Type of Document Dissertation Author Kim, Minjeong Author's Email Address firstname.lastname@example.org URN etd-06012005-052217 Title The Effects of the Assessor and Assessee’s Roles on Preservice Teachers’ Metacognitive Awareness, Performance, and Attitude in a Technology-Related Design Task Degree Doctor of Philosophy Department Educational Psychology and Learning Systems, Department of Advisory Committee
Advisor Name Title Amy L. Baylor Committee Chair Allan Jeong Committee Member Janice Flake Committee Member John Keller Committee Member Keywords
- Peer Assessment
- Metacognitive Awareness
Date of Defense 2005-04-18 Availability unrestricted AbstractConsiderable attention has been directed toward the value of peer assessment where learning is enhanced through maximizing the opportunities for students to share their work with others in the assessment process. Although previous research has shown the effectiveness of peer assessment, very little work has been done to investigate the effects of the different types of learner roles in peer assessment on learning. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of the Assessor and Assessee’s role on preservice teachers’ metacognitive awareness, performance, and attitude in a technology-related design task.
This study examined three specific questions:
Question 1. What are the comparative effects of the Assessor’s role and Assessee’s role on metacognitive awareness, performance, and attitude?
Question 2. Does the role combination (playing both Assessor’s role and Assessee’s role simultaneously) improve learners’ metacognitive awareness, performance, and attitude to a greater degree than either of the roles alone or neither role?
Question 3. Are there any relationships between the quality of peer feedback and Assessees’ metacognitive awareness, performance, and attitude?
Eighty-two students (preservice teachers) from four sections of an Introduction to Educational Technology course at the Florida State University participated in this study. The four sections were randomly assigned to four conditions (Assessor-only role condition, Assessee-only role condition, Both-roles condition, and control condition.
At first, the participants submitted a technology-related design assignment (concept mapping by Inspiration) to the instructor. After gathering students’ concept map, the researcher randomly assigned assessee’s concept maps to peer assessors. Student assessors received a peer’s concept map and assessed it for 20 minutes. After completing peer assessment, student assessors submitted their assessment form to the instructor. The instructor delivered the peer feedback to the assessees. Then, the assessees had an opportunity to reflect peer feedback by filling out back-feedback (feedback on feedback) form. Immediately following the peer assessment activities, the instructor returned the draft concept map to the students and asked them to revise it based on the experience of peer assessment. After they finishing revising, students resubmitted the final concept map to instructor, which served as the posttest for the study. After submitting this final concept map assignment, students completed a metacognitive awareness questionnaire and an attitude survey.
To compare the main effects of the two different types of role (assessor’s role & assessee’s role), a two-factor MANOVA was employed. In addition, to compare the mean difference across conditions, a one-factor MANOVA was employed. For all tests, the alpha level was set at .05.
The results indicated that the Assessee’s role was helpful for students to enhance metacognitive awareness on their own learning and to promote their performance, while the assessor’s role did not show significant effectiveness. This may be attributed to the back-feedback activity, which seemed to help the Assessees internalize and reflect upon the peer feedback.
With respect to the effects of the combination role (playing both roles: assessor’s role + assessee’s role), the Both-roles condition did not always outperform the Assessor-only role condition or Assessee-only role condition. Contrary to what had been hypothesized, the one role only conditions sometimes outperformed the Both-roles condition. The results of this study illustrated that simply playing two different roles at a time does not always guarantee better effects of peer assessment than playing only one role. Even when students play only one role during peer assessment, they can have benefits of peer assessment for their learning.
The back-feedback score and Assessee’s performance was significantly associated, but negatively. It may be explained by the degree of students’ understanding of the assessment criteria and the requirements of the assignment. By giving the Assessees the opportunity to critique their peer’s (Assessor’s) feedback, it seems to have empowered them to have better understand the criteria and prove their own performance.
The findings of this study suggest instructional implications for those who want to employ peer assessment through providing examples regarding the effectiveness of well-developed assessment criteria and instructional activities, particularly the back-feedback activity. Due to the lack of fully randomized design and the short treatment time, the results and interpretation are tentative. Further studies to verify the results are recommended.
Filename Size Approximate Download Time (Hours:Minutes:Seconds)
28.8 Modem 56K Modem ISDN (64 Kb) ISDN (128 Kb) Higher-speed Access Minjeong_Kim_dissertation_.pdf 1.62 Mb 00:07:31 00:03:51 00:03:22 00:01:41 00:00:08