Journals / Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi / 2023 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 1

Examining The Rater Drift in The Assessment of Presentation Skills in Secondary School Context

Pages
62–75
Publication Date
2023-03-25
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

However, no significant rater drift at the group level showed that drifts had no specific models.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The alternative assessment, including peer assessment, helps students develop metacognition among the sub-categories of assessment types.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Despite the advantage of alternative assessment, reliability and validity issues are the most significant problems in alternative assessment.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, no significant rater drift at the group level showed that drifts had no specific models.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:alternative assessment · many-Facets Rasch Measurement · peer-assessment validity

Abstract

The alternative assessment, including peer assessment, helps students develop metacognition among the sub-categories of assessment types. Despite the advantage of alternative assessment, reliability and validity issues are the most significant problems in alternative assessment. This study investigated the rater drift, one of the rater effects, in peer assessment. The performance of 8 oral presentations based on group work in the Science and Technology course was scored by 7th-grade students (N=28) using the rubric researchers developed. The presentations lasted for four days, with two presentations each day. While examining the time-dependent drift in rater severity in peer assessment, the many-Facet Rasch Measurement model was used. Two indexes (interaction term and standardized differences) were calculated with many-facet Rasch measurement to determine the raters who made rater drift either individually or as a group. The analysis examined the variance of scores in the following days compared to the first day’s scores. Accordingly, the two methods used to determine rater drift gave similar results, and some raters at the individual level tended to be more severe or lenient over time. However, no significant rater drift at the group level showed that drifts had no specific models.

🔖

Cite This Article

ASLANOĞLU, A. E., ŞATA, M. (2023). Examining The Rater Drift in The Assessment of Presentation Skills in Secondary School Context. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 1, 62–75. https://ajindex.com/articles/885733

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Andrade, H. G. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad, and the ugly. College Teaching, 53(1), 27-31. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.53.1.27-31
  2. Azarnoosh, M. (2013). Peer assessment in an EFL context: attitudes and friendship bias. Language Testing in Asia, 3(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/2229-0443-3-11
  3. Baird, J. A., Hayes, M., Johnson, R., Johnson, S., & Lamprianou, I. (2013). Marker effects and examination reliability. A Comparative exploration from the perspectives of generalisability theory, Rash model and multilevel modelling. Oxford University Centre for Educational Assessment. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/15171449.pdf
  4. Batmaz, H., Türk, N., Kaya, A., & Yıldırım, M. (2022). Cyberbullying and cyber victimization: examining mediating roles of empathy and resilience. Current Psychology, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-04134-3
  5. Black, P., Harrison, C., & Lee, C. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. McGraw-Hill. http://www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/html/0335212972.html
  6. Börkan, B. (2017). Rater severity drift in peer assessment. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 8(4), 469-489. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.328119
  7. Bushell, G. (2006). Moderation of peer assessment in group projects. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(1), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500262395
  8. Congdon, P. J., & McQueen, J. (2000). The stability of rater severity in large-scale assessment programs. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37(2), 163-178. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2000.tb01081.x
  9. Dochy, F. (2001). A new assessment era: different needs, new challenges. Learning and Instruction, 10(1), 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00022-0
  10. Donnon, T., McIlwrick, J., & 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.46A005
  11. Erman Aslanoğlu, A., Karakaya, İ., & Şata, M. (2020). Evaluation of university students’ rating behaviors in self and peer rating process via many facet rasch model. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 20(89), 25-46. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ejer/issue/57497/815802
  12. Falchikov, N., & 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/10.2307/1170785 Fa