Grup içinde bireyin değerlendirilmesi: Akran ve Öz Değerlendirme

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 34 Sayı: 2, 35 - 50, 31.10.2017

Aslıhan Erman Aslanoğlu

Öz

Yükseköğretimde eğitimin kalitesini artıran ve öğrencilerin derse aktif olarak katılmalarını sağlayan yöntemlerden biri de grup çalışması yöntemidir. Grup çalışmasıyla ilgili en önemli sorun, grup çalışmasının nasıl değerlendirileceğidir. Araştırmalar grup çalışmasının, süreç ve ürün olarak değerlendirilmesi gerektiğini öngörmekte, grup çalışmalarında “süreç” değerlendirmede, akran ve öz-değerlendirme çalışmalarına dikkat çekmekte ve bu değerlendirmelerin kalitesini arttırmak amacıyla dereceli puanlama anahtarı(rubrik) kullanmasının önermektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı öğrencilerin yaptıkları grup çalışmalarında süreç ve ürünün, öğretim elemanı, akran ve öz değerlendirmeye dayandırılarak nasıl yapılabileceğini gözlemek ve elde edilen gözlem sonuçlarından çeşitli yorumlara ulaşmaktır. Araştırma, 2015-2016 öğretim yılında Ufuk Üniversitesi, Rehberlik ve Psikolojik Danışma Anabilim Dalındaki “Psikolojik Testler” dersini alan 45 öğrenci ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Verilerin çözümlenmesinde, Kendal’ın w istatistiği ve Sperman’ın sıra farkları korelasyon katsayısından yararlanılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Grup çalışması, öz değerlendirme, akran değerlendirmesi, rubrik

Kaynakça

• Birgin, O. (2008). Alternatif bir değerlendirme yöntemi olarak portfolyo değerlendirme uygulamasına ilişkin öğrenci görüşleri. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 6, 1-24.
• Brookhart, S. M. (1999). The art and science of classroom assessment: The missing part of pedagogy. Higher Education Report 27(1), 48-53.
• Bushell, G. (2006). Moderation of peer assessment in group projects. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 91–108.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
• Cheng, W. ve Warren, M. (1999). Peer and teacher assessment of oral and written tasks of a group project. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(3), 310–314.
• Chiriac, E.H. (2011). A scheme for understanding group processes in problem-based learning. Higher Education, 55, 505–518.
• Dochy, F.R.C. ve Mcdowell, L. (1997). Assessment as a toot for learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23, 279-298.
• Dochy, F. (2001). A new assessment era: different needs, new challenges. Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction, 10(1), 11-20.
• Donnon, T., McIlwrick, J., ve Woloschuk, W. (2013). Investigating the reliability and validity of self and peer assessment to measure medical students’ professional competencies. Creative Education, 4(6A), 23-28.
• Falchikov, N. ve Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287-322.
• Farrell, A. N. D., Mariotto, M. J., Conger, A. J., Curran, J. P., ve Wallander, J. L. (1979). Self-ratings and judges’ ratings of heterosexual social anxiety and skill: A generalizability study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47(1), 164–175.
• Farrokhi, F., Esfandiari, R. ve Dalili, M.V. (2011). Applying the Many-Facet Rasch Model to detect centrality in self-Assessment, peer-assessment and teacher assessment. World Applied Sciences Journal 15 (Innovation and Pedagogy for Lifelong Learning). 70-77.
• Farrokhi, F., Esfandiari, R. ve Schaefer, E. (2012). A Many-Facet Rasch Measurement of differential rater severity/leniency in self assessment, peer assessment, and teacher assessment. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2 (9), 8786-8798.
• Gillies, R. M. ve Boyle, M. (2010). Teachers' reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 933–40.
• Goodrich, A. H. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: the good, the bad and the ugly. Current Issues in Education, 4, 27-31.
• Gözen, G. ve Deniz, K. Z. (2016). Comparison of instructor and self assessments on prospective teachers’ concept mapping performances through generalizability theory. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 7(1), 28–40.
• Haladyna, T. M. (1997). Writing test item to evaluate higher order thinking. USA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Hassanien, A. (2006). Student experience of group work and group assessment in Higher Education, Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, 6:1, 17-39.
• Jackson, L. (2014). Validity and rater reliability of peer and self assessments for urban middle school students. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek lisans tezi. Wisconsin Üniversitesi, Milwaukee.
• Jolliffe (2007). Cooperative learning in the classroom: Putting it into practice. USA: Paul Chapman Publishing.
• Karakaya, İ. (2015). Comparison of self, peer and instructor assessments in the portfolio assessment by using many facet RASCH model. Journal of Education and Human Development, 4(2), 182–192.
• Keyes, M. ve Burns, K. (2008). Group Learning in Law. Griffith Law Review, 17, 357-382.
• Kutlu, Ö., Doğan, C. D., ve Karakaya, İ. (2010). Öğrenci başarısının belirlenmesi performansa ve portfolyoya dayalı durum belirleme. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
• Kwan, K. ve Leung, R. (1996). Tutor versus peer group assessment of student performance in a simulation training exercise. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 21, 205-214.
• Lejk, M. ve Wyvill, M. (2001). The Effect of the inclusion of self-assessment with peer-assessment of contributions to a group project. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26 (6), 551–61.
• Loddington, S. (2008). Peer assessment of group work: A review of the literature. The WebPA project, eLearning Capital Programme.
• Logan, E. (2009). Self and peer assessment in action. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 3(1): 29-35.
• Lu, J. ve Law, N. (2011). Online peer assessment: Effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instructional Science, 40(2), 257-275.
• Mehrens, W. A. (1992). Using performance assessment for accountability purposes. Educational Measurement. 11, 3-9.
• Millar, P. J. (2003). The effect of scoring criteria specificity on peer and self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28 (4),383 - 394.
• Moerkerke, G. (1996). Assessment for flexible learning. Heerlen: Open University.
• Nortcliffe, A. (2005). Student driven module: to promote independent learning. International Journal of Electrical, Engineering Education, 42 (3), 247-266.
• Orsmond, P., Merry, S., ve Reiling, K. (1996). The importance of marking criteria in the use of peer assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(3), 239-249.
• Palchikov, N. N. ve Bound, D. (1989). Student self-assessment in higher education: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59, 395-430.
• Pauli, R., Mohiyeddini, C., Bray, D.E., Michie, F., ve Street, B. (2008). Individual differences in negative experiences of group work in collaborative student learning. Educational Psychology, 28, 47- 58.
• Popham, J. W. (2000). Modern Education Measurement. Needham: Allyn & Bacon.
• Postholm, M.P. (2008). Group work as a learning situation: a qualitative study in a university classroom, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14(2), 143-155.
• Real, L.F ve Chan, Y. P. R. (1999). Peer Assessment of a group project in a primary mathematics education course. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(1), 67-79.
• Roberts, T. (2006) Self, peer and group assessment in e-learning-introduction. USA: PA Publishers.
• Romberg, T. A. (1993). How one comes to know models and theories of the learning of mathematics. Netherlands: Kluver Academic Publishers.
• Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Towards a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14.
• Stefani, L. A. J. (1994). Peer, self and instructor assessment: Relative reliabilities. Studies in Higher Education, 19(1), 69–75.
• Topping, K. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility, Optimising New Modes of Assessment: In Search of Qualities and Standards Innovation and Change in Professional Education, 1, 55-87.
• Webb, N. M., Shavelson, R. J., Kim, K. S., ve Chen, Z. (1989). Reliability (generalizability) of job performance measurement: Navy machinist mates. Military Psychology, 1(2), 91–110.
• Williams, R. B. (2002). Cooperative learning: A Standard high achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Zhang, B., Johnston, L., ve Bağcı-Kılıç, G. (2008). Assessing the reliability of self- and peer-rating in student group work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 329–340.