Iterative co-evaluation with a rubric of narrative texts in Primary Education / Coevaluación iterativa con rúbrica de textos narrativos en la Educación Primaria
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2014
Iterative co-evaluation with a rubric of narrative texts in Primary Education / Coevaluación iterativa con rúbrica de textos narrativos en la Educación Primaria
This study compares two types of activities involving narrative text revision: the first one consists in a traditional evaluation by teachers and the second one involves iterative co-evaluation with a rubric. A total number of 128 Primary school learners that were randomly assigned to the two types of assessment took part in this study. They were asked to write a composition that was assessed with the assigned evaluation procedure in each case. After the evaluation process (by means of hetero-evaluation or iterative co-evaluation), the participants completely rewrote their compositions. A standardized test (PROESC: assessment of writing processes) and a rubric were applied in order to analyze the improvements in the new versions of the compositions. The narrations were also marked by four teachers, unaware of the research. The number of changes introduced by the participants in the second version of the narrations was also counted. The results show that 76% of the subjects that were assessed by means of iterative co-evaluation introduced the changes suggested by their peers as opposed to 86% of the learners in the other group that incorporated the modifications indicated by their teacher. The process of iterative co-evaluation with rubric resulted in a clear improvement in the organization and contents of the narrative texts (mainly in the description of the characters and in the story setting) while the students assessed by their teachers improved, significantly, their grammar and, above all, spelling mistakes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alonso-Tapia,J.PanaderoE. (2010). Effect of self-assessment scripts on self-regulation and learning. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 33(3), 385–397.
2.
Andrade,H.DuY. (2005). Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(3), 1–11.
3.
Arter,J. A.McTigueJ. (2001). Scoring Rubrics In The Classroom: Using Performance Criteria For Assessing And Improving Student Performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Benítez,R. (2008). La evaluación de las narraciones escritas: una perspectiva holística focalizada. Enunciación, 13, 28–37.
6.
Bereiter,C.ScardamaliaM. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
Bissell,A. N.LemonsP. R. (2006). A New Method For Assessing Critical Thinking In The Classroom. Bioscience, 56(1), 66–72.
8.
Butterfield,E.HackerD.AlberstongL. (1996). Environmental, cognitive and metacognitive influences of text revision: Assessing the evidence. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 239–297.
9.
Camps,A. (1990). Modelos del proceso de redacción: algunas implicaciones para la enseñanza. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 49, 3–17.
10.
Cassany,D. (1999). Construir la escritura. Barcelona: Paidós.
11.
Castelló,M. (2002). De la investigación sobre el proceso de composición a la enseñanza de la escritura. Revista Signos, 35(51–52), 149–162.
12.
Chen,C. H. (2010). The implementation and evaluation of a mobile self- and peer-assessment system. Computers & Education, 55(1), 229–236.
13.
Chen,N. S.WeiC. W.WuK. T.UdenL. (2009). Effects of high level prompts and peer assessment on online learners’ reflection levels. Computers & Education, 52, 283–291.
14.
Chou,M. C. (1999). How peer negotiations shape revisions. In KatchenJ.LeungY. N. (Eds.), The Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 349–359). Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
15.
Cuetos,F.RamosJ. L,.RuanoE. (2002). PROESC: Batería de evaluación de los procesos de escritura. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
16.
De la Paz,S.GrahamS. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills and knowledge: writing instruction in middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 291–304.
17.
Faigley,L.WitteS. P. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400–414.
18.
Fidalgo,R.GarcíaJ. N. (2008). El desarrollo de la competencia escrita a través de una enseñanza metacognitiva de la escritura. Cultura y Educación,
20(3), 325–346.
19.
Fitzgerald,J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of educational research, 57, 481–506.
20.
Flower,L.HayesJ. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.
21.
Gabucio,F.MartíE.EnfedaqueJ.GilabertS.KonstantinidouA. (2010). Niveles de comprensión de las tablas en alumnos de primaria y secundaria. Cultura y Educación, 22(2), 183–197.
22.
Gallavan,N. G.KottlerE. (2009). Constructing rubrics and assessing progress collaboratively with social studies students, social studies students. The Social Studies, 100(4), 154–158.
23.
Gallego,J. L. (2012). Cómo estructuran el contenido de la escritura alumnos de Educación Primaria. Contextos educativos, 15, 9–26.
24.
Gelbal,S.KeleciogluH. (2007). Ögretmenlerin Ölçme Degerlendirme Yöntemleri Hakkindaki Yeterlik Algilari Ve Karsilastiklari Sorunlar. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33, 135–145.
25.
Graham,S.GillespieA.McKeownD. (2013). Writing: importance, development, and instruction. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26(1), 1–15.
26.
Graham,S.HarrisK. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psycologist, 35(1), 3–12.
27.
Graham,S.HarrisK.MasonL. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: the effects of self-regulated, strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207–241.
28.
Graham,S.HarrisK. R.HebertM. (2011). Informing writing: The benefits of formative assessment. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellence in Education.
29.
Graham,S.HebertM. (2010). Writing to reading: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellence in Education.
30.
Graham,S.HebertM. (2011). Writing-to-read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 710–744.
31.
Graham,S.PerinD. (2007). A Meta-Analysis of Writing Instruction for Adolescent Students.Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476.
32.
Harris,K. R.GrahamS.MasonL. H. (2006). Improving the wraiting, Self-Regulated Strategy Development With and Without Peer Support. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 295–340.
33.
Hayes,J. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In LeviC. M.RansdellS. (Eds.), The Science of Writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.
34.
Hayes,J. R. (2006). New Directions in Writing Theory. InMac ArthurC.GrahamS.FitzgeraldJ. (Eds.). Handbook of writing research. New York: The Guildford Press.
35.
JonssonA.SvingbyG. (2007). The Use Of Scoring Rubrics: Reliability, Validity And Educational Consequences, Educational Research Review, 2, 130–144.
36.
Kirschner,P. A.BeersP. J.BoshuizenH. P. A.GijselaersW. H. (2008). Coercing shared knowledge in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 403–420.
37.
Knoch,U.ReadJ.von RandowJ. (2007). Re-training writing raters online: How does it compare with face-to-face training?Assessing Writing, 12(1), 26–43.
38.
Kutlu,Ö.BilicanS.YildirimÖ. (2010). A study on the primary school teachers’ attitudes towards rubrics with reference to different variables. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5398–5402.
39.
Lucero,M.MontaneroM. (2012). Aprender a aprender colaborando.VI Encuentro Estatal de Orientación: “Innovación y buenas prácticas”(Abstract published in CD).
40.
Martínez,I.MartínE.MateosM. (2011). Enseñar a leer y escribir para aprender en la Educación Primaria. Cultura y Educación, 23(3), 399–414.
41.
MinH. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118–141.
42.
Ochoa-Angrino,S.AragónL.CorreaM.MosqueraS. (2008). Funcionamiento metacognitivo de niños escolares en la escritura de un texto narrativo antes y después de una pauta de corrección conjunta [Versión electrónica], Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 11(2), 77–88.
43.
Panadero,E.Alonso-TapiaJ.HuertasJ. A. (2012). Rubrics and self assessment scripts effects on self-regulation, learning and self-efficacy in secondary education. Learning and Individual Differences (0). doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.04.007.
44.
Panadero,E.JonssonA. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9(0), 129–144.
45.
Paulus,T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265–289.
46.
Peterson,S. (2003). Peer response and students’ revisions of their narrative writing. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 3(3), 239–272.
47.
Puustinen,M.PulkkinenL (2001). Models of Self-regulated Learning: A review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,45(3), 269–283.
48.
Piolat,A. (1991). Effect of Word processing on text revision. Language and Education, 5, 255–272.
49.
Ramos,J. L.CuadradoI.IglesiasB. (2005). La composición escrita en el alumnado de Educación Primaria y Secundaria. Cultura y Educación, 17(3), 239–251.
50.
Rogers,L.GrahamS. (2008). A meta-analysis of single subject design writing intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 879–906.
Saito,H.MiwaK. (2007). Construction of a learning environment supporting learners’ reflection: a case of information seeking on the Web. Computers & Education, 49, 214–229.
53.
Sánchez,E. (1998). Comprensión y redacción de textos. Barcelona: Edebé.
54.
Schamber,J. F.MahoneyS. L. (2006). Assessing And Improving The Quality Of Group Critical Thinking Exhibited In The Final Projects Of Collaborative Learning Groups. Journal Of General Education, 55(2), 103–137.
55.
Schunk,D. H.ZimmermanB. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 7–25.
56.
Stanley,J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 217–233.
57.
Thorndyke,P. W. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77–110.
58.
Tsui,A. B. M.NgM. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147–170.
59.
Vass,E.LittletonK.MiellD.JonesA. (2008). The discourse of collaborative creative writing: peer collaboration as a context for mutual inspiration. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(3), 192–202.
60.
Wiggins,G. (1989). A True Test: Toward More Authentic And Equitable Assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 703–713.
61.
Yan,C. M. W.McBride-ChangC.WagnerR. K.ZhangJ.WongA. M. Y.ShuH. (2012). Writing quality in Chinese children: speed and fluency matter. Reading and Writing, 25(7), 1499–1521.
62.
Yang,Y. (2010). Students’ reflection on online self-correction and peer review to improve writing. Computers & Education, 55, 1202–1210.
63.
Yarrow,F.ToppingK. (2001). Collaborative writing: The effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 261–282.
64.
Zhu,W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students’ comments and interaction. Written Communication, 1(4), 492–528.
65.
Zimmerman,B.ReisembergR. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73–101.
