Peer Assessment Practice in Higher Education Academic Writing Facilitated by Artificial Intelligence Tools: A Narrative Inquiry

Intan Fatma Sari, Hasan Zainnuri

Abstract

Writing in higher education is not just a collection of objective skills cut off from the social setting; Academic Writing is a literacy practice instead of a competence. The study explored undergraduate students' peer assessment practice perception and implementation in Academic Writing. The subjects of the study were five EFL undergraduate students who had joined an Article Writing class. This study applied the biographical narrative inquiry method and gathered the data through narrative stories, semi-structured interviews and artefacts. The students were assigned to write a systematic review article and then did peer assessment within and with other groups. The thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. The finding showed that there were students' difficulties in writing processes. In this circumstance, peer assessment could become the alternative method. From the peer assessment activities, the students felt that feedback from peers and AI was important in writing articles, and the role of AI could increase their self-confidence and provide new knowledge. During the peer assessment process, students also did discussion and crosscheck to consider the feedback given. Therefore, the teacher should facilitate the students and provide an excellent environment to engage the students involved in peer assessment activities during the teaching and learning process.

 

Keywords

Academic Writing; Peer assessment; Feedback; AI; EFL

Full Text:

PDF

References

Barkhuizen, G., Benson, P., & Chik, A. (2013). Narrative inquiry in language teaching and learning research. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203124994

Barrot, J. S. (2020). Integrating technology into ESL/EFL writing through Grammarly. RELC Journal, 53(3), 764-768. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220966632

Cameron, C., Deming, S. P., Notzon, B., Cantor, S. B., Broglio, K. R., & Pagel, W. (2009). Scientific writing training for academic physicians of diverse language backgrounds. Academic Medicine, 84(4), 505-510. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e31819a7e6d

Cheung, S. K. (2015). A case study on the students’ attitude and acceptance of mobile learning. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 45-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46158-7_5

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE.

Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and Co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331-350. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079912331379935

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (Some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285-300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05480.x

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600

Hinkel, E. (1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 Academic Writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(3), 361-386. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(96)00040-9

Huisman, B., Saab, N., Van Driel, J., & Van den Broek, P. (2018). Peer feedback on Academic Writing: Undergraduate students’ peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 955-968. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1424318

Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.

Ion, G., Sánchez Martí, A., & Agud Morell, I. (2018). Giving or receiving feedback: Which is more beneficial to students’ learning? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 124-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1484881

Min, H. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003

Nazari, N., Shabbir, M. S., & Setiawan, R. (2021). Application of artificial intelligence powered digital writing assistant in higher education: Randomized controlled trial. Heliyon, 7(5), e07014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07014

Panadero, E., & Brown, G. T. (2016). Teachers’ reasons for using peer assessment: Positive experience predicts use. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32(1), 133-156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-015-0282-5

Sağlamel, H., & Kayaoğlu, M. N. (2015). English major students’ perceptions of Academic Writing: A struggle between writing to learn and learning to Write. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 4(3), 37. https://doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v4i3.477

Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577569

Topping, K. J. (2018). Using peer assessment to inspire reflection and learning. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351256889

Van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & Van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 270-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.004

Vygotsky, L. (1980). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Zamel, V. (1983). undefined. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 165. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586647

Zhao, H. (2018). Exploring tertiary English as a foreign language writing tutors’ perceptions of the appropriateness of peer assessment for writing. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(7), 1133-1145. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1434610

Zhu, Q., & Carless, D. (2018). Dialogue within peer feedback processes: Clarification and negotiation of meaning. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(4), 883-897. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1446417

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/ee.v11i3.71805

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.