Have a personal or library account? Click to login

Can an instructional video increase the quality of English teachers’ assessment of learner essays?

Open Access
|Jun 2022

References

  1. Alderson, J. C., Brunfaut, T., & Harding, L. (2014). Towards a theory of diagnosis in second and foreign language assessment: Insights from professional practice across diverse fields. Applied Linguistics, 36(2), 236-260.10.1093/applin/amt046
  2. Anders, Y., Kunter, M., Brunner, M., Krauss, S., & Baumert, J. (2010). Diagnostic competences of mathamatics teachers and the performance of their learners. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 3, 175-193. doi:10.2378/peu2010.art13d10.2378/peu2010.art13d
  3. Bailey, A. L., & Drummond, K. V. (2006). Who is at risk and why? Teachers’ reasons for concern and their understanding and assessment of early literacy. Educational Assessment, 11, 149-178. doi:10.1207/s15326977ea1103&4_2
  4. Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2006). Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften [Re: Professional competence of teachers]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaften, 4, 469-520.10.1007/s11618-006-0165-2
  5. Birkel, P., & Birkel, C. (2002). How concordant are teachers’ essay scorings? A replication of Rudolf Weiss’ studies. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 49, 219-224.
  6. Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998) Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5:1, 7-74. doi:10.1080/096959598005010210.1080/0969595980050102
  7. Blomberg, G., Sherin, M., Renkl, A., Glogger, I., & Seidel, T. (2013). Understanding video as a tool for teacher education: Investigating instructional strategies to promote reflection. Instructional Science, 42, 443-463.10.1007/s11251-013-9281-6
  8. Blömeke, S., Gustafsson, J.-E., & Shavelson, R. (2015). Beyond dichotomies. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223, 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a00019410.1027/2151-2604/a000194
  9. Board, N. (2010). Writing framework for the 2011 national assessment of education progress. Washington: US Government Printing Office.
  10. Brookhart, S., & Chen, F. (2015) The quality and effectiveness of descriptive rubrics. Educational Review, 67/3, 343-368. doi:10.1080/00131911.2014.92956510.1080/00131911.2014.929565
  11. Chamberlain S., & Taylor, R. (2011) Online or face-to-face? An experimental study of examiner training. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42/4, 665-675. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01062.x10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01062.x
  12. Charney, D. (1984). The Validity of Using Holistic Scoring to Evaluate Writing: A Critical Overview. Research in the Teaching of English, 18/1, 65-81.
  13. Cooksey, R., Freebody, P., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2007). Assessment as Judgment-in-Context: Analysing how teachers evaluate students’ writing. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13/5, 401-434. doi:10.1080/1380361070172831110.1080/13803610701728311
  14. Creemers, B. (1994). The effective classroom. London: Cassell.
  15. Culham, R. (2003). 6 + 1 traits of writing: The complete guide. New York: Scholastic.
  16. Cumming, A., Kantor, R., & Powers, D. (2002). Decision making while rating ESL/EFL writing tasks: A descriptive framework. Modern Language Journal, 86, 67-96.10.1111/1540-4781.00137
  17. Daller, H., Milton, J., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2007). Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9780511667268
  18. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Assessing teacher education: The usefulness of multiple measures for assessing program outcomes. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 120-138. doi:10.1177/0022487105
  19. Dempsey, M., Pytlik Zillig, L., & Bruning. R. (2009). Helping preservice teachers learn to assess writing: Practice and feedback in a web-based environment. Assessing Writing 14/1, 38-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2008.12.00310.1016/j.asw.2008.12.003
  20. Eckes, T. (2008). Rater types in writing performance assessments: A classification approach to rater variability. Language Testing 2008 25 (2), 155-185. doi:10.1177/026553220708678010.1177/0265532207086780
  21. Eckes, T. (2005). Examining rater effects in TestDaF writing and speaking performance assessments: A multi-faceted Rasch analysis. Language Assessment Quarterly, 2/3, 197-221. doi:10.1207/s15434311laq0203_210.1207/s15434311laq0203_2
  22. Edelenbos, P., & Kubanek-German, A. (2004). Teacher assessment: the concept of ‘diagnostic competence’. Language Testing, 21 (3), 259-283.10.1191/0265532204lt284oa
  23. European Commission (2008). Multilingualism - an asset for Europe and a shared commitment. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URIS-ERV:ef0003
  24. Fadde, P., & Sullivan, P. (2013). Using interactive video to develop preservice teachers’ classroom awareness. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 13/2, 156-174.
  25. Feinberg, A., & Shapiro, E. (2009). Teacher accuracy: An examination of teacher-based judgments of students’ reading with differing achievement levels. The Journal of Educational Research, 102, 453-462. doi:10.3200/JOER.102.6.453-46210.3200/JOER.102.6.453-462
  26. Förster, N., & Souvignier, E. (2015). Effects of providing teachers with information about their students’ reading progress. School Psychology Review, 44, 60-75.10.17105/SPR44-1.60-75
  27. Glogger-Frey, I., Herppich, S., & Seidel, T. (2018). Linking teachers’ professional knowledge and teachers’ actions: Judgment processes, judgments and training, Teaching and Teacher Education, 76, 176-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.08.00510.1016/j.tate.2018.08.005
  28. Goodrich Andrade, H. (2005). Teaching With Rubrics: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. College Teaching, 53/1, 27-31. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.53.1.27-3110.3200/CTCH.53.1.27-31
  29. Guo, L., Crossley, S., & McNamara, D. (2013). Predicting human judgments of essay quality in both integrated and independent second language writing samples: A comparison study. Assessing Writing 18/3, 218-238. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2013.05.00
  30. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.
  31. Helwig, R., Anderson, L., & Tindal, G. (2001). Influence of elementary student gender on teachers’ perceptions of mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 93-102. doi:10.1080/0022067010959657710.1080/00220670109596577
  32. Hoge, R., & Coladarci, T. (1989). Teacher-based judgments of academic achievement: A review of literature. Review of Educational Research, 59, 297-313. doi:10.2307/117018410.3102/00346543059003297
  33. Hyland, K. (2008). Second language writing. New York: CUP.
  34. Jansen, T., Vögelin, C., Machts, N., Keller, S., & Möller, J. (2019). Das Schülerinventar ASSET zur Beurteilung von Schülerarbeiten im Fach Englisch: Drei experimentelle Studien zu Effekten der Textqualität und der Schülernamen [The Student Inventory ASSET for judging students’ performances in English: Three experimental studies on effect of text quality and student names]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht 66, 303-315. doi:10.2378/peu2019.art21d10.2378/peu2019.art21d
  35. Jansen, T., Vögelin, C., Machts, N., Keller, S., & Möller, J. (2018). The influence of spelling and prompting on teacher judgments of English essays. Paper presented at the annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association (AERA). New York City, 16. April 2018.
  36. Karing, C. (2009). Diagnostische Kompetenz von Grundschul- und Gymnasiallehrkräften im Leistungsbereich und im Bereich Interessen [Diagnostic competence of elementary and secondary school teachers in the domains of competence and interests]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23, 197-209. doi:10.1024/1010-0652.23.34.19710.1024/1010-0652.23.34.197
  37. Keller, S. & Möller, J. (2019). Das Schülerinventar zur Beurteilung von Schülertexten. In: T. Rieke-Baulecke (Hrsg.). Schulmanagement Handbuch 169, 55-65.
  38. Keller, S. (2013). Integrative Schreibdidaktik Englisch für die Sekundarstufe. Theorie, Prozessgestaltung, Empirie. [Integrated writing instruction for secondary level – theory, processes and empirical evaluation]. Tübingen: Narr.
  39. Klose, B. (2014). Diagnostische Wahrnehmungskompetenzen von ReligionslehrerInnen [Diagnostic competences of teachers of religious education]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
  40. Klug, J., Gerich, M., Bruder, S., & Schmitz, B. (2012). Ein Tagebuch für Hauptschullehrkräfte zur Unterstützung der Reflexionsprozesse beim Diagnostizieren [A diary for teachers to support reflection on diagnostic competence]. Empirische Pädagogik, 26, 292-311.
  41. Lai, E., Wolfe, E., & Vickers, D. (2015). Differentiation of illusory and true halo in writing scores. Educational and psychological measurement, 75/1, 102-125. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316441453099010.1177/0013164414530990
  42. Lewis, Michael (ed.) (1997). Implementing the Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
  43. Moss, P.A. (1994). Can there be validity without reliability? Educational Researcher, Vol. 23, No. 2, 5-12.
  44. Nation, I., & Webb, S. (2011). Researching and analyzing vocabulary. Boston: Heinle.
  45. Rezaei, A., & Lovorn, M. (2010). Reliability and validity of rubrics for assessment through writing. Assessing Writing, 15, 18-39.10.1016/j.asw.2010.01.003
  46. Royal-Dawson, L., & Baird, J. (2009). Is Teaching Experience Necessary for Reliable Scoring of Extended English Questions? Educational Measurement 28/2, 2-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00142.x10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00142.x
  47. Schrader, F. (2013). Diagnostische Kompetenz von Lehrpersonen [Teachers’ diagnostic competence]. Beiträge zur Lehrerinnen und Lehrerbildung, 31/2, 154-165.
  48. Schütze, B., Souvignier, E. & Hasselhorn, M. (2018). Stichwort–Formative assessment. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 21 (4), 679-715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-018-0838-710.1007/s11618-018-0838-7
  49. Shohamy, E., Gordon, C., & Kraemer, R. (1992). The effect of raters’ background and training on the reliability of direct writing tests. The Modern Language Journal, 76/1, 127-133.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1992.tb02574.x
  50. Südkamp, A., & Praetorius, A. K. (Eds.). (2017). Diagnostische Kompetenz von Lehrkräften: Theoretische und methodische Weiterentwicklungen. [Teachers’ diagnostic competences: theoretical and methodical advances]. Waxmann Verlag.
  51. Südkamp, A., Kaiser, J., & Möller, J. (2012). Accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 743-762. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a002762710.1037/a0027627
  52. Visible Learning Plus (2018). Visible learning plus. 250+ influences on student achievement. Online: https://us.corwin.com/sites/default/files/250_influences_10.1.2018.pdf
  53. Vögelin, C., Jansen, T., Keller, S., Machts, N., & Möller, J. (2019). The influence of lexical features on teacher judgements of ESL argumentative essays. Assessing Writing, 39, 50-63. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.12.00310.1016/j.asw.2018.12.003
  54. Vögelin, C., Jansen, T., Keller, S., & Möller, J. (2018). The impact of vocabulary and spelling on judgments of ESL essays: an analysis of teacher comments. The Language Learning Journal. doi:10.1080/09571736.2018.152266210.1080/09571736.2018.1522662
  55. Weigle, S.C. (2002). Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511732997
  56. Wolfe, E., & Jiao, H. (2016). Features of difficult to score essays. Assessing Writing, 27, 1-10.10.1016/j.asw.2015.06.002
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1829 | Journal eISSN: 2616-7697
Language: English
Page range: 140 - 161
Published on: Jun 14, 2022
Published by: Gesellschaft für Fachdidaktik (GfD e.V.)
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2022 Stefan D. Keller, Cristina Vögelin, Thorben Jansen, Nils Machts, Jens Möller, published by Gesellschaft für Fachdidaktik (GfD e.V.)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License.