Journal of the Korean earth science society (한국지구과학회지)

The Korean Earth Science Society (한국지구과학회)
권호 표지

Student Perceptions of Peer Assessment in an Action Research Context

  • Published : 2004.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

A peer assessment method was implemented as part of an action research project where the primary goal was to create constructivist science classrooms. Student reflective writings, which had been created in the process of action research, were analyzed to examine the perceptions of the students concerning the peer assessment method employed in their earth science classrooms. Five perception categories and thirteen statements were developed from the student writings. These indicated that the students appreciated the positive nature of peer assessment and the effects of it as an alternative method for promoting learning. It was also revealed, however, that some students displayed inappropriate behaviors toward peer assessment which led to negative perceptions of the new assessment method. Implications for future use of peer assessment in science classrooms are discussed. Limitations founded in the present study as well as possible solutions are provided.

Keywords

References

  1. Aldridge, J.M., Fraser, B.J., Taylor, P.C., and Chen, C.-C., 2000, Constructivist learning environments in a crossnational study in Taiwan and Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 37-55 https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289994
  2. Appalachia Educational Laboratory, & Virginia Education Association, 1992, Alternative assessments in math and science: Moving toward a moving target. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED355256
  3. Baxter, G.P., Elder, A.D., and Glaser, R., 1996, Knowledgebased cognition and performance assessment in the science classroom. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 133-140 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3102_5
  4. Berry, R., 2003, Alternative assessment and assessment for learning. Paper presented at the 29th International Association for Educational Assessment annual conference, Crowne Plaza Manchester, The Midland, UK. Retrieved December 5, 2003 from http://www.aqa.org.uk/support/iaea/papers/berry.pdf
  5. Black, P. and Wiliam, D., 1998, Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, & Practice, 5(1), 7-74
  6. Brooks, J.G. and Brooks, M.G., 1999, In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
  7. Champagne, A.B., Kouba, V.L., and Hurley, M., 2000, Assessing inquiry. In J. Minstrell and E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 447-470
  8. Dass, P.M., 1996, Professional development: The Iowa Chautauqua model. Science Education International, 70(1), 18-21
  9. Duffy, T.M. and Cunningham, DJ., 1996, Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen, (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York, NY: MacMillan, 170-198
  10. Eisenhower National Clearinghouse, 1999, Ideas that work science professional development. Columbus, OH: Author
  11. Hargreaves, D.J., 1997, Student learning and assessment are inextricably linked. European Journal of Engineering Education, 22(4), 401-409 https://doi.org/10.1080/03043799708923471
  12. Herman, J.L. and Klein, D.C.D., 1997, American students perspectives on alternative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 4(3), 339-342
  13. Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R., 1988, The action research planner (3rd edition). Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press
  14. Lambert, N.M. and McCombs, B.L., 1998, How students learn: Reforming schools through leamer-centered education. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
  15. Lee, M.-K., 2001, The effects of a professional development program for physics teachers on their teaching and the learning of their students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Iowa, Iowa City, LA
  16. Lin S.S. J., Liu, E.Z.F., and Yuan, S.M., 2002, Student attitudes toward networked peer assessment: Case studies of undergraduate students and senior high school students. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(2), 2002
  17. Liu, J., Pysarchik, D.T., and Taylor, W.W., 2002, Peer review in the classroom. Bioscience, 52(9), 824-829 https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0824:PRITC]2.0.CO;2
  18. Lorsbach, A.W., Tobin, K., Briscoe, C., and LaMaster, S.U., 1992. An interpretation of assessment methods in middle school science. International Journal of Science Education, 14(3), 305-317 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069920140307
  19. National Research Council, 1996, National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
  20. National Research Council, 2000, Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
  21. Oh, P.S. and Shin, M.-K., 2004, Students reflections on implementation of Group Investigation in Korean secondary science classrooms. Manuscript submitted for publication
  22. Oh, P.S., Shin, M.-K., and Yager, R.E., 2003, Science classroom improvement through collaborative action research: the process and quantitative evidence. Manuscript submitted for publication
  23. Orpwood, G., 2001, The role of assessment in science curriculum reform. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, & Practice, 8(2), 135-151 https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940125120
  24. Paris, S.G., 1998, Why learner-centered assessment is better than high-stakes testing. In N. M. Lambert and B. L. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education. Washington, DC: American Psychology Association, 189-209
  25. Raizen, S.A, Baron, J.B., Champagne, A.B., Haertel, E, Mullis, V.S., and Oakes, J., 1989, Assessment in elementary school science education. National Center for Improving Science Education
  26. Reigeluth, C.M., 1999, What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models volume II: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 5-29
  27. Sharan, Y. and Sharan, S., 1989, Group Investigation expands cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 17-21
  28. Sharan, Y. and Sharan, S., 1994, Group Investigation in the cooperative classroom. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 97-114
  29. Shepard, L.A., 1995, February, Using assessment to improve learning. Educational Leadership, 38-43
  30. Shin, M.-K., 2000, A study of effectiveness of the Iowa Chautauqua staff development model for reform of science teaching in Korea. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA
  31. Shin, M.-K. and Oh, P.S., 2003, Reflection on the Iowa Chautauqua Program as a science teacher inservice model. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 24(2), 74-81
  32. Sivan, A., 2000, The implementation of peer assessment: An action research approach. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, & Practice, 7(2), 193-213 https://doi.org/10.1080/713613328
  33. Sluijsmans, D., Brand-Gruwel, S., van Merrienboer, J., and Bastiaens, T.J., 2003, The training of peer assessment skills to promote the development of reflection skills in teacher education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 29, 23-42 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-491X(03)90003-4
  34. Taylor, P.C., Fraser, J.C., and Fisher, D.L., 1997, Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(4), 293-302 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(97)90011-2
  35. Valanides, N. and Angeli, C, 2002, Challenges in achieving scientific and technological literacy: Research directions for the future. Science Education International, 13(1), 2-7.
  36. Willis, J., 2000, The maturing of constructivist instructional design: Some basic principles that can guide practice. Educational Technology, 40(1), 5-16
  37. Yager, R.E., Mackinnu, and Blunck, S.M., 1992, Science/Technology/Society as reform of science in the elementary school. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 4(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173750
  38. Yager, R.E. and McCormack, A.J., 1989, Assessing teaching/learning successes in multiple domains of science and science education. Science Education, 73(1), 45-58 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730730105
  39. Zessoules, R. and Gardner, H., 1991, Authentic assessment: Beyond the buzzword and into the classroom. In V. Perrone (Ed.), Expanding student assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 47-71