Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

A Pilot Study of Self-Evaluation and Peer Evaluation
Yoko Suganuma Oi

Graduate School of Education, Waseda University
yokosuganuma@suou.waseda.jp

Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the relationship between student evaluation and teacher evaluation of oral
speech by addressing three research questions: 1) How different self-evaluation is from teacher evaluation
when administered at three separate times within one month? 2) How does peer evaluation correlate withteacher evaluation when administered at three separate times within one month? 3) How did the students
react self-evaluation and peer evaluation? The data of the present research for the analysis were the speechesof 26 Japanese senior high school students. The researcher decided to divide one group for self-evaluationgroup and the other group for peer evaluation group. Each group was composed of 13. One group was asked
to evaluate their own speeches in relation to other students just after the speech. The other group was asked
to evaluate their peers’ speeches. At the same time one American English teacher and one Japanese teacher
also evaluated students’ speeches. The agreement between self-evaluation and teacher evaluation was low
but there might not be difference in Language Use. On the other hand, peer evaluation did not correlate withteacher evaluation and the development of correlation during three sessions was not found. Though thereliability of self-evaluation was different among students, students positively recognized self-evaluation as
the tool to improve English proficiency. Peer evaluation was not reliable even for high school students. In
addition, students felt pressured because of their relationship as friends and the lack of confidence in terms ofEnglish proficiency. However, they also felt the necessity of competitiveness with peers. Therefore, it isimportant to implement both types of evaluations in class in good balance.

Keywords
Self-evaluation, peer evaluation, teacher evaluation, speech evaluation

1

Introduction

It is assumed that English proficiency would be improved using self-evaluation and peer evaluation (Oi,2012) because the ability to judge themselves and peers helps students find their problems and solutions bythemselves. The activities such as self-evaluation and peer evaluation encourage learners to to bemetalinguistically cognitive in terms of learner autonomy and learner responsibility. It is fundamental forlearners to develop questioning attitudes, and to learn how to become independent and more self-aware
learners. Learners can make effective decisions for themselves, can articulate their own language learningneeds, and can work effectively with a “facilitating” teacher through self-evaluation and peer evaluation(Skehan,1998). Breen (1987) showed five stages of self-evaluation, whose assumption is that learners areable to participate in meaningful discussion about goal setting, role allocation, the planning of learning, theactivities to be used, and the forms of evaluation. Thus self-evaluation and peer evaluation help language
education class to become “learner-centered.”Oi (2010) researched the correlation between peer evaluation of Japanese university students and teacher
evaluation. Two groups consisting of three to six university students who scored 530 or more in TOEFL(PBT) or returnees from the US, Canada and Ireland, and two American English teachers participated in thesurvey. They evaluated oral discussion in English based on two main competences: language competence
and communicative performance ability. The result showed that the correlation between teacher evaluationand peer evaluation was stronger over the course of five sessions.
On the other hand, the research (Oi, 2012) which focused on Japanese high school students showed adifferent result. It investigated the reliability of self-evaluation and peer evaluation of Japanese high school
students. Ninety-two high school students, one American English teacher, and two Japanese English teachers
participated in the survey. Students evaluated their own and peer’s speeches on familiar topics. Teachers also
evaluated students’ speeches using the same evaluation sheet which was composed of General Evaluation,
1

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

Delivery, Language Use, and Topic Development. The consistency between student self-evaluation andteacher evaluation was high in Language Use. On the other hand, the correlation between teacher evaluationand peer evaluation was very low even with the students who had high proficiency in English. However, theresearch was conducted only once, so it should be discussed if the correlation between peer evaluation andteacher evaluation is affected by the age factor and the rating experience. This is the reason why the present
research was carried out to confirm the relationship between student evaluation and teacher evaluation
through plural researches. That is to say, more sustained observation is necessary to confirm the effectivenessof the evaluation by senior high school students in terms of oral speeches. Therefore the goal of the present
study was to prove the reliability and usefulness of self-evaluation and peer evaluation of oral speeches inEnglish.

2

Literature Review

Students’ self-evaluation and peer evaluation has been implemented in English class, because teachers
believe that reflection on one’s proficiency and insight into evaluation criteria will stimulate students’motivation (Oi, 2012). Since the evaluation criteria of teachers’ is the core in class, the reliability of students’evaluation should be investigated referring to teacher evaluation. So this section shows the previous studies
on the relationship between student evaluation and teacher evaluation and the characteristics of student
evaluation.
Cheng and Warren (2005) indicated that students and teachers were different in their respective evaluating
behaviors and the ways oral and written language proficiency were assessed. Cheng (2008) commented thatstudents’ personal traits or psychological characteristics such as confidence, and nervousness might affecttheir evaluation behavior. The students in Cheng’s study tended to evaluate themselves lower and it wascaused by their affective factors. With regard to peer evaluation, previous studies by Rolfe (1990), andHughes and Large (1993) showed high agreement between teacher evaluation and peer evaluation.
Cheng (2008) also showed three implications and suggestions on self-evaluation. The first one was thedevelopment of self-reflection on their performance and learning process. The second suggestion was thehelp to train students to become better raters and learners. The final implication was students’ psychologicalfactors.
Patri (2002) investigated the effectiveness of the self-evaluation and peer evaluation of oral presentation
skills of first year undergraduate students of ethnic Chinese background, and found that peer feedback
enabled students to judge the performance of their peers in a manner similar to that of the teachers, whenevaluation criteria were firmly set and students understood them well before evaluation. Patri concluded thatpeer feedback was supposed to help in achieving a higher correlation between teacher and peer assessment.
In addition, teacher evaluation could be supplemented with peer evaluation at a lower cost especially in oral
skills.
These previous studies focused only on undergraduate students and adult learners, not high school students.
Therefore, it is meaningful to investigate the relationship between the evaluation of high school students andteacher evaluation to prove the hypothesis that student evaluation might be reliable as well as teacher
evaluation.

3

Research Questions

In order to investigate the relationship between student evaluation and teacher evaluation of oral speeches,the following three research questions are addressed: 1) How different self-evaluation is from teacher
evaluation when measured at three separate times within one month? 2) How peer evaluation correlates withteacher evaluation when measured at three separate times within one month? 3) How did the students react
self-evaluation and peer evaluation? By investigating the above questions, it is assumed that respective
characteristics and the relationship between self-evaluation and peer evaluation are found. The knowledge ofstudent evaluation helps high school teachers to implement it more effectively in class.
4

Method

4.1 ParticipantsParticipants were 26 Japanese senior high school students. They were comprised of 24 females and 2 males.
The researcher decided to divide them into two groups: one group for the self-evaluation group, Group A,
and the other group for the peer evaluation group, Group B. The students took Grade Pre-2 of the EIKEN
Test in Practical English Proficiency and the students were divided into two groups so that the average score
was the same, 30.4 out of 60 points. Standard deviation (SD) of Group A was 10.31, on the other hand, SD of2

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

Group B was 6.23. This test was composed of listening, grammatical and reading sections. It was given to
examine the English proficiency of individual students. The English proficiency of students was A1-A2 levelof Common European Frameworks of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Each group was made up of 13
students. Group A for self-evaluation was composed of 13 female students. On the other hand, Group B for
peer evaluation was composed of 2 male and 11 female students. There was no student who had lived in any
English speaking countries. One American English teacher and one Japanese teacher participated in the
research. Both of them have taught English in public senior high schools more than ten years in Japan. The
researches were conducted three times on May 11th, June 1st, and June 8th.
Table 1: The SD and Mean of the Results of Pre-2 of English Proficiency Test
Group AGroup B

n
13
13

MAX
48
51

MIN
18
22

M
30.4
30.4

S.D.
10.3
06.2

Note: The maximum score is 60 points.
4.2 Data collection
4.2.1 Evaluation criteria and background questionnaire
Two kinds of background questionnaires were given to the students to ask them about their English
educational backgrounds and the perceptions about self-evaluation and peer evaluation. The first one wasdistributed before the research to ask their backgrounds of English education (Appendix A). The second one
was conducted to ask the perceptions about self-evaluation and peer evaluation at the end of one-monthcourse. It was constructed using a 5 point Likert scale (1=very effective, 2=effective, 3=not effective, 4=not
effective at all, 5=no idea) and open-ended question: what do you think of self/peer evaluation (Appendix
B)?
The evaluation sheet had five measures. It consisted of three components, Content, Delivery, andR , and STEP. Group A was asked
Language Use. It was devised by the researcher based on CEFR, TOEFL○
to evaluate their own speeches in relation to other students just after the speech. Group B was asked toevaluate themselves and their peers. At the same time one American English teacher and one Japaneseteacher also evaluated students’ speeches. All of the participants learned how to evaluate speeches before thespeech. Two teachers held a norm session to teach students how to evaluate speeches (Appendix C).
The topics of speeches were announced just before the speeches. Students made one-minute speeches forthree times within one month on familiar topics: town, holiday, and future.
The types of measurement were analytical rating from one to five. In this case “5” indicated the highest
evaluation, and “1” indicated the lowest evaluation. All of the participants rated the English oral speeches.
The speeches were recorded and transcribed.
4.2.2 Methods of analysis
The following measurements to investigate the relationship between self-evaluation and teacher evaluation,and between peer evaluation and teacher evaluation were used in this research. Firstly, Wilcoxon signed-rank
test was conducted to look for differences between self-evaluation and teacher evaluation. Kendall’s tau wasused to see the inter-rater reliability between the evaluations of two teachers. It was also used to examine therelationship between teacher evaluation and peer evaluation.

5

Results and findings

5.1
The inter-rater reliability between the evaluations of two teachers
There was a correlation between two teachers’ evaluations in both groups. The correlation coefficients of theself-evaluation group presented, τ= .648 for May 11th, τ= .804 for June 1st, τ= .861 for June 8th, p< .05. On
the other hand, the correlation coefficients of the peer evaluation group presented, τ= .904 for May 11th,
τ= .682 for June 1st, τ= .798 for June 8th, p< .05.
The correlation coefficient between two teachers’ evaluations was gradually getting stable. So it was
assumed that teachers found the common and stable standard of evaluation for three times.
5.2
The Wilcoxon signed-rank test based on self-evaluation and teacher evaluation
Before conducting the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, the scores of student evaluation was subtracted from thescores of teacher evaluation. The sum of three evaluation components, Content, Delivery, and Language Use
was 40 points. In terms of the sum, Content and Delivery, students tended to evaluate themselves lower than3

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

teachers did.
However, the difference of Language Use is very small. The difference “0” indicates the perfect agreement
between self-evaluation and teacher evaluation. In this research most of the students tended to evaluate theirown speeches much lower than teachers did except Language Use.
Based on the difference between teacher evaluation and self-evaluation, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was
conducted to see differences between two data. Table 2 shows the results of three sessions between the native
English teacher and Group A (self-evaluation group).
If the absolute value of the z score was higher than 1.96, we could say that there was a significant
difference between two data. Concerning the May 11th data, the sum of 3 evaluation components showed-2.24. It meant that student self-evaluation was different from teacher evaluation in this case. On the other
hand, the absolute values of the Content and Language Use z scores were less than 1.96. There might not bea difference between self-evaluation and teacher evaluation in the evaluation components of Content andLanguage Use.
Next is the result of the June 1st data. On this day Delivery and Language Use showed 1.93 and 1.95,
which were less than 1.96. So self-evaluation might not be different from teacher evaluation in Delivery andLanguage Use.
The result of June 8th presented that only Language Use component showed less than 1.96. So
self-evaluation of Language Use evaluation might not be different from teacher evaluation.
In every session, self-evaluation of Language Use might not be different from teacher evaluation.
Table 2: The Wilcoxon signed-rank test between native English teacher and Group A (self-evaluation group)
Sum of threecomponents
Tz
May 11th
NET & Group A
June 1st
NET & Group A
June 8th
NET & Group A

Content

Delivery

Language Use

T

z

T

z

T

z

13.50

-2.24

1.50

-1.55

07.50

-4.56

1.50

-0.52

01.00

-2.98

0.00

-3.05

01.00

-1.93

4.50

-1.95

09.50

-2.51

6.50

-3.56

12.00

-8.94

1.50

-0.70

Note: p<.05 T (the sum of the ranks of the smaller of the two ranks; z (Wilcoxon signed-rank test z-score)
Table 3 presents the results of three sessions between the Japanese English teacher and Group A(self-evaluation group). It also shows that student self-evaluation was different from teacher evaluation.
However, self-evaluation might not be different from teacher evaluation in Language Use.
Table 3: The Wilcoxon signed-rank test between Japanese English teacher and Group A (self-evaluationgroup)
Sum of threecomponents
Tz
May 11th
JET & Group A
June 1st
JET & Group A
June 8th
JET & Group A

Content

Delivery

Language Use

T

z

T

z

T

z

4.00

-2.90

22.50

-0.54

12.50

-2.09

00.00

-3.17

0.00

-3.06

17.50

-0.71

06.00

-2.41

012.0

-1.64

8.50

-2.58

06.00

-2.61

07.50

-2.29

00.00

-0.00

Note: p<.05 T (the sum of the ranks of the smaller of the two ranks; z (Wilcoxon signed-rank test z-score)
In this research, the agreement between self-evaluation and teacher evaluation was not found. Besides,
students evaluated their speeches lower than teachers did. However, concerning Language Use, there might
not be a difference between self-evaluation and teacher evaluation. The agreement between high school
student’s self-evaluation and teacher evaluation was not always consistent.

5.3

The correlation coefficient of Kendall tau based on peer evaluation of each individual student
and teacher evaluation
To analyze the correlation between peer evaluation and teacher evaluation more precisely, the correlation

4

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

coefficient of Kendall tau for each individual student was calculated (Appendix D & E). The Delivery
component showed a slightly weak correlation between student evaluation of each individual student andteacher evaluation. However, in every session, there was almost no correlation between peer evaluation andteacher evaluation. This results show the same tendency as in Oi (2012).
5.4
The responses of the questionnaire
Appendixes F and G present the responses of the self-evaluation Group A and the peer evaluation Group B
about the effectiveness of self-evaluation and peer evaluation. Twelve of thirteen students in the
self-evaluation group replied that a self-evaluation activity was very effective or effective to improve English
proficiency (Appendix F).
On the other hand, the responses of Group B presented that only five of thirteen students in the peer
evaluation group answered that a peer evaluation activity was effective to improve English proficiency. One
student insisted on the importance of concrete feedback rather than analytical evaluation to develop the levelof speech. Only two students recognized the “usefulness” to improve the level of speech by using peer
evaluation. One student commented peer evaluation produced competitiveness, and it was important tostimulate their motivation (Appendix G).

6

Discussion

In this research, the agreement between self-evaluation and teacher evaluation was not found. Moreover,students evaluated their speeches lower than the teachers did. Those are differences from Oi (2012). The
general academic level of the students in the present study was lower than that of the students in the previous
research. One possible reason is that the lack of confidence caused the students in the present study toevaluate themselves low. It was assumed that the lower self-evaluation was caused by misunderstanding theirlevel of performance because of the general academic level rather than evaluating their speeches. The
students of the previous study had confidence in their whole school life because of their academic level. So
one of the reasons was supposed that the lower self-evaluation of the present study was affected by the lackof self-confidence.
The agreement between high school student’s self-evaluation and teacher evaluation was not always
consistent. However, concerning Language Use, there might not be a difference between self-evaluation andteacher evaluation. This is the same results as those of Oi (2012). So it supports the hypothesis that highschool students might evaluate their language use in the same manner as teachers. One of the reasons is
assumed that the consistency between teacher evaluation and self-evaluation was caused by the less numberof subcategories of Language Use compared to the other categories. It is also assumed that students havestronger confidence of their knowledge on language use because they have spent more time studying
language use than the other components such as delivery and content.
Peer evaluation was not correlated with teacher evaluation. However, the Delivery component presented
weak correlation in several students’ data. The development of correlation during three sessions was notfound, being different from the data of university students (Oi, 2010). Rolfe’s (1990) previous study
presented the high agreement between teacher evaluation and peer evaluation. Yet the peer evaluation of highschool students did not correlate with teacher evaluation at all. Therefore, the peer evaluation of high school
students might not be consistent. The correlation between the peer evaluation and teacher evaluation should
be investigated in terms of age as further study.
According to the results of questionnaires, the self-evaluating group recognized the effectiveness of
self-evaluation to improve English proficiency because it helped students to reflect on themselves. This is thesame results as those of Oi (2012). Oskarsson (1989) presented six advantages of using self-evaluation: 1)
promotion of learning 2) raising level of awareness 3) improving goal-orientation 4) expansion of range
assessment 5) sharing assessment burden 6) beneficial post-course effects. Therefore, the result of the present
study supports the advantages Oskarsson pointed out.
On the other hand, the peer evaluation group felt more pressured towards peer evaluation because of thelack of confidence in English proficiency. According to the responses of Background Questionnaire, theyalso felt some doubt on whether they were qualified to evaluate others. Some of them mentioned that they
did not have confidence in their ability to rate because of their English proficiency. They commented that
concrete descriptive feedback was more useful to improve English proficiency rather than analytical rating
evaluation.
The implementation of self-evaluation and peer evaluation in class has different advantages. Though thereliability of self-evaluation was different among students, students positively recognized self-evaluation as5

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

the tool to improve English proficiency. Peer evaluation was not reliable for high school students. In addition,
students felt pressured because of their relationship as friends. Students also commented that they did nothave confidence in their ability to evaluate others in terms of English proficiency. However, some students
commented that they felt the necessity of competitiveness with peers. Therefore, it is important to implement
both types of evaluations in class, recognizing the advantages and disadvantages of two evaluations.

7

Conclusion

The implementation of self-evaluation and peer evaluation in class has different possibilities. Students
positively recognized self-evaluation as the tool to improve English proficiency and bridge the gap between
their present English proficiency and their goals, though the reliability was different among students. Besides
students might judge their language use in the same manner as teachers. Therefore self-evaluation of
language use might be positively implemented in an English class. On the other hand, it should be
investigated whether the reliability of self-evaluation about Delivery and Content would be developed after
the training of evaluation.
Statistically significant correlation was not found between teacher and peer evaluation, though there was aslight correlation between teacher evaluation and peer evaluation in the Delivery component. It was assumed
that students shared similar evaluation criteria with teachers in the Delivery component. Some students
commented that they were not confident in rating other students’ speeches. They also mentioned that theyfelt peer pressure. On the other hand, some of them felt a necessity to be competitive with peers to motivatethemselves.
Therefore adopting both types of evaluations in class has educational implications because it encourages
students’ participation and initiative in class. Adopting both types of evaluations may enhance learnerautonomy because it is related to self-reflection and motivation.
As further study, it is needed to explore descriptive evaluation because some students mentioned theusefulness of descriptive evaluation about their performance. The present study did not show the correlation
between high school students’ peer evaluation and teacher evaluation though the previous study about
university students (Oi, 2010) showed the consistency. Therefore, age factors should be investigated to
explore the possibility of student evaluation in class.

References
Breen, M. (1987). Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design: (Parts 1 and 2). Language Teaching, 20,
157-74.
Cheng, W. & Warren, M. (2005). Peer assessment of language proficiency. Language Testing, 22, 93-110.
Cheng, Y. (2008). Learning to self-assess oral performance in English: A longitudinal case study. Language
Teaching Research, 12(2), 254-255.
Hughes, I. E. & Large, B. J. (1993). Staff and peer-group assessment of oral communication skills. Studies inHigher Education, 18, 379-85.
Oi, S. Y. (2010). A Pilot Study of Teacher Evaluation and Peer Evaluation in English Oral Discussion.
Proceedings of the 15th International Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics,
135-142.
Oi, S. Y. (2012). A Study of Student Evaluation and Teacher Evaluation (Master thesis). Waseda University.
Oskarsson, M. (1989). Self-assessment of language proficiency: Rational and applications. Language Testing,
6 (1), 1-13.
Patri, M. (2002). The influence of peer feedback on self- and peer-assessment of oral skills. Language
Testing, 19,109.
Rolfe, T. (1990). Self and peer-assessment in the ESL curriculum. In Brindley, G., editor, Vol.6: The second
language curriculum in action (pp.163-86). Sydney:NCELTR, Macquarie University.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning (p.266). Oxford University Press.

Appendices
Appendix A
Background Questionnaire 1
1. If you have ever lived in a foreign country, how many years did you live? Please circle one item.
More than 10 years

9 years

8 years

7 years

6

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

6 years

5 years

4 years

3 years

2 years

1 yearI have never lived abroad.

2. If you have an English Proficiency Test Grade, what grade do you have? Please circle one item. If you
have other English Proficiency Test Grades (eg. Kokuren Eiken, TOEIC etc.), please write the name andgrade/scores.
1st grade

Pre-1st grade

3rd grade

4th grade

2nd grade

Pre-2nd grade

5th grade

3. What do you think about evaluating other participants’ performance in English interaction? Please circle
one item from 1) to 4).
1) Very effective to develop English
2) Effective to develop English
3) Not effective4) Uncertain

Appendix B
Background Questionnaire 2
1. What do you think about evaluating English performance of other participants? Please circle one itemfrom 1) to 5). If you have any opinions or ideas, please write it below.
1) Very effective to develop English
2) Effective to develop English
3) Not so effective4) Not effective at all5) Uncertain
Opinions / ideas

2. What do you think about evaluating your own English performance by yourself? Please circle one itemfrom 1) to 5). If you have any opinions or ideas, please write it below.
1) Very effective to develop English
2) Effective to develop English
3) Not so effective4) Not effective at all5) Uncertain

7

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

Opinions / ideas

Appendix C

EVALUATION SHEET
年 組 番 氏名
自分と友達のスピーチを評価しよう！
スピーチをした人の名前→
POINT VALUELANGUAGE USE

DELIVERYCONTENTJUDGING TIMESSPEECH DEVELOPMENT
structure, organization, support material 構成がしっかりしているか 理由が述べられているか
EFFECTIVENESS
achievement of purpose, interest, reception
 スピーチのテーマに話があっているか
SPEECH VALUE
ideas, logic, original thought 聞いていて感動があったか オリジナリティがあったか
PHYSICAL
appearance, body language
 身振りや手振り、アイ・コンタクトなどをして効果的にスピーチを盛り上げ
たかPRONUNCIATION AND INTONATION
 発音やイントネーションは良かったかVOICE
flexibility, volume
 速さはちょうど良かったか 声は十分に大きかったか
MANNER
directness, assurance, enthusiasm
 積極的な姿勢や熱心に取り組む態
度が見られたかCORRECTNESS of LANGUAGE USE
grammar, word selection 文法や単語の選択は正しかったか

EXCELLENT VERY GOOD

GOOD

すばらしい

ふつう あまりよくない

とても良い 良いFAIR

EXCELLENT VERY GOOD

GOOD

すばらしい

ふつう あまりよくない

とても良い 良いFAIRNOT FAIREXCELLENT VERY GOOD

GOOD

すばらしい

ふつう あまりよくない

とても良い 良いFAIRNOT FAIREXCELLENT VERY GOOD

GOOD

すばらしい

ふつう あまりよくない

とても良い 良いFAIRNOT FAIREXCELLENT VERY GOOD

GOOD

すばらしい

ふつう あまりよくない

とても良い 良いFAIRNOT FAIREXCELLENT VERY GOOD

GOOD

すばらしい

ふつう あまりよくない

とても良い 良いFAIRNOT FAIREXCELLENT VERY GOOD

GOOD

すばらしい

ふつう あまりよくない

とても良い 良いFAIRNOT FAIREXCELLENT VERY GOOD

GOOD

すばらしい

ふつう あまりよくない8

とても良い 良いFAIRNOT FAIRNOT FAIR

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

Appendix D

The correlation coefficient between peer evaluation and teacher (NET) evaluation
May 11th

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9

B10

B11

B12

B13

Sum of 3
evaluation
components

.312

.608
**

.425
*

.395

.355

.349

.167

.298

.193

.06

.253

.296

.347

CONTENT

-.24

.350

.125

.019

.262

-.06

-.13

-.29

-.06

-.1

.432

-.14

-.35

DELIVERY

.551
*

.388

.629
*

.092

.324

.556
*

.491
*

.313

.258

.52

.297

.422

.394

*

June 1stJune 8thLANGUAGE
USE

-.32

-.13

.132

.054

-.28

-.30

-.14

-.21

-.50

-.3

-.37

-.04

-.39

Sum of 3
evaluation
components

.312

.608
*

.425
*

.195

.355

.349

.167

.298

.193

.06

.253

.347

-1.0
**

CONTENT

.026

.313

.225

.215

-.11

-.12

-.14

.039

-.09

-.0

.000

-.02

.311

DELIVERY

.522

.549
*

.422
*

.491
*

.700
**

.454
*

.236

.644
**

.664
**

.26

.398

-.11

.171

LANGUAGE
USE

-.18

.056

.080

.226

.097

.155

-.14

-.26

-.27

-.2

-.04

-.19

-.36

Sum of 3
evaluation
components

-.10

.319

.031

.298

-.20

.154

-.19

.150

.262

.03

.320

.270

.378

CONTENT

-.35

-.02

-.08

.301

-.15

-.06

.269

-.03

.088

-.3

.289

.197

.180

DELIVERY

.191

.211

.295

.259

.040

.379

.159

.509
*

.163

.18

.582
**

.240

.384

LANGUAGE
USE

-.17

.189

.516
*

.026

.189

.386

.253

.029

.181

.18

.378

-.36

-.08

* p< .05 **p<.001

9

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

Appendix E The correlation coefficient between peer evaluation and teacher (JET) evaluation

May 11th

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

B9

B10

B11

B1

B1

Sum of 3
evaluation
compone
nts

.05

.40

.24

.39

.18

.37

-.04

.44

.19

.075

.05

.02

.26

CONTEN
T

.32

-.06

.157

.49

.04

.03

.59

.30

*
.32

.24

.01

-.05

.52

.42

.11

*
DELIVERYLANGUAGE USE

.66

.52

.56

*

*

*

.27

.25

.11

.09

.05

.25

-.34

*

.50

.51

*

*

.22

-.07

.32

.25

.246

.31

**
.63

-.50

.462

.10

.34

.29

.19

.400

.20

.45

.05

*
June 1st

Sum of 3
evaluation
components.41

CONTEN

.71

.52

**

*

.59

.53

*

*

.48

.82

*
.39

.16

.33

.50

.46

.37

*

.61
**

.29

.09

.01

-.02

.34

-.09

.203

.17

-.02

.33

.50

.59

.48

.55

.47

.57

.66

.664
**

.57

-.11

.49

*

*

**

*

*

*

*

**

.21

.74

-.12

.09

.30

.26

.61

-.27

.150

-.11

-.19

.38

T

DELIVERYLANGUAGE USE**
June 8th

Sum of 3
evaluation
components
CONTEN

*

*

*

-.13

.40

.12

.36

.04

.12

-.06

.15

.21

.415

.16

.37

.33

-.38

.05

-.07

.30

-.24

-.09

.25

-.03

-.03

.044

-.29

.31

.24

.32

.32

.35

.37

.12

.51

.12

.45

.54

.380

.28

.65

.37

*

*

.25

.38

.25

.029

A7
2

A8
2

A9
1

A10
2

T
DELIVERY*LANGUAGE USE

-.17

.18

.51

.02

.11

.18

**
.18

.18

.37

*

* p< .05 **p<.001

Appendix F
The responses of the self-evaluation Group A
ID
Group A

A1
2

A2
2

A3
2

A4
1

A5
1

A6
5

Note: 1 Very effective to improve English proficiency
2 Effective to improve English proficiency
3 Not so effective to improve English proficiency
10

A11
2

A12
2

A13
2

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

4 Not effective to improve English proficiency at all
5 No idea
Appendix G
The responses of the peer evaluation Group B
ID
Group B

B1
2

B2
2

B3
5

B4
5

B5
3

B6
5

Note: 1 Very effective to improve English proficiency
2 Effective to improve English proficiency
3 Not so effective to improve English proficiency
4 Not effective to improve English proficiency at all
5 No idea

11

B7
2

B8
3

B9
1

B10
5

B11
2

B12
3

B13
5