下载文档原格式
学生作文自评互评有效措施《学生作文自评互评有效措施》篇一《那次难忘的作文互评》在学生的作文世界里，自评互评是个挺有趣又有点头疼的事儿。
我们得想出些有效措施来让这事儿真正发挥作用。
就说上次作文互评吧，老师把我们的作文打乱顺序发下来。
我拿到了小明写的作文，题目是《我的宠物猫》。
我一打开，那字写得歪歪扭扭的，就像喝醉了的小虫子在纸上乱爬，我心想这可有点影响第一印象啊。
不过还是耐着性子看下去。
我发现他写猫的样子部分特别生动，什么“那猫眼睛像两颗绿宝石，晚上吓人一跳，你要是盯着看，感觉能被吸进去”，这描写可太有趣了。
但他的作文里有好多错别字，像“猫抓老鼠的抓写成了爪字”。
这时候我就想，互评时指出错别字很重要。
为了把互评做好呢，我觉得可以先整体读一遍作文，感受一下人家的思路。
就像看风景一样，先看个大概，再去瞧那些花花草草的细节。
然后把觉得好的地方用波浪线画出来，不好的地方写个小纸条夹着。
当然，写小纸条的时候可不能那种命令式的，比如说“你这个错得太离谱”，得委婉点，像“我感觉这个字可能写错啦，你再瞅瞅”。
再就是读自己作文的时候，可别光觉得自己写得天下无敌了。
得像挑刺儿一样，找出自个儿作文里那些逻辑不通的地方。
我原来写作文老爱跑题，还不自知。
有次写《我最爱的季节》，说着说着夏天的事儿，就蹦到冬天堆雪人了。
老师说要是能把这作文当作别人的来评，就能发现问题了。
后来我每次自评，就想象自己是个严厉的编辑，这么一来，那些小毛病就藏不住了。
在那次作文互评里，我还和小明交流了一会。
我告诉他哪里写得好，哪里需要改。
他一开始还有点不乐意，觉得自己写得挺好的。
我就拿他出错的那些细节和他讨论，比如为啥句子不通顺，语法哪里不对。
后来他渐渐明白了，还感谢我呢。
通过这个事儿我就觉得，有效的自评互评得有交流，不能光自己闷头评，互相探讨才能进步。
篇二《从同桌作文说起的互评》我们教室里关于作文互评这事是有故事可以唠唠的。
就拿我同桌的作文来说，她那次写的是《校园的一角》。
浅谈学生互评作文的好处写作文一直是让学生苦不堪言的差使，而评判作文又是让教师头疼的大问题。
那么怎样调和二者之间的矛盾，达到既能减轻师生的“痛苦”，又能激发学生的写作兴趣呢？为此本学期我校进行了评改作文的改革，把传统的评改方法——由教师全批全改，改成由学生互评互改。
自这种方法实施以来，我体会到了它的诸多好处。
下面谈谈自己的切实体会：一、实现了教学观念的转换，学生成了真正的教学主体以往评改作文是在学生写完后，教师收上来，自己评改。
大多是对学生此次作文给予书面的评价，指出优缺点，把评语写在学生的作文上，限于教师的时间和精力，只有个别的会采取面批面改的方式，进行当面指导。
其余的评完后直接发给学生，让学生按照教师的评点再进行修改。
可是学生拿到评好的作文后，最关注的不是自己哪里写的不好，去认真修改，而是自己本次作文的得分和等次，对教师费心劳神给出的评语只是一读而过，没有几个学生能真正静下心来，按照教师的书面指导来认真修改自己的作文。
这样就造成了评改脱节，不但对提高学生的写作水平帮助不大，而且评作文还耗去了教师大量的时间和精力，可谓是事倍功半。
鉴于此，本学期我校改革了评改作文的方式，让学生自己评判。
具体做法是：1.把学生分成几个小组，好、中、后进生互相搭配；2.每8人或6人一组，每组中的同类学生互评作文，评完后交由本组组长审核，过关后先在本组内交流这一组学生的作文，让组内每个学生都能读到其他同学的作文，读完后，大家再共同交流。
对不同的作文提出不同的看法，修改意见并说说自己从他人的作文中得到的启示、收获……然后再从每个组中选出优秀的作文进行展读比赛，评出优胜者。
这样整个过程都是学生自己在参与，真正体现了以学生为主体的教学理念，而且还能使每个学生至少读到7篇他人的作品，拓展了学生的阅读面，也使学生了解了其他学生的作文水平，找到了自己的差距和不足，这样教师再指出他们作文中的缺点时，他们会欣然接受教师的建议。
二、增强了实效性，做到了及时反馈原来的作文由教师评判，由于教师每天必须在完成自己的任务、备好课、上完课、批完作业之后，才能来评改学生的作文，这样，两个班100多人的作文，想短时间内评出来也绝非易事，等评完了，再进行反馈指导，学生自己写的啥内容都忘了，这样就失去评判作文的意义。
《培养学生互批互评作文潜力的研究》结题报告一、研究背景《语文课程标准》对七至九年级学段学生作文训练提出了明确要求，个性强调要培养和训练学生自改作文的潜力——“养成修改自已作文的习惯，能与他人交流写作心得，互相评改作文。
”可见，放手让学生修改自己的作文，培养学生的自改作文潜力，是当前作文教学中一项刻不容缓的工作。
叶圣陶老先生也曾说过：“学生作文教师改，跟教师命题学生作一样，学生处于被动地位。
假如着重培养学生自己改的潜力，教师只给些引导和指点，该怎样改让学生自己去思考去决定，学生不就处于主导地位了吗”他还说：“改的优先权应属于作者本人，所以我想作文教学要重在培养学生的自改潜力。
”而现实教学中，老师们“一批到底”，批作文成了教师最烦恼的事。
耗费了超多心血，收效却不大。
学生怕写作文，总是对作文不感兴趣，更写不好作文。
作文批改也就成了贯彻教师写作意图的过程，学生则转成了被动理解的容器。
这样做的确充分发挥了教师的主导作用，却严重忽视了学生的主体地位。
基于此，我确立了《培养学生互批互评作文潜力的研究》这个课题。
二、概念界定本课题的研究有三个概念：学生，他是作文的主人，也应是批改和评讲的主体，学生成了主体地位，他就会有兴趣，就会乐学。
互批互评：作文写好后，是学生间的互相批改，互相评讲，不是老师包办。
作文：是学生自己写的文章，不是其他地方选来的文章。
三、研究目标1.透过互批互评来激发学生写作的用心性，培养学生的阅读赏析潜力。
2.培养学生批改作文、评讲作文的潜力，使批改成为习惯，以提高写作的潜力。
3.充分发挥学生的主体作用，使教师从繁重的工作中解放出来。
四、研究资料培养学生互批互评作文的潜力本课题系苏州市中小学“指导学生自学”微型课题，课题编号1009059，组长：朱建荣。
主要研究成员：施路平、郑咏梅、蔡秀兰、方芳等五、研究方法文献研究法：透过查阅、收集有关学生作文自改潜力培养方面的科研文献，获取相关信息，并进行分析综合，从中提炼出与本课题研究有价值的资料。
小学语文中高年级作文互评互改激发学生写作兴趣探讨在小学语文教学中，作文是非常重要的一环。
通过作文，学生可以提高自己的语言表达能力，培养自己的思维逻辑能力和观察问题的能力。
而在作文教学中，互评互改是非常重要的一环，它可以激发学生写作的兴趣，提高学生的写作水平。
一、互评互改对学生写作兴趣的激发1.培养学生的自信心通过互评互改，学生可以了解到自己的优点和不足，既可以提高学生的自觉性，也可以增加学生的自信心。
当学生知道自己的作文被其他同学认可，可以得到一些肯定和认可的意见时，他们会更加有动力去写作。
2.激发学生的学习兴趣通过互评互改，学生可以了解到别的同学是怎样写作的，他们可以从其他同学身上学到一些写作的技巧和经验，这也会让学生更加有写作的兴趣。
3.促进交流和合作互评互改是一个交流和合作的过程，学生在这个过程中可以与其他同学交流自己的看法和体会，这既可以让学生之间的关系更加融洽，也可以让学生学会从他人的角度去看待问题。
二、如何进行小学语文中高年级作文互评互改1.明确评价标准在进行互评互改之前，老师需要明确评价标准，告诉学生作文应该符合的要求和标准，比如内容的完整性、语言的表达能力、文章的结构和逻辑等。
2.组织学生进行互评互改在进行互评互改的时候，老师可以将学生分成小组，每个小组相互交换作文进行互评互改。
学生在评改过程中可以相互交流自己的看法和建议，但同时也要尊重别人的观点，不能进行过激的批评。
3.及时总结和反馈在互评互改结束之后，老师可以及时总结和反馈，告诉学生他们在互评互改过程中的一些成绩和不足，鼓励他们保持积极的写作态度，也可以对学生的一些优秀作品进行展示和表扬。
三、互评互改中存在的问题及对策1.学生态度不认真在进行互评互改的过程中，有些学生可能不够认真，没有认真完成评改任务。
在这种情况下，老师可以采取一些激励措施，比如对完成评改任务的学生进行表扬和奖励。
2.评改意见不具建设性有些学生在评改过程中可能只是泛泛而谈，不能提出具体的建设性意见。
英语作文学生互评的好处Peer assessment in student writing has become an increasingly popular approach in educational institutions worldwide. This method involves students evaluating and providing feedback on each other's written work. The benefits of this practice are numerous, contributing to the overall growth and development of students' writing skills. In this essay, we will explore several advantages of peer assessment in student writing.Firstly, through peer assessment, students can gain a fresh perspective on their own writing. By reviewing and analyzing their peers' work, they can better understand various writing techniques, styles, and structures. This exposure to different writing styles broadens their horizons and allows them to explore new possibilities in their own writing. Students may discover alternative ways to expresstheir ideas, enhance clarity, and improve coherence in their writing.Secondly, peer assessment cultivates critical thinking skills among students. When evaluating their peers' work, students need to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the writing and provide constructive feedback. This process enhances their analytical skills as they learn to identify effective arguments, logical structures, and persuasive techniques. Additionally, they develop the ability toidentify areas for improvement and suggest practical solutions. By engaging in this form of evaluation, students can sharpen their own writing skills and become better self-editors.Furthermore, peer assessment promotes active learning and collaborative skills. When students provide feedback to their peers, they actively engage in the learning process. They must carefully read and understand the content, structure,and main ideas of the work being assessed. This active participation enhances comprehension and retention of the subject matter. In addition, peer assessment encourages students to communicate their thoughts effectively and respectfully. They learn to provide constructive criticism and make suggestions for improvement, fostering a culture of collaboration and camaraderie within the classroom.Moreover, peer assessment fosters a sense of ownership and responsibility among students for their own learning. When students receive feedback from their peers, they often feel more involved in the learning process. The process of evaluating their peers' work makes them aware of the criteria for good writing, allowing them to apply these standards to their own work. Peer assessment empowers students to take charge of their progress, encouraging them to actively seek out opportunities for improvement and refine their writing skills.Lastly, peer assessment prepares students for the real-world writing situations they may encounter outside of the classroom. In professional settings, individuals need to provide valuable feedback on their colleagues' work. By participating in peer assessment, students develop the essential skills of giving and receiving feedback, which will benefit them in their future careers. They learn to communicate their thoughts effectively, adapt their writing style to specific audiences, and make logical arguments –skills that are highly sought after in various professional fields.In conclusion, peer assessment in student writing offers numerous benefits. From gaining new perspectives on writing to fostering critical thinking and collaboration skills, this practice prepares students for their academic and professional futures. By actively engaging in the evaluation process, students become self-reflective, responsible learners who are capable of improving their writing skillsindependently. It is evident that peer assessment holds immense value in enhancing the overall quality of student writing.。
小学语文中高年级作文互评互改激发学生写作兴趣探讨作文是语文学习中的重要环节，是培养学生语言表达能力、思维能力及创新能力的重要手段之一。
然而，在小学高年级的学生中，有不少学生对写作较为抵触，不喜欢写作，这给教师教学带来很大挑战。
如何激发学生写作兴趣，提升写作水平，是每位语文教师需要思考的问题。
一种激发学生写作兴趣的方法是互评互改。
这种方法可以让学生充分发挥自己的主体性和创造性，通过观察、比对、分析、总结等方式对自己和他人的作品进行评价和改进，从而不断提高写作水平。
首先，互评互改可以拓展学生的视野，帮助他们认识到作文中存在的问题。
在互评互改的过程中，学生可以看到不同的写作思路、不同的表达方式、不同的观点和角度，从而极大拓宽了自己的写作思路和视野。
同时，互评互改还可以让学生从外部的视角看到自己作文存在的问题，比如语法错误、表达不清等，从而有针对性地改进自己的作文。
其次，互评互改还可以培养学生的合作意识和批判思维。
在互评互改的过程中，学生需要与同伴合作，主动交流、发现和总结问题，提高相互协作的能力和合作精神。
同时，互评互改也需要学生具备批判思维能力，能够客观地发现问题、对不足之处提出建设性的意见和建议，并帮助同学进行改正。
互评互改在实施过程中也需要教师的引导和指导。
教师可以通过引导学生观看样文、讲解写作技巧、提供写作模板、组织写作活动等方式培养学生的写作能力。
同时，在互评互改的过程中，教师还可以组织学生进行讨论、分享，集体评价和总结，从而进一步提高学生的写作水平和思维能力。
总之，互评互改是一种非常有效的写作教学方法，可以拓展学生的视野，培养他们的合作精神和批判思维能力，帮助改进自己的作文。
在语文教学中，我们应该多采用这种方法，激发学生写作的兴趣，提升学生的写作水平，从而推动学生全面发展。
关于学生互评作文的效果研究摘要：the purpose of the research is to investigate theeffect of peer feedback on efl learners’ writing development.the findings of the study demonstrate the positive effect ofthe use of peer feedback in efl writing class. an analysisof pre- and post-tests reveals that students from theexperimental group made more progress than those from thecontrol group. students view peer feedback as useful andhelpful to the improvement of their writing quality.关键词：peer feedback;students’ attitudes toward peerfeedback;efl writing中图分类号：g42 文献标识码：a 文章编号：1009-0118（2011）-12-0-021.introductionpeer feedback became a popular pedagogical technique inesl writing instruction during the last twenty years. the useof peer feedback has changed the traditionalteacher-dominated writing classroom into a workshop in whichstudents engage in negotiation of meaning with peers. indeed,peer feedback has deeply influenced the way in which writingis taught. it is assumed that it is worth investigating theeffect of peer feedback on writing abilities in efl college classroom.2.purpose of the study2.1. subjectsthe subjects (n=80) are two intact classes, and the two intact classes are randomly assigned as the experimental group (eg) and the control group (cg). the instructional curriculum is identical for the two groups, which has only one period of writing class every two weeks, during which one unit has to be completed.2.2 instruments2.2.1 two questionnairestwo questionnaires were used in this research. questionnaire i was administered both before and after the experiment in class to the two groups. the questionnaire contained 10 items, and the students were asked to give “yes”or “no” response to these questions.at the end of the experiment, questionnaire ii was used to measure students’ attitudes toward peer feedback. this questionnaire was only conducted in the experimental group.2.2.2 two writing testsall the subjects were divided into parallel classesaccording to their scores achieved in the national matriculation english test. in order to make sure the validity of the study, pre-tests were given to all the students to see if they were at the same level. sixteen weeks later, at the end of the study another test were given to all the students to discover whether there was significant difference between the two groups.3. data analysis3.1 questionnaire investigation3.1.1 questionnaire iquestionnaire i was administered both before and after the experiment. all the students in the experimental group and control group were asked to finish it and all questionnaires were returned. the positive responses to the statement were calculated and the percentage to each statement was obtained. through the data, we could see that before the experiment, most students (eg=84.6%,cg 80%) thought writing in english was difficult, and they did not like writing articles in english (eg=30%,cg=36%). many students liked to work alone (eg=80%,cg=77.5%) and they did not often take the reader into account when writing (eg=37.5%,cg=39.4%). interestingly, though half of the students would like their compositions tobe read and revised by their classmates (eg= 55%,cg=57%), there were not many students (eg=33%,cg=26%) believe their classmates could revise their composition well.as for the students’ attitudes towards revision, about 30% students did revise their composition by themselves before handed it in to the teacher, but not many students (eg=20.7%, cg=17.5%) would revise it after they got it back from the teacher. that is to say, many students didn’t form the habit of revising the composition, they (eg=62%,cg=66.6%) preferred writing a new composition instead of revising the old one.after the experiment, however, the experimental group’s attitude changed a lot. many more students came to like writing articles in english (87.5%, more than twice the percentage of the pre-test). as regard the trust in their peers, more students would like to work with their classmates (80% vs. 28%) and believed that their classmates were able to revise their composition (78%), thus more students were willing to have their composition read and commented by their classmates (90.9%). the students’ attitudes towards revision changed too. a higher percentage of people would revise their draft before they handed in the final version (85%), 48.5%students would revise their composition after the teacher checked them. for item 10, 27% students would ask other students to read their articles and give feedback, and then revise it. before the experiment, almost no students had done like this. in terms of a sense of audience, more students (91%) began to take the reader into consideration when writing. for control group, after one semester, students’attitudes also changed. generally speaking, students in experimental group changed a higher percentage than that of control group except item 1 concerning the attitude toward writing articles in english. the percentage between experimental group and control group had not much difference (40% vs.47.5%).3.1.2 questionnaire iiquestionnaire ii was administered only after the posttest. all the students in the experimental group were asked to finish it and all questionnaires were returned.again all the positive responses to the students were worked out by percentage. the results showed that most students enjoyed the peer discussion (82.4%) and had an active discussion during peer feedback activity in writing class (73.3%). as for reading the peers’ composition, 81.8% students found reading their classmates’ compositionsuseful and 76% students believed reading their classmates’compositions gave them more ideas; but a low percentage students thought reading their classmates’ compositions helped them to improve the organization of their compositions (36.3%) and to improve the language (including grammar and vocabulary) of their compositions (48.4%). in terms of the usefulness of peers’ comments given in peer feedback session, 77.6% students thought that they benefited someway from their classmates’ comments; the most beneficial part was the language of their compositions (86.6%). similarly, a very high percentage of students (93.3%) believed that the language part of their compositions was improved after their own revision, which was required to do based on the feedback obtained from the peer feedback session. 66% students often took into consideration their classmates’ comments when they revised their compositions. 69.7% students thought that revisions helped improve their compositions, but the percentage regarding the improvement of composition content (54.5%) and organization (60.6%) were not very high. almost all students had positive attitudes toward peer feedback activity in writing class, a vast majority of students wanted their teachers to use peer feedback approach to teachingwriting next year (96%).3.2 statistical analysis of writing test scoresin the pre-test, the mean score for the experimental group is 6.68, and the mean score of the control group is 6.75. it means that the two groups were equivalent before they participated in this study.table 3.1 descriptive statistics on scores of students’pre-test writing assignmentafter the experiment, students’ achievements in the post-test writing assignment were compared so as to define the effect of the operation of the new peer feedback method. the results of post-test writing scores of the two groups are shown in table 3.2table 3.2 descriptive statistics on scores of students’post-test writing assignmentthe mean score for the experimental group is 8.88. the mean score of the control group is 7.60. the means makes it clear that experimental group has a higher post-test score and mean gain. therefore, there is significant difference between the writing quality of the control group and experimental group after the experiment.hence, the significant difference between the control group and experimental group was identified. however, when looking at the mean scores of the two groups, we found both groups made some progress in writing ability. in the control group, the change may be caused by the increased amount of writing practice, the instruction on some writing strategy from the textbook and the accumulated knowledge about english after a semester’s english course. but the relatively much higher mean score of the experimental group explains the effectiveness of the peer feedback method tested in this study.参考文献：[1]badger,r.&white,g.a process genre approach to teaching writing.elt journal,2000,54(2),153-160.[2]berg,e.c.the effects of trained peer response on esl students’ revision types and writing quality.journal of second language writing,1999,8(3):215-241.[3]ellis,r.the study of second language acquisition.new york: oxford university.1994.[4]陈兵.peer evaluation与中国英文写作教学[j].安徽教育学院学报,2001,(4).[5]戚焱.反馈在英语教学中的作用一英语专业议论文写作研究[j].国外外语教学,2004,(1).。
