LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Seviour, M (2015)
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:

Classified by OpenAIRE into

ACM Ref: ComputingMilieux_COMPUTERSANDEDUCATION
Pre-sessional EAP courses in the UK fulfil a difficult dual role. Not only are they charged with helping students learn the academic language and literacy skills they will require on their degree courses, but they are also expected to summatively assess those skills in order to decide on the readiness of students to begin English medium degree study. This creates tension between assessment and learning. Students are often extrinsically motivated by the need for a passing grade rather than focussing on the learning gains they make throughout the course. For this reason it is important that the approach to assessment on pre-sessional courses actually supports learning. This paper outlines the approach taken to the assessment of academic writing on the PEAP course at Nottingham Trent University. It describes how the assessment was redesigned to emphasise process over end product and to maximise early and sustained student engagement. This was achieved by careful scaffolding of the writing process, the strategic use of summative elements of the assessment, and an emphasis on formative feedback, \ud reflection, and understanding of the assessment criteria. The paper considers how this approach to assessment is supporting student learning but also points out some ongoing concerns.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Alexander, O., Argent, S., & Spencer, J. (2008). EAP essentials: A teacher's guide to principles and practice. Reading: Garnet.
    • Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable Assessment: rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151e167.
    • Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment and evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399e413.
    • Buckley, E., & Cowap, L. (2013). An evaluation of the use of turnitin for electronic submission and marking and as a formative feedback tool from an educator's perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 562e570.
    • Carless, D. (2002). The mini-viva as a tool to enhance assessment for learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(4), 353e363.
    • Ferris, D. (2001). Teaching writing for academic purposes. In J. Flowerdew, & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on english for academic purposes (pp. 298e314). Cambridge: CUP.
    • Franks, B., & Hanscomb, S. (2012). Learning through reflective dialogue: assessing the effectiveness of feedback vivas. Discourse: Learning and Teaching in Philosophical and Religious Studies. ISSN: 1741-4164, 12(1). Available at: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/journals/discourse-journal Accessed 2.02.15..
    • Gibbs, G. (2006). How assessment frames student learning. In C. Bryan, & K. Klegg (Eds.), Innovative assessment in higher education (pp. 23e36). Abingdon: Routledge.
    • Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students' learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3e31.
    • Hamp-Lyons, L., & Condon, W. (2000). Assessing the portfolio: Principles for practice, theory and research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
    • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81e112.
    • Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2002). The conscientious consumer: reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 53e64.
    • Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Being (Dis)Engaged in educationally purposeful activities: the influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 43(5), 555e575.
    • Hyland, K. (2002). Second language writing. Cambridge: CUP.
    • Kiernan, E., Lawrence, J., & Sankey, M. (2006). Preliminary essay plans: Assisting students to engage academic literacy in a first year communication course. Paper presented at the 9th Pacific rim first year in higher education Conference: Engaging students. Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia, 12e14 July. Available at http://www.ibrarian.net/navon/page.jsp?paperid¼12424428&searchTerm¼academicþcommunication Accessed 20.02.15.
    • Pearson, J. (2015). Participation and control in EAP writing assessment. Poster presented at EALTA SIG Seminar on the assessment of writing and assessment for academic purposes, university of Warwick, February 5-7, 2015. Available at http://www.ealta.eu.org/conference/2013/docs/WRAP-SIG/Jayne% 20Pearson%20poster%20presentat_on%20EALTA%202013.pdf Accessed 02.02.15.
    • Prowse, S., Duncan, N., Hughes, J., & Burke, D. (2007). '…do that and I'll raise your grade'. Innovative module design and recursive feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 437e445.
    • Reid, J., & Kroll, B. (1995). Designing and assessing effective classroom writing assignments for NES and ESL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(1), 17e41.
    • Rolfe, V. (2011). Can turnitin be used to provide instant formative feedback? British Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 701e710.
    • Weigle, S. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: CUP.
    • Whittle, S. R., & Murdoch-Eaton, D. G. (2008). Learning about plagiarism using turnitin detection software. Medical Education, 42, 528.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Funded by projects

  • EC | DIAPREPP

Cite this article