Teacher Correction versus Peer-Marking

Written language is undoubtedly more often used than oral language in a variety of contexts, including both the professional and academic life. Consequently, developing strategies for correcting compositions and improving
 students’ written production is of vital importance. This article des...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Mourente Miguel Mariana Correia
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Universidad Nacional de Colombia 2004-08-01
Series:Profile Issues in Teachers' Professional Development
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/profile/article/view/11211
_version_ 1797701539774595072
author Mourente Miguel Mariana Correia
author_facet Mourente Miguel Mariana Correia
author_sort Mourente Miguel Mariana Correia
collection DOAJ
description Written language is undoubtedly more often used than oral language in a variety of contexts, including both the professional and academic life. Consequently, developing strategies for correcting compositions and improving
 students’ written production is of vital importance. This article describes an experiment aimed at assessing the two most widely used methods of correction for compositions –traditional teacher correction and peer marking and their
 effect on the frequency of errors. Data was collected by asking students to write and revise a text. Statistical tests were performed to analyse it. At the end of the
 experiment, it was found that no significant difference in efficiency existed between the two methods, contradicting expectations (cf. Davies, 2002; Levine et al., 2002 and Ward, 2001).
 
 Key words: English-Teaching, Foreign Language-Teaching Writing, Evaluation, Assessment
 
 El lenguaje escrito es sin duda usado con más frecuencia que el lenguaje oral en una variedad de situaciones o contextos, incluyendo tanto la vida profesional como la académica. En consecuencia, el desarrollo de estrategias
 para corregir composiciones y mejorar la producción escrita de los estudiantes es de suma importancia. Este artículo describe un experimento cuyo objetivo es evaluar los dos métodos más usados para la corrección de composiciones, la
 corrección tradicional por el maestro y la corrección por revisión de pares, con respecto a su efecto en la frecuencia de errores. Se recogió información haciendo que estudiantes escribieran y revisaran un texto y sobre esos textos se aplicaron pruebas estadísticas para analizar los errores. Contrario a lo esperado, al final del experimento, no se encontró ninguna diferencia significativa entre los resultados encontrados por los dos métodos, (cfr. Davies, 2002; Levine et al., 2002 y Ward, 2001).
 
 Palabras claves: Inglés-Enseñanza, Idioma Extranjero-Enseñanza, Composición, Evaluación
first_indexed 2024-03-12T04:37:08Z
format Article
id doaj.art-99f3ab2c71d9483baf34a5a4df7ac21b
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1657-0790
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-12T04:37:08Z
publishDate 2004-08-01
publisher Universidad Nacional de Colombia
record_format Article
series Profile Issues in Teachers' Professional Development
spelling doaj.art-99f3ab2c71d9483baf34a5a4df7ac21b2023-09-03T09:53:46ZengUniversidad Nacional de ColombiaProfile Issues in Teachers' Professional Development1657-07902004-08-0151Teacher Correction versus Peer-MarkingMourente Miguel Mariana CorreiaWritten language is undoubtedly more often used than oral language in a variety of contexts, including both the professional and academic life. Consequently, developing strategies for correcting compositions and improving
 students’ written production is of vital importance. This article describes an experiment aimed at assessing the two most widely used methods of correction for compositions –traditional teacher correction and peer marking and their
 effect on the frequency of errors. Data was collected by asking students to write and revise a text. Statistical tests were performed to analyse it. At the end of the
 experiment, it was found that no significant difference in efficiency existed between the two methods, contradicting expectations (cf. Davies, 2002; Levine et al., 2002 and Ward, 2001).
 
 Key words: English-Teaching, Foreign Language-Teaching Writing, Evaluation, Assessment
 
 El lenguaje escrito es sin duda usado con más frecuencia que el lenguaje oral en una variedad de situaciones o contextos, incluyendo tanto la vida profesional como la académica. En consecuencia, el desarrollo de estrategias
 para corregir composiciones y mejorar la producción escrita de los estudiantes es de suma importancia. Este artículo describe un experimento cuyo objetivo es evaluar los dos métodos más usados para la corrección de composiciones, la
 corrección tradicional por el maestro y la corrección por revisión de pares, con respecto a su efecto en la frecuencia de errores. Se recogió información haciendo que estudiantes escribieran y revisaran un texto y sobre esos textos se aplicaron pruebas estadísticas para analizar los errores. Contrario a lo esperado, al final del experimento, no se encontró ninguna diferencia significativa entre los resultados encontrados por los dos métodos, (cfr. Davies, 2002; Levine et al., 2002 y Ward, 2001).
 
 Palabras claves: Inglés-Enseñanza, Idioma Extranjero-Enseñanza, Composición, Evaluaciónhttp://www.revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/profile/article/view/11211English-Teaching, Foreign Language-Teaching Writing, Evaluation, Assessment
spellingShingle Mourente Miguel Mariana Correia
Teacher Correction versus Peer-Marking
Profile Issues in Teachers' Professional Development
English-Teaching, Foreign Language-Teaching Writing, Evaluation, Assessment
title Teacher Correction versus Peer-Marking
title_full Teacher Correction versus Peer-Marking
title_fullStr Teacher Correction versus Peer-Marking
title_full_unstemmed Teacher Correction versus Peer-Marking
title_short Teacher Correction versus Peer-Marking
title_sort teacher correction versus peer marking
topic English-Teaching, Foreign Language-Teaching Writing, Evaluation, Assessment
url http://www.revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/profile/article/view/11211
work_keys_str_mv AT mourentemiguelmarianacorreia teachercorrectionversuspeermarking