Assessment that inspires: peer assessment as a tool for motivation and development of higher education students
Abstract
The article examines modern trends in the evaluation of educational achievements of students of higher education institutions and offers a new approach - peer evaluation. The relevance of the research is determined by the need to find new effective assessment tools that would meet the requirements of modern education. Traditional assessment methods often do not allow to fully assess the level of development of students, their ability to think critically and collaborate.
The purpose of the article is to substantiate the partnership approach to assessment as an effective tool for student development. Peer assessment involves active participation of students in the assessment process, including joint definition of criteria, mutual assessment, self-assessment and reflection. The article analyzes the evolution of approaches to assessment from traditional to modern ones; shortcomings of traditional assessment methods were revealed, such as subjectivity, inflexibility and insufficient focus on student development; a partner approach to assessment is justified. The essence of peer evaluation consists in the joint development with students of clear and understandable evaluation criteria for various
types of work that are planned to be performed during the semester and that reflect the goals of the academic discipline; in mutual evaluation; in self-assessment; development of tools for collecting and analyzing feedback; in the performance of the teacher as a facilitator, who directs the assessment process, provides individual support to students, helps to understand their strengths, identify directions for further improvement and conducts a final assessment.
The advantages of the partnership approach are substantiated: increasing student motivation, developing critical thinking, cooperation and independence, the ability to make decisions, formulate arguments, express one’s opinion and present results, and reduce pedagogical subjectivism.
Peer assessment is a promising direction in the development of modern education. It contributes to the creation of a more active and interactive learning environment that meets the needs of modern students. For the successful implementation of peer assessment, it is necessary to ensure proper training of teachers, develop clear assessment criteria and create favorable conditions for cooperation between teachers and students. The article is important for educational practitioners - teachers, methodologists, administrators of educational institutions. The results of the research can be used for the development of new teacher training programs, as well as for the implementation of innovative approaches to assessment in educational institutions.
Downloads
References
2. Dybkova, L. (2016). Theoretical and methodological principles of the system for assessing the results of educational activities of students of economic specialties. Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences. 13.00.09. Kyiv. 467p. [in Ukrainian].
3. Dubina, S., Khapchenkova, D., Bondarenko, S., Fedorova, I. (2022). Methods for assessing student success during distance learning. Medical education. No. 2. P. 28-32. DOI 10.11603/m.2414-5998.2022.2.13103. [in Ukrainian].
4. Lyaska, O., Chagrak, N., Strizhenko, T. (2021). Assessment of the effectiveness of teaching technologies in distance education. Ukrainian Pedagogical Journal. Issue 3. P. 106–115. URL: https://doi.org/10.32405/2411-1317-2021-3-106-1152. [in Ukrainian].
5. Kalinina, I. (2021). Formative assessment of academic achievements of higher education applicants. International scientific journal “Grail of Science” No. 5. P. 285-290 https://doi.org/10.36074/grail-of-science.04.06.2021.051. [in Ukrainian].
6. Kalinina, I. (2020). Individual homework as a means of formative assessment. Proceedings of the 8th International Scientific and Practical Conference: Science and practice: implementation to modern society, Manchester, Great Britain. P. 595-597. [in Ukrainian].
7. Nalyvaiko, O., Kutsyna, K. (2021).Peculiarities of assessment during distance learning. Scientific notes of the Department of Pedagogy. Issue 1(49). P. 35–41. URL: https://doi.org/10.26565/2074-8167-2021-49-04. [in Ukrainian].
8. Nenko, Yu., Ivashchenko, O. (2023) .Remote assessment of higher education applicants in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Education. Innovation. Practice. Vol. 11, No. 1. P. 22-27. DOI: 10.31110/2616-650X-vol11i1-004. [in Ukrainian].
9. Strategic pyramid for the development of higher education in Ukraine for 2022 - 2032. Kyiv.2020. URL: https://mon.gov.ua/static-objects/mon/sites/1/news/2022/04/15/VO.plan.2022-2032/Stratehichna.piramida-23.02.22.pdf. [in Ukrainian].
10. Strategy for the development of higher education in Ukraine for 2021-2031. Kyiv.2020. URL: https://mon.gov.ua/storage/app/media/rizne/2020/09/25/rozvitku-vishchoi-osviti-v-ukraini-02-10-2020.pdf. [in Ukrainian].
11. Tadeush, O. (2020). Educational partnership in the higher education space: domestic and foreign experience. Pedagogical education. No. 33 (1). P. 61-68. https://doi.org/10.28925/2311-2409.2020.33.7. [in Ukrainian].
12. Tyshkovets, M. (2020). Partnership pedagogy as a guiding principle of the new Ukrainian school. Competency-based learning: challenges and prospects: collection of abstracts of the II All-Ukrainian scientific and practical Internet conference. Kyiv. P. 166-168. URL: https://lib.iitta.gov.ua/721943/1/Tyshcovec_COMPETENCE_2020.pdf. [in Ukrainian].
13. Kholmakova, Yu., Panych, G., Kovalenko, A., Rybinska, Yu. (2021). Peculiarities of assessing students in English classes in online learning. Scientific notes of the National Pedagogical University named after M. P. Dragomanov. Series: Pedagogical Sciences, Issue SL (150). P. 161-168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31392/NZ-npu-150.2021.16. [in Ukrainian].
14. Kholod, I., Lysenko, T., Shtangret, G. (2023). Assessment of the success of higher education applicants in personalized distance learning. Academic visions. Issue 17. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7724398. [in Ukrainian].
15. Shapran, O., Sidiropulo, K. (2021). Professional training of future higher education teachers using partnership technology. Scientific notes: collection of scientific papers. Kyiv. https://doi.org/10.31392/NZ-npu-150.2021.18. [in Ukrainian].
16. Abaturov, A., Nikulina, A. (2021). Ensuring control of students’ knowledge in distance learning. Abstracts of the III International Scientiβic and Practical Conference (Lisbon, February 2– 5, 2021). International Science Group, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 146-151.
17. Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, Vol. 21(1), 33–46. URL:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9064-9
18. Biggs, C. Tang. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
19. Brookhart, S. How to Create and Use Rubrics for Formative Assessment and Grading. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. 2013.
20. Carloye, L. (2017). Mini-case studies: Small infusions of active learning for large-lecture courses. Journal of College Science Teaching. 46(6), 63-67. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst17_046_06_63
21. Chen Z., Jiao J., Hu K. (2020). Formative assessment as an online instruction intervention. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies. Vol.19(1). 1–16. URL:https://doi.org/1 0.4018/ijdet.20210101.oa1
22. Darby, F. How To Be a Better Online Teacher. URL: https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/ advice-online-teaching?cid=cp234
23. Fiock, H., Garcia H. How to Give Your Students Better Feedback With Technology. URL: https://tinyurl.com/w5jlew3
24. Glavič, P. (2020). Identifying key issues of education for sustainable development. Sustainability, 12(16), 6500.
25. Guskey, T. How Classroom Assessments Improve Learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 6-11. 2003.
26. Karbalaei, A. (2012). Critical thinking and academic achievement. Íkala, revista de lenguaje y cultural, 17(2),121–128.
27. Martin F., Sun T., Westine C. (2020). A systematicreview of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Comput.Educ. Vol.159.
28. Means, B. (2014). Learning Online: What Research Tells Us about Whether, When and How / B. Means, M. Bakia, R. Murphy. New York: Routledge, Copyright, 232 p.
29. Mintii, I., Shokaliuk S., Vakaliuk T., Mintii M., Soloviev V. (2018). Import test questions into Moodle LMS. Cloud Technologies in Education: CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 2433, pp. 529-540. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2433/paper36.pdf.
30. Pantiwati, Y., & Husamah. (2017).Self and peer assessments in active learning model to increase metacognitive awareness and cognitive abilities. International Journal of Instruction. 10(4), 185-202. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2017.10411a
31. Proskura, S., Lytvynova S. (2019). Future bachelors of computer sciences professional competency formation. Physical & Mathematical Education 2(20), Sumy, pp. 137-146.
32. Race, P. (2005). Making Learning Happen: A Guide for Post-Compulsory Education. London: SAGE Publications.
33. Schraw, G., Dennison, R. (1994). Assessing Metacognitive Awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460-475.
34. Spirin, O., Burov, O. (2018). Models and applied tools for prediction of student ability to effective learning. 14th International Conference on ICT in Education, Research and Industrial Applications. Integration, Harmonization and Knowledge Transfer. CEUR-WS, vol. 2104, pp. 404-411.
