Facebook as a Peer-Assessment Platform: A Case Study in Art Teacher Education Context

Year 2018, Volume: 5 Issue: 4, 740 - 753, 16.12.2018

Yasemin Ersöz Süleyman Nihat Şad

https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.478277

Cited By: 6

Abstract

This research intended to answer the question “Is
Peer-Assessment on Facebook useful in visual art education?” in an intrinsic
case study. Participants were a group of prospective visual-art teachers, who
regularly share and comment on the photographs of their paintings in a special
group they created on Facebook. Ten volunteering prospective visual-art
teachers were involved in the study during 2013-2014 academic year. Focus group
interviews were conducted with the participants to collect data in addition to
online digital documents, including photographs of students’ paintings and
comments on them. In general, participants stated that Facebook-based peer
assessment is beneficial, since it helps them notice their deficiencies, look
at their works from a different perspective and improve their artistic skills.
Thanks to the productive feedback, their motivation and self-confidence are boosted.
It was also found that peer-assessment on Facebook has the advantage of
ubiquity, allowing more peer involvement, easy and objective criticism, and
sustainable learning opportunities in the long-run. The participants also
emphasized some disadvantages of the practice of peer assessment on Facebook
such as subjective feedback and poor quality of digitalized visuals.

Keywords

Facebook, Peer assessment, Interactive learning environments

Facebook as a Peer-Assessment Platform: A Case Study in Art Teacher Education Context

Abstract

This research intended to answer the question “Is Peer-Assessment on Facebook useful in visual art education?” in an intrinsic case study. Participants were a group of prospective visual-art teachers, who regularly share and comment on the photographs of their paintings in a special group they created on Facebook. Ten volunteering prospective visual-art teachers were involved in the study during 2013-2014 academic year. Focus group interviews were conducted with the participants to collect data in addition to online digital documents, including photographs of students’ paintings and comments on them. In general, participants stated that Facebook-based peer assessment is beneficial, since it helps them notice their deficiencies, look at their works from a different perspective and improve their artistic skills. Thanks to the productive feedback, their motivation and self-confidence are boosted. It was also found that peer-assessment on Facebook has the advantage of ubiquity, allowing more peer involvement, easy and objective criticism, and sustainable learning opportunities in the long-run. The participants also emphasized some disadvantages of the practice of peer assessment on Facebook such as subjective feedback and poor quality of digitalized visuals.

Keywords

Facebook, Peer assessment, Interactive learning environments

References

• Bay, E. (2011). The Opinions of Prospective Teachers about Peer Assessment. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(2), 909 -925.
• Chang, C., Tseng, K., Chou, P., & Chen, Y. (2011). Reliability and validity of Web-based portfolio peer assessment: A case study for a senior high school’s students taking computer course. Computers & Education, 57, 1306–1316.
• Cooke, S. (2017). Social teaching: Student perspectives on the inclusion of social media in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 22(1), 255-269.
• Creswell, J.W.(2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
• Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative (4th edition). Baston: Pearson Education, Inc.
• Hocevar, K.P. (2013). What is social about social media users? How social media efficacy impacts information evaluation online. (Unpublished master thesis) University of California, Santa Barbara.
• Hummel, K.A., & Hlavacs, H. (2003). Anytime, anywhere learning behavior using a web-based platform for a university lecture. In Proceedings of the SSGRR 2003 Winter Conference, L’Aquila, Italy.
• Koc, C. (2011). The Views of Prospective Class Teachers about Peer Assessment in Teaching Practice, Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(4), 1979-1989.
• Lau, W. W. (2017). Effects of social media usage and social media multitasking on the academic performance of university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 286-291.
• Liang, J., & Tsai C. (2010). Learning through science writing via online peer assessment in a college biology course. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 242–247.
• Lin, K.C., Yang, S.H., Hung, J. C., & Wang, D.M. (2006). Web-based appreciation and peer-assessment for visual-art education. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 4(4), 5-14.
• Lin, S., Liu, E., & Yuan, S.M. (2001). Web-based peer assessment: feedback for students with various thinking-styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 420-432.
• Liu, E., & Lee, C. (2013). Using peer feedback to improve learning via online peer assessment. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1), 187-199.
• Loureiro, M.J., Pombo, L. & Moreira, A. (2012). The quality of peer assessment in a wiki-based online context: a qualitative study. Educational Media International, 49(2), 139-149.
• Lu, J., & Law, N. (2012). Online peer assessment: effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instr Sci, 40, 257–275.
• Lu, J., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Understanding the effectiveness of online peer assessment: a path model. J. Educational Computing Research, 46(3), 313-333.
• Ozmen, F., Akuzum, C., Sunkur, M. & Baysal, N. (2011). Sosyal Ağ Sitelerinin Eğitsel Ortamlardaki İşlevselliği [Functionality of Social Networks in Educational Settings], 6th International Advanced Technologies Symposium, 16-18 May 2011, Elazığ, Turkey.
• Patton, M.Q. (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rded.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
• Patton, C. (2012). ‘Some kind of weird, evil experiment’: student perceptions of peer assessment, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(6), 719-731.
• Peng, H., Su, Y.-J., Chou, C., & Tsai C.-C. (2009). Ubiquitous knowledge construction: mobile learning re-defined and a conceptual framework. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(2), 171–183.
• Ploegh, K., Tillema, H.H., & Segers, S. (2009). In search of quality criteria in peer assessment practices. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 35, 102–109.
• Poldoja, H., Valjataga, T., Laanpere, M., & Tammets, K. (2012). Web-based self- and peer-assessment of teachers’ digital competencies, World Wide Web, 17, 255–269.
• Rubin, R.F., & Turner, T. (2012). Student performance on and attitudes toward peer assessments on Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experience assignments. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 4, 113–121.
• Sambell, K., & McDowell, L. (1998). The Construction of the Hidden Curriculum: messages and meanings in the assessment of student learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(4), 391-402.
• Shih, R.C. (2011). Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English writing? Integrating Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(5), 829-845.
• Sluijsmans, D., Dochy, F. and Moerkerke, G. (1998). Creating a learning environment by using self-, peer- and co-assessment. Learning Environments Research,1, 293–319.
• Sung, Y., Chang, K., Chiou, S,. & Hou, H. (2005). The design and application of a web-based self- and peer-assessment system. Computers&Education, 45, 187–202.
• Suthiwartnarueput, T., & Wasanasomsithi, P. (2012). Effects of using Facebook as a medium for discussions of English grammar and writing of low-intermediate EFL students. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 9(2), 194-214.
• Thomas, G., Martin, D. & Pleasants, K. (2011). Using self- and peer-assessment to enhance students’ future-learning in higher education. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 8(1), 1-17.
• Tillema, H., Leenknecht, M., & Segers, M. (2011). Assessing assessment quality: Criteria for quality assurance in design of (peer) assessment for learning: A review of research studies. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 25–34.
• Topping, K.J., Smith, E.F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative Peer Assessment of Academic Writing between Postgraduate Students. Assessment &Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149-169. Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer Assessment between Students in Colleges and Universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.
• Uysal K. (2008). Involving students in the assessment process: Peer assessment and self assessment (Unpublished Master Thesis). Abant İzzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey.
• Weaver, D., & Esposto, A. (2012). Peer assessment as a method of improving student engagement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(7), 805-816.
• Wen, M.L., & Tsai C.C. (2006). University students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward (online) peer assessment. Higher Education, 51, 27–44.
• Wheater, C.P., Langan, M. & Dunleavy, P.J. (2005). Students assessing student: case studies on peer assessment. Planet, 15, 13-15.
• Wilks, J., Cutcher, A., & Wilks, S. (2012). Digital technology in the visual arts classroom: an [un]easy partnership. Studies in Art Education, 54(1), 54-65.
• Wu, S., Hou, H., & Hwang, W. (2012). Exploring Students' Cognitive Dimensions and Behavioral Patterns during a Synchronous Peer Assessment Discussion Activity Using Instant Messaging. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(3), 442-453.
• Yin, R.K. (2003) Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications.
• Yu, F.Y. (2011). Multiple peer-assessment modes to augment online student question-generation processes. Computers&Education, 56, 484–494.