SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Akdeniz İnsani Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 3 Sayı: 1

The Relationship between Risk taking and Self-assessment of EFL Learners in Writing Ability

Sima Khezrlou
Zeinab Hıvechı
Pages
125–136
Publication Date
2013-06-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The implications of the study are further discussed.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The present study investigates the relationship between risk-taking and self-assessment of EFL learners in writing ability.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To this end, 31 Iranian senior students completed a risk-taking questionnaire based upon the Venturesomeness subscale of Eysenck’s IVE modified by Kiany and Pournia (2006), to rate their risk-taking levels.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The implications of the study are further discussed.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2006 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Assessment · essay writing · risk-taking

Özet

The present study investigates the relationship between risk-taking and self-assessment of EFL learners in writing ability. To this end, 31 Iranian senior students completed a risk-taking questionnaire based upon the Venturesomeness subscale of Eysenck’s IVE modified by Kiany and Pournia (2006), to rate their risk-taking levels. Based on their answers, the students were divided into two groups: high risk- takers and low risk-takers. They were then given a topic about which to write an essay and also to assess their writing skills. Two intra-raters were chosen to rate the students' writings based on just the correct structure of essay writing, not grammar or word correction or other details since the aim of study was to investigate students' risk-taking in their academic life in comparison to their social life. To analyse the obtained data, Pearson Correlation Coefficient and Multi-variance Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) were used as statistical procedures. The results did not show any significant relationship between risk- taking and students' self-assessment in writing. In other words, the high risk-takers and low risk-takers were the same in assessing their writings. Also high risk-takers did not show any risks in their writings, such as using complicated sentences, new structures, and so forth. The implications of the study are further discussed.

🔖

Cite This Article

Khezrlou, S., Hıvechı, Z. (2013). The Relationship between Risk taking and Self-assessment of EFL Learners in Writing Ability. Akdeniz İnsani Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 1, 125–136. https://ajindex.com/articles/1358733

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. AlFallay, I. (2004). “The Role of Some Selected Psychological and Personality Traits of the Rater in the Accuracy of Self- and Peer-Assessment”. System, 32, 407-425.
  2. Andrade, H., & Valtcheva, A. (2009). “Promoting Learning and Achievement Through Self-Assessment”. Theory into Practice, 48, 1, 12-19.
  3. Bloom, L. Z. (1997). “Why I (used to) Hate to Give Grades”. College Composition and Communication, 48, 3, 360-371.
  4. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  5. Bardine, F., & Fulton, P. (2008). “Analyzing the Benefits of Revision Memos During the Writing and Revision Process”. The Clearing House, 81, 4, 149-54.
  6. Blanche, P., & Merino, B. J. (1989). “Self-Assessment of Foreign-Language Skills: Implications for Teachers and Researchers”. Language Learning, 39, 313–340.
  7. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How People Learn. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press.
  8. Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Longman.
  9. Brown, H. D. (2004). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. White Plains, New York: Longman.
  10. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (1989). “Quantitative Studies of Student Self-Assessment in Higher Education: A Critical Analysis of Findings”. Higher Education, 18 (5), 529-549