본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

동료평가에서 평가준거 수준이 학업성취, 동료평가에 대한 흥미, 평가의 신뢰도에 미치는 영향

Effects of the Assessment Criteria Levels on Academic Achievement, Interest, and Reliability of Peer Assessment in Peer Assessments

김민정
한국열린교육학회 (The Korea Association of Yeolin Education)|2020.11|열린교육연구 (The Journal of Yeolin Education)|제28권 제5호|pp. 279-299|DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.18230/tjye.2020.28.5.279

1

조회

0

다운로드

5

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

신뢰도학업성취academic achievement동료평가peer assessment흥미평가준거interestassessment criteria levelreliability of assessment
주제분류교육학

초록

본 연구의 목적은 동료평가에서 평가준거의 수준(구체적 준거, 보통 준거, 무준거)이 학업성취, 동료평가에 대한 흥미, 동료평가의 신뢰도에 미치는 영향을 탐색하는 것이다. 본 연구를 위한 실험 참여자는 67명의 학부 학생이었다. 본 연구의 결과는 다음과 같다. 학업성취에서는 집단간 유의미한 차이가 있는 것으로 나타났다(F(2,64)=13.71, p<.05). 구체적 평가준거를 사용한 집단이 보통 준거나 무준거를 사용한 집단보다 학업성취 점수가 유의미하게 높았고, 보통 준거를 사용한 집단의 학업성취는 무준거 집단보다 유의미하게 높았다. 동료평가에 대한 흥미에서도 집단 간 유의미한 차이가 있는 것으로 나타났다(WilksLamda=.49, p<.05). 하위구인 관련성에서는 구체적 준거를 사용한 집단이 무준거 집단에 비하여 유의미하게 높은 점수를 보였고, 반대로 자신감에서는 무준거 집단이 구체적 준거 집단보다 유의미하게 높은 흥미 점수를 나타내었다. 평가의 신뢰도는 평가준거가 구체적일수록 교수자의 평가와 상관이 높은 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 결과는 동료평가의 평가준거가 구체적일수록 평가하는 학습자에게는 학습 내용에 대한 이해를 증진시켜 자신의 학업에 긍정적인 영향을 준다는 점을 의미한다. 평가의 준거가 구체적이고 세부적일수록 학습자들은 평가가 자신의 학습과 연계되고 학습을 증진시킨다는 점은 긍정적으로 인식했지만, 반대로 구체적인 평가준거를 사용하여 평가하는 것을 어려워한다거나 평가 자체를 하나의 어려운 과제로 생각한다는 점이 발견되었다. 이러한 부분에 대한 심층적인 노력이 요구됨을 연구의 마지막에 제언하였다.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of the level of assessment criteria (specific criteria, standard criteria, non-criteria) on academic achievement interest, and the reliability of peer assessment. For this study 67 learners participated in the experiment. The results of this study show that there are significant differences between groups in academic achievement(F(2,64)=13.71, p<.05). Groups using specific assessment criteria scored significantly higher in academic achievement than those using standard or non-criteria, and the academic achievement of groups using standard criteria was significantly higher than those using non-criteria. Interest in peer assessment also showed significant differences between groups(WilksLamda=.49, p<.05). In the sub-construct relevance, the group using specific criteria scored significantly higher than the non-criteria group, while in confidence, the non-criteria group scored significantly higher than the specific criteria group. The more specific the criteria, the higher the reliability of the assessment is related to the instructor's assessment. These results indicate that the more specific the peer assessment criteria, the better learners understand the content through peer assessment experiences and performance of their tasks. And the more specific and detailed the criteria for the assessment, the more learners perceived that the assessment was related to their own learning. However, learners said that it is difficult to assess using specific criteria, and that it is considered another challenge of its own. Subsequent studies suggested at the end of the study that in-depth efforts should be made in these areas.

참고문헌 (33)

  1. 김민정, "학습 방법으로서의 동료평가 : 평가자 및 피평가자의 역할이 학습자의 초인지, 학업성취, 학습동기에 미치는 영향", 교육공학연구, 21(4), pp.1~28 (2005), 한국교육공학회
  2. Ballantyne, R., "Developing procedures for implementing peer assessment in large classes using an action research process", Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), pp.427~441 (2002)
  3. Black, P., "Feedback in questioning and marking : The science teacher's role in formative assessment", School Science Review, 82(301), pp.55~61 (2001)
  4. Blom, D., "Peer assessment of tertiary music performance : opportunities for understanding performance assessment and performing through experience and self‐reflection", British Journal of Music Education, 21(1), pp.111~125 (2004)
  5. Bloxham, S., "Understanding the rules of the game : marking peer assessment as medium for developing students’conceptions of assessment", Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(6), pp.721~733 (2004)
  6. Cheng, K. H., "Exploring students’ behavioural patterns during online peer assessment from the affective, cognitive, and metacognitive perspectives: a progressive sequential analysis", Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(2), pp.171~188 (2015)
  7. Cho, K., "Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives", Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), pp.891~901 (2006)
  8. Falchikov, N., "Learning Together: Peer Tutoring in Higher Education" (2001), Routledge Falmer
  9. Falchikov, N., "Student peer assessment in higher education : A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks", Review of Educational Research, 70(3), pp.287~322 (2000)
  10. Ghaffar, M. A., "Co-construcred rubrics and assessment for learning : The impact on middle school students’attitudes and writing skills", Assessing Writing, 45, pp.1~15 (2020)
  11. Keller, J. M., "Course Interest Survey", Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems, Florida State University, ~ (1987)
  12. Keller, J. M., "Instructional Materials Motivation Survey", Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems, Florida State University, ~ (1993)
  13. Keppell, M., "Peer learning and learning-oriented assessment in technology-enhanced environments", Assessment & Education in Higher Education, 31(4), pp.453~464 (2007)
  14. Kim, M., "Peer assessment as a learning method: Various assessment criteria for students with different self‐regulation levels", Paper presented at the AECT (2003)
  15. Kim, M., "Peer assessment as a learning method" (2008), VDM verlag dr müller
  16. Kim, M., "The development and implementation of a web-based formative peer assessment system for enhancing students’metacognitive awareness and performance in ill-structured tasks", Educational Technology Research & Development, 61, pp.549~561 (2013)
  17. Kollar, I., "Peer assessment as collaborative learning : A cognitive perspective", Learning and Instruction, 20(4), pp.344~348 (2010)
  18. Liu, N., "Peer feedback : The learning element of peer assessment", Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), pp.279~290 (2006)
  19. Liu, X., "Assessment training effects on student assessment skills and task performance in a technology-facilitated peer assessment", Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(3), pp.275~292 (2014)
  20. Ng, E. M. W., "Fostering pre-service teachers' self-regulated learning through self-and peer assessment of wiki projects", Computers &Education, 98, pp.180~191 (2016)
  21. Miller, P. J., "The Effect of Scoring Criteria Specificity on Peer and self-assessment", Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(4), pp.383~394 (2003)
  22. Orsmond, P., "The importance of marking criteria in the use of peer assessment", Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(3), pp.239~249 (1996)
  23. Orsmond, P., "The use of examplars and formative feedback when using student derived marking criteria in peer and self‐assessment", Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(4), pp.309~323 (2002)
  24. Panadero, E., "The impact of a rubric and friendship on peer assessment : Effects on construct validity, performance, and perceptions of fairness and comfort", Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(4), pp.195~203 (2013)
  25. Shih, R. C., "Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English writing? Integrating Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning", Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(5), pp.829~845 (2011)
  26. Sluijsmans, D. M. A., "The training of peer assessment skills to promote the development of reflection skills in teacher education", Studies in Educational Evaluation, 29, pp.23~42 (2003)
  27. Steed, M., "The power of peer review in multimedia production", Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(3), pp.237~250 (2002)
  28. Tillema, H., "Assessing assessment quality : Criteria for quality assurance in design of(peer)assessment for learning – A review of research studies", Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), pp.25~34 (2011)
  29. Topping, K. J., "Peer Assessment", Theory Into Practice, 48(1), pp.20~27 (2009)
  30. Topping, K., "Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students", Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), pp.149~169 (2000)
  31. Tsai, C. ‐C., "Developing science activities through a networked peer assessment system", Computers & Education, 38, pp.241~252 (2002)
  32. van Zundert, M., "Effective peer assessment processes : Research findings and future directions", Learning and Instruction, 20(4), pp.270~279 (2010)
  33. Wanner, T., "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), pp.1032~1047 (2018)

관련 논문AI추천

동료평가 정확도 향상 방안의 비교: 평가 기준에 대한 학생들 간 토론 대 전문가 평가 사례 제시박정애, 박주용한국인지과학회 · 인지과학2019 · 제30권 제4호동료평가의 현황과 전망박정애, 박주용한국인지과학회 · 인지과학2018 · 제29권 제2호대학의 컴퓨터 실습수업에서 자기평가 및 동료평가의 활용 가능성 탐색이옥화, 이은복, 장순선한국교육정보미디어학회 · 교육정보미디어연구2015 · 제21권 제1호팀 기반 학습에서 동료평가의 타당도 분석권선린, 박정연한국교육공학회 · 교육공학연구2025 · 제41권 제3호대학 수업에서 누적 동료평가 점수를 활용한 성적 산출 방법의 타당성박주용, 배수정한국인지과학회 · 인지과학2016 · 제27권 제2호학습 방법으로서의 동료평가 : 평가자 및 피평가자의 역할이 학습자의 초인지, 학업성취, 학습동기에 미치는 영향김민정한국교육공학회 · 교육공학연구2005 · 제21권 제4호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (14건)

대학 수업에서 발표 역량 강화를 위한 피드백 전략 탐색 연구: 인문사회 교양과목을 중심으로성지훈, 정영숙pp. 1-25농어촌 소규모 초등학교의 체육과 교육과정 적용 분석이미숙, 조보경, 조기희pp. 27-48인본주의적 교육과정 인식론에 대한 열린 고찰: 포스트휴머니즘적 비판을 중심으로박휴용pp. 49-78기계학습 기법을 활용한 플립러닝 강좌의 LMS 로그파일 분석 사례 연구유진은pp. 79-102학부생 비교과 프로그램 개발 실행연구 : A 대학 교육정책연구 학습동아리 프로그램을 중심으로변기용, 백상현pp. 103-131
원문 보기