Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms

By Hidetoshi Saito, Tomoko Fujita. 2004

179 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Information Systems, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2283da29f53658e2acf646c20a9c22676a9157cf

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

1. Sarah Gielen
2. Filip Dochy
3. Sumie Matsuno
4. Patrick Onghena
5. Richard G. Badger
6. Miao Yang
7. Hidetoshi Saito
8. Zhenyou Yu

In Information Systems

1. Sumie Matsuno
2. Filip Dochy
3. Sarah Gielen
4. Patrick Onghena
5. Hidetoshi Saito
6. Ricky Lam

In Language and Linguistics

1. Sumie Matsuno
2. Filip Dochy
3. Sarah Gielen
4. Patrick Onghena
5. Richard G. Badger
6. Miao Yang
7. Hidetoshi Saito
8. Zhenyou Yu

Citations in the corpus

• An inventory of peer assessment diversity (2011, methodology): “In the first type assessees still have the opportunity to revise their work or behaviour before the final assessment, thus applying the formative feedback to their current performance (e.g. Saito and Fujita 2004).”
• Peer Feedback in Learning English Writing: Advantages and Disadvantages (2013, background): “Saito and Fujita (2004) report that a number of studies indicate that there are a number of biases associated with peer feedback including friendship, reference, purpose(development vs.”
• Goals of peer assessment and their associated quality concepts (2011, unknown): “Topping 1998 ), ‘accuracy’ (Topping 2003 ), ‘consistency’ (Marcoulides and Simkin 1995 ), ‘similarity’ and ‘concurrent validity’ (Saito and Fujita 2004 ).”
• Self-, peer-, and teacher-assessments in Japanese university EFL writing classrooms (2009, methodology): “Even though the latter method was utilized, using self-assessment as a formal assessment was controversial, because researchers often found low correlations between self- and teacherassessments (Patri, 2002; Saito & Fujita, 2004).”
• EFL classroom peer assessment: Training effects on rating and commenting (2008, background): “Figure 1 Results of Rasch analysis of verbal aspect of peer ratings, in comparison with teachers, concur with several previous studies on L2 (e.g. Patri, 2002; Saito & Fujita, 2004) and in other domains (e.g. Morahan-Martin, 1996; Stefani, 1992).”
• A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class (2006, background): “Saito and Fujita (2004) comment that there is a persistent belief among teachers that students are incapable of rating peers because of their lack of language ability, skill and experience (p. 48).”