have been studying the impact of ELF concept on L2 instruction in general and on teachingphonetics in particular, and whose findings formed the base of the modified phonology

131

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

descriptor scales and CEFR spoken language descriptors (Council of Europe, 2018, p. 171).
There has been a groundbreaking and long indispensable shift from “nativeness” tointelligibility which “is generally identified by pedagogical specialists as the most important
outcome of pronunciation instruction” today (Derwing & Munro, 2005, p. 384). The newly
created scales provide the basis for teachers of phonetics to include appropriate objectives forphonology in their teaching and to develop assessment criteria appropriate to the levels
concerned and particular students expressing specific needs (Kolesnikova & Maslova, 2019).
Peer Assessment
Why Peer Assessment?
Traditionally, while teaching phonetics, an English as a foreign language (EFL) teacher is
supposed to give feedback to students’ performance in the classroom, being viewed as the only
competent individual to objectively assess the progress and/or results. However, as the focus
has shifted from nativeness to intelligibility, this role of the teacher fades.
On the other hand, Russian federal state educational standards along with European educational
documents (Council of Europe, 2018) emphasize the active engagement of students in their own
learning, learner responsibility, metacognitive skills and a cooperative, collaborative model ofteaching and learning. CEFR
takes an innovative stance in seeing learners as language users and social agents, andthus seeing language as a vehicle for communication rather than as a subject to study.
In so doing, it proposes the analysis of learners’ needs … it also clearly suggests
planning backwards from learners’ real life communicative needs (Council ofEurope, 2018, p. 25).
Assessment processes in which the teacher holds all the power and makes all judgements limit
the potential for learner development in all of these aspects. This is especially true of L2
pronunciation instruction, since teacher-student collaboration might be beneficial not only formastering one’s pronunciation skills, but also for developing listening and social skills.
There is a strong need to rethink L2 phonetics assessment system that will align more closelywith the ideals of collaborative and action learning. In this respect, peer assessment can play
an important role, as students’ active participation in assessment design, choices, criteria andmaking judgments is a more sustainable preparation for subsequent working life (Boud &Falchikov, 2006), which might result in a real paradigm shift in both course planning andteaching, promoting learner engagement and autonomy. The main objective of the process ofeducation has long been the emergence of self-determining persons, who can set learning
objectives and self-assessment criteria to assess their own performance and progress to shape
their own vector of development. Skilled and flexible learners are formed not by total control
of educators but by an inclusive system of assessment where peer assessment would be aperfect model.
Peer Assessment in L2 Instruction
Falchikov (1995) defines peer assessment as “the process whereby groups of individuals rate
their peers, who are students of equal status to one another” (p. 176). He also underscores that“peer assessment requires students to provide either feedback or grades (or both) to their peers
on a product or a performance, based on the criteria of excellence for that product or event
which students may have been involved in determining” (Falchikov, 1995, p.132).

132

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Peer assessment is considered as “an arrangement in which individuals consider the amount,level, value, worth, quality, or success of the products or outcomes of the learning of peers ofsimilar status” (Topping, 1998, p. 250). In this process students have to “reflect upon, andperhaps suggest grades for the learning of their peers” (Roberts, 2006, p. 80), and being judged
for the quality of the appraisals made (Davies, 2006). This type of alternative assessment brings
teachers and students into close collaboration in the development of critical thinking of thelatter. Both teachers and learners being engaged in assessment affords a degree of mutuallyadvantageous control over the assessment methods, outcomes, and their underlying rationale(Cheng & Warren, 2005).
There is much scientific evidence that peer assessment is quite beneficial in L2 teaching andlearning, especially in writing. Cheng and Warren (2005) found that peer assessment has been
more commonly incorporated into English language writing instruction where peers give
feedback to each other’s written works. Peer assessment in teaching speaking has also beenrecognized as being efficient (Luoma, 2004; Matsuno, 2017; Okuda & Otsu, 2010), and it
seems to be quite promising to implement in teaching phonetics, a possibility the current
research seeks to discover.
Benefits of Peer Assessment in L2 Pronunciation Instruction
According to Matsuno (2017), assessment
is quite a burden for teachers. Especially when they must evaluate their students’ oral
performances, it may cause some troubles since they can often see those
performances only once unless they record them. In those situations, peer assessment
can be an additional assessment method. Peer assessment involves students inmaking judgments of their peers’ work. (p.1292)
Peer assessment via providing and receiving feedback seems a rather powerful meta-cognitive
tool, which might bring fruitful results in an L2 pronunciation classroom since it can:• encourage collaborative teaching and learning as required by the modern educational
paradigm;• balance teacher-student control over the learning process, “students thus feel theownership of the assessment (and learning) process rather than alienated or victimisedby it” (Nulty, 2008, p. 3), which ensures stronger motivation and engagement inlearning;• give students “an important sense of responsibility for their fellow students’ progress,
but also forces them to concentrate on the skills during their own presentations”(Brown, 1998, p. 67).
• ensure a higher level of validity and reliability when structured marking schemes areused (Sadler & Good, 2006);• develop listening skills along with pronunciation skills, as being engaged in assessing
requires much attention and listening effort;• inculcate the “intangibility conception”;• develop confidence in one’s pronunciation skills and reduce stress levels compared toteacher-centered assessment;• “allow teachers to be more relaxed during speaking tests as they know that they havethe peer assessment to support their own grading.” (Okuda & Otsu, 2010, p. 42)• encourage reflective learning through observing and commenting on others’ oral
performances;133

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

• “allow teachers to share some of the rating responsibility with their students, and it isespecially useful in speaking assessment, which is time-consuming if rated by one
person only” (Luoma, 2004, p. 189).
Thus, peer assessment is a highly productive tool for L2 classes, being beneficial for both theteacher and students when designed and used efficiently by both sides of the educational
process.
Research Questions
The studies cited above make it clear that in terms of the new educational paradigm the valueof peer assessment in L2 pronunciation instruction cannot be overestimated. However, thestudents’ reaction is not easy to predict. As Azarnoosh (2013) puts it,
The impact of peer assessment on language learning is promising, but its efficacy
seems to depend on many factors including students’ attitudes, language levels,familiarity with the assessing criteria, the type of skill being assessed, and thepossible presence of bias such as gender and friendship (p. 3).
Analyzing students’ opinions is a widespread type of research in foreign institutions (Derwing,
2010; Wach, 2011; Coskun, 2011; Chien, 2014) which, unfortunately, has not proved to be as
popular in Russia yet. Still, within the learner-oriented approach to English teaching, which
has been widespread in Russia since the end of the twentieth century, students were surveyed
in order to answer the following research questions:
RQ1. How useful do the students find peer assessment in terms of providing andgetting constructive feedback?
RQ2. How useful do the students find peer assessment in terms of developing theirown phonological skills?
RQ3. Which form of peer assessment do the students find more convenient?
RQ4. Which form of peer assessment do the students find more useful?
Methodology
The participants in this study were 34 first-year undergraduate students in the Faculty ofForeign Languages and Area Studies at Lomonosov Moscow State University. Of the 34
participants, 19 majored in intercultural communication, 7 in English language teaching, and 8
in cultural studies. All the participants had attended or were still attending compulsory English
pronunciation classes, where peer assessment was regularly practised. All the participants wereadministered an anonymous questionnaire (Appendix 1). Anonymity was ensured due toethical considerations.
The main aim of the questionnaire was to explore the participants’ attitude towards peer
assessment and its effectiveness in terms of developing their phonological competence and also
their preferences regarding oral and written peer assessment in class.
The questionnaire consisted of four questions. Questions 1 and 2 were based on 7-point Likert
scales, as scientific evidence suggests that 7-point scales are “optimal” for measuring mostconstructs (Krosnick & Presser, 2010, p. 271) and they “seem to be best in terms of reliability,
percentage of undecided respondents, and respondents’ ability to discriminate between the134

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

scale values” (Schwarz, Knauper, Hippler, Noelle-Neumann, & Clark, 1991). Each scale point
was labelled by the researchers in order to minimise inaccuracies stemming from individualinterpretation of numbers. One of the possible limitations of a 7-point scale is the existingtendency for participants to choose the mid-point (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2018).
However, in this opinion study the presence of the mid-point with a neutral position was
unavoidable, as the respondents would have been pushed otherwise to adhere to a certain
viewpoint, not necessarily corresponding to their own, as a result of the absence of the neutral
option, which would have influenced the quality of the research data. Questions 3 and 4
presented the respondents with a binary choice. Question 3 enquired whether it was moreconvenient for students to use the oral or the written form of feedback; Question 4 asked whichof the two was more useful.
When the study was conducted, all participants were provided with detailed oral and written
instructions as to what was going to happen during the experiment. The participants were asked
to give oral consent or choose to opt out of the study. There were no instances of a student who
refused to participate, however. The identity of the students was fully anonymized. The
questionnaires were securely kept upon submission and access to them was controlled at all
times.
Results
In order to analyse the data, the participants’ questionnaire responses were entered into
Jeffreys's Amazing Statistics Program (JASP) software, which is an open-source free platform
for statistical analysis (Wagermakers, 2019). Responses for Questions 1 and 2 were treated as
scale variables with possible integer values (1 to 7) corresponding to the questionnaire scalepoints. The descriptive statistics of the gathered data (N = 39) can be seen below in table 1:
Table 1: Descriptive statistics of the gathered data.
Descriptive statistics (1)Descriptive statistics (2)
Q-2
Q-1
q-4
q-3
Valid
34
34
Std. Error of Skewness 0.4031 0.4031
Missing
00
Kurtosis-0.6645 -0.4393
Mean
6.000
5.676
Std. Error of Kurtosis 0.7879 0.7879
Median6.000
6.000
Minimum
4.000
3.000
Mode
7.000
7.000
Maximum
7.000
7.000
Std. Deviation 0.9847
1.199
Sum
204.0
193.0
RQ1. How useful do the students find peer assessment in terms of providing and getting
constructive feedback?
For Question 1, most students stated that they found peer assessment “extremely useful”(n=11), followed by “quite useful” (n=10) and “really useful” (n=8). See figure 1. Three
students were not certain about the usefulness of peer assessment and two respondents statedthat peer assessment was “more useless than useful”. Generally, on the basis of this descriptive
data, it can be concluded that approximately 85% of the participants in this study regard peer
assessment as a useful component of constructive feedback.

135

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

How useful do you find peer assessment in terms ofproviding and getting constructive feedback?
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

11

10

8

3

2

more useless neither quite useful really useful extremely
than useful useful nor
usefuluseless

Figure 1: Students’ responses to question 1.
RQ2. How useful do the students find peer assessment in terms of developing their own
phonological skills?
In Question 2, most students stated that they found peer assessment “extremely useful” (n=13),
followed by “really useful” (n=11) and “quite useful” (n=17). See figure 2. Three students were
not certain about the usefulness of peer assessment. Generally, it can be concluded thatapproximately 91% of the participants in this study acknowledge the usefulness of peer
assessment for the development of their own phonological skills.
How useful do you find peer assessment in terms ofdeveloping your own phonological skills?
14
12
10
8
6

11

4
2

13

7
3

0
neither usefulnor uselessquite usefulreally usefulextremely
usefulFrequency

Figure 2: Students’ responses to question 2.
RQ3. Which form of peer assessment do the students find more convenient?
Most students preferred oral peer assessment (n=21, 61%) to written peer assessment (n=13,39%) in terms of personal convenience and comfort. See figure 3.

136

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Which form of peer assessment do you find moreconvenient?
25
20

21

15
13

10
5
0
oral

writtenFigure 3: Students’ responses to question 3.
RQ4. Which form of peer assessment do the students find more useful?
Most students stated that oral peer assessment (n=23, 67%) was more useful than written peer
assessment (n=11, 33%). See figure 4.
Which form of peer assessment do you find more
useful?
25
20

23

15
10

11

5
0
oral

writtenFigure 4: Students’ responses to question 4.
Discussion and Limitations
This study set out to explore students’ attitudes towards peer assessment in L2 pronunciation
instruction. The obtained results showed that most students regarded peer assessment as acomponent useful both as a means of providing constructive feedback and as an opportunity
for developing personal phonological skills. The fact that the participants in this study spokein favour of the peer assessment means that depriving students of the possibility to commenton the pronunciation of their peers would limit their learning opportunities. Moreover, the factthat most students preferred oral assessment to written assessment seems to be rather
surprising, as the study hypothesis stated that providing written feedback to peers might be lessfriendship-biased and thus considered by students more effective or preferable. Perhaps, therespondents should have been offered more choices, including “both written and oral” and“none”. The binary choice might have limited the students and forced them to make a not

137

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

completely genuine choice. Moreover, including the qualitative component, that is, giving the
respondents the opportunity to verbally explain their choices, could have made the data in thisstudy richer and more informative.
Recommendations for Further Research
The following assessment criteria can be suggested for the development of peer assessment
practices in EFL pronunciation classes (Table 2). The grading system relies on the concept ofEnglish as a lingua franca and sees an intelligible, rather than a native-sounding speaker, as
the model. The criteria might be altered depending on the specialisation of the EFL students,
as the students majoring in English teaching, for instance, might want to be assessed against
native-speaker pronunciation as a yardstick (Coskun, 2011; Chien, 2014; Maslova, 2017).
Table 2: Suggested pronunciation peer assessment scale
Mark

Criteria

What can be How to improve
improved

5

pronunciation is flawless, no correctionneeded; all the requirements for the task havebeen satisfied
4.5
pronunciation is completely intelligible but
needs minor correction (1 mistake*); all therequirements for the task have been satisfied
4
a few mistakes are present (2-3); the student isshowing considerable effort but more work isneeded to make speech more intelligible; all therequirements for the task have been satisfied
3.5
many mistakes are present (4-5); therequirements for the task have been satisfied
only partially; the student is showing
considerable effort but is not yet intelligible.
3
many mistakes are present (more than 5); therequirements for the task have been satisfied
only partially; the student is showing little
effort and is not yet intelligible.
2
the student is showing very little effort, therequirements for the task have not beensatisfied, the speech is almost unintelligible1
the student is present but not prepared, thestudent is showing no effort0
the student is not present*A mistake is an act of mispronunciation that makes the word unintelligible / easily confusedwith another word (e.g. sick/seek, back/bag)As the generalisability of the study results is subject to certain limitations due to the small
sample size, more studies, both in Russia and in other cultural and educational contexts, areneeded to explore the question of students’ attitudes towards written and oral peer assessmentin the L2 phonetics classroom. Students can also be employed to test the peer assessment
pronunciation scale suggested by a teacher or develop a new one in cooperation with theteacher, which might result in motivation and a responsibility boost. Moreover, it would be138

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

beneficial to employ data triangulation by including qualitative research methods into similar
studies in order to gain better understanding of the matter.
Conclusion
The significance of an objective and effective assessment as an integral part of the teachinglearning cycle is apparent to many educationalists. Assessment has been varying along withthe changes of the theories and models of L2 learning and teaching, especially today when theconcept of teaching English as a lingua franca has become well-known and well-studied which,in terms of teaching phonetics, has drastically changed the way phonological skills are viewed
and assessed.
Constructive teaching and learning, the shift to a student-oriented model and the need to situatecollaborative and inclusive life-long learning have brought assessment to the centre ofresearchers’ attention, revealing that the roles and types of assessment have changed. The
teacher is no longer the centre of assessment but the students cooperating with teachers andsharing responsibilities can achieve greater results through practising such an interactive typeof assessment as peer assessment (Wikstorm, 2007).
The conducted research has indicated students’ positive attitude toward peer-assessment andtheir willingness to cooperate with the teacher in assessment, thus showing an awareness of
their active role in educational processes.

139

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Appendix 1
Questionnaire administered to the participants
Answer the following questions by choosing from 1 to 7 (Q 1,2) or choosing one option(Q 3,4):
1. How useful do you find peer assessment in terms of providing and getting
constructive feedback?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Completely UselessMore
Neither
Quite
ReallyExtremelyuseless
useless
useful nor
usefulusefulusefulthan useful useless
2. How useful do you find peer assessment in terms of developing your own
phonological skills?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Completely UselessMore
Neither
Quite
ReallyExtremelyuseless
useless
useful nor
usefulusefulusefulthan useful useless
3. Which form of peer assessment do you find more convenient? Choose one option.
Oral form (the form of discussion)
Written form (writing commentaries)
4. Which form of peer assessment do you find more useful? Choose one option.
Oral form (the form of discussion)
Written form (writing commentaries)

140

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

References
Azarnoosh, M. (2013). Peer assessment in an EFL context: Attitudes and friendship bias.
Language Testing in Asia, 3, article 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/2229-0443-3-11
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413.
https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02602930600679050
Brown, J. D. (Ed.). (1998). New ways of classroom assessment. Alexandria: Teachers ofEnglish to speakers of other languages.
Cardoso, W., & Trofimovich, P. (Eds.) (2014). Canadian Modern Language Review. Second
language speech perception and production: Implications for language teaching,Special Issue, 70(4).
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (2005). Peer assessment of oral proficiency. Language Testing,22(1), 93–121. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532205lt298oa
Chien, C. (2014). Non-native pre-service English teachers’ narratives about theirpronunciation learning and implications for pronunciation training. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3(4), 177–189.
https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.4p.177
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.).
London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
Coskun, A. (2011). Future English teachers’ attitudes towards EIL pronunciation. Journal of
English as an International Language, 6(2), 46–68. Retrieved fromhttps://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED527146.pdf
Council of Europe. (2018). Common European framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptions. Council ofEurope. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-newdescriptors-2018/1680787989
Davies, P. (2006). Peer assessment: Judging the quality of students’ work by comments rather
than marks. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(1), 69–82.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290500467566
Derwing, T. M. (2010). Utopian goals for pronunciation teaching. In J. Levis & K. LeVelle(Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Pronunciation in Second Language Learning andTeaching Conference (24–37). Ames: Iowa State University.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching:
A research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 379–398.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3588486
Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: Developing peer assessment. Innovations in
Education and Training International, 32(2), 175–187.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1355800950320212
Harding, L. (2013). Pronunciation assessment. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.) The encyclopedia of
applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0966

141

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Isaacs, T., & Trofimovich, P. (Eds.) (2016). Second language pronunciation assessment:interdisciplinary perspectives. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
https://doi.org/10.21832/ISAACS6848
Jenkins, J. (2005). Teaching pronunciation for English as a Lingua Franca: a sociopoliticalperspective. In C. Gnutzmann & F. Intemann (Eds.), The Globalisation of English andthe English Language Classroom (145–158). Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Retrieved fromhttps://eprints.soton.ac.uk/47537/
Kolesnikova A. N., & Maslova A. A. (2019). Through the eyes of high school students:
which English pronunciation norm to study in Russia? Moscow State University
Bulletin. Series 19: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 2019(2), 115–126.
Kolesnikova, A. N. (2015). The means of optimization of teaching phonetics in linguistic
higher schools. Moscow State University Bulletin. Series 19: Linguistics andIntercultural Communication, 2015(1), 29–36.
Kolesnikova, A. N. (2016). Optimization model of teaching phonetics at a linguistic
university via multimedia technologies (the English language) [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. Moscow State University, Moscow.
Krosnick, J. A., & Presser, S. (2010). Question and questionnaire design. In J. D. Wright & P.
V. Marsden (Eds.), Handbook of survey research (2nd edition, pp. 263–314). West
Yorkshire: Emerald Group.
Lavrova, O. A. (2017). Phonological competence and ways of improving it. In L.S.
Kamenskaya (Ed.), Learning administration in lifelong education (89–91). Moscow:
Moscow State Linguistic University.
Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733017
Maslova, A. (2017). Perceptions of stakeholders towards the choice of pronunciation norms
in language teacher education in Russia. Moscow University Young Researchers'
Journal, 6. Retrieved from: http://youngresearchersjournal.org/2017/10/perceptionsof-stakeholders-towards-the-choice-of-pronunciation-norms-in-language-teachereducation-in-russia/
Matsuno, S. (2017). Adoptability of peer assessment in ESL classroom. Creative Education,
8, 1292–1301. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2017.88091
Nulty, D. (2008). A guide to peer and self-assessment approaches and practice strategies foracademics. Brisbane: Griffith Institute for Higher Education. Retrieved fromhttp://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/142108/GuidePeerSelfAssess
ment-Long.pdf
Okuda, R., & Otsu, R. (2010). Peer assessment for speeches as an aid to teacher grading. The
Language Teacher, 34(4), 41–47. Retrieved from https://jaltpublications.org/sites/default/files/pdf-article/art1_3.pdf
Piccardo, E. (2016). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning,teaching, assessment. Phonological scale revision process report. Council of Europe.
Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/phonological-scale-revision-process-reportcefr/168073fff9
Roberts, T. (2006). Self-, peer-, and group assessment in E-learning. USA: Information
Science Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-965-6

142

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Sadler, P., & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self- and peer-grading on student learning.
Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1101_1
Schwarz, N., Knauper, B., Hippler, H., Noelle-Neumann, E., & Clark, L. (1991). Rating
scales: Numeric values may change the meaning of scale labels. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 55(4), 570–582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/269282
Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Reviewof Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003249
Wach, A. (2011). Native-speaker and English as a lingua franca pronunciation norms:
English majors’ views. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(2),247–266. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2011.1.2.5
Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2019). JASP [Software] Available from https://jasp-stats.org/
Wikstorm, N. (2007). Alternative assessment in primary years of international baccalaureate
education [Unpublished master’s thesis]. The Stockholm Institute of Education,
Stockholm.
Corresponding author: Alexandra Kolesnikova
Contact email: alex_wd@mail.ru

143