Öğretmen Adaylarının Akran Değerlendirmeye İlişkin Görüşleri

Year 2011, Volume: 10 Issue: 2, 909 - 925, 01.12.2011

Erdal Bay

Abstract

Akran değerlendirme son yıllarda öğretmen eğitiminde popular olmaya başlamıştır. Bu çalışmada, öğretmen adaylarının akran değerlendirmeye ilişkin görüşleri ile öğretmen, akran ve kendini değerlendirme sonuçları arasındaki korelasyon araştırılmıştır. Araştırma, İngilizce öğretmenliği anabilim dalında ölçme ve değerlendirme dersine devam eden 56 öğretmen adayı üzerinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Verilerin toplanmasında açık uçlu anket ve görüşme kullanılmıştır. Öğretmen adaylarının, bu tekniğin kişisel ve mesleki beceriler kazandırdığını, öğrenmenin niteliğini artırdığını, öğrenmelere ilişkin yapıcı dönütler sağladığını, demokratik değerler kazandırdığını ve güvenilir bir teknik olduğunu düşündükleri belirlenmiştir. Zaman alıcı faaliyet olarak görülmesi, öğretmen adaylarının değerlendirme yapabilecek yeterliliğe sahip olmadıkları, bazı öğrenenlerin duygusal davranması, arkadaşlık etkisi faktörlerin bu tekniğin güvenilirliğini etkilediği, bu tekniğe ilişkin olumsuz eleştiriler olarak görülmektedir. Bunların yanı sıra kendi, öğretmen ve akran değerlendirme puanları arasında anlamlı pozitif korelasyon hesaplanmıştır. Sonuç olarak, dereceli puanlama anahtarı, gizlilik, ölçütlerin belirginliği, değerlendirme konusunda öğretmen adaylarının eğitimi ve akaran değerlendirme için daha az zaman ayrılması akran değerlendirmeyi etkileyen faktörlerdir. Öğretmenlere, yeni ölçme ve değerlendirme yaklaşımlarını öğrenme ortamındaki yapılandırmacı uygulamalar içinde yansıtmaları önerilebilir

Keywords

Akran değerlendirme, öğretmen eğitimi, kendini değerlendirme

The Opinions of Prospective Teachers about Peer Assessment

Abstract

Introduction: Peer assessment has been popular in teacher education for decades. In this study, the opinions of prospective teachers about peer-assessment after an implemented course were collected. The correlation between peer-assessment scores and those of self-assessment and teacher assessments were also investigated. Method: A survey was administered to 56 prospective teachers taking the “Measurement and Evaluation” course in the department of English language teaching. Peer assessment, as well as self-evaluation and teacher-based assessment were applied in the study. To collect the data, open-ended questionnaires and interview forms were employed. Finding: The results indicated that that prospective teacher thought that they acquired professional skills through peer assessment. They also perceived that peer assessment enhanced the quality of learning, provided constructive feedback in learning process, and enabled them to obtain some democratic values. It was also regarded as a tiring and time-consuming activity. Lastly, as parallel to the literature, prospective teachers criticized peer assessment that they were not capable of evaluating themselves effectively because of several reasons such as peer-effect, emotional improper acts and unreliability among peers against each other‟s. Besides, significant a positive correlation was found among peer, self and teacher assessment scores. Conclusion: In conclusion, secrecy, usage of the rubrics, better comprehension of the criteria, training of prospective teachers in evaluation, and spending less time can be the factors that affect the peer assessment. Teachers are suggested that they should adopt contemporary measurement and evaluation techniques reflected within constructivist implementations in learning environments

Keywords

peer assessment, teacher, assessment, self-evaluation

References

• Barakat, A. A. & Al-Hassan (2009). Peer assessment as a learning tool for enhancing student teachers' preparation. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37(4), 399-413.
• Boydell, D. (1994). The use of peer group review in the assessment of project work in Higher Education. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 2 (2), 45-52
• Brindley, C. & Scoffield, S. (1998). Peer Assessment in Undergraduate Programs, Teaching in Higher Education, 3 (1), 79-90
• Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principle and classroom practices. New York: Longman.
• Brown, S., Rust, C. & Gibbs, G. (1994). Strategies for diversifying assessment (Oxford, Oxford Centre for Staff Development
• Butler, D. L., & P. H. Winne. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–81.
• Carr, S. C. (2008). Student and peer-evaluation: feedback for all learners. Teaching Exceptional Children (TEC) 40(5). Retrieved on 18.11.2009 from http://escholarship.bc.edu/abstracts_tec/97.
• Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Knowing through action research. London: The Falmer Press.
• Cebrián de la Serna, M. (2008). Formative and peer-to-peer assessment using a rubric tool. Research, Reflections and Innovations in Integrating ICT in Education. Retrieved on 30.09.2009 from http://www.formatex.org/micte 2009/book/60-64.pdf.
• Cheng, W. & Warren, M. (1997). Having second thoughts: student perceptions before and after a peer assessment exercise. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 233–239.
• Cheng, W. & Warren, M. (2000). Making a Difference: using peers to assess individual students‟contributions to a group Project. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(2), 243-255.
• Conway, R., Kember, D., Sivan, A. & Wu, M. (1993). Peer assessment of an individual‟s contribution to a group project. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(10), 45-56.
• Deardorff, M. D. (2005). Assessment through the Grassroots: Assessing the department via student peer assessment. Journal of Political Science Education, 1 (1), 109-127 .
• Elliott, N. & Higgins, A. (2005). Self and peer assessment–does it make a difference to student group work? Nurse Education in Practice, 5, 40-48.
• Falchikov, N. (1986). Product comparisons and process benefits of collaborative peer group and self-assessments, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 11(2), 146-166.
• Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together: Peer tutoring in higher education. London: Routledge Falmer.
• Fry, S. A. (1990). Implementation and evaluation of peer marking in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 15(3), 177-189.
• Gatfield, T. (1999). Examining student satisfaction with group projects and peer assessment. Assessment &Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 365-377.
• Kennedy, G.J. (2005). Peer-assessment in group projects: Is it worth it? The Australasian Computing Education Conference 2005, Newcastle Australia. Retrieved on 17.11.2009 from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1082 432.
• Kim, M. (2009). The impact of an elaborated assesses role in peer assessment, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 105-114.
• Kwok, L. (2008). Students‟ Perceptions of peer assessment and teachers‟ role in seminar discussions Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching. 5(1), 84-97.
• Leighton, D. (2004). Team talk: A key skills peer assessment project education in changing environment. 13th -14th September 2004 Conference Proceedings. Retrieved on 11.09.2009 from http://www.ece.salford.ac. uk/proceedings/ 2004.
• Lejk, M. & Wyuill, M. (2001). The Effect of the Inclusion of Self- Assessment with Peer Assessment of Contributions to a Group Project: a quantitative study of secret and agreed assessments. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(6), 551- 561
• Liu, N. F. & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279-290.
• Omelicheva, M. Y. (2005). Self and peer assessment in undergraduate education: structuring conditions that maximize its promises and minimize the perils. Journal of Political Science Education, 1(2), 191-205.
• Orsmond, P., Merry, S. & Reiling, K. (1996). The importance of marking criteria in the use of peer-assessment, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 21, 239–249.
• Ozogul, G., Olina, Z. & Sullivan, H. (2008). Toward teacher, self and peer assessment of lesson plans written by pre-service teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development 56, 181–201
• Ozogul, G. & Sullivan, H.(2009). Student performance and attitudes under formative evaluation by teacher, self and peer evaluators. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 393-410.
• Price, M., O'Donovan, B. & Rust, C. (2007). Putting a social-constructivist assessment process model into practice: building the feedback loop into the assessment process through peer review. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44 (2),143-152.
• Prins, F.J., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Kirschner, P.A. & Strijbos, J. W.(2005). Formative peer assessment in a CSCL environment: a case study, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 417-444.
• Sluijsmans, D., Brand-Gruwel, S., van Merriënboer, J. & Martens, R. (2004). Training teachers in peer-assessment skills: effects on performance and perceptions, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(1), 59-78
• Sluijsmans, D.M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., Merriënboer, J. J. & G. Van. (2002). Peer assessment training in teacher education: effects on performance and perceptions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 443 - 454
• Sluijsmans, D; Dochy, F and Moerkerke, G. (1998). Creating a learning environment by using self, peer and co-assessment. Learning Environments Research 1(3), 293-319.
• Sluijsmans, Dominique & Prins, Frans (2006). A conceptual framework for integrating peer assessment in teacher education. Studies In Educational Evaluation 32(1), 6-22
• Stephanie J. & Geoff, H. I. (2001). Assessing self- and peer-assessment: the students‟ views. Higher Education Research & Development, 20(1), 53 - 70
• Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48 (1), 20-27. Weaver, W. & Cotrell, H.W. (1986). Peer assessment: a case study. Innovative Higher Education, 11, 25-39.
• Wen, M. L., Tsai, C. C. & Chang, C.-Y.(2006). Attitudes towards peer assessment: a comparison of the perspectives of prospective and in-service teachers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(1), 83-92
• Wharton, S. (2007). Social identity and parallel text Dynamics in the reporting of educational action research. English for Specific Purposes 26, 485-501.