Journals / Participatory Educational Research / 2023 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 5

The Role of Time on Performance Assessment (Self, Peer and Teacher) in Higher Education: Rater Drift

Pages
98–118
Publication Date
2023-09-01
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)

It was found that 26 out of 48 peer raters had rater drift in their evaluations.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aimed to investigate the change in teacher candidates' oral presentation skills over time through self, peer, and teacher assessments using the rater drift method.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study group consisted of 47 teacher candidates receiving formation education at a state university in the Eastern Anatolia Region and an instructor teaching the course.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was found that 26 out of 48 peer raters had rater drift in their evaluations.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Rater drift · presentation skills · many-facet rasch

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the change in teacher candidates' oral presentation skills over time through self, peer, and teacher assessments using the rater drift method. A longitudinal descriptive research model was used as a quantitative research approach to achieve this aim. The study group consisted of 47 teacher candidates receiving formation education at a state university in the Eastern Anatolia Region and an instructor teaching the course. An analytical rubric was used as a data collection tool to evaluate the candidates' oral presentation skills. The data collection process lasted six weeks in total. Since the performance evaluation process aimed to examine the change over time, the many-facet Rasch model was used. When the findings of the study were examined, it was determined that the rater behavior of teacher candidates had statistically significant differences at the group level over time. It was found that 26 out of 48 peer raters had rater drift in their evaluations. It was also found that the majority of rater drift over time was positive, meaning that evaluators became more generous over time. Another result obtained in the study was that teacher assessment did not show rater drift over time, with similar ratings for six weeks. The study’s findings were discussed with previous studies in the literature, and recommendations were made to researchers.

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞEVGİN, H., ŞATA, M. (2023). The Role of Time on Performance Assessment (Self, Peer and Teacher) in Higher Education: Rater Drift. Participatory Educational Research, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 5, 98–118. https://ajindex.com/articles/961168

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Alaz, A., & Yarar, S. (2009, May). Classroom teachers' preferences and reasons in the measurement and evaluation process. I. International Education Research Congress. Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale. Alici, D. (2010). Other measurement tools and methods used in evaluating student performance. In Tekindal S. (Ed.), Measurement and evaluation in education (pp. 127-168).
  2. Pegem Akademi Publishing. Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21St century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries. OECD education working papers, 41, OECD Publishing. Arik, R. S., & Kutlu, O. (2013). Scaling the competency of teachers' measurement and evaluation field based on judge decisions. Journal of educational sciences research, 3(2), 163-196. https://doi.org/10.12973/jesr.2013.3210a
  3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, policy & practice, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
  4. Board of Education (2005). Introduction booklet of primary school grades 1-5 curriculum. Ministry of National Education. Borkan, 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
  5. Boud, D. (2013). Enhancing learning through self-assessment. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315041520
  6. Case, H. (1997). An examination of variation in rater severity over time: A study in rater drift. Objective measurement: Theory into practice, 5, 1-38.
  7. Cepni, S. (2010). Introduction to research and project work. Celepler Publishing. Colvin, S., & Vos, E. K. (1997). Authentic assessment models for statistics education. The assessment challenge in statistics education, 27-36.
  8. Congdon, P. J., & MeQueen, J. (2000). The stability of rater severity in large‐scale assessment programs. Journal of educational measurement, 37(2), 163-178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2000.tb01081.x
  9. Dikli, S. (2003). Assessment at a distance: Traditional vs. alternative assessments. Turkish online journal of educational technology-TOJET, 2(3), 13-19.
  10. Dishon, G., & Gilead, T. (2021). Adaptability and its discontents: 21st-century skills and the preparation for an unpredictable future. British journal of educational studies, 69(4), 393-413. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2020.1829545
  11. Dogan, C. D., & Uluman, M. (2017). A Comparison of rubrics and graded category rating scales with various methods regarding rate