영어 찬반토론 능력 평가의 타당성 연구

Exploring the validity of English debate assessment: Based on peer-evaluation

This study enlightens the constructs for assessing English debate skills and explores the validity of debate assessment conducted by peer raters. The current research revealed the scoring pattern of analytic areas and peer raters and thereby identified the misfitting/overfitting of areas and raters. Further, the research described the reasons why some raters conducted such peculiar rating pattern using survey analysis. Forty-eight university students from the college of education participated in the English debate contest. In groups, every student not only went through the debate battle structured with the format of parliamentary debate but also judged the quality of peers' debate with reference to nine semi-criteria. After the debate contest was over, the participants filled out a survey measuring students' perception on their participation of the rating procedure. As a result, the researcher found that 'counterargument' and 'supporting evidences' were closer to misfitting areas and that a quarter of raters did not show predictable rating patterns specifically in debater measurement. A follow-up survey indicated that students did not clearly define the construct of 'fluency' or 'English language components' in relation to the construct of debate skills.