Effects of Collaborative Evaluation Techniques on Students’ Writing Performance

Abstract

The study utilized a pre-test/post-test quasi-experimental design to investigate the effects of four evaluation techniques (self, one-on-one, and two peer-group editing techniques) on students' writing performance. Participants were 88 college students enrolled in three sections of freshmen writing taught by one teacher. All student-editors were guided by an adapted holistic rubric considering three features of the compositions, namely: content (focus and support), coherence (organization) and accuracy (grammar and mechanics). Writing performance was measured through the average holistic scores of students in the post-test in comparison with their scores in the pre-test. Statistical tests included ANOVA and the Tukey HSD procedure. Results showed that the evaluation methods had a significant impact on all of the components of the rubric. With an inter-rater reliability of .80, the average difference in the holistic scores between post-test and pre-test was statistically significant. It was also found that except for mechanics, the average scores for content and organization in the essays subjected to collaborative evaluation techniques (one-on-one and peer group) were significantly higher than those subjected to the self-editing technique. It is strongly recommended that collaborative evaluation be an integral part in any writing instruction.