Pongrapee Kaewsaiha
ABSTRACT
This study aimed to develop an online peer assessment tool using Google applications and analyze its performance. The quasi-experimental research was conducted using a nonequivalent group posttest-only design. The experimental group consisted of 45 undergraduate business administration students. The comparison group consisted of 42 students of the same program enrolled in the same course in the past academic year. The learning activity involved document formatting, where students had to format documents following the templates. Instructions were posted on the website without any live demonstration. Assessment criteria consisting of checklists were applied for both groups. In the experimental group, an online peer assessment process using the proposed system was added. The results showed that the students' overall performance in the experimental group was significantly higher than those in the comparison group at P <.001. The validity of the peer assessment was .97, considering teacher-assigned grades as the correct values. The survey results showed that the experimental group students had a positive attitude towards the designed online peer assessment system (3.92/5.00). Qualitative feedback identified that the system was easy to use and helped students recognize their mistakes. However, some students reported the inaccuracy of the peer assessment. Two teachers in charge of the experimental group commented that the system was slightly complicated at first. Still, it was not too difficult to learn how to use it as they were familiar with Google services. Using the system can be a benefit in the long run as student work errors are greatly reduced.
- Philip Sadler and Eddie Good. 2006. The Impact of Self- and peer-grading on student learning. Educational Assessment. 11, 1 (February 2006), 1–31. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1101_1Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Lorin W. Anderson. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman, London.Google Scholar
- Keith Willey and Anne Gardner. 2010. Investigating the capacity of self and peer assessment activities to engage students and promote learning. European Journal of Engineering Education 35, 4 (August 2010), 429–443. http://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2010.490577Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nancy Falchikov. 2005. Improving assessment through student involvement: practical solutions for aiding learning in higher and further education. Routledge, Abingdon.Google Scholar
- Jui-Ching F. Peng. 2009. Peer Assessment of Oral Presentation in an EFL Context. Indiana UniversityGoogle Scholar
- Thomas Wanner and Edward Palmer. 2018. Formative self-and peer assessment for improved student learning: the crucial factors of design, teacher participation and feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43, 7 (October 2018), 1032–1047. http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1427698Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pongrapee Kaewsaiha. 2019. Usability of the Learning Management System and Choices of Alternative. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Education, Psychology, and Social Sciences (ICEPS’19). 252–259.Google Scholar
- William Buchanan. 2006. Correlation between academic and skills-based tests in computer networks. British Journal of Educational Technology 37, 1 (January 2006), 69–78. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00476.xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Pongrapee Kaewsaiha. 2012. Creative Learning of Analytic Geometry through NC Programming with a Virtual Lab Application. In Proceedings of the 17th Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics (ATCM’12). 10 pages.Google Scholar
- Martin Formanek, Matthew C. Wenger, Sanlyn R. Buxner, Chris D. Impey, and Tenzin Sonam. 2017. Insights about large-scale online peer assessment from an analysis of an astronomy MOOC. Computers & Education. 113 (October 2017), 243–262. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.019Google Scholar
- J.K.L., Poon. 2011. Students' perceptions of peer evaluation in project work. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE’11). 87-94.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Anna P. Lladó, Lídia F. Soley, Rosa M.F. Sansbelló, 2013. Student perceptions of peer assessment: an interdisciplinary study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 39, 5 (July 2013), 592–610. http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.860077Google Scholar
- Viswanath Venkatesh and Hillol Bala. 2008. Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decision Sciences 39, 2 (May 2008), 273–315. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
Recommendations
Peer and self assessment in massive online classes
Peer and self-assessment offer an opportunity to scale both assessment and learning to global classrooms. This article reports our experiences with two iterations of the first large online class to use peer and self-assessment. In this class, peer ...
The student view on online peer reviews
ITiCSE '09: Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science educationPeer review is used as an effective quality assurance measure in many contexts, including science, business, programming or education. In education, several studies confirmed the positive effects of peer reviewing on student learning. Based on recent ...
The student view on online peer reviews
ITiCSE '09Peer review is used as an effective quality assurance measure in many contexts, including science, business, programming or education. In education, several studies confirmed the positive effects of peer reviewing on student learning. Based on recent ...
Comments