You are here:

Use EVA to faciliate preservice teacher peer assessment
PROCEEDINGS

, , , , University of Sydney, Australia

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in San Diego, CA, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-78-5 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

This study intends to explore how EVA – a web-based platform that allows online video streaming and annotations – can help pre-service teachers in finalizing their web-based learning resource design assignment. Students, in pairs, critiqued two websites developed by their peers, and, at the same time, had their websites evaluated. While navigating their peers’ websites, students’ computer screens and their conversations were recorded. Video recordings were then uploaded to EVA where the students viewed how their websites were navigated and commented. The students found the task practical and engaging. An analysis of students’ feedback comments showed that praise comments outnumbered other types of comments.

Citation

Hu, C., Wong, W.Y., Fyfe, V. & Chan, H. (2010). Use EVA to faciliate preservice teacher peer assessment. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2010--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3257-3264). San Diego, CA, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 24, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Artemeva, N., & Logie, S. (2002). Introducing engineering students to intellectual teamwork: The teaching and practice of peer feedback in the professional communication classroom. Language and Learning across the Disciplines, 6, 62-85.
  2. Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 474481.
  3. Cho, K., Schunn, C., & Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23(3), 260-294.
  4. Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: developing peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32(2), 175-187.
  5. 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.
  6. Ferris, D.R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Michigan: the university of Michigan Press.
  7. Freeman, M. (1995). Peer assessment by groups of groupwork. Assessment& Evaluation in Higher Education, 20(3), 289-300.
  8. Freeman, M., & McKenzie, J. (2002). SPARK, a confidential web-based template for self and peer assessment of student teamwork: Benefits of evaluating across different subjects. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 551-569.
  9. Kluger, A.N. & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284.
  10. Liu, E.Z.F., Lin, S.S.J., & Yuan, S.M. (2002). Alternatives to instructor assessment: A case study of comparing self and peer assessment with instructor assessment under a networked innovative assessment procedures. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(4), 395-404.
  11. Liu, E.Z.F., & Yuan, S.M. (2001). Web-based peer assessment: feedback for students with various thinking-styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(1), 420-432.
  12. Mehrens, W.A., Popham, W.J., & Ryan, J.M. (1998). How to prepare students for performance assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(1), 18-22.
  13. Neuwirth, C.M., Chandook, R., Charney, D., Wojahn, P., & Kim, L. (1994). Distributed collaborative writing: A comparison of spoken and written modalities for reviewing and revising documents. Proceedings of the ComputerHuman Interaction ‘94 Conference, April 24-28, 1994, Boston Massachusetts (pp. 51-57). New York: Association
  14. Mishra, P. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Records, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  15. Paulson, E., Alexander, J., & Armstrong, S. (2007). Peer review re-viewed: investigating the juxtaposition of composition students' eye movements and peer-review processes. Research in the Teaching of English, 41(3), 304335.
  16. Robinson, J.M. (1999). Computer-assisted peer review. In S. Brown, J. Bull& P. Race (Eds.), Computer-assisted assessment in higher education (pp. 95-102). London: Kogan Page.
  17. Prins, F., Sluijsmans, D., Kirschner, P., & Strijbos, J. (2005). Formative peer assessment in a CSCL environment: a case study. Assessment& Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 417-444.
  18. Rada, R., Acquah, S., Baker, B., & Ramsey, P. (1993). Collaborative learning and the MUCH system. Computers and Education, 20(3), 225-233.
  19. Stefani, L. (1994). Peer, self and tutor assessment: Relative reliabilities. Studies in Higher Education, 19(1), 69-75.
  20. Sugita, Y. (2006). The impact of teacher’s comment types on students revision. ELT journal, 60(1), 34-41.
  21. Topping, K.J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.
  22. Topping, K. & Ehly, S. (1998). Peer Assisted Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  23. Topping, K.J., Smith, E.F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment& Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149-169.
  24. Wong, W.Y., & Reimann, P. (2009). Web based educational video teaching and learning platform with collaborative annotation. Paper presented at Ninth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, (Riga, Latvia, 15-17 July, 2009).
  25. Williams, E. (1992). Student attitudes towards approaches to learning and assessment. Assessment& Evaluation in Higher Education, 17(1), 45-58.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.