Setiawan Adi Prasetyo(1*), Aninda Nidhommil Hima(2),

(1) Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang
(2) Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang
(*) Corresponding Author


In Second Language Writing class, the use of student-based assessment such as self and peer assessments has been increasingly promoted in addition to the teacher-assessment (Alias, Masek, & Salleh, 2015; Chang, Tseng, & Lou, 2012; Esfandiari & Myford, 2013) to help the students make a good writing product (Andrade, Du, & Mycek, 2010). Nevertheless, the inclusion of the student-based assessment result in determining the students’ final score still becomes a controversial matter since some studies prove that the student-based assessment and teacher assessment are not in agreement and tend to be questionable (Alias et al., 2015; Panadero, Romero, & Strijbos, 2013). Therefore, to bridge the gap, this study aims at investigating the level of consistency among self-assessment, peer assessment, and teacher assessment in a writing course. Through a correlational research design, the current study involved 21 students who took a paragraph writing course and experienced in self and peer assessing.  To collect the data, the students were asked to write an expository paragraph that was assessed through self, peer and teacher assessments.  After collecting the data, then the data analysis is done by using Spearman Rank Order Correlation to answer whether or not there is consistency among self-assessment, peer assessment, and instructor assessment. The results reveal that the students provided the same score in self, peer and teacher assessment. However, the correlations in both self and peer-assessment, as well as self and teacher assessment, are not considered statistically significant. The significant difference occurs in the correlation between peer and teacher assessment result only. From this finding, it can be recommended to the teacher to include the result of peer assessment in determining the students' final grade.


Self Assessment, Peer Assessment, Teacher Assessment

Full Text:



Abolfazli, Z., & Sadeghi, K. (2013). The effect of assessment type ( self vs . peer ) on Iranian university EFL s course achievement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1552–1564.

Alias, M., Masek, A., & Salleh, H. H. M. (2015). Self, Peer and Teacher Assessments in Problem Based Learning: Are They in Agreements? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 204(November 2014), 309–317.

Andrade, H. L., Du, Y., & Mycek, K. (2010). Rubric-referenced self-assessment and middle school students’ writing. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 17(2), 199–214.

Blue, G. M. (1994). Self-Assessment of Foreign Language Skills: Does It Work? CLE Working Papers, 3, 18–35.

Chang, C. C., Tseng, K. H., & Lou, S. J. (2012). A comparative analysis of the consistency and difference among teacher-assessment, student self-assessment and peer-assessment in a Web-based portfolio assessment environment for high school students. Computers and Education, 58(1), 303–320.

Chen, C. (2010). Computers & Education The implementation and evaluation of a mobile self- and peer-assessment system. Computers & Education, 55(1), 229–236.

Davies, P. (2002). Using student reflective self-assessment for awarding degree classifications. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(4), 307–319.

De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2012). How effective are self- and peer assessment of oral presentation skills compared with teachers’ assessments? Active Learning in Higher Education, 13(2), 129–142.

Esfandiari, R., & Myford, C. M. (2013). Severity differences among self-assessors, peer-assessors, and teacher assessors rating EFL essays. Assessing Writing, 18(2), 111–131.

Jaime, A., Ana, S., & Blanco, M. (2016). Computers in Human Behavior A comparative analysis of the consistency and difference among online self- , peer- , external- and instructor-assessments : The competitive effect. 60, 112–120.

Kilic, D. (2016). An Examination of Using Self-, Peer-, and Teacher-Assessment in Higher Education: A Case Study in Teacher Education. Higher Education Studies, 6(1), 136.

Kirby, N. F., & Downs, C. T. (2007). Self-assessment and the disadvantaged student: Potential for encouraging self-regulated learning? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(4), 475–494.

Leach, L. (2012). Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Optional self-assessment : some tensions and dilemmas. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(2), 137–141.

Linblom-Ylanne. (2006). Self-, peer- and teacher-assessment of student essays. Active Learning in Higher Education, 7(1), 51–62.

Panadero, E., Romero, M., & Strijbos, J. W. (2013). The impact of a rubric and friendship on peer assessment: Effects on construct validity, performance, and perceptions of fairness and comfort. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(4), 195–203.

Porto, M. (2001). Cooperative writing response groups and self-evaluation. ELT Journal, 55(January), 38–46.

Sadler, P., & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self-and peer-grading on student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 37–41.

Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., Chiou, S. K., & Hou, H. T. (2005). The design and application of a web-based self- and peer-assessment system. Computers and Education, 45(2), 187–202.

Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 20–27.

Tsai, C., Lin, S. S. J., & Yuan, S. (2002). Developing science activities through a networked peer assessment system. COMPUTERS AND EDUCATION, 38, 241–252.

Van Gennip, N. A. E., Segers, M. S. R., & Tillema, H. H. (2009). Peer assessment for learning from a social perspective: The influence of interpersonal variables and structural features. Educational Research Review, 4(1), 41–54.

Vu, T. T., & Dall’Alba, G. (2007). Students’ experience of peer assessment in a professional course. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(5), 541–556.

DOI: 10.24235/eltecho.v4i2.4948

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 80 times
PDF - 18 times


  • There are currently no refbacks.


This Journal is indexed by:



View My Stats

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.