The Views of Pre-Service Elementary Teachers About Online and Traditional Peer Assessment

Year 2021, Volume: 8 Issue: 2, 409 - 422, 10.06.2021

Ahmet Oğuz Akçay Ufuk Güven Engin Karahan

https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.762104

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The goal of this study is to compare traditional peer evaluation and online peer evaluation in order to identify which method is more effective in evaluating peers. Qualitative research method was used in this study to understand pre-service teachers’ opinions on different peer evaluation techniques. The study was carried out in a state university in Turkey. The sample consisted of 58 second year pre-service teachers majoring in primary school teacher program who enrolled in “Instructional Technologies and Material Development” course. Pre-service teachers were divided into 11 groups, with five or six students in each group. Participation was voluntary and the students in each group actively participated in the traditional and online peer assessment activities. The analyses of the data were done via content analysis, by creating categories and then themes. The themes that emerged as a result of the analysis of the data collected within the study were (1) objectivity, (2) evaluation criteria, (3) interaction, and (4) attributes of the online evaluation platform. The study concluded that a combination of peer and instructor evaluation and even self-assessment can give a better validity and objectivity of assessment.

Keywords

Online peer assessment, Elementary Teacher Education, Traditional peer-assessment

References

• Ashenafi, M. M. (2019). Online peer assessment datasets. Preprint. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.13050.pdf
• Bhat, B. A., & Bhat, G. J. (2019). Formative and summative evaluation techniques for improvement of learning process. European Journal of Business & Social Sciences, 7(5), 776-785.
• 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.
• Bradley, B. (2020). Using alternative assessment. https://ctl.byu.edu/using-alternative-assessments
• Brown, G. T. L., & Harris, L. R. (2014). The future of self-assessment in classroom practice: Reframing self-assessment as a core competency. Frontline Learning Research, 3, 22-30. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v2i1.24
• Chen, Y-C., & Tsai, C. (2009). An educational research course facilitated by online peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46, 105-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290802646297
• Chin, P. (2007). Peer assessment. New Directions in the Teaching of Physical Sciences, 3, 13-18. https://doi.org/10.29311/ndtps.v0i3.410
• Davies, P. (2002). Using students reflective self-assessment for awarding degree classifications. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(4), 307-319. https://doi.org/10.1080/13558000210161034
• Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer, and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079912331379935
• Duran, M., Mihladiz, G., & Balliel, B. (2013). İlköğretim öğretmenlerinin alternatif değerlendirme yöntemlerine yönelik yeterlilik düzeyleri [Adequacy levels of primary school teachers towards alternative assessment methods]. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2(2), 26-37.
• Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking developing peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32, 175 187. https://doi.org/10.1080/1355800950320212
• Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together: Peer tutoring in higher education. Routledge Falmer.
• Garrison, C., & Ehringhaus, M. (2007). Formative and summative assessments in the classroom. http://ccti.colfinder.org/sites/default/files/formative_and_summative_assessment_in_the_classroom.pdf
• Hatch, A. J. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. State University of New York Press.
• Herbert, N. (2007, January). Quantitative peer assessment: Can students be objective?. In Proceedings of the Ninth Australasian Conference on Computing Education-Volume 66 (pp. 63-71). Australian Computer Society, Inc.
• Kali, Y., & Ronen, M. (2005, May). Design principles for online peer-evaluation: Fostering objectivity. In Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Learning 2005: The next 10 years! (pp. 247-251). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
• Kampen, M. (2020). The 6 type of assessments. https://www.prodigygame.com/main-en/blog/types-of-assessment/
• Langan, M.A., & Wheater, C.P. (2003). Can students assess students effectively?. Some insights into peer assessment. Learning and Teaching in Action, 2(1). https://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/ltia/issue4/langanwheater.pdf
• Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (1995). Measurement and assessment in teaching (7th ed.). Pentice-Hall Inc.
• McConnell, D. (2002). The experience of collaborative assessment in E-learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 24, 73 102. https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370220130459
• Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study application in education. Jossey-Bass.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Sage.
• Miller, L., & Ng, R. (1996). Autonomy in the classroom: peer assessment. In R. Pemberton, eds. pp. 133-146.
• Ndoye, A. (2017). Peer/Self assessment and student learning. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29 (2), 255-269.
• Özenç, M., & Çakır, M. (2015). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin alternatif ölçme ve değerlendirme yeterliklerinin belirlenmesi [Exploring primary school teachers’ competencies of alternative assessment and evaluation]. Elementary Education Online, 14(3), 914-933. http://dx.doi.org/10.17051/io.2015.22900
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
• Roediger, H. L., Agarwal, P. K., McDaniel, M. A., & McDermott, K. B. (2011). Test enhanced learning in the classroom: long-term improvements from quizzing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 17(4), 382 95. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026252
• Şahin, M. G., & Kalyon, D. Ş. (2018). Öğretmen adaylarının öz-akran-öğretmen değerlendirmesine ilişkin görüşlerinin incelenmesi [Investigation of preservice teachers’ opinions about self-, peer- and teacher assessment]. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 26(4), 1055-1068. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.393278
• Taras, M. (2005). Assessment–summative and formative–some theoretical reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 466 478. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00307.x
• The National Council for Teacher Education [NCTE]. (2013). Formative assessment that truly informs instruction. http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/formative assessment/formative-assessment_full
• Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170598
• Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer Assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 20 27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577569
• Tsai, C.-C., Lin, S.S.J., and Yuan, S.-M. (2002). Developing science activities through a networked peer assessment system. Computers & Education 38, 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00069-0
• Wen, M. L., & Tsai, C. (2008) Online peer assessment in an inservice science and mathematics teacher education course. Teaching in Higher Education, 13, 55 67. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510701794050
• Yildirim, A., & Simsek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel arastirma yontemleri (8th ed.). Seckin Yayinevi.