International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 2834-7919   |  e-ISSN: 1554-5210
International Journal of Progressive Education
International Association of Educators

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2021, Vol. 17(1) 129-144

Investigating of Primary School Teacher Candidates’ Mathematics Teaching Performance According to Peer Assessments: Example of Teaching Practice

Asena Ayvaz Can

pp. 129 - 144   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.329.9   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2009-10-0002

Published online: February 01, 2021  |   Number of Views: 150  |  Number of Download: 757

Save PDF

Abstract

The aim of this research is to examine developments of primary school teacher candidates’ mathematics teaching performance according to peer assessment. Primary school teacher candidates practiced teaching skills within the scope of the Teaching Practice. This research is a longitudinal study. The research’s study group has fifty-eight primary school teacher candidates. According to the results of the research, peers rated primary school teacher candidates’ final mathematics teaching performance higher than their first mathematics teaching performance. According to the peer assessment, primary school teacher candidates' mathematics teaching performance has improved over time. Accordingly, a significant difference was found in the first (preparation for lesson and lesson association) and second (teaching process) sub-dimensions of the scale when first mathematics teaching performance scores controlled. The source of the difference between peer assessment scores regarding first and second sub-dimensions of the scale can be said the number of teaching practices in mathematics. The primary school teacher candidates who practiced 2 times in mathematics got lower scores in the first and second sub-dimensions than those who practiced 3 and 4 times. According the result, primary school teacher candidates should practice at least 3 times in order to ensure their development “preparation for lesson and lesson association” and “teaching process” for mathematics teaching performance.

Keywords: Mathematics Teaching Performance, Primary School Teacher Candidate, Teaching Practice, Peer Assessment

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Can, A.A. (2021). Investigating of Primary School Teacher Candidates’ Mathematics Teaching Performance According to Peer Assessments: Example of Teaching Practice . International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(1), 129-144. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2021.329.9

Harvard
Can, A. (2021). Investigating of Primary School Teacher Candidates’ Mathematics Teaching Performance According to Peer Assessments: Example of Teaching Practice . International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(1), pp. 129-144.

Chicago 16th edition
Can, Asena Ayvaz (2021). "Investigating of Primary School Teacher Candidates’ Mathematics Teaching Performance According to Peer Assessments: Example of Teaching Practice ". International Journal of Progressive Education 17 (1):129-144. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2021.329.9.
References
  1. Bektaş, M., Horzum, M. B., & Ayvaz, A. (2010). “Öğretmenlik uygulaması dersi öğretmen adayı akran değerlendirme ölçeği” geliştirme çalışması. [A study of developing “peer assessment scale for activities of teaching practice course”]. E-Journal of New World Sciences Academy Education Sciences, 5(3), 1272-1280. [Google Scholar]
  2. Brutus, S., Donia, M. B. L., & Ronen, S. (2013). Can business students learn to evaluate better? Evidence from repeated exposure to a peer-evaluation system. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(1), 18–31. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0204 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  3. Cartney, P. (2010). Exploring the use of peer assessment as a vehicle for closing the gap between feedback given and feedback used. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 551-564. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003632381 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  4. Chen, C. H. (2010). The implementation and evaluation of a mobile self-and peer-assessment system. Computers & Education, 55(1), 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.01.008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  5. Chinn, D. (2005). Peer-assessment in the algorithms course, In Proceedings of the 10th annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 37(3), 69-73, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/1151954.1067468 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  6. Cole, D. A. (1991). Change in self-perceived competence as a function of peer and teacher evaluation. Developmental Psychology, 27(4), 682–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.4.682 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  7. Courtney, S. A., Eliustaoglu, E., & Crawford, A. (2015). Examining the role lesson plans play in mathematics education. In Bartell, T. G., Bieda, K. N., Putnam, R. T., Bradfield, K., & Dominguez, H. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. (pp. 632-639). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. [Google Scholar]
  8. Çetinkaya, E., & Kılıç, D. (2017). Öğretmenlik uygulaması dersinin etkililik düzeyinin okul yöneticisi, sınıf öğretmeni ve öğretmen adayı görüşlerine göre incelenmesi. [Effectiveness of Teaching Practice Course According to School Administrators, Class Teacher and Teacher Candidate Opinions]. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 21(2), 561-571. [Google Scholar]
  9. Davran, E. (2006). İlköğretim kurumlarındaki öğretmenlik uygulamasının öğretmen adaylarının öğretmenlik yeterliliklerini kazanmaları üzerindeki etkisi (Van ili örneği). [Unpublished master dissertation]. Van: Yüzüncü Yıl University. [Google Scholar]
  10. Davies, P. (2000). Computerized peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(4), 346–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/135580000750052955 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  11. Deringöl, Y. (2018). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının matematik öğretimi kaygıları ve matematik öğretimi yeterliklerinin incelenmesi. [An Examination of The Mathematics Teaching Efficacy and The [Google Scholar]
  12. Mathematics Teaching Anxiety of Classroom Teacher Candidates]. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 11(2), 261-278. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.364483 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  13. DiGiovanni, E., & Nagaswami, G. (2001). Online peer review: An alternative to face-to-face? ELT Journal, 55(3), 263–272.  https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/55.3.263 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  14. Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer- and co-assessment in higher education. A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079912331379935 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  15. Doğan Temur, Ö., Akbaba Dağ, S., & Turgut, S. (2017). Some reflections from pre-service elementary teachers’ practice teaching on the area of understanding data in the math-teaching course. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(3), 355-370. [Google Scholar]
  16. Double, K. S., McGrane, J. A., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2020). The impact of peer assessment on academic performance: A meta-analysis of control group studies. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  17. 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. [Google Scholar]
  18. Freeman, M., & McKenzie, J. (2002). SPARK, a confidential web-based template for self and peer assessment of student team work: Benefits of evaluating across different subjects. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 551–569.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00291 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  19. Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Structuring the peer assessment process: a multilevel approach for the impact on product improvement and peer feedback quality. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(5), 435-449. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12096 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  20. Gürbüz, S., & Şahin, F. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri felsefe-yöntem-analiz, 4. Baskı, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara.   [Google Scholar]
  21. Hacıömeroğlu, G., & Şahin-Taşkın, Ç. (2010). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının matematik öğretimi yeterlik inançları. [Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Mathematics Teaching Efficacy Belief]. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(2), 539-555. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hafner, J., & Hafner, P. (2003). Quantitative analysis of the rubric as an assessment tool: an empirical study of student peer‐group rating. Int. J. Sci. Educ., 25(12), 1509-1528. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069022000038268 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  23. Hogg, L. M. (2018). Empowering students through peer assessment: Interrogating complexities and challenges, Reflective Practice, 19(3), 308-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2018.1437404 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  24. Hwang, G. H., Chen, B., & Sung, C. W. (2019). Impacts of flipped classrooms with peer assessment on students’ effectiveness of playing musical instruments–taking amateur erhu learners as an example. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 1047-1061. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1481105 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  25. Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational research review, 2(2), 130-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  26. Latypova, L. A., Polyakova, O. V., & Latypov, N. R. (2016). University students’ peer assessment in the language environment: From rote to meaningful learning. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 11(6), 1911-1917. [Google Scholar]
  27. Lee, S. B. (2019). Scale-referenced, summative peer assessment in undergraduate interpreter training: self-reflection from an action researcher, Educational Action Research, 27(2), 152-172. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2018.1477609 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  28. Li, L., & Gao, F. (2016). The effect of peer assessment on project performance of students at different learning levels. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(6), 885–900. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1048185 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  29. Lin, J. W., Tsai, C. W., Hsu, C. C. & Chang, L. C. (2019). Peer assessment with group awareness tools and effects on project-based learning, Interactive Learning Environments, https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1593198 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  30. Liu, J., Guo, X., Gao, R., Fram, P., Ling, Y., Zhang, H., & Wang, J.(2019). Students’ learning outcomes and peer rating accuracy in compulsory and voluntary online peer assessment, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 835-847. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1542659 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  31. Loughry, M. L., Ohland, M. W., & DeWayne Moore, D. (2007). Development of a theory-based assessment of team member effectiveness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(3), 505-524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164406292085 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  32. Lynn, P. (2009). Methods for longitudinal surveys. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  33. Malan, M., & Stegmann, N. (2018). Accounting students’ experiences of peer assessment: A tool to develop lifelong learning, South African Journal of Accounting Research, 32(2-3) 205-224, https://doi.org/10.1080/10291954.2018.1487503 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  34. Merry, S. & Orsmond, P. (2018). Peer assessment: the role of relational learning through communities of practice, Studies in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1544236 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  35. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  36. Önalan, O. (2018). Novice EFL teachers’views on peer assessment. Kara Harp Okulu Bilim Dergisi, 28(2), 1-20. [Google Scholar]
  37. Panadero, E. (2016). Is it safe? Social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer assessment: A review and future directions. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of Human and Social Conditions in Assessment (pp. 247–266). New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  38. Panadero, E., & Alqassab, M. (2019). An empirical review of anonymity effects in peer assessment, peer feedback, peer review, peer evaluation and peer grading, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(2), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1600186 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  39. Pardimin, & Huda, M. (2018). Investigating factors influencing mathematics teaching performance: an empirical study. International Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 391-402.  https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11327a [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  40. Poulou, M. (2003). Influential factors on teaching efficacy: prospective teachers’ beliefs. Paper presented at British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003151.htm [Google Scholar]
  41. Raban, R., & Litchfield, A. (2007). Supporting peer assessment of individual contributions in groupwork. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1272 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  42. Ramdani, J. M., & Widodo, H. P. (2019). Student teachers’ engagement in facebook-assisted peer assessment in an initial teacher education context: Speaking 2.0, Journal of Education for Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2019.1599503 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  43. Ramon-Casas, M., Nuño, N., Pons, F., & Cunillera, T. (2019). The different impact of a structured peer-assessment task in relation to university undergraduates’ initial writing skills, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44:5, 653-663. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1525337 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  44. Seifert, T., & Feliks, O. (2019). Online self-assessment and peer-assessment as a tool to enhance student-teachers’ assessment skills, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(2), 169-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1487023 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  45. Seroussi, D. E., Sharon, R., Peled, Y., & Yaffe, Y. (2019). Reflections on peer feedback in disciplinary courses as a tool in pre-service teacher training, Cambridge Journal of Education, 49(5), 655-671. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2019.158113 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  46. Sitthiworachart, J., & Joy, M. (2004). Effective peer assessment for learning computer programming. Proceedings of the 9th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 122–126), Leeds, UK. York, NY: ACM. [Google Scholar]
  47. Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Martens, R. L. (2004). Training teachers in peerassessment skills: effects on performance and perceptions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(1), 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/1470329032000172720 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  48. Soylu, Y. (2012). Öğretmenlik uygulaması derslerinin sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının matematik derslerinde öğretim yöntem ve tekniklerini kullanabilme başarılarına etkisi. [The effect of teaching practice courses on the success of primary school teacher candidates in using teaching methods and techniques at mathematics lessons]. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 42(195), 166-178. [Google Scholar]
  49. Sridharan, B., Muttakin, M. B., & Mihret, D. G. (2018). Students’ perceptions of peer assessment effectiveness: an explorative study, Accounting Education, 27(3), 259-285. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2018.1476894 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  50. Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., Chiou, S.-K., & Hou, H. T. (2005). The design and application of a web-based self and peer-assessment system. Computers & Education, 45(2), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  51. Sung, Y. T., Lin, C. S., Lee, C. L., & Chang, K. E. (2003). Evaluating proposals for experiments: an application of webbased self-assessment and peer-assessment. Teaching of Psychology, 30(4), 331–334. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP3004_06 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  52. Şendur, G., Kılınç Alpat, S. ve Özbayrak Azman, Ö. (2017). Kimya öğretmen adayları tarafından yapılan akran değerlendirmeleri ve bu değerlendirmelerin hazırladıkları ders planına yansımaları, 2. Uluslararası eğitimde iyi uygulamalar ve yenilikler konferansı, http://inoved.org/INOVED2017/abstract/kimya-ogretmen-adaylari-tarafindan-yapilan-akran-degerlendirmeleri-ve-bu-degerlendirmelerin-hazirladiklari-ders-planina-yansimalari [Google Scholar]
  53. To, J., & Panadero, E. (2019). Peer assessment effects on the self-assessment process of first-year undergraduates. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 920-932. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1548559 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  54. Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 20-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577569 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  55. Tsai, C. C., Lin, S. S. J., & Yuan, S. M. (2002). Developing science activities through a networked peer-assessment system. Computers & Education, 38(1-3), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00069-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  56. Tsai, Y. C., and Chuang, M. T. (2013). Fostering revision of argumentative writing through structured peer assessment. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 116(1), 210–221. https://doi.org/10.2466/10.23.PMS.116.1.210-221 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  57. Van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & Van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  58. Willingham, D. T. (2011). Çocuklar okulu neden sevmez. Çev., İ. Katırcı. İstanbul: İthaki Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  59. Yuan, K., & Kim, C. (2018). The effects of autonomy support on student engagement in peer assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(1), 25-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9538-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 17 Issue 1

February 2021

All Articles

International Journal of Progressive Education

International Association of Educators.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License.
Privacy policy     |     Terms of Use     |     Use of Cookies
Creative Commons Lisansı
© 2012 - 2024 - THDSoft e-Journal Management System.