|
|
 |
|
The general design was that there were three sources of scores: from the teachers, the peers, and self. The teacher (and the teaching assistant) rated students’ performances in a learning activity according to the pre-agreed criteria. Self- and peer-assessments were conducted by students rating themselves and their classmates’ performance either individually or in groups, also using the set of pre-agreed criteria. The approach used in self-assessment, however, was not solely based on the performance scores students gave themselves, but was based on how accurately they could assess themselves.
Performance indicator can be obtained by assigning appropriate weights to the following components
(a) teacher score (T);
(b) peer score (P);
(c) the difference of self and teacher scores (S-T);
(d) the difference of self and peer scores (S-P).
The following table illustrated how RAW scores for the component in (b) and (d) could be computed when there were five assessment criteria (C1 to C5) and four groups (G1 to G4). Suggested methods to compute the FINAL scores for the component (b) were presented in the next table.
Table: Computing the RAW Scores for the Components P and S-P – An Example
| Criterion |
Peer-assessment |
Self-assessment |
Peer average score
|
Comparison of
Self- and peer-scores
|
| G1 |
G2 |
G3 |
G4 |
| C1 |
x11 |
x12 |
x13 |
x14 |
pc1=(x11+x12+x13)/3 |
|x14-pc1| |
| |
2 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
(2+3+4)/3=3 |
|1-3|=2 |
| C2 |
x21 |
x22 |
x23 |
x24 |
pc2=(x21+x22+x23)/3 |
|x24-pc2| |
| |
6 |
7 |
8 |
5 |
(6+7+8)/3=7 |
|5-7|=2 |
| C3 |
x31 |
x32 |
x33 |
x34 |
pc3=(x31+x32+x33)/3 |
|x34-pc3| |
| |
2 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
(2+3+4)/3=3 |
|3-3|=0 |
| C4 |
x41 |
x42 |
x43 |
x44 |
pc4=(x41+x42+x43)/3 |
|x44-pc4| |
| |
7 |
8 |
9 |
8 |
(7+8+9)/3=8 |
|8-8|=0 |
| C5 |
x51 |
x52 |
x53 |
x54 |
pc5=(x51+x52+x53)/3 |
|x54-pc5| |
| |
8 |
9 |
10 |
10 |
(8+9+10)/3=9 |
|10-9|=1 |
| Average |
|
|
|
|
Raw peer-score
= (pc1+pc2+pc3+pc4+pc5)/5
= 
=(x11+x12+x13+x21+x22+x23+x31+ x32+x33+x41+x42+x43+x51+x52+x53)/15 |
Raw S-P score for G4 is obtained by taking the average of the absolute differences in the above cells |
| |
|
|
|
|
Raw peer-score
= (3+7+3+8+9)/5=6
=(2+3+4+6+7+8+2+3+4+7+8+9+8+9+10)/15
=6 |
Raw S-P score
=(2+2+0+0+1)/5
=1 |
|
|
|
|
Table: Methods to Obtain FINAL Scores from RAW Peer Scores – An Example
| |
|
Method 0 |
Method 1 |
Method 2 |
Method 3 |
| Group |
Raw
peer-score
Theoretical range=(0,10) |
Final score=raw score
Theoretical Range=(0,10) |
Teacher assigned score, based on ranks, maximum
= 20 marks,
each rank
= 3 marks |
Multiplied raw score by the constant 3
Theoretical range=(0,30) |
Transformed proportionally
Desired range=(3,15) |
| G1 |
10 |
10 |
Rank 1: 20 marks |
30 |
15 |
| G2 |
8 |
8 |
Rank 2: 17 marks |
24 |
9 |
| G3 |
7 |
7 |
Rank 3: 14 marks |
21 |
6 |
| G4 |
6 |
6 |
Rank 4: 11marks |
18 |
3 |
The methods proposed in this table could be used in a similar manner to obtain FINAL scores for the S-P component. However, the higher the RAW S-P scores, the lower the FINAL S-P scores.
The methods suggested in the above two tables could be used to produce FINAL scores for the components T and S-T.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
