Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Akademik Poster Sunumu Sırasındaki Akran Değerlendirme Sürecine Yönelik Görüşleri

Akran değerlendirme uygulamalarının yükseköğretimdeki kullanımı gün geçtikçe artmakta olmasına rağmen; öğretmen adayları bu uygulamalar sırasında kendilerini rahat hissetmeyebilir ve bu etkinliklere katılmakta isteksizlik gösterebilir. Bu nitel araştırmanın temel amacı, sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının akran değerlendirme sürecine yönelik görüşlerinin incelenmesidir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, açık uçlu sorularla hazırlanmış anketler ve yarı yapılandırılmış bireysel ve odak grup görüşmeleri kullanılarak toplamda Türkiye'de bir üniversitede eğitim gören 87 sınıf öğretmeni adayından veri toplanmıştır.Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının akranlarının tepkilerine, karşılıklı çıkara dayalı ve daha önce yaşanan kişisel ilişkilere ilişkin endişeleri, akranlarını değerlendirirken subjektif kararlar verilmelerine yol açan temel faktörler olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır. Buna ek olarak, sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının dersin eğitmenlerini daha deneyimli ve objektif olarak tanımladıkları ve öğretmen değerlendirmesine duydukları güveni dile getirdikleri görülmüştür. Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının akran değerlendirme sürecindeki performansları ve subjektif bakış açıları, akran değerlendirmesinin düzey belirleyici bir değerlendirme aracı olarak kullanılmasının riskini vurgulamaktadır.

Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Perspectives Around the Peer Assessment Process During an Academic Poster Session

The use of peer assessment activities is increasing; however, students might not always be willing or feel comfortable to implement these activities. The main goal of this qualitative study was the exploration of preservice elementary teachers’ perspectives around the implementation of peer assessment process during an academic poster session. For this purpose, a questionnaire consisting of open-ended questions, semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions were utilized for data gathering purposes with 87 preservice elementary teachers in Turkey. The preservice elementary teachers’ concerns regarding their peers’ reactions, symbiotic agreements and any previous personal relationships between the participants were the main factors that led to their subjectivity while evaluating their peers. They defined instructors as more experienced and objective and expressed their trust towards teacher rating. The preservice elementary teachers’ performance during the peer assessment process, and their perspective towards subjectivity highlighted the risk of using peer assessment process as a summative assessment tool.

___

  • Alzaid, J. M. (2017). The effect of peer assessment on the evaluation process of students. International Education Studies, 10(6), 159-173.
  • Ashenafi, M. M. (2017). Peer-assessment in higher education–twenty-first century practices, challenges and the way forward. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,42(2), 226- 251.
  • Badea, G., and Popescu, E. (2019, October). Instructor support module in a web-based peer assessment platform. In 2019 23rd International Conference on System Theory, Control and Computing (ICSTCC) Sinaia, Romania.
  • Bostock, Stephen. 2000. Student peer assessment. https://www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/engageinassessment/Student_peer_assessment_- _Stephen_Bostock.pdf.
  • Boud, D. (2007). Reframing assessment as if learning were important. In Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (pp, 24-36). Routledge.
  • Boud, D., and Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long‐term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399-413. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02602930600679050
  • Boud, D., and Falchikov, N. (2007). Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term. Routledge.
  • Brindley, C., and Scoffield, S. (1998). Peer assessment in undergraduate programmes. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(1), 79-90.
  • Carvalho, A. (2013). Students' perceptions of fairness in peer assessment: Evidence from a problembased learning course. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(5), 491-505. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.753051
  • Corbin, J. M., and Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2013). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. PHI Learning.
  • Falchikov, N., and Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287-322. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070003287
  • Freeman, M., and McKenzie, J. (2002). SPARK, a confidential web–based template for self and peer assessment of student teamwork: Benefits of evaluating across different subjects. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 551-569.
  • Kollar, I., and Fischer, F. (2010). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 344-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.005
  • Li, L., and Gao, F. (2016). The effect of peer assessment on project performance of students at different learning levels. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(6), 885-900. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1048185
  • Lincoln, Y. S., and E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
  • Liu, N. F., and Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279-290 https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680582
  • Hamodi, C., López-Pastor, V. M., and López-Pastor, A. T. (2017). If I experience formative assessment whilst studying at university, will I put it into practice later as a teacher? Formative and shared assessment in Initial Teacher Education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 171-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1281909
  • Harris, L. R., Brown, G. T., and Dargusch, J. (2018). Not playing the game: Student assessment resistance as a form of agency. The Australian Educational Researcher, 45(1), 125-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-018-0264-0
  • Heywood, J. (2000). Assessment in higher education: Student learning, teaching, programmes and institutions. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
  • Magin, D. (2001). Reciprocity as a source of bias in multiple peer assessment of group work. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), 53-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070020030715
  • McGarr, O., and Clifford, A. M. (2013). ‘Just enough to make you take it seriously’: Exploring students’ attitudes towards peer assessment. Higher Education, 65(6), 677-693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9570-z
  • Medland, E. (2016). Assessment in higher education: Drivers, barriers and directions for change in the UK. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(1), 81-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.982072
  • Nicol, D., Thomson, A., and Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
  • Pope, N. (2001). An examination of the use of peer rating for formative assessment in the context of the theory of consumption values. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(3), 235- 246. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930120052396
  • Ryan, G. J., Marshall, L. L., Porter, K., and Jia, H. (2007). Peer, professor and self-evaluation of class participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8(1), 49-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787407074049
  • Sadler, P. M., and Good, E. (2006). The impact of self-and peer-grading on student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1101_1
  • Segers, M., and Dochy, F. (2001). New assessment forms in problem-based learning: The value-added of the students’ perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 26(3), 327-343. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070120076291
  • Smith, H., Cooper, A., and Lancaster, L. (2002). Improving the quality of undergraduate peer assessment: A case for student and staff development. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(1), 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/13558000110102904
  • Struyven, K., Dochy, F. and Janssens, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions about new modes of assessment in higher education: A review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 331-347.
  • Sun, D. L., Harris, N., Walther, G., and Baiocchi, M. (2015). Peer assessment enhances student learning: The results of a matched randomized crossover experiment in a college statistics class. PloS one, 10(12), e0143177.
  • Thomas, G., Martin, D., and Pleasants, K. (2011). Using self-and peer-assessment to enhance students’ future-learning in higher education. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 8(1), 52-69.
  • Topping, K. (2010). Methodological quandaries in studying process and outcomes in peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 339-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.003
  • Topping, K. (2017). Peer assessment: Learning by judging and discussing the work of other learners. Interdisciplinary Education and Psychology, 1(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.31532/InterdiscipEducPsychol.1.1.007
  • Vu, T. T., and Dall’Alba, G. (2007). Students’ experience of peer assessment in a professional course. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(5), 541-556. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930601116896
  • Watkins, D., Dahlin, B., and Ekholm, M. (2005). Awareness of the backwash effect of assessment: A phenomenographic study of the views of Hong Kong and Swedish lecturers. Instructional Science, 33(4), 283-309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-3002-8
  • Yıldırım, A., ve Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi-Cover
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 3 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2014
  • Yayıncı: Ahi Evran Üniversitesi