The Effect of Peer Assessment and Collaborative Assessment on Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners' Writing Ability

As an attempt to shed more light on the effectiveness of alternative assessment in second language learning, the current study sought to explore the effects of peer assessment (PA) and collaborative assessment (CA) on the Iranian intermediate EFL learners' writing ability. To fulfil the purpose of this study, 36 Iranian EFL learners studying English at Kadous English Language Institute in Rasht, Iran, were homogenized as intermediate learners based on their performance on Oxford Solutions Placement Test (OSPT). The final pool of qualified candidates was assigned to one control and two experimental groups comprising 12 learners. All the participants sat for a pretest of L2 writing so that their initial level of writing could be appraised and their homogeneity in writing could be determined. The experimental groups received treatment on English writing through utilizing PA and CA strategies. On the other hand, the control group was taught through the conventional method (i.e. teacher assessment, TA). At the end of a twelve-session experiment, a post-test measuring the effectiveness of the treatments and the participants' writing ability was administered. The results of descriptive and inferential analyses revealed a statistically significant difference among CA, PA, and TA strategies. The results also demonstrated that the CA and PA groups outperformed the control group. However, the CA group performed significantly better than the PA group. Based on the findings of this study, language teachers, materials developers, and education authorities can concentrate on employing CA as the main strategy to foster the writing ability of Iranian intermediate EFL learners. However, PA may also be utilized to teach writing where possible.

Social Phobia and Evasiveness: Trial Protocol for a Feasibility, Superiority, Randomized Controlled Trial of the Effect of Modified Collaborative Assessment vs. Standard Assessment on Patients’ Readiness for Psychotherapy (CO-ASSM-RCT).

BackgroundEvasive personality disorder (EPD) and social phobia (SP) have substantial costs to the patients and their families, and great economic costs to the community. While psychotherapy can be an efficient treatment, a large percentage of patients drop-out during treatment. Little is known about what can be done in order to decrease dropout from psychotherapy in general, including how to increase a patient’s readiness for psychotherapy. MethodsWe describe a feasibility randomized controlled trial of 42 individuals with a clinical diagnosis of either SP or evasive personality disorder, who are to initiate psychotherapeutic treatment in Danish outpatient mental health services. They will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either assessment-as-usual and receive no further assessment, or to a Modified Collaborative Assessment (MCA) provided as a pre-treatment intervention before psychotherapy initiation. MCA will included a battery of psychological tests designed to thoroughly assess the patients’ psychopathology. The tests is administered in collaboration with the patient including a detailed oral and written feedback. We hypothesize that the patients randomized to MCA will reach higher levels of readiness for psychotherapy as assessed with the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment Scale (URICA) and have lower dropout-rates than assessment-as-usual. DiscussionThis protocol assess the feasibility, efficacy, acceptability, and safety of an intervention aimed at changing the readiness for participation in psychotherapy for patients with SP and EVP. Results from this feasibility study could guide the development of future large-scale trials of MCA and procedures for MCA treatment fidelity assessment.

Collaborative Assessment and Health Risk of Heavy Metals in Soils and Tea Leaves in the Southwest Region of China

The collaborative assessment and health risk evaluation of heavy metals (HMs) enrichment in soils and tea leaves are crucial to guarantee consumer safety. However, in high soil HM geochemical background areas superimposed by human activities, the health risk associated with HMs in soil–tea systems is not clear. This study assessed the HMs concentration (i.e., chromium (Cr), cadmium (Cd), arsenic (As), and lead (Pb)) in tea leaves and their relationship with soil amounts in the southwest region of China to evaluate the associated health risk in adults. The results revealed that the average soil concentration of Cr was the highest (79.06 mg kg−1), followed by Pb (29.27 mg kg−1), As (14.87 mg kg−1), and Cd (0.18 mg kg−1). Approximately 0.71, 4.99, 7.36, and 10.21% of soil samples exceeded the threshold values (NY/T 853-2004) for Pb, Cr, As, and Cd, respectively. Furthermore, the average concentration of Pb, As, and Cd in tea leaves was below the corresponding residue limits, but Cr was above the allowed limits. Correlation analysis revealed that the Pb, Cr, As, and Cd amounts in tea leaves were positively correlated to their soil amounts (p < 0.01) with an R2 of 0.203 **, 0.074 **, 0.036 **, and 0.090 **, respectively. Additionally, approximately 40.38% of the samples were found to be contaminated. Furthermore, spatial distribution statistical analysis revealed that Lancang was moderately contaminated, while Yingjiang, Zhenkang, Yongde, Zhenyuan, Lüchun, Jingdong, Ximeng, and Menglian were slightly contaminated areas. The target hazard quotients (THQ; health risk assessment) of Pb, Cr, As, and Cd and the hazard index (HI) of all the counties were below unity, suggesting unlikely health risks from tea consumption.

Collaborative Assessment: Using Self-assessment and Reflection for Student Learning and Program Development

As program-level assessment increasingly becomes an integral part of the higher-education landscape, so does the debate regarding the efficacy of current assessment methods. Traditionally, students do not participate in assessment—neither of their own learning nor of institutional or program efficacy. Our assessment process presents an alternative to traditional program-level assessment and is meant to improve student learning in two ways: (1) by asking students to reflect on their achievement of learning outcomes using evidence-based methods; (2) by providing assessment practitioners with authentic, contextualized data on which to make claims about curricula. This collaborative assessment process was designed to address the complex needs of a cross-curricular rhetoric program but responds to many general concerns about traditional assessment methods.

Das „Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality“ (CAMS) – Eine wirksame (Kurz-) Intervention zur Behandlung von suizidalen Patienten

ZusammenfassungDas „Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality“ (CAMS) ist einer von mehreren Interventionsansätzen zur Behandlung von suizidalen Patienten und Patientinnen und wurde weltweit seit 3 Jahrzehnten untersucht und weiterentwickelt. Das CAMS ist auf die Etablierung einer tragenden therapeutischen Beziehung auf Augenhöhe zu einer suizidalen Person ausgerichtet. Der Patient wird aktiv an der Einschätzung seines Suizidrisikos beteiligt und zum „Mitverfasser“ seines eigenen suizidspezifischen Behandlungsplans. Das konkrete therapeutische Vorgehen wird durch ein vielseitig anwendbares Instrument, die sogenannte Suizidstatusform (SSF), strukturiert und geleitet. Das CAMS kann von verschiedenen therapeutischen Berufsgruppen sowie bei Patienten und Patientinnen mit unterschiedlichen Diagnosen angewandt werden. Die Wirksamkeit im Hinblick auf eine Verringerung von Suizidgedanken, der allgemeinen psychischen Belastung und Depressivität sowie auf eine Zunahme von Hoffnung und Zuversicht ist mittlerweile empirisch gut belegt.