下载文档原格式
Author Status PageIn order to view your paper status, submit additional content, etc., you will need to log into your author account on the conference site. The page displayed after logging in, the Status page, is the platform where all paper information can be viewed or updated. The page is composed of two sections, Current Paper Status and Author Information, which are described below.Current Paper StatusThe Current Paper Status section displays paper information and status, and gives you, the contact author, the functionality to manage your technical submissions. Each paper number will be displayed on this page, along with the details of each paper.Paper numberPaper titleStatus/OptionsArea of interest (and topic if chosen)SessionConference organizer name (directly linked to their email address)Role of organizerSession schedule (when assigned)NOTE: The ability to show or hide area of interest, topic and session details can be controlled by choosing Show or Hide from the top portion of the page.The submission of your abstract initiates the process whereby your paper will flow through the online management system. The status of your paper will be listed in red under the Status/Options box. The various status statements are:●Abstract submitted: The abstract has been successfully submitted, and is awaitinginitial review from a conference organizer.●Abstract accepted: The abstract has been reviewed by the conference organizer andhas been accepted.●Abstract rejected: The abstract has been reviewed by the conference organizer andhas been rejected.●Draft paper received: The draft has been successfully submitted, and is awaitingreviewer assignment by a conference organizer.●Under review: The draft is under peer review.●Paper review completed: The peer review of the draft has been completed and thepaper is awaiting final determination of acceptance by a conference organizer.●Revision requested: After peer review, a revised version of your draft has beenrequested by a conference organizer.●Revised paper submitted: The revised draft has been successfully submitted and isawaiting final determination of acceptance by a conference organizer.●Draft paper accepted: The draft has been tentatively accepted for publication andpresentation, provided all publication requirements are submitted by the stated deadline. NOTE: Even if your draft is accepted without any required corrections you MUST still submit a final paper.●Draft paper rejected: The draft has been rejected for publication and presentation.●Paper withdrawn: The paper submitted has been withdrawn from the conference.●Final paper submitted: The final paper has been successfully submitted forpublication.As conference organizers manage your submissions through the tool, their decisions will enable the next function in the paper submittal process. The functions will be displayed under the Options box, as well as the top of the Status page. You will see the following links at different points during the conference cycle.●Update: Enables the author to update an abstract, paper type, paper title, presentingauthor biography and draft papers; final papers cannot be updated.●Submit Draft Paper: Enables the author to submit a draft paper.●Submit Final Paper: Enables the author to submit a final paper.●Submit Biography: Enables the author to submit a presenting author biography (fornon-published paper types).●Details: Enables the author to view paper details, including the technical area thepaper has been submitted to, organizer contact information, reviewer and organizer comments, and paper events.●Withdraw: Enables the author to withdraw the abstract/paper from the conference.●Re-instate: Enables the author to request their withdrawn abstract/paper to bere-instated.●Download Copyright Form: Enables the author download a copyright form in HTMLformat, pre-populated with paper and author information as entered from the author’s account.Author InformationThe Author Information section provides information on additional authors and the ability to manage them. Author information will be listed for each paper submitted. The following fields are shown.Paper NumberAuthor Name and RoleOptionsThe Options box will provide an author with the ability to manage their additional authors. The following functions are available.Update: Enables the author to update a co-author account.NOTE: If the co-author is a contact author for another paper or is an organizer you will not be able to update their information.Add: Enables the author to add an additional author.Delete: Enables the author to remove an author from the paper.Roles & Order: Enables the author to update author roles and order.。
英语作文互评师范### English Composition Peer Review ExampleIntroduction:Peer review is an essential aspect of the learning process, especially in the context of English composition. It allows students to share their work with their peers, receive constructive feedback, and improve their writing skills. In this example, we will explore a step-by-step approach to conducting a peer review of an English composition.Step 1: PreparationBefore beginning the peer review, it is important toestablish clear guidelines. Students should be informed about the purpose of the review, the criteria for evaluation, and the process they will follow.Step 2: Reading the CompositionThe first step in the peer review process is to read the composition carefully. Students should read for overall understanding, noting the main ideas and supporting details.Step 3: Identifying StrengthsAfter reading the composition, the reviewer should identify the strengths of the piece. This could include clear organization, strong arguments, or effective use of language.Step 4: Providing Constructive FeedbackThe next step is to provide constructive feedback on areas that could be improved. This should be done in a respectful and helpful manner, focusing on specific aspects of the writing such as grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, and clarity of expression.Step 5: Suggesting ImprovementsAlong with pointing out areas for improvement, the reviewer should offer suggestions for how the writer can enhance their composition. This could include rephrasing sentences, adding examples, or clarifying complex ideas.Step 6: Summarizing FeedbackOnce the specific points have been addressed, the reviewer should summarize their feedback. This summary shouldhighlight the strengths of the composition and provide an overview of the suggestions for improvement.Step 7: Reflecting on the Review ProcessAfter completing the peer review, both the reviewer and the writer should reflect on the process. The reviewer should consider what they learned from reviewing the composition, and the writer should think about how they will incorporate the feedback into their future writing.Conclusion:Peer review is a valuable tool for improving writing skills and fostering a collaborative learning environment. By following a structured approach, students can provide and receive feedback that helps them grow as writers.Sample Peer Review Comments:- "Your introduction effectively captures the reader's attention with a compelling anecdote. Great job!"- "I noticed a few instances of passive voice throughout the essay. Consider revising these to active voice for a stronger impact."- "The transition between the second and third paragraphs is a bit abrupt. Perhaps you could add a sentence that bridges the two ideas more smoothly."- "Your conclusion succinctly summarizes the main points of your argument. However, you might want to consider adding a call to action or a thought-provoking question to leave the reader with something to ponder."Remember, the goal of peer review is to support and enhance each other's writing, not to criticize. Always approach the process with a positive and constructive attitude.。
国际学术交流英语单词词汇国际学术交流是一个涉及广泛的领域，涉及到各种学科和专业。
在这个领域中，有许多常用的英语单词和词汇，这些词汇对于参与国际学术交流的人来说非常重要。
以下是一些常见的国际学术交流的英语单词和词汇：1. Academic: 学术的，学术界的。
2. Conference: 会议。
3. Research: 研究。
4. Paper: 论文。
5. Publication: 出版物。
6. Scholar: 学者。
7. Collaboration: 合作。
8. Presentation: 演讲，展示。
9. Abstract: 摘要。
10. Peer review: 同行评议。
11. Citation: 引用。
12. Thesis: 论文，论题。
13. Dissertation: 学位论文。
14. Plagiarism: 抄袭。
15. Academic integrity: 学术诚信。
16. Grant: 资助金，补助金。
17. Symposium: 座谈会，研讨会。
18. Panel: 小组讨论。
19. Academic journal: 学术期刊。
20. Academic writing: 学术写作。
这些词汇涵盖了国际学术交流中的各个方面，包括会议、研究、出版、合作等。
在国际学术交流中，熟悉并正确运用这些词汇是非常重要的，可以帮助人们更好地参与到国际学术交流中去。
同时，这些词汇也反映了国际学术交流的复杂性和多样性，需要人们具备丰富的词汇量和专业知识才能更好地融入这个领域。
希望以上信息对你有所帮助。
Peer Review ProcessThe peer review process is a critical component of the academic and scientific community, serving as a means to ensure the quality and validity of research and scholarly work. However, this process is not without its challenges and criticisms. From the perspective of authors, peer review can be a daunting and anxiety-inducing experience, as their work is subjected to the scrutiny of their peers. This can lead to feelings of vulnerability and self-doubt, especially if the feedback is harsh or overly critical. On the other hand, from the perspective of reviewers, the peer review process can be time-consuming and often thankless, with little recognition or compensation for their efforts. Additionally, there are concerns about the potential for bias or conflicts of interest among reviewers, which can undermine the integrity of the process.From the standpoint of journal editors, the peer review process presents its own set of challenges. They must carefully select appropriate reviewers for each submission, manage the timely completion of reviews, and make difficult decisions about the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts based on the feedback received. This can be a demanding and high-pressure role, as editors strive to maintain the quality and reputation of their publication while also balancing the needs and expectations of authors and reviewers.Furthermore, there are broader systemic issues within the peer review process that warrant consideration. For example, the traditional peer review model has been criticized for its lack of transparency and accountability, as well as its potential to perpetuate biases and gatekeeping within the academic community. Moreover, the current peer review system is often slow and inefficient, leading to delays in the dissemination of important research findings. These issues have prompted calls for alternative models of peer review, such as open peer review or post-publication peer review, which aim to address some of these shortcomings.Despite these challenges, it is important to recognize the value of the peer review process in upholding the standards of academic and scientific integrity. Peer review serves as a safeguard against the dissemination of flawed or fraudulent research, helping to maintain the credibility and trustworthiness of scholarly work. Additionally, the feedbackprovided through the peer review process can be invaluable for authors, offering constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement that can ultimately strengthen their work.In conclusion, the peer review process is a complex and multifaceted aspect of scholarly communication, with implications for authors, reviewers, editors, and the broader academic community. While it is not without its flaws and criticisms, it remains a crucial mechanism for ensuring the quality and validity of research and scholarship. As such, it is important to continue to critically evaluate and improve the peer review process, addressing its shortcomings while preserving its essential role in maintaining the integrity of academic and scientific work.。
scientific reports peer-reviewPeer review is a critical process in scientific publishing that involves the evaluation of research articles by experts in the same field. The main purpose of peer review is to assess the quality, validity, and significance of the research before it gets published in a scientific journal or report.When a researcher submits a manuscript to a journal, the editor initially reviews it to determine its suitability for publication. If the article meets the basic requirements, such as originality and relevance to the journal's scope, it is sent out to external experts, known as peer reviewers, for evaluation.Peer reviewers typically have expertise in the specific subject matter of the manuscript. They carefully examine the article, evaluating various aspects such as methodology, data analysis, results, interpretation, and conclusions. Reviewers also assess the article's adherence to ethical guidelines and the clarity of writing.During the peer-review process, reviewers provide constructive feedback to the authors, pointing out strengths and weaknesses, suggesting improvements, and raising any concerns. Reviewers may request additional experiments, data analysis, or clarification of certain points if necessary.The feedback from peer reviewers helps the editor make an informed decision regarding the publication of the manuscript. The editor may accept the article as it is, request revisions from the authors, or reject it based on substantial flaws or lack of novelty.Peer review is crucial because it ensures the integrity and credibility of scientific publications. It acts as a filter to prevent flawed or erroneous research from being disseminated. By involving independent experts, the peer-review process helps maintain high standards of scholarship, promotes rigorous scientific discourse, and improves the overall quality of scientific reports.However, it is important to note that peer review is notinfallible and is subject to limitations. Reviewers can have their biases or limitations in recognizing certain issues. Therefore, the responsibility ultimately lies with the readers to critically evaluate and interpret scientific findings.。
外文资料原文Using Peer Review to Help Students Improve TheirWritingInstructors teach a writing-intensive course, or any course that requires students to produce a substantial amount of writing, should consider creating opportunities for students to read and respond to one another's writing. Such opportunities to engage in "peer review," when well planned, can help students improve their reading and writing skills, and learn how to collaborate effectively.More specifically, participating in peer review can help students∙Learn how to read carefully, with attention to the details of a piece of writing (whether their own or another writer's);∙Learn how to strengthen their writing by taking into account the responses of actual and anticipated readers;∙Make the transition from writing primarily for themselves or for an instructor to writing for a broader audience-a keytransition for students as they learn to write university-levelpapers and as they prepare for post-graduate work;∙Learn how to formulate and communicate constructive feedback on a peer's work;Learn how to gather and respond to feedback on their own work.A common misstep that many instructors make in approachingpeer review is to assume that students already have the skillsdescribed above and that incorporating peer review simply amountsto asking students to apply these skills to the tasks of reading and responding to one another's writing. Instead, instructors shouldapproach peer review as an opportunity to teach these skills and for students to practice them.(This handout presents a specific mode of approaching peer review. For tips on how to organize and run peer review in your course.How Do Students Respond?Many instructors who have incorporated peer review into their courses report less than satisfying results. In fact, it is quite commonto find that, when asked to participate in peer review, students rush through the peer-review process and offer their peers only vaguely positive comments, such as "I liked your paper," or "Good job," or "Good paper, but a few parts need more work." Furthermore, many students seem to ignore peer-reviewers' comments on their writing.There are several possible reasons behind such responses:1. Many students feel uncomfortable with the task of having to pronounce a judgment on their peers' writing. This discomfort may be the result of their maturity level, their desire not to hurt a peer's feelings (perhaps made more acute by the fact that they are anxious about having their peers read and judge their own writing), or simply their inexperience with providing constructive criticism on a peer's work. A vaguely positive response allows them to avoid a socially uncomfortable situation and to create an environment of mutual support (Nilson 2003).2. If students are not given clear guidance from their instructors, they may not know how to comment on one another's writing in a specific and constructive way. In addition, it should be noted that students may not understand how to comment on their peers' writing because over the years they have not received helpful feedback from instructors who have graded their papers. (For suggestions on how to write specific comments that can help students improve their writing.3. Some instructors ask their students to evaluate their peers' writing using the same criteria the instructor uses when grading papers (e.g. quality of thesis, adequacy of support, coherence, etc.). Undergraduate students often have an inadequate understanding ofthese criteria, and as a result, they either ignore or inappropriately apply such criteria during peer-review sessions (Nilson 2003).4. Many students do not perceive feedback from peers as relevant to the process of writing a paper for a course. Especially at the beginning of their undergraduate work, students are likely to assume that it is only the instructor's feedback that "counts."5. Even when they take seriously feedback provided by their peers, students often do not know how to incorporate that feedback when they revise their papers.The approach to peer review discussed in this handout has been developed to help instructors respond to the challenges described above. For more detailed suggestions based on this approach.Key Strategies1. Identify and teach the skills required for peer review. As you are planning your course, make a list of the skills that students should be learning and putting into practice when participating in peer review. These might include reading skills (discerning a writer's main point, locating key points of support or relevant data, etc.), writing skills (writing clear, specific comments and questions), and collaboration skills (phrasing critiques in a descriptive, constructiveway). Articulating what you see as the core skills involved in peer review will help you develop a coherent plan for integrating peer review into your course and will make more clear the specific instructions your students will need as they learn how to review a peer's paper and how to use the comments they receive during peer review.2. Teach peer review as an essential part of the writing process. Emphasize to students that peer review is not just a course requirement: it is an essential part of the writing process that all successful writers engage in at some point. Your students may not realize the extent to which scholars and other professionals practice peer review as an integral part of producing effective writing in their fields. Consider explaining why, as a scholar, you find peer review helpful-even when you do not agree with or appreciate every comment made by a peer- reviewer. For example, you might tell them about a specific instance when a reader's comments helped you to clarify and strengthen your writing.Remind students that the process of producing academic and professional writing generally involves three steps: drafting, revising, and editing. Peer review is often most helpful to student writers when it is utilized between the drafting and revision stages, or aftereach student has produced a complete draft, but while there is still time to make substantial changes. A writer might learn frompeer-reviewers, for example, that a paper's introduction is its strongest point, or that the paper's main point or thesis is not yet clear, or that there are "gaps" in the logic or the support that detract from the paper's effectiveness, or that a paper's conclusion presents an interesting idea that leaves the reader with unanswered questions. The purpose of peer review as a prelude to revision is to help the writer determine which parts of the paper are effective as is, and which are unclear, incomplete, or unconvincing.3. Describe peer review as an opportunity for students to learn how to write for an audience. Undergraduate students often do not perceive how completing academic writing assignments will prepare them for work in the professional world. One way to help them make this connection is to point out a fact that many instructors take for granted but that undergraduates need to be reminded of: no matter what university students end up doing after graduation, the quality of their ideas and their work will be judged, in a large measure, by how well they can communicate in writing to diverse audiences. Participating in peer review can help them learn to shape their written language as a medium of communication with readers. For example, seeking out peer feedback can help one studentconstruct a convincing argument by anticipating and answering counter-arguments that his readers might pose, while peer review can help another student determine how to explain the significance of her research to readers who are not experts in her field.4. Define the role of the peer-reviewer as that of a reader, not an evaluator. Develop guidelines for peer-reviewers that ask them to complete specific tasks: examples include indicating the strongest part of a paper; identifying or rephrasing the thesis; listing the major points of support or evidence; and indicating sentences or paragraphs that seem out of order, incompletely explained, or otherwise in need of revision. Some of these tasks are descriptive and others are evaluative. However, those that are evaluative should put the emphasis on the reader's impressions and responses and should not require the peer-reviewer to pronounce a judgment on the paper as a whole (Nilson 2003). This approach should help you develop specific instructions to students that will clarify how they should respond to one another's writing and should also help you pare down your expectations of what students can realistically accomplish during in-class peer-review sessions. Defining the role of thepeer-reviewer as a reader will also help you underscore the fact that it is up to the writer to decide whether and how to make changes to the paper through revision.Increasing Students' Sense of Investment in Communicating and Collaborating Effectively. Even though students as peer-reviewers should not be asked to use the same criteria the instructor uses when grading papers, by participating in peer review they should gain a better understanding of those criteria. After all, some of the most common criteria for determining the effectiveness of writing refer to the effects of a piece of writing on readers: for example, a sentence can be called "clear" when readers can discern its meaning; a description of research methods can be called "coherent" and "complete" when readers understand the process well enough to replicate it themselves; an argumentative essay can be called "convincing" when it conveys a position that readers find reasonable and compelling.When students engage fully in the peer-review process, they should not only better comprehend the criteria used to determine whether a paper is well written. They should also start to see themselves as writers and readers who have a stake in learning to recognize and to produce effective writing-as peers who learn more when they learn to communicate more effectively with one another.。
How to Write a Peer ReviewGood peer reviews provide useful feedback to authors about the quality of their ideas and the strengths and weaknesses of their writing. While you might think that writing a peer review is an easy task--after all, we've all heard the phrase "everyone's a critic"--it turns out that students often have a very difficult time writing a sustained critique of another student's work. All too often, students simply read a paper and feel they have nothing to say about it. At best, they will offer generic praise ("This is a very good paper!") and at worst they will stare blankly at the words in front of them. This lack of quality commentary usually results from a lack of careful, patient reading of the essay.The truth is, to write a quality review of another person's work, you have to read the work slowly, carefully, and repeatedly. Reading a paper means entering into the intellectual world of another person; as you know, that world is often confusing when a writer is working through ideas for the first time. Reading another person's essay often means struggling with confusion and uncertainty. It also means that you must have patience, tact, and professional manners. Many students are afraid to say negative things about another student's work; however, finding a gentle, direct, and polite way to provide professional feedback is the very essence of writing a good peer review. If you find a style of commentary that is not offensive, the writer whose work you are reviewing will be grateful for the attention you give to his or her work, even when you point out problems and raise difficult questions.Here are the basic elements you should include in your peer reviews:1. An overall assessment of the author's argument. Begin your peer review by giving your writer your impressions of his or her main argument.You might begin with something like this:"I'm intrigued by your readings of Columbus' letters. If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that Columbus did not actually see himself as the ‘right hand of God,’ but rather as a soldier in a Christian army whose mission it was to extend the kingdom of God on Earth. Based on this reading, you are interested in the way Columbus forged rhetorical connections with other ‘soldiers’ in his letters. . ."Note the specificity of this opening. Always do your best to tackle the specific claims of your writer. It's good practice to restate the writer's major claims in your own words. By doing so, you begin a real dialogue with your author. You should also clearly state your own position vis-a-vis the argument your author is making. Do you buy the argument? Why or why not? Be as specific as possible. The goal here is to help the author strengthen his or her argument.2. An analysis of the author's close readings.Remember, close readings--or careful, persuasive interpretation of texts at the level of individual words, phrases, images, or other literary elements—are the heart and soul of critical writing. Make sure you take time to review the author's close readings. Does the author take time to quote the text? Does he or she then take time to analyze that text? Or does the author merely "quote and run"--that is, quote the text, but leave the close textual analysis unstated? This part of a peer review is a great place to really engage the author as a fellow reader of a common text. Do you "buy" his or her readings? Why or why not? Do you agree with the author's logic? How do you interpret the passages in question?Here's a sample of what a good reviewer might say about another author's close readings:"I'm really glad you decided to tackle this passage from Columbus' logs. I must say, though, that I'm rather surprised that you don't do more with the language you quote from Columbus. For example, when he writes of 'the flowering of what is good and holy among the backward natives of this land,' he makes the process of Spanish imperialism sound like a natural occurrence. The word ‘flowering’ here really strikes me. Doesn't it sound so peaceful, so natural--so effortless? It's as if humans aren't even involved--no governments, no politics, no economics--just the blossoming of something beautiful in nature. I think Columbus really smoothes over the whole question of justice here. I notice you don't address the word "flowering" at all, but it is a central metaphor in this sentence. Could you go back to this part of your essay and make your close reading more thorough?"Again, note the specificity of this response. Always take time to "think through" an author's claims. Don't just give advice like "Make your close reading deeper here." Instead, show the writer specifically how his or ideas can be developed. Offer suggestions for making the writing better. Use phrases such as, "You might consider writing about . . ." Take note that in the sample above, the reviewer is quite generous with his response.3. An analysis of the paper's structure.Peer reviews should also include specific feedback on how the paper is arranged, both as a whole and at the level of individual paragraphs and sentences. Beginning writers often submit work that is not well organized, perhaps because the ideas in the essay are not fully formed, or because the revising process was not fully completed. When you find places in the essay that do not flow well, or when you find places where lots of different ideas or claims are butting up against one another, take some time to help your author see where he or she might do more work to make the writing more clear.Here's an example of what you might write:"Okay, I'm having some trouble with the third paragraph of your essay. You start with a claim about messianism, but end up talking about literacy. I just can't figure out the point of this paragraph. It seems to be, given the discussion of religion and colonialism in the second paragraph, that the topic of this third paragraph should only be messianism. Perhaps the stuff on literacy belongs somewhere else? Or--and this is what I suspect--maybe it doesn't really fit in this essay at all? If you really want to talk about literacy, you'll need to add several more paragraphs somewhere in the essay to explain your arguments. I think some judicious cutting might be in order here."This kind of feedback can be invaluable for beginning writers. There's nothing like a fresh pair of eyes to help you see exactly where your thinking process started to go astray!4. Your own thoughts about the importance and implications of the author's major claims.Once you have shared your most important critiques with the author, you should take some time to "think out loud" with your author about the overall significance of his or her essay. This is another way of saying that one of the most important parts of any peer review is evaluating an author’s “so what” question. If you find yourself asking “so what” after many of the author’s claims, let him or her know this. Work with your author to come up with some possible answers to the “so what” question.If your author has really "nailed" his or her subject, you can use your review to strike up a conversation with the author about the implications of his or her work. Remember, peer reviews don't always have to be about what's wrong with a paper. They might equally focus on what's great about an essay. If you read an essay you really love, write a few paragraphs about where the essay takes you as a scholar. Convey your energetic response to the author and let him or her know that there's potential here for future scholarship.If the essay you’re reading seems to be lacking scholarly significance, look for places in the essay that could be developed, and discuss these in your review. See if you can find a place for the author to take up a critical conversation about his or her chosen texts or topics. Also, try to locate places where the author might discuss the political, social, aesthetic, historical or philosophical significance of the text. You might also point the author in the direction of relevant theoretical or critical sources.。
英语作文自评互评理论研究成果## A Comprehensive Review of Selfand Peer-Assessment in English Essay Writing: Theoretical and Practical Implications.Introduction.Selfand peer-assessment have gained increasing recognition as valuable tools in the teaching and learning of English essay writing. By actively engaging students in the assessment process, these methods foster critical thinking, metacognitive awareness, and collaborative learning. This paper presents a comprehensive review of the theoretical and practical foundations of selfand peer-assessment in English essay writing, highlighting their benefits, challenges, and implications for instructional practices.Theoretical Foundations.Self-assessment refers to students' evaluation of their own work, while peer-assessment involves students evaluating the work of their classmates. Both approaches are rooted in social constructivist theory, which emphasizes the active role of learners in knowledge construction and the importance of social interaction in learning.Self-assessment promotes metacognition, as students reflect on their strengths, weaknesses, and strategies for improvement (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2008). Peer-assessment fosters collaboration and communication, allowing students to share different perspectives and learn from each other (Brown & Hudson, 1998).Benefits of Selfand Peer-Assessment.Research has consistently demonstrated the benefits of selfand peer-assessment in English essay writing:Improved Writing Ability: Students who self-assess and peer-assess their writing exhibit significant improvementsin their writing quality, including organization, clarity, grammar, and style (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, 2003).Enhanced Metacognitive Awareness: Self-assessment enables students to develop a deeper understanding of their own writing processes and the criteria for effectivewriting (Zhou & Davidson, 2013). Peer-assessment provides opportunities for students to articulate and justify their judgments.Increased Motivation and Engagement: Selfand peer-assessment involve students in the assessment process, fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility for their learning (Panadero & Jonsson, 2013).Development of Critical Thinking and Collaboration Skills: Students learn to analyze and critique their own and others' writing, developing critical thinking skills and collaborative abilities (Chen & Chen, 2014).Challenges and Considerations.Despite their benefits, selfand peer-assessment also present challenges:Bias and Subjectivity: Self-assessments can be biased by self-serving tendencies, while peer-assessments may be influenced by personal relationships or social dynamics (Falchikov & Boud, 2005).Reliability and Validity: The reliability and validity of selfand peer-assessments depend on factors such as the clarity of assessment criteria and the training provided to students (Moss & Brookhart, 2012).Time Constraints: Implementing selfand peer-assessment can be time-consuming, especially for large classes or complex assignments (Liu, Lee, & Lin, 2011).Implications for Instructional Practices.To effectively integrate selfand peer-assessment into English essay writing instruction, teachers should considerthe following implications:Provide Clear Assessment Criteria: Students need to have a clear understanding of the criteria against which their writing will be assessed (Stiggins & Chappuis, 2005).Train Students in Selfand Peer-Assessment: Students need to be trained in the skills of self-reflection, peer evaluation, and providing constructive feedback (Topping, 2006).Facilitate Structured Feedback: Feedback should be timely, specific, and actionable to maximize its effectiveness (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).Incorporate Selfand Peer-Assessment into the Writing Process: Selfand peer-assessment should be used throughout the writing process, from brainstorming to revising and editing (Graham, Harris, & Santangelo, 2009).Use a Variety of Assessment Tools: Selfand peer-assessment can take various forms, such as rubrics,checklists, and reflective journals, to cater to different learning styles and assessment needs (Brookhart, 2011).Conclusion.Selfand peer-assessment offer valuable tools for improving the quality of English essay writing. By engaging students as active participants in the assessment process, these methods foster metacognitive awareness, critical thinking, collaboration, and motivation. While challenges exist in implementing selfand peer-assessment, careful planning, training, and the consideration of best practices can facilitate their effective integration into instructional practices. Through the implementation of selfand peer-assessment, English teachers can empower students to become self-directed learners and improve their writing abilities significantly.。
