[Logged as: View only to: Public Group]  Login
  Feature Name: Evaluating students as evaluators
 
Author: Yael Kali

Category: Offline Supports

Subject: Social sciences

Kind: NA

Audience:
 Elementary School
 Middle School
 High School
 Higher Education
 Teachers & Principals
 Other


Projects:

Software URL: NA

Created by:

Reference URL

This Feature is connected to (4) Principles
  • Encourage learners to learn from others
  • Engage learners as critics
  • Integrate online with offline activities
  • Involve students in evaluation processes
     
    Feature in Visual Map
     
    Description:
    Biased scoring and inappropriate language in peer evolution can occur when the contents that are being evaluated are socio-culturally sensitive. In such cases it is advised to avoid grading students according to peer-evaluation results. Rather, to reduce tensions, it is recommended to evaluated students as evaluators, based on their respecting of classroom norms, and on the quality of their justifications.

    According to this rationale, we decided to that 15% of students’ scores would be derived from the peer-evaluation activity and indicated how well they served as evaluators. The score was comprised of: a) number of evaluations provided, b) respecting classroom pre-defined norms, c) quality of justifications, and d) degree of correlation with instructor’s score.
    The Rationale Behind the Feature (Specific Design Principle):
    When the evaluated contents are socially/culturally sensitive, avoid grading students according to peer-evaluation results. Rather, evaluate students as evaluators.
    Context of Use:
    The study took place in an educational-philosophy course for undergraduate level at the Technion, taught by the authors of this feature. The main goal of the course was to help students develop their own perceptions about fundamental issues in education and schooling (e.g. what is the goal of schooling? What contents should be taught in school? What should be the role of the teacher?). A main theme in the course is the “ideal school” project, in which groups of 3-4 students constructed a conceptual model of a school that met their evolving educational perceptions.

    Toward the end of the semester each group gave a short presentation of one day in their ideal school. For this purpose, most students used PowerPoint, but other less-conventional means, such as drama-performances were also used. The presentations took place in three class meetings, with three or four presentations in each session. One challenge we faced was how to ensure that students make the most out of these meetings. Prior teaching experience in similar contexts revealed that students tend to focus on accomplishing the course’s requirements (their own presentations in this case) and less interested in their peers’ projects.

    This challenge was addressed by designing a peer-evaluation activity, in which students were involved in the assessment of their peers’ “ideal school” presentations. The rationale for engaging students in this activity was: a) to ensure their involvement in their peers’ projects, b) to create a framework for them to learn from each others’ projects, c) to help them develop evaluation skills that they would need as future educators, and d) to reinforce criteria for designing their projects. The analysis of this peer-evaluation activity by the instructor involved the integration of hundreds of assessments (35 students, times 10 groups, times about four criteria).

    To help facilitate the analysis we decided to use a computerized system, which enabled us to gather, present and analyze these assessments in a productive manner. The activity was therefore performed online with the CeLS environment (Collaborative e-Leaning Structures), a novel system that allows the instructor to create and conduct a variety of online structured collaborative activities (http://www.mycels.net)
    Field-based Evidence:
    Outcomes indicated that implementation the activity when students were evaluated as evaluators, enabled students to better exploit the vast advantages of peer-evaluation as compared with a former iteration in which we did not apply this rationale.
    Tensions were decreased (Kali & Ronen, 2005), and higher correlation with instructor (r=0.7, p=0.02) were found. Furthermore, learning gains, and student satisfaction, as indicated from an attitude questionnaire stayed high.
    References:
    Kali, Y., & Ronen, M. (2005). Design principles for online peer-evaluation: Fostering objectivity. Proceedings of CSCL 2005 (Taipei, Taiwan). In Koschmann, T., Suthers, D.D. & Chan, T.W. (Eds), Computer support for collaborative learning: The Next 10 Tears! Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.