Differences in Rater Behavior

I suggest the researchers use more reliability estimators because they only explicitly addressed procedural reliability. They could not verify the task administration procedure completely because they did not speak Hmong. As a result, the researchers could not claim inter-observer reliability due to the language barrier. The inability to verify the task administration weakens the reliability. Providing other reliability estimators and explicitly stating them in the article would improve the replicability of the

Writing Prompt. This two-day lesson assessment determined whether or not students met the lesson’s objective. We chose this assessment because it provides qualitative data and incorporates the writing standard into our lesson. Also, the writing prompt is an open-ended assessment tool that does not limit the students’ choices when answering the prompt. If we gave them a multiple choice form of assessment, then the students only have 4 options to choose from that may not represent their thoughts entirely. Plus, students could select the correct answer through process of elimination, which would not represent the full picture of their knowledge and understandings. The writing prompt required the students to individually explain to an alien what its responsibilities are now that it is a member of the local community. Attached to the writing prompt was a writing rubric that would guide students to write a complete answer (See Appendix A). Since their language arts and reading teacher uses this writing rubric for her assignments, the student are familiar with it and understand how to write a complete answer. We had the students complete it individually so we could see each students’ voice and thoughts and eliminate the possibility of their answer being influenced by their peers’ opinions. Since we understand that the “the results of assessment are used to inform the planning and implementing of experiences and to evaluate and improve teachers’ and the program’s effectiveness”

Individuals sometimes get judged for his/her writing skills. Some individual’s skills are not as developed as others for many different reasons. In high school, a student whose English skills are not developed can have a peer review his/her paper and will be

The data and findings of a researcher has been tested for its accuracy, objectivity and reliability by using several different strategies (Objakor, Bakken & Rotatori 2010:28)

According to Paper rater auto grader I received a 95-“A” my knowledge of complex words is strong, and my usage of more complex and varied sentence beginnings is in the upper percentile for my education level. The entire report contained information that is beneficial to perfecting my writing styles. I must say, I was hesitant and a little afraid of what my outcome was going to be. After copying and pasting the document and viewing the results, I find this tool to be useful. However, some of the verbiage used in my paper were not translatable and thus caused a few flags. Yet I am satisfied with the ending

Pre and post intervention semi-structured interviews were conducted in a side room on the school grounds, approximately 4m x 10m, that was familiar, warm and quiet. The purpose of the interview was to establish students’ perceptions and knowledge of writing and revising processes. The

Third, the reinforcement assessment results showed that the participant might have a difficulty on understanding the task. Additional research can be done to include a thinning schedule in the reinforcement assessment. Specifically, experimenter can conduct a rich reinforcement schedule (such as FI 10s) at the beginning of the assessment and then gradually increase participant’s engagement time to get a reinforcer by using FI 20s, FI 30s and FI 40s schedules. This method may help participant to have more exposure on the tasks and reinforcers and understand the contingency at the beginning of the sessions. Fourth, the quality of the observational data should be taken into consideration as some of the interobserver agreement data in this project were low (below 85%). Cooper, Heron and Heward (2014) indicated that experimenters and clinicians should always choose the valid assessment of IOA to ensure the reliability of the observation data and their interpretations

Kaleb has experienced mixed results in English. He occasionally contributes to class discussions when focussed on the topic. Kaleb is continuing to develop his speaking skills when presenting to the class. His prepared speech demonstrated improved use of eye contact as he attempted to use palm cards. However, Kaleb needs to include more detail and expression. Kaleb reads slowly with increasing accuracy and is developing his fluency and expression. He successfully decodes most unknown words but must remember to monitor his reading to maintain understanding. When writing, Kaleb attempts to describe actions and objects. He is beginning to organise his writing using paragraphs. However, Kaleb needs increase his efforts to produce longer texts and use punctuation consistently. He is continuing to develop his spelling and grammar skills.

There are numerous types of rater errors. If I had to choose four, I would choose leniency, severity, central tendency and first impression. The reason for my choices are that at least once in my working career, I have dealt with managers and supervisors that were guilty of at least one of the errors. Leniency errors are when management assigns each employee under their supervision high ratings or inflate the ratings. Leniency has been labeled as one of the most troublesome of rating errors (Kane, Bernardin, Villanova, & Peyrefitte, 1995). One reason could be because it places every employee on the same pedestal as far as ratings goes. Severity errors are when managers or supervisors assign low ratings to all the employees, which is the opposite

I assessed prior knowledge for my “Opinion/ Persuasive Writing Unit” by explaining an opinion letter, an opinion, 3 reasons, and a conclusion to all students. Then I gave my students a prompt to respond to, as that is what is most academically appropriate for my students, and also they are in first grade. I graded their “Opinion Letter” work based on the rubric that I created along with the unit, and its lesson plans. The reason I chose a rubric for both my Pre-Assessment and Post-Assessment for the unit is because I thought it what would both clearly state my expectations, and most effectively communicate data to show student mastery of the “Opinion/ Persuasive

The objective of education in the United States of America is now a development system of advancement. The one common thread across the educational system is the art of writing. The skill of writing was once recognized as an extension of the English discipline; however, writing is now a mandatory subject and necessary skill set. Writing Across the Curriculum is among the Schools of Educational Pedagogies that aid teachers of all subjects. Educators around the world now recognize the importance of writing, strategy, and articulation of content material. Writing may vary for each subject matter; yet, the grading aspect stays the same. Instructors teaching writing courses may feel overwhelmed by the amount of errors within their student’s work. This synthesis will analyze the assignment design concept, draft/revision stage, alternatives to strict corrections, and the power dynamic of peer review.

Ideas are the evidence of critical thinking, making them important in the task of peer assessment. Proper use of grammar and punctuation is equally important when peer assessment is taking place online because the misuse of either can drastically change the meaning of an idea, in the same way that a tone of voice can change the meaning of a verbal statement. The use of asynchronous discussion highlights the importance of researching a topic before responding or judging. The same can be said for assessing a peer response to a topic that is contrary to one’s own personal beliefs or values: By doing additional research, the assessor can familiarize themselves on what facts might cause a person to have different ideas, so the assessor can then

In terms of the methodologies of the two studies, I consider the exploratory design of Baker studies which differentiates itself as a study that strongly emphasizes rater behaviors a more interesting one. According to its conceptual frameworks, Baker carefully added a GDMSI questionnaire and a ‘deferred double score’,an observational quantitative data, to effectively reduce the limitations of its controversial self-report scales in the qualitative protocols presenting a more reliable design for data analysis (Baker, 2012. p.229). Unlike Baker, Barkaoui limits the think aloud protocol as a tool to collect his data. This underestimates interferences of the think aloud protocol in the rating process(Barkaoui, 2010, p.57).The small number of participants may restrict the author from applying other counterbalance methods in such case.

In the experiment, one hundred and sixty (134 male, 26 female) Japanese students from Hokkaido University participated, which they were randomly drawn from a pool of roughly 1500 students who volunteered. The experimenters compared the assessments made between two 3-person groups in an intergroup condition with those made between two characters in the same condition. Hence, each sessions required eight participants; two participated in the

In 2008, the authors stated that the evidence raised logically from the data. Their interpretation is in line with the other researchers thinking. They suggest further work, more research and it coincided with my take away. Therefore, both strengths and limitations of this study were addressed. Redundancy aids learning in any research. the study by Kennedy et al., which reported results both within-group as well as between-groups, did not (P = 0.74) [28].