In
te
r
n
ation
a
l Jou
rn
al
o
f E
v
al
u
a
t
ion
a
n
d
R
e
se
arc
h
in
Ed
u
cation
(
IJERE
)
Vo
l
.
7
,
No
.
2
,
Ju
n
e2
01
8
,
p
p
.
1
18
~126
ISSN
: 2252-
88
22,
D
O
I
:
10.11
59
1
/ije
re.
v
7
.
i
2
.12
7
7
0
1
18
Jou
rn
a
l
h
o
me
pa
ge
:
ht
tp:
//i
a
escore
.
com
/
j
o
u
r
na
l
s
/
i
n
d
e
x.
p
hp/IJ
ERE
A Mixed Method Research on Peer Assessment
Gokhan
Izgar
1
, Ahmet
O
guz
Akturk
2
1
Depart
ment
of
Curri
cul
u
m and
Inst
ruct
i
o
n,
Necmettin Erbakan
U
niv
ers
i
t
y
,
Tu
rk
ey
2
D
e
part
men
t
o
f Co
mp
ut
er Ed
u
cati
on
and
Instru
cti
onal
T
e
ch
no
lo
g
y
,
Necm
etti
n E
r
bakan
Un
iv
ersity,
Tu
rkey
Art
i
cl
e In
fo
ABSTRACT
A
r
tic
le hist
o
r
y
:
Re
ce
i
v
e
d
A
pr 18,
2
0
1
8
Re
vise
d Ma
y
2
7, 201
8
Ac
ce
p
t
ed
M
a
y
3
0
,
2
018
Th
is
s
t
u
d
y
aim
ed
t
o
i
nves
t
i
g
at
e
th
e
rel
atio
ns
hi
p
betw
een
p
e
er
a
ss
es
sme
n
t
a
n
d
i
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
o
r
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
m
a
k
e
a
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
w
i
t
h
v
i
e
w
s
o
f
p
r
e
s
e
rvice
teach
ers.
T
h
e
s
t
u
d
y
e
m
p
lo
yed
mixed
m
e
th
od
a
pp
roach
.
T
h
e
qu
antit
ative
data
in
t
his
stu
d
y
,
i
n
whi
c
h
2
7
p
reservi
ce
t
each
ers
p
a
rti
c
ipat
ed
o
n
a
vo
lu
ntary
bas
i
s
,
w
ere
o
b
tai
n
ed
f
rom
sco
r
in
g
rub
r
ic
w
hereas
q
ual
i
t
a
tiv
e
da
ta
w
e
r
e
ob
tai
n
ed
f
rom
a
s
e
m
i
-st
r
uctu
red
interview
f
o
r
m
p
repared
by
t
he
r
e
search
ers
.
S
t
atisti
c
a
l
an
aly
s
es
w
ere
con
d
u
c
ted
t
o
a
naly
ze
t
h
e
qu
ant
ita
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
a
col
l
ected
with
in
t
he
s
co
pe
o
f
th
e
s
t
u
d
y
,
w
hereas
P
e
a
rso
n
P
rod
u
ct
-Mom
ent
C
orrelati
on
Coeff
i
c
i
en
t
wa
s
u
s
ed
t
o
a
n
a
l
y
ze
th
e
rel
a
tion
shi
p
b
e
t
ween
i
n
s
t
r
u
cto
r
ass
e
ss
ment
a
nd
p
eer
a
s
s
es
sm
ent
,
a
nd
p
aired
s
a
m
p
les
t
t
e
s
t
w
as
u
se
d
to
det
e
rm
ine
t
h
e
d
i
ff
erences
b
et
we
en
p
airwi
s
e
g
r
ou
ps.
The
q
u
al
it
a
t
iv
e
dat
a
,
on
th
e
ot
her
han
d
,
w
e
re
a
n
a
ly
zed
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
c
ontent
anal
ysis
t
echn
i
qu
e.
A
s
a
resu
lt
o
f
th
e
an
aly
s
is
,
it
w
as
s
een
t
h
a
t
t
h
ere
wa
s
a
p
o
s
i
tiv
e
a
nd
s
ign
i
f
i
cant
correl
a
tio
n
b
e
tween
i
nst
r
uct
o
r
a
s
sessm
ent
and
peer
a
ss
ess
m
ent.
Wh
e
n
t
he
pres
ervi
c
e
t
ea
ch
ers
’
v
i
e
ws
w
ere
exam
in
ed,
tho
s
e
vi
e
w
s
rose
t
o
p
rom
i
nence
st
ati
n
g
t
h
at
m
akin
g
as
sess
m
en
t
s
con
t
ri
buted
t
o
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
;
they
g
re
w
aw
are
of
im
p
e
rf
e
c
t
kn
owledg
e;
q
u
e
st
io
n
i
ng
an
d
crit
ical
t
h
i
nk
ing
im
p
r
o
v
ed
,
an
d
f
a
i
r
ass
e
ss
ment
s
k
i
lls
dev
e
lo
ped.
T
h
i
s
w
a
s
interp
reted
t
o
m
ean
t
hat
p
r
eserv
i
ce
teach
ers
coul
d
di
s
t
in
gu
i
s
h
b
etw
een
ad
equ
ate
and
in
adeq
uat
e
w
ork
.
However,
wh
en
t
h
e
p
reser
v
i
ce
t
eachers
’
v
iews
c
o
n
cern
i
ng
t
hei
r
a
s
s
es
s
m
ent
s
by
t
he
i
r
p
e
e
r
s
we
r
e
e
xamine
d
,
t
he
v
ie
w
a
t
tracted
a
ttent
ion
s
t
ating
that
fr
i
e
n
d
s
h
i
p
relat
i
o
n
s
and
p
e
rson
al
p
ro
b
l
em
s
af
f
ected
a
ssessment
n
e
gati
vel
y
and
th
erefo
r
e
peers
gav
e
l
ow sco
res
.
A
t th
i
s
point,
w
hen
t
h
e
m
e
an sco
r
es
w
ere
e
xam
i
n
e
d,
i
t
was
seen
t
hat
mean
p
e
e
r
sco
r
es w
ere
hi
gh
er
t
h
a
n
i
n
stru
ctor
m
ean
s
c
o
r
e
s
.
T
h
i
s
was
interpret
e
d
t
o
m
ean
t
hat
som
e
p
reservi
ce
t
eac
h
e
rs
d
id
n
ot
h
av
e
con
f
id
e
n
ce in t
h
e
ir
p
eers.
K
eyw
ord
:
M
i
xe
d m
eth
od
re
sear
ch
Peer
a
ssessm
e
n
t
Pr
eservic
e
tea
che
r
s
Co
pyri
gh
t © 2
018 In
stit
u
t
e
of Advanced
En
gi
neeri
n
g
an
d
Scien
ce.
All
rights
res
e
rv
ed.
Corres
pon
d
i
n
g
Au
th
or:
A
h
m
e
tO
guzA
k
tur
k
,
D
epa
rtme
nt
o
f
Com
p
u
t
e
r
Edu
c
ati
o
n
and
Ins
tr
u
ct
i
o
na
l
Tec
h
nol
og
y,
N
ec
m
e
t
ti
n Er
b
akan
U
n
iv
e
r
s
ity,
To
ro
sMah
all
e
si
,
Ün
i
v
ersit
e
C
a
d
d
e
si
, N
o
:
4
4
2
3
1
0
Ereğ
li/
KONYA
,
Tu
r
ke
y.
Em
ail:
aoak
t
u
rk@
k
on
ya.
ed
u
.t
r
1.
I
N
TR
OD
U
C
TI
O
N
Alt
h
o
u
gh
peer
assessme
n
t
ha
s
been
r
egar
ded
as
a
n
e
w
m
etho
d
o
f
a
sse
ssmen
t
i
n
r
e
c
e
nt
y
ea
rs,
i
t
i
s
a
conc
e
p
t
w
h
os
e
e
x
iste
nc
e
ha
s
bee
n
k
n
o
w
n
f
or
y
ea
rs.
G
e
orge
J
ard
i
n
e,
w
ho
w
as
a
profe
ssor
a
t
G
las
gow
U
n
i
v
ersi
ty
b
e
tw
e
en
1
7
7
4
a
n
d
18
26,
r
efe
rre
d
to
the
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
and
a
dva
n
t
a
g
es
of
peer
a
sse
s
sm
e
n
t
in
his
s
t
u
d
ies
[
1
].
Toda
y, peer
assessm
ent is f
r
equen
t
ly re
f
er
red
to espe
ci
all
y
i
n
con
str
u
cti
v
ist
educa
tio
nal
prac
tice
s
.
P
ee
r
a
ssessment
is
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
ac
t
i
ve
l
ea
rn
ing
p
h
i
l
oso
p
h
y
by
v
irtu
e
o
f
the
f
a
ct
t
h
a
t
i
t
i
s
a
m
anifes
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
nd
rog
ogi
a
a
n
d
so
c
i
al
c
onst
r
u
c
t
i
vi
sm.
In
a
ct
iv
e
l
e
arni
ng
,
a
l
e
arn
e
r
ma
k
e
s
sen
s
e
of
i
nfo
r
ma
t
i
on
t
hro
ugh
the
i
r
ow
n
e
x
pe
rienc
es
[2]
.
P
e
er
assessm
ent
is
a
m
ethod
o
f
asses
sme
n
t
w
h
ere
lear
ners
a
ctive
l
y
part
ic
ip
ate
i
n
assessm
ent
o
f
t
he
ir
l
e
arn
i
ng
le
vel.
L
e
arne
r
s
le
arn
fr
om
one
a
no
the
r
by
rec
eiv
ing
a
nd
gi
v
ing
fee
d
ba
c
k
i
n
pe
er
assessm
ent.
S
uc
h
ac
t
i
vit
ies
enc
o
u
rage
le
a
r
ni
ng
a
n
d
in
th
is
pr
o
c
ess
l
e
ar
n
e
rs
t
r
y
t
o
re
a
lize
t
h
e
i
r
own
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
IJERE
IS
S
N
:
2252-
88
22
A M
i
x
e
d
Met
h
od Re
se
arc
h
o
n
Peer
Asse
ssm
e
n
t(G
o
k
h
a
n
Izga
r)
11
9
lear
n
i
n
g
[
2],
[3].
P
eer
f
ee
dbac
k
m
ay
b
e
corr
obo
r
a
ti
ve,
adv
i
s
o
ry
o
r
corr
ecti
v
e.
F
ee
db
a
ck
m
ay
reduc
e
mista
k
es
and
a
f
fec
ts
le
a
r
ni
ng
p
osi
t
i
vel
y
[
1].
P
e
e
r
f
e
e
dba
c
k
i
nform
s
l
e
a
r
ne
rs
o
f
th
eir
stren
g
t
h
s
a
nd
w
e
a
kne
sses
an
d
in
dic
at
es
t
h
e
n
ext
s
te
p
t
h
ey
n
ee
d
to
ta
k
e
i
n
the
l
e
arn
i
ng
proce
ss.
A
n
im
por
t
a
nt
c
on
d
i
t
i
o
n
prom
ot
in
g
le
ar
nin
g
in assessm
ent is that
l
e
arners par
ti
ci
p
a
t
e
ac
t
iv
e
l
y
in
t
h
e
p
roc
es
s o
f
th
e
i
r
b
ei
ng
as
s
ess
e
d
[
3
].
P
e
er
a
ss
essment
is
a
m
ethod
that
e
nables
l
ear
n
ers
t
o
a
sses
s
t
he
l
e
v
e
l
,
va
l
u
e
or
q
ua
l
i
t
y
o
f
a
pro
duc
t
or
to
d
e
t
e
r
mine
p
er
form
ance
s
o
f
o
ther
l
ear
ners
o
f
e
q
ua
l
s
t
a
t
u
s
.
Eq
ua
l
s
t
a
t
u
s
ca
n
b
e
in
terpr
e
ted
a
s
a
l
ea
rn
er
at
one’s
o
w
n
l
e
v
el,
or
a
c
olle
a
gue
o
r
an
y
in
d
i
v
i
dua
l
w
h
o
ha
s
re
cei
ve
d
ed
u
ca
t
i
o
n
i
n
tha
t
fiel
d
for
a
few
yea
r
s.
P
e
er
assessm
e
n
t
is
m
ostl
y
a
form
o
f
pr
ov
id
ing
rec
i
pr
oc
al
f
ee
dba
c
k
a
m
ong
assess
ors
[1].
Lea
rner
s
re
act
di
ffe
re
nt
l
y
t
o
fee
d
bac
k
s
c
o
ming
f
r
o
m
ad
ul
ts
an
d
pe
ers
d
u
ri
ng
t
h
e
pr
oce
s
s
o
f
a
sse
s
s
m
e
nt.
Wh
ile
l
ear
ners
perc
ei
ve
f
e
e
d
b
ac
k
s
fr
o
m
ad
u
l
t
s
as
au
t
hori
t
a
r
ian,
t
he
y
perc
eive
fe
ed
bac
k
s
from
peer
s
as
open t
o
ne
g
o
t
iat
ion
a
s
w
e
ll
as
r
ic
her
feed
ba
c
k
s
[
1
].
W
he
n
s
t
udents
a
ssess
friends’
lev
el
s
o
f
e
ffi
ci
e
n
cy
i
n
t
h
eir
st
ud
i
e
s,
t
h
e
i
r
o
wn
crit
ica
l
t
h
i
n
k
i
n
g
s
ki
l
l
s
impr
ove
.
Pe
er
a
ssessm
ent
pro
v
ide
s
t
ea
c
h
e
rs
w
ith
f
e
e
d
b
ack
a
bo
ut
s
tud
e
nt
s
’
le
v
el
s
o
f
deve
l
opm
en
t a
nd pr
ofic
i
e
nc
y [4].
Pe
er
a
sse
ssme
n
t
acti
vit
i
e
s
ca
n
b
e
i
mp
l
e
me
nt
ed
i
n
a
ny
s
ubje
c
t
ar
ea
a
nd
a
t
a
ny
le
ve
l
.
A
w
i
de
r
a
n
ge
o
f
pro
duc
ts
o
r
o
u
t
p
u
t
s
su
c
h
a
s
artic
les,
por
tf
o
l
i
o
s,
o
ra
l
pre
s
enta
t
i
o
n
s,
t
e
s
t
pe
rform
anc
es
etc.
c
an
be
a
sse
sse
d
.
A
ssessors
a
n
d
t
he
a
sse
s
se
d
c
an
be
i
n
the
form
o
f
pa
irs
o
r
g
ro
up
s.
A
ssessme
n
t
ca
n
be
u
n
i
d
i
re
ct
i
ona
l
or
re
ci
p
r
o
c
a
l
a
n
d
s
tu
d
e
nt
part
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
houl
d
b
e
e
n
s
u
r
e
d
i
n
d
e
t
e
r
m
ina
ti
on
of
a
s
se
ssm
e
nt
c
rit
e
ria.
O
b
j
e
c
t
ive
s
o
f
pee
r
a
sse
ssme
n
t
ma
y
va
ry.
For
exa
m
ple
,
o
ne
m
ay
w
an
t
t
o
m
ake
co
g
n
iti
ve
g
a
i
ns,
save
t
i
m
e
or
f
u
l
fil
l
o
t
h
e
r
ob
jec
t
i
v
es
[
2],[1].
The
pee
r
a
ssessme
n
t
m
e
th
o
d
a
lso
hel
p
s
de
ve
l
op
s
tudents’
a
ssessment
s
k
ills.
A
com
m
on
conc
er
n
a
b
o
u
t
p
ee
r
assessme
n
t
i
s
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
i
t
is
a
s
r
e
l
i
a
b
l
e
a
s
a
ssessment
by
t
eachers
[
5
].
I
t
w
a
s
concluded
in
a
st
u
dy
co
ndu
cted
b
y
[1
]
th
at
p
e
e
r
a
sse
ssme
n
t
was
as
r
eli
a
b
l
e
a
s
te
ac
he
r
assessme
n
t.
H
ow
eve
r
,
i
t
w
oul
d
be
bene
f
icia
l
t
o
g
ive
th
e
a
sse
ssm
ent
cri
teria
t
o
s
t
ude
n
ts
i
n
a
dva
n
ce
t
o
pre
v
e
n
t
biase
d
b
e
h
avi
o
rs
b
y
s
t
ud
e
n
ts
i
n
p
e
er as
s
ess
m
e
n
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
es [
4
]
.
Whe
n
t
he
r
el
eva
n
t
l
iter
atur
e
i
s
review
e
d
,
it
i
s
s
e
e
n
t
h
at
the
r
e
are
n
ume
r
ous
s
t
u
die
s
o
n
pe
er
assessm
ent.
S
ome
of
t
he
se
s
tud
i
es
ar
r
i
v
ed
at
the
co
nc
lu
si
on
t
h
a
t
peer
a
ssessm
ent
inc
r
ea
sed
t
h
e
qu
a
lit
y
o
f
lear
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
p
rov
i
de
d
c
o
ns
truct
i
v
e
feed
ba
c
k
w
i
t
h
re
spe
ct
t
o
l
ea
r
n
i
ng.
T
hese
s
t
u
die
s
als
o
fo
u
n
d
t
h
a
t
p
e
er
assessm
ent
pr
o
m
oted
l
ear
n
i
n
g
and
impr
ovem
e
nt,
impro
v
e
d
c
omm
unic
at
i
v
e
skil
ls,
and
stude
n
t
s
ha
d
fa
vor
ab
le
view
s
co
nc
ern
i
ng
t
h
i
s
m
et
h
od
[
5-
11].
O
n
t
he
o
t
h
e
r
h
a
nd,
t
h
e
re
a
re
a
l
s
o
quan
tit
at
iv
e
st
u
die
s
inv
e
stig
ati
ng
t
he
rela
tio
ns
hip
be
tw
ee
n
peer
assessm
ent
a
nd
tea
che
r
assess
m
ent.
Wh
il
e
a
ma
j
o
ri
ty
o
f
th
es
e
st
udi
e
s
f
o
und
a
st
a
t
i
s
t
i
ca
ll
y
s
i
gn
ifica
n
t
d
i
ffe
re
nce
be
tw
ee
n
the
resu
l
t
s
of
t
e
a
c
h
er
a
sses
s
me
nt
a
n
d
p
ee
r
a
s
se
ssm
e
nt,
ot
hers
fo
u
nd a
hi
g
h
c
o
r
rela
tio
n be
t
w
een
p
eer
and
te
ac
her
score
s
[
1
2
-1
8
].
2.
RESEARCH
METH
OD
S
ince
q
u
a
n
t
ita
t
iv
e
a
nd
q
u
a
l
ita
tive
me
t
h
o
d
s
w
e
re
u
sed
to
ge
ther
i
n
t
h
i
s
s
t
u
dy,
i
t
w
as
grou
nde
d
o
n
t
he
mixe
d
m
et
h
od
appr
oa
ch.
A
ccor
d
in
g
t
o
[
1
9
],
m
ixed
m
et
ho
d
stu
d
ies
are
defi
ne
d
a
s
t
he
u
s
e
o
f
qua
nti
ta
ti
v
e
a
n
d
qua
l
it
a
ti
ve
a
p
p
r
oa
che
s
toge
the
r
i
n
a
stu
dy.
T
her
e
for
e
,
t
h
e
m
ixe
d
me
th
od
e
n
a
b
les
usi
ng
of
m
u
l
t
i
p
le
data
source
s
w
h
e
n
s
ee
ki
ng
a
n
sw
e
r
s
t
o
r
e
s
ear
ch
q
ues
t
i
o
ns.
In
t
his
re
s
pect,
the
re
aso
n
f
or
co
l
l
e
cti
n
g
q
u
a
l
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
data
as
w
e
ll
a
s
q
ua
nt
ita
ti
ve
d
a
t
a
i
n
t
h
i
s
st
u
d
y
is
t
o
d
e
term
ine
d
i
ff
e
r
en
t
or
s
im
il
a
r
p
oi
n
t
s
of
v
iew
s
o
f
st
u
d
en
ts
a
n
d
descr
i
be
the
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g sit
u
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
i
s
w
ay.
2.1.
R
esear
c
h
Grou
p
Tedd
l
i
e
&
Yu
[
2
0
]
s
ub
su
med
s
a
mp
l
e
s
ty
p
e
s
i
n
m
i
x
ed
m
e
t
ho
d
s
t
ud
i
e
s
un
d
e
r
fo
ur
m
ajor
he
a
d
i
ng
s.
O
f
the
s
e,
the
c
on
v
e
ni
e
nce
sam
p
le
is
the
m
e
th
o
d
of
se
l
e
c
ti
on
of
pa
r
ti
c
i
pa
n
t
s
w
ho
are
ea
si
l
y
a
cc
essib
l
e
and
wh
o
vo
lun
t
ee
r
t
o
p
ar
ti
c
i
pa
t
e
i
n
t
h
e
stu
dy.
G
ive
n
t
h
i
s
per
s
pe
c
t
i
v
e,
t
h
e
prese
n
t
stu
dy
use
d
th
e
con
ven
ie
n
c
e
s
am
pl
e
and
t
h
e
rese
arc
h
g
ro
u
p
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
d
o
f
27
3
rd
g
ra
de
p
r
eserv
ic
e
tea
c
h
er
s
w
ho
par
tic
ipa
te
d
i
n
the
s
t
udy
on
a
vo
lun
tar
y
bas
i
s
and
w
h
o
w
e
r
e
a
t
ten
d
in
g
th
e
T
urk
ish
T
ea
chi
n
g
D
e
p
a
r
tme
n
t
a
t
t
he
E
du
cati
o
n
F
a
cul
t
y
o
f
a
st
a
te un
i
ver
si
ty
.
2.2.
R
esear
c
h
Proc
ed
u
r
e
s
The
prac
t
i
ce
o
f
peer
a
ssessme
n
t
is
b
ased
on
l
e
arne
rs’
ac
tiv
e
pa
rtic
i
p
a
tio
n
in
t
he
assessme
n
t
proc
ess
.
Th
is
m
e
t
hod
doe
s
n
o
t
o
nl
y
i
nv
o
lve
a
sse
s
sm
ent
but
a
ls
o
e
na
b
l
e
s
l
ear
ners
t
o
ac
q
u
ir
e
some
s
ki
lls
s
uc
h
a
s
p
r
e
p
arin
g
p
r
o
je
c
t
s
,
p
r
e
s
en
t
a
tio
n
and
co
mmu
ni
cat
ion
,
a
nd
i
m
pl
eme
n
t
t
h
e
i
r
o
w
n
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
.
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
i
s
,
t
h
e
to
pic
of stu
dy
w
hic
h
the
pre
se
rvice teac
hers w
ou
l
d
pre
pare
t
hro
ug
h
o
u
t
t
he
s
e
m
e
s
t
e
r
w
as pla
n
ne
d
ac
cor
d
in
g t
o
t
h
e
cont
ent
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
udy
.
Th
e to
pi
c
o
f
s
t
udy
wh
i
ch
e
a
c
h
p
r
es
erv
i
c
e t
e
ach
e
r
wo
uld
p
re
p
a
re
w
as
pl
a
nn
ed
mak
i
ng
use of t
he
c
o
u
rse
bo
ok t
h
a
t
w
a
s
dec
ide
d
t
o b
e
taug
h
t
dur
in
g
the
ac
a
dem
i
c
year
.
The
scor
in
g
rubr
ic
w
a
s
p
repar
ed
t
o
get
h
er
w
ith
t
he
p
rese
rvice
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
i
n
t
h
e
p
e
e
r
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
app
l
ica
t
i
o
n
t
o
r
aise
p
re
serv
ice
te
ache
r
s’
at
t
en
danc
e
to
a
m
axim
u
m
l
e
v
el
,
p
r
ev
e
n
t
b
i
ased
b
eh
a
v
io
rs
a
nd
en
a
ble
p
r
e
s
erv
i
c
e
t
e
ach
e
r
s
to
t
ho
ro
ug
hl
y
kno
w
wha
t
i
s
exp
e
c
t
ed
o
f
t
h
em
w
i
th
r
ega
rd
to
th
e
st
ud
y
t
h
e
preser
vi
c
e
teac
hers
w
ou
ld
p
repa
re.
A
t
t
he
s
am
e
t
i
m
e,
th
is
s
c
o
r
i
n
g
r
ubric
w
as
a
lso
go
ing
to
be
use
d
t
o
c
olle
ct
th
e
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
S
N
:
225
2-
88
22
IJERE Vo
l
. 7
,
No
.
2
,
Ju
n
e
201
8
:
1
18–
126
12
0
qua
n
ti
t
a
tive
d
a
ta
o
f
th
is
s
t
u
d
y
a
nd
de
tai
led
i
nform
a
ti
o
n
a
b
out
it
w
as
pr
ovi
de
d
i
n
the
d
a
ta
c
o
ll
ec
tio
n
tools section
.
The
S
p
ec
i
a
l
Te
achi
n
g
Me
t
h
o
d
s
II
c
ourse,
w
h
i
c
h
w
as
t
a
ugh
t
in
t
he
T
ur
kish
T
ea
ch
in
g
D
i
vi
sion
o
f
t
he
So
ci
al
S
c
i
en
ces
T
e
a
c
h
i
ng
D
ep
a
r
t
m
e
nt
at
th
e
E
d
u
cati
on
Fac
u
lty
,
w
as
cond
uc
t
e
d
b
y
t
he
c
ourse
i
ns
truc
to
r
for
4
ho
urs
a
w
e
ek
f
or
1
4
w
ee
k
s
(
S
prin
g
S
e
me
st
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
2
016-
20
17
a
ca
dem
i
c
year
).
D
uring
t
h
e
first
fo
ur
w
e
e
ks,
the
co
urse
ins
t
r
uct
o
r
ga
ve
b
a
s
i
c
the
oret
ica
l
in
f
orm
atio
n
a
b
ou
t
t
h
e
c
ourse,
e
x
pla
i
ned
h
o
w
t
he
p
e
e
r
a
sse
ssm
e
n
t
app
l
ica
ti
o
n
w
oul
d
be
implem
e
nte
d
a
s
w
e
ll
a
s
t
he
w
ork
to
b
e
do
ne
b
y
t
h
e
prese
r
vice
tea
c
h
ers.
I
n
add
i
tio
n,
t
h
e
prese
r
vice
te
ac
he
rs’
re
sear
ch
p
er
iods
a
nd
p
r
esen
tat
i
on
pla
n
s
were
d
eter
mined.
F
r
o
m
the
fo
urt
h
w
ee
k
o
n
,
the
prese
r
vice
t
eac
hers
b
e
g
a
n
t
o
prese
n
t
for
10
w
e
e
ks
t
o
t
h
e
c
l
ass
t
h
e
s
t
udy
the
y
p
r
epar
e
d.
P
e
er
and
i
n
str
u
ct
or
assessm
ent
s
w
er
e
m
ade
at
th
e
end
o
f
ea
ch
pr
esen
tat
i
on
b
etwee
n
t
he
p
r
eservic
e
te
a
che
r
s
w
ho
c
o
n
duc
te
d
t
h
e
stud
y
an
d the
p
e
e
r
s and
the i
n
struc
t
or
u
sin
g
t
he
que
st
i
on-an
sw
e
r
tec
hniq
ue
.
The
v
ie
w
s
o
f
t
he
p
rese
rv
ice
t
ea
cher
s
c
onc
erni
n
g
the
a
pp
li
c
atio
n
were
e
l
i
c
it
ed
a
ft
er
t
h
e
t
e
r
m
f
i
n
a
l
exa
m
ina
t
i
on t
o
pre
ven
t
them
f
r
om
expe
rienc
i
ng a
n
x
i
e
t
y
.
Th
e
inte
rv
i
e
w
s
l
as
t
e
d
f
o
r
a
b
out
a
w
ee
k
.
2.3.
D
ata C
o
ll
ec
tion
To
o
l
s
S
corin
g
ru
bric
w
a
s
u
se
d
i
n
t
h
e
s
t
u
dy
a
s
t
he
qua
n
ti
ta
t
i
v
e
da
ta
c
o
llec
t
io
n
to
ol.
The
sc
or
in
g
r
ubric
w
as
prepa
r
ed
t
o
g
e
t
her
w
ith
t
he
s
t
ude
n
ts,
tak
i
ng
in
to
c
o
n
sider
a
t
ion
t
h
e
s
t
age
s
s
ug
ge
ste
d
by
[
21].
The
s
e
sta
g
es
a
re
liste
d
as:
1.
Exam
i
n
at
ion
o
f
the
scor
i
n
g
r
ubrics r
elate
d
to
t
he
fi
e
ld
2.
Lis
t
ing of per
form
ance crit
e
ria
3.
Dete
rmina
t
i
on
of per
form
ance
leve
l
s
for
eac
h
c
r
it
e
r
io
n
4.
Ma
ki
n
g
def
i
n
i
t
i
ons
o
f pe
rfor
m
anc
e
l
e
ve
ls
5.
S
c
orin
g of
t
he
spec
i
fied l
eve
l
s
Th
e
rel
e
v
a
nt
li
t
erat
u
r
e
was
re
v
i
ewed
b
efo
r
e
p
a
ssin
g
to
th
e
p
ro
c
e
dure
of
d
e
v
e
lo
p
ing
the
s
c
o
r
in
g
rubric
t
o
be
u
sed
i
n
t
he
co
u
r
se
and
b
est
p
r
a
ctices
w
ere
exa
m
ine
d.
T
he
n,
t
he
c
ri
t
e
ria
w
it
h
r
e
s
pec
t
t
o
th
e
p
e
rfo
rma
n
c
e
e
x
p
e
ct
ed
o
f
th
e
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
i
ce
t
ea
ch
ers
we
re
l
i
s
t
e
d
.
1
0
c
ri
t
e
ria
w
e
re
d
e
t
erm
i
ne
d
tha
t
w
er
e
asso
ciate
d
w
ith
the
o
b
jec
t
ive
s
of
t
he
c
o
u
r
se.
P
erfor
ma
nce
l
e
ve
ls
w
e
r
e
de
fi
ne
d
a
n
d
d
efin
it
ions
o
f
le
ve
ls
w
ere
m
ad
e
f
or
ea
ch
c
rit
e
ri
o
n
in
co
o
p
era
tio
n
w
i
t
h
t
he
p
r
eser
v
i
c
e
tea
c
h
er
s.
A
g
r
adin
g
s
ca
l
e
r
a
ngi
n
g
from
exce
ll
e
n
t
to
uns
ucce
ssf
ul
w
as
m
a
d
e
i
n
t
he
s
c
o
r
in
g
o
f
spec
ifie
d
per
f
o
r
m
ance
l
eve
ls.
T
he
y
w
e
re
as
fo
llow
s
;
exce
lle
nt
=
4
,
succe
ssfu
l
=
3
,
ac
cept
a
b
l
e
=
2,
i
nsu
ffic
i
en
t
=
1,
u
ns
ucce
ssfu
l
=
0
.
The
h
i
ghe
st
s
c
o
re
a
p
r
ese
r
v
ic
e
te
ac
he
r
c
oul
d
re
ce
i
v
e
as
a
r
esul
t
o
f
t
h
e
p
e
e
r
a
n
d
in
st
ru
cto
r
a
sse
ssmen
t
s
was
40
a
nd
the
l
ow
e
s
t
s
c
o
r
e
w
a
s
0.
Exper
t
op
i
nio
n
w
as asked in
r
e
g
ard to the v
a
lid
it
y of the sc
o
ri
ng
ru
br
i
c
, n
ece
ssa
r
y corre
cti
o
ns w
er
e made an
d
i
t
w
as
g
ive
n it
s
f
i
nal form
.
“
T
he
S
e
m
i-S
t
ruct
ure
d
I
nt
e
r
vi
ew
F
orm”
w
as
u
se
d
in
t
he
s
t
u
d
y
as
t
he
qu
a
lita
tive
da
t
a
c
o
ll
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
oo
l.
The
inte
rv
i
e
w
form
pre
pare
d by t
h
e
rese
arc
h
ers
conta
i
ne
d 2
open
-e
nde
d q
u
e
s
ti
o
n
s. The
y w
e
re
a
s follow
s
:
a.
Y
our
f
rie
n
d
s
p
re
se
nt
e
d
the
d
a
i
l
y
l
e
sso
n
pla
n
t
he
y
pr
epar
ed
in
t
hi
s
class.
Y
ou
a
sked
y
our
f
rie
n
d
s
q
ues
t
i
o
n
s
like
a
tea
c
h
er
,
yo
u
c
r
it
ic
ize
d
o
r
su
p
porte
d
them
.
Ex
pr
ess
yo
u
r
po
sit
i
v
e
a
nd
n
e
g
at
iv
e
v
i
e
w
s
abo
ut
th
i
s
process, ass
essi
ng
t
he process
brief
ly?
b.
Y
ou
pr
esen
ted
yo
ur
d
a
i
l
y
l
e
sson
p
l
a
n
w
hic
h
y
o
u
p
re
pare
d
for
t
h
i
s
cou
r
se
a
s
a
p
r
e
s
e
r
vi
ce
t
ea
ch
er.
Yo
u
r
frie
n
ds
as
ked
yo
u
q
ues
t
io
ns,
the
y
c
r
itic
i
z
ed
or
sup
por
t
e
d
yo
u.
T
h
e
y
a
s
s
e
s
s
e
d
y
o
u
b
r
i
e
f
l
y
.
W
h
a
t
a
r
e
y
o
u
r
pos
it
ive
an
d ne
gat
i
ve
vi
ew
s
abo
u
t
th
i
s
proce
s
s
?
2.4.
A
n
a
lys
i
s
of th
e
D
ata
The
skew
ne
ss
a
nd
k
u
rt
os
i
s
coeffic
i
e
n
ts
o
f
the
sca
l
e
fac
t
or
s
w
er
e
ca
l
c
ul
at
ed
to
det
ermi
n
e
th
e
appr
opr
i
a
t
e
s
ta
ti
stica
l
t
e
c
h
niq
u
es tha
t
c
o
u
l
d be
u
se
d t
o
a
rri
ve
a
t
r
esu
lt
s
ha
vi
n
g
s
c
ien
t
ific val
i
d
it
y
fr
om
t
he da
ta
col
lec
te
d
w
it
h
i
n
t
he
s
co
pe
of
t
h
i
s
s
t
u
d
y.
The
va
lue
s
ob
ta
ine
d
a
s
a
result
of
the
c
a
lcu
la
t
ion
a
r
e
gi
ve
n in Ta
b
le
1
.
Tab
l
e
1
.
D
e
sc
ripti
v
e
Stat
istic
s
R
e
late
d t
o
I
nstr
uct
o
r a
nd Pe
er A
ssessment Scores
M
e
asu
r
eme
n
t
X
SD
Min
.
Ma
x.
S
k
e
w
n
e
ss
Kurtosis
I
n
st
ruc
t
or
A
sse
s
s
me
nt
30.
68
4.
219
20
37
-.
905
-.
057
Pee
r
Asse
ss
me
nt
33.
98
3.
417
20
40
-.
897
.
620
Wh
en
T
abl
e
1
i
s
ex
a
m
in
e
d
,
i
t
i
s
s
een
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s
o
f
s
k
e
wn
ess
an
d
ku
rt
o
s
i
s
calc
u
l
at
ed
f
o
r
in
struc
tor
a
n
d
p
eer
a
sse
s
sm
e
n
t
score
s
w
ere
be
tw
ee
n
-1
a
n
d
+
1,
w
hic
h
in
d
i
c
a
tes
t
ha
t
the
sc
ores
r
e
cei
ve
d
fr
om
the
fac
t
or
s
e
x
hib
i
ted
n
o
rm
al
d
i
s
tri
b
uti
o
n
[2
2].
A
s
a
r
e
s
ul
t
of
th
i
s
,
i
t
wa
s
d
e
c
id
e
d
t
h
at
p
aramet
ri
c
t
e
st
s
b
e
u
se
d
on
the
data
ob
tai
ne
d.
D
e
s
c
r
ipt
ive
s
ta
t
istics
w
e
r
e
use
d
t
o
a
nal
y
ze
t
he
d
a
ta
o
b
ta
i
n
ed
w
i
t
h
i
n
the
sco
p
e
of
t
he
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
IJERE
IS
S
N
:
2252-
88
22
A M
i
x
e
d
Met
h
od Re
se
arc
h
o
n
Peer
Asse
ssm
e
n
t(G
o
k
h
a
n
Izga
r)
12
1
stud
y
;
P
ear
son
P
r
oduct
Mo
m
ent
C
o
r
rela
ti
on
C
o
effic
i
e
n
t
w
as
used
t
o
ana
l
y
ze
t
h
e
relat
i
o
n
s
h
ip
b
e
t
we
en
in
struc
tor
assessm
ent
an
d
pe
er
a
sse
s
sm
ent;
and
p
a
ired
s
a
m
ples
t
t
e
s
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
w
a
s
u
s
e
d
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
di
ffe
re
nce
s
be
t
w
e
en pa
irw
ise
gr
oups.
The
qu
al
i
tat
ive
da
t
a
in
t
h
is
s
t
udy
w
e
r
e
a
na
l
yze
d
us
i
n
g
t
he
c
o
nt
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
is
t
ec
hni
que
.
The
t
h
em
es
w
e
r
e
d
evel
ope
d
base
d
o
n
t
he
que
sti
ons
i
nc
lu
de
d
in
the
i
n
ter
vi
e
w
f
orm
pr
e
p
ar
ed
b
y
t
h
e
re
sear
cher
s
to
ad
d
re
ss
the
rela
te
d
re
se
ar
ch
q
ues
tio
ns.
D
i
re
ct
q
uo
ta
t
i
ons
w
e
r
e
use
d
t
o
be
a
bl
e
t
o
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
t
he
o
p
i
n
i
ons
o
f
t
h
e
prese
r
vi
c
e
teac
hers
w
ith
w
hom
i
nte
r
v
i
e
w
s w
e
re
h
eld.
V
a
lidi
t
y
a
nd
re
l
ia
b
il
i
ty ar
e
tw
o imp
o
rta
n
t cri
teria
to
a
s
sur
e t
he
le
g
i
ti
m
ac
y of t
he resu
lts o
f a st
u
d
y. In
a
w
ell-c
ond
uc
te
d
st
u
dy,
the
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
r
epor
t
o
f
t
he
i
nform
ati
on
a
nd h
o
w
t
h
e
re
sear
cher
s
obta
i
ned the
pr
e
s
en
ted
resul
t
s
i
s
a
n
i
m
porta
nt
c
ri
t
e
rio
n
f
or
v
a
l
idi
t
y
[23]
.
The
data
c
o
llec
t
io
n
a
nd
da
t
a
a
na
ly
sis
proce
s
se
s
w
er
e
exp
la
ine
d
i
n
d
eta
il
in
o
rde
r
to
es
tab
l
ish
t
h
e
v
a
l
i
d
i
ty
o
f
t
h
e
p
rese
n
t
s
t
u
d
y
.
F
u
rther
m
o
r
e
,
t
he
i
nf
o
r
ma
tio
n
ob
ta
ine
d
from
th
i
s
s
t
u
dy w
a
s sup
p
o
rte
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
w
r
itte
n sta
t
e
m
e
nts
of t
he
s
tude
n
t
s.
I
n
o
r
d
er
t
o
e
n
s
u
re
r
el
i
a
b
ili
t
y
i
n
t
h
e
a
n
a
l
ys
is
o
f
q
u
a
lita
t
i
ve
d
ata
,
t
he
d
a
t
a
o
b
ta
i
n
ed
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
rv
iew
form
w
e
r
e
e
n
code
d
se
pa
rate
ly
a
n
d
t
hus
e
v
a
lua
t
e
d
.
I
n
o
rde
r
t
o
e
n
sur
e
r
e
lia
bil
it
y
in
t
h
e
a
n
al
ys
i
s
o
f
qua
l
i
ta
t
i
v
e
data,
the
da
ta
o
b
ta
ine
d
from
the
in
ter
vie
w
f
or
m
w
ere
e
ncoded
se
para
t
e
l
y
an
d
t
h
u
s
e
v
al
uate
d.
T
he
cas
es
f
o
r
w
h
ic
h
the
s
am
e
co
d
i
n
g
w
a
s
use
d
w
ere
desi
gna
te
d
as
“
agre
em
ent”,
whe
r
ea
s
t
h
e
case
s
f
or
w
hic
h
a
d
iffe
ren
t
c
o
din
g
wa
s
u
s
ed
we
r
e
d
e
si
gn
at
e
d
a
s
“
d
i
s
a
g
re
emen
t
”
.
As
a
r
esu
l
t
o
f
t
h
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
h
i
c
h
w
e
r
e
m
a
d
e
a
f
t
e
r
the
de
t
e
rm
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
gre
em
ent
i
n
w
h
ic
h
t
h
e
sam
e
c
o
d
in
g
w
as
m
ad
e
and
d
isa
g
r
ee
me
nt
i
n
whi
c
h
a
dif
f
e
re
nt
cod
i
ng
w
as
m
ade
a
t
t
h
e
en
d
o
f
t
he
a
na
l
y
sis,
t
he
m
ea
n
ra
te
o
f
r
e
l
ia
bi
li
ty
b
e
tw
ee
n
e
nco
d
i
ngs
w
e
r
e
f
oun
d
t
o
be
79
%.
A
cc
ordin
g
t
o
[24],
if
r
el
iab
i
lit
y
i
s
ca
l
c
u
l
a
te
d
to be
ab
o
v
e
70
%
fo
r
a
s
t
u
d
y
,
t
hi
s
i
s
s
uff
i
c
i
e
n
t
f
o
r
th
e
st
udy
to be
co
ns
i
d
ere
d
re
l
ia
ble
.
3.
RESULT
S
A
N
D
ANALY
S
IS
I
n
t
h
i
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
i
t
i
s
e
x
p
l
a
i
n
e
d
t
h
e
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
o
f
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
a
n
d
a
t
the
s
a
m
e
t
im
e
is
gi
ven
th
e
com
p
rehe
nsive
d
i
scus
sio
n
.
Re
su
lts
c
an
b
e
pr
esen
ted
i
n
f
igu
r
e
s
,
graphs,
ta
b
l
es
a
nd
o
the
r
s
t
h
a
t
m
ake
t
h
e
r
ea
d
er
un
dersta
n
d
easil
y [2]
, [5].
The
di
sc
uss
i
o
n
c
an be
m
ade
in seve
r
al
s
u
b-
c
ha
pter
s.
3
.1
.
The Rela
t
io
n
ship
B
e
tw
een
I
n
str
u
c
t
o
r
a
n
d
Peer
Asses
sment
s
P
ea
r
son
P
r
odu
ct
M
om
ent
Corr
elat
io
n
C
o
e
f
fic
i
e
n
t
was
u
s
ed
t
o
an
a
l
y
ze
t
h
e
rel
ati
on
shi
p
b
e
t
we
en
in
struc
t
or
assessm
ent
a
nd
pe
er
a
ssessment.
T
he
v
alues
obtained
a
s
a
r
esul
t
of
t
he
a
na
ly
sis
a
r
e
gi
ve
n in Ta
b
le
2
.
Tab
l
e
2.
T
he Relat
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
bet
w
ee
n Instruc
t
o
r
A
ssessme
n
t
and
P
e
e
r
As
sess
m
e
nt
Var
i
a
b
l
e
P
e
e
r
A
sse
ss
ment
Inst
ruc
tor A
sse
ss
m
e
nt
-r
-
-p
-
.
340**
.
000
**.
C
o
rre
l
a
tion
is
s
ignif
i
c
a
nt a
t
t
h
e
l
e
ve
l
of
0.
01
(
2-ta
i
led).
Whe
n
Ta
b
l
e
2
i
s
exam
i
n
ed,
a pos
it
ive
an
d si
gn
ifica
n
t r
elat
i
onsh
i
p
is ob
ser
v
ed be
t
w
een
i
nstruc
t
o
r
a
sse
ssme
n
t
an
d p
e
er as
s
es
sme
n
t
.
Thi
s res
u
lt
in
di
c
at
es
th
a
t
as t
he instructor
assessmen
t
score increases,
so
doe
s the
pee
r
a
sse
s
sm
ent
sc
ore.
3.2.
A
C
ompar
i
son
of
I
nstruc
tor
and
Peer
Asse
ssm
e
nt S
core
s
P
aire
d
s
am
ple
s
t
t
es
t
w
as
use
d
t
o
de
term
ine
w
h
e
t
her
t
h
e
differ
e
nc
e
s
b
e
t
w
e
en
t
he
i
ns
truct
o
r
assessm
ent
and
peer
a
s
s
essm
ent
m
e
an
s
co
re
s
were
s
t
a
t
i
sti
cal
ly
s
i
g
ni
fica
nt.
Re
s
u
lt
s
o
f
t
he
ins
truc
tor
assessm
ent and
peer as
ses
sm
e
n
t
are
gi
ven i
n
T
ab
le 3.
Tab
l
e
3.
R
e
s
ult
s
of P
a
ired
S
a
m
pl
es
t Te
st
f
or
C
om
paris
o
n o
f
Inst
ructor
A
ssessment
and
Peer Asses
sm
e
n
t
M
eas
u
r
e
m
en
t
N
X
SD
t
p
Inst
ruc
t
or As
se
ss
m
e
n
t
614
30.
68
4.
219
-
1
8
.
44
2
.
000
Pe
e
r A
sse
ssment
614
33.
98
3.
417
Whe
n
the
v
a
lue
s
g
i
ven
i
n
T
a
b
le
3
a
re
e
xa
m
i
ne
d,
it
is
s
e
en
t
h
a
t
th
e
di
ff
ere
n
ce
b
et
we
en
i
nst
r
uc
to
r
assessm
ent
and
peer
a
ssessm
ent
m
ean
s
cor
e
s
is
s
ta
tis
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
s
i
g
nif
i
c
ant
(
t
=
-18
.
44
2;
p
<0
.0
5
)
.
W
h
i
l
e
t
h
e
mea
n
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
S
N
:
225
2-
88
22
IJERE Vo
l
. 7
,
No
.
2
,
Ju
n
e
201
8
:
1
18–
126
12
2
of
i
ns
tructor
assessment
scores
i
s
X
=3
0.6
8
,
th
e
m
e
a
n
f
or
p
ee
r
asse
ssm
e
nt
s
c
o
r
e
s
is
X
=
3
3
.
9
8
.
These
r
e
sul
t
s
in
dic
a
t
e
t
ha
t
pe
er
a
sse
s
sm
ent sc
ores
a
re
highe
r
t
h
a
n
i
nstr
uct
o
r
ass
essment
scores
.
3.3.
Pr
e
servic
e Teac
he
rs’ Op
i
n
io
ns A
b
o
ut Their Assessmen
t
of Th
e
ir Pe
er
s
P
r
ese
r
vice teac
hers’
op
i
n
io
ns abo
u
t
the
ir ass
essme
n
t
of the
ir
p
e
e
rs in t
h
e
c
l
ass pra
c
t
i
ces b
ased on
t
h
e
pee
r
assessme
n
t
m
et
h
od
are
gi
ve
n
i
n
T
a
b
l
e
4
.
A
s
a
r
esult
of
a
n
ana
l
ys
is
o
f
the
i
n
form
at
io
n
ob
ta
ine
d
f
r
o
m
the
prese
r
vice
teac
hers,
it is see
n tha
t
t
hese
o
pi
n
i
ons
c
a
n
b
e sub
s
um
ed u
nde
r 6
t
h
e
m
e
s
.
Tab
l
e
4.
P
re
se
rvice
Te
ac
he
rs’ O
p
i
n
i
o
ns ab
o
u
t
The
ir A
ssessm
ent o
f Their
Peers
T
h
em
e
f (% of P
re
s
e
r
vi
ce
T
e
a
c
h
e
rs *)
%
V
i
e
w
s
Ma
king
a
s
s
e
ss
m
e
n
t
s
c
ontribute
s
t
o
l
e
a
r
ning
It
c
ontribute
s
t
o
pre
s
e
rvi
c
e
t
e
ac
h
e
rs’
fee
l
ing
the
m
s
e
lv
e
s
i
n
th
e
r
o
le
of
a
t
e
ac
h
e
r
a
nd
to ra
i
sing
a
s
e
ns
e
of
r
e
s
ponsibil
ity
It
he
l
ps
l
ea
r
ni
ng a
nd
m
a
ki
n
g
a
fa
ir asse
ss
m
e
nt
It
c
ont
r
i
but
e
s
t
o c
r
it
ica
l
t
hinking
It
he
l
ps
one
t
r
ea
t
t
ole
r
a
ntl
y
towa
rds pe
e
r
s
Ma
king
a
s
s
e
ss
m
e
n
t
s m
a
k
e
s
no c
ontributi
on
s
t
o
le
a
r
ning
10
(3
7.
0
)
9
(33.
3)
7
(25.
9)
4
(14.
8)
1
(3.
7)
1
(3.
7)
31
.
3
28
.
1
21
.
9
12
.
5
3.
1
3.
1
T
ota
l
#
of
V
i
e
w
s
32
100
.
0
*
T
ota
l
#
of
pre
se
r
vi
ce
t
ea
ch
e
r
s
=
27
F
o
r
l
e
arne
rs
t
o
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
th
eir
ow
n
l
ea
r
ning
i
n
less
o
n
s
t
aug
h
t
us
ing
t
h
e
pe
er
a
ssessm
ent
m
e
th
o
d
,
the
y
need
t
o
a
s
sum
e
t
he
i
de
nt
ity
o
f
a
stu
d
e
n
t
w
ho
q
uesti
ons
a
n
d
d
eb
ate
s
t
h
r
o
ugh
a
c
ri
ti
ca
l
po
int
o
f
v
i
e
w.
Lea
r
ners
ar
e
expec
t
e
d
t
o
q
u
e
s
t
i
on
th
e
work
d
o
n
e,
m
ake
c
o
m
p
ar
i
s
o
ns,
d
i
s
c
uss
t
h
rou
g
h
q
ues
tio
ns
l
i
k
e
w
h
y
an
d
f
o
r
w
h
a
t
r
e
a
s
o
n
,
w
h
i
c
h
a
r
e
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
i
n
k
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
t
h
e
ir
o
w
n
a
ss
e
s
sm
ents
a
t
t
h
e
e
nd
of
t
his
pr
oc
ess.
W
h
e
n
t
h
e
t
h
e
m
e
s
i
n
T
a
b
l
e
4
a
r
e
e
x
a
m
i
n
e
d
,
i
t
i
s
s
e
e
n
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
p
r
eser
vi
c
e
t
ea
ch
ers
state
d
c
o
n
cer
n
i
ng
the
i
r
assessm
ent
s
o
f
th
eir
pee
r
s
t
h
a
t
m
a
k
i
n
g
a
s
se
s
s
m
ents
m
ade
t
he
m
os
t
co
nt
rib
ut
i
on
to
l
e
a
r
ni
ng
(
f=
10
),
f
o
l
lo
we
d
by
f
ee
l
in
g
the
r
ole
of
tea
cher
,
de
vel
o
p
in
g
a
s
e
n
se
o
f
r
esp
on
sib
i
l
i
t
y
,
a
n
d
le
a
r
ni
ng
t
o
ma
ke
a
f
a
i
r
a
s
se
ssm
ent.
A
fe
w
of
t
he pr
e
s
e
rvice
tea
c
h
er
s’ opi
ni
o
n
s
in t
h
i
s
rega
rd a
re:
“
…
Wh
en
a
s
king
qu
e
s
t
ion
s, I
a
s
ked
no
t
on
l
y
t
o
c
r
it
i
c
i
z
e but
al
so
to
l
e
a
r
n
.
…
s
t
ud
y
i
ng
f
r
om a
b
oo
k
i
s
no
t
e
n
o
u
gh
t
o
l
ear
n. We
le
a
r
n
in
form
a
t
i
on b
y hear
t
but c
a
n
n
o
t
use
i
t
. D
u
ring
t
h
e prac
ti
c
e
, I tested h
o
w
m
u
c
h
I knew.”
(PT-7)
“
Du
r
i
n
g
th
e a
s
se
ssme
n
t
pr
o
cess, I sa
w t
hat
wh
a
t
I kn
e
w
t
o
be t
r
u
e
wa
s in
fa
c
t
w
r
ong…
” (PT-2
5
)
“
I
learn
ed
t
o
have
a c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
lo
ok
at t
h
e w
o
r
k d
one
by o
the
rs.
For, t
h
i
s
was
nec
ess
ary
fo
r
m
e t
o
g
i
v
e
fa
i
r
m
a
rks
…
”
(
P
T
-
10)
“I
t
hel
p
ed dir
ec
t
o
u
r frie
nd
s; i
f
the
y
h
a
d
m
a
d
e
a
m
i
s
t
ake
,
we corre
cte
d
it
.
We
ex
cha
n
g
ed
ou
r
op
ini
o
ns by
as
kin
g
q
u
e
s
ti
o
n
s.”
(PT
-
20)
“
…
Whe
n
I
co
ns
idere
d
m
y
se
lf
asse
ssi
n
g
m
y
frien
d
s,
I
w
a
s
n
o
t
f
a
ir s
i
nce
I
did
n
o
t
kno
w m
a
n
y
m
eth
od
s an
d te
chn
i
q
u
e
s
…S
o
I thi
n
k
tha
t
asse
ssi
ng m
y
fri
e
n
d
s
di
d no
t co
ntr
i
bu
t
e
a
n
yt
h
i
ng t
o
m
e
.”
(PT
-
9)
P
e
e
r
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
i
s
n
o
t
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d
t
o
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
o
f
a
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
p
r
o
d
uc
t
on
ly
.
It
is
a
lea
r
n
i
n
g
m
e
tho
d
b
y
w
h
ic
h
s
o
me
s
k
i
l
l
s
ar
e
a
l
so
g
a
i
ne
d.
T
hus,
prese
r
vice
tea
c
h
er
s,
w
ho
a
r
e
g
o
i
ng
to
b
e
ed
uc
a
ti
oni
sts
o
f
t
he
f
ut
ure
,
are
expec
t
e
d
t
o
deve
lo
p
asses
s
m
ent
s
k
i
lls
an
d
a
s
ense
o
f
j
u
stic
e
an
d
respo
n
s
i
b
i
li
ty.
A
t
this
p
o
i
n
t
,
op
i
n
i
ons
o
f
so
me p
rese
rv
i
ce t
e
ac
h
e
r
s
a
re as f
o
llows:
“
I
t
has co
ntr
i
b
u
te
d a lo
t t
o
m
e
. My sense
of re
s
pons
i
b
ili
ty h
a
s
im
pr
ove
d
an
d I wou
l
d
l
ike
t
o
em
ph
as
ize th
a
t
I
m
a
ke
just de
c
i
s
i
o
n
s i
n
m
y
ow
n way a
n
d
m
a
ke
assessm
e
n
t
s
in t
h
is l
i
ne
…”
(
P
T-21)
“
I
t
h
i
n
k I
assess f
a
irly jus
t
l
i
k
e
a
teac
he
r…
I felt
m
y
se
lf in the
ro
le o
f
a
re
al
te
ac
her
…
”(P
T
-25)
“
I
t
was
goo
d t
h
a
t
y
ou
i
n
vo
lv
ed us i
n
sco
r
in
g o
u
r fri
en
d
s’ work.
We m
a
y con
s
i
d
er
i
t
a
p
r
el
im
i
nary
t
o
be
able
t
o
m
a
k
e c
onsc
i
en
t
i
ous
m
a
rkin
g w
h
en
we
becom
e
tea
c
hers
…”
(PT
-
1
)
“
…I m
ade a p
o
i
n
t
o
f
be
in
g o
b
jec
t
ive
whe
n
I
wa
s m
a
k
i
n
g
m
y
a
sse
ssm
e
nt
s.
I
t
s co
nt
rib
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
m
e was
th
at i
t he
l
p
e
d
m
e
be
objec
t
iv
e
and
im
pa
rt
ia
l i
n
m
y asse
ss
m
e
nt
.
”
(PT
-
2)
3.4.
Pr
e
servic
e Teac
he
rs’ Op
i
n
ions Con
cernin
g Their
Assessme
n
t
by T
h
e
ir
Peer
s
P
r
ese
r
vice
teac
hers’
opi
nio
n
s
a
b
o
u
t
th
e
i
r
a
s
se
ssm
e
nt
b
y
t
h
eir
p
ee
rs
i
n
th
e
cl
ass
p
r
ac
ti
c
e
s
b
a
se
d
on
the
peer
a
ssess
me
nt
m
eth
o
d
a
re
g
ive
n
i
n
Ta
bl
e
5.
A
s
a
resul
t
o
f
a
n
ana
l
y
s
i
s
o
f
the
i
n
form
atio
n
ob
ta
ine
d
f
r
o
m
prese
r
vice
teac
hers,
it is see
n
tha
t
t
he
ir
opin
i
ons c
a
n
be
sub
s
ume
d
u
nder
4 the
m
e
s
.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
IJERE
IS
S
N
:
2252-
88
22
A M
i
x
e
d
Met
h
od Re
se
arc
h
o
n
Peer
Asse
ssm
e
n
t(G
o
k
h
a
n
Izga
r)
12
3
Ta
b
l
e
5.
P
r
e
s
e
r
vice
Te
a
c
h
e
r
s’ O
pini
o
n
s c
onc
erni
ng The
i
r A
ssessm
e
nt b
y
T
h
e
i
r P
ee
r
s
Th
eme
f
(
%
o
f
Pr
e
s
er
v
i
c
e
T
e
ach
e
r
s
*
)
%
V
i
e
ws
O
ne
’
s rea
l
i
z
ati
on of
the
ir inc
o
m
pl
e
t
e
knowl
e
dge
a
nd r
e
i
nfo
r
c
em
e
nt
of
c
orre
c
t
i
nfor
m
a
t
i
on
11
(4
0.
7)
34.
4
C
r
it
i
c
i
s
m
s
or
sugge
stions c
ontr
i
bute
t
o
l
e
a
r
ning
9
(33.
3
)
28.
1
P
e
e
r
s
do
not
m
a
k
e
f
a
ir
a
ss
e
ss
m
e
n
t
s;
they
p
rioritiz
e
pe
r
sona
l
p
r
ob
l
em
s
o
r
f
r
i
en
ds
h
i
p
9
(33.
3
)
28.
1
S
ugge
sti
on
s
o
r
c
r
it
ic
ism
s
a
r
e
not a
t an a
d
e
qu
a
t
e
le
v
e
l
3
(11.
1
)
9.
4
T
ota
l
#
of
V
i
e
w
s
3
2
100
*
T
ota
l
#
of
pre
s
e
r
vice
t
ea
ch
e
rs =
27
To
pp
i
ng
[1]
s
t
ates
t
ha
t
le
arn
er
s
p
e
r
ce
iv
e
fe
e
dbac
k
s
from
p
ee
rs
in
t
he
p
eer
assessm
ent
pr
ocess
as
fe
ed
bac
k
s
tha
t
a
re
ope
n
to
n
e
got
iat
i
on
an
d
r
iche
r.
I
n
ad
d
it
ion,
d
uri
ng
l
e
ss
on
pra
ct
ices,
l
ear
ners
ca
n
as
k
ea
c
h
ot
her
al
l
the
que
s
t
i
o
ns
i
n
t
h
e
i
r
m
i
nds
m
or
e
e
asil
y
an
d
d
i
s
c
u
ss
wi
t
h
o
ne
ano
t
h
er
i
n
a
mor
e
r
elaxe
d
m
anner
.
W
h
e
n
t
h
e
t
h
e
m
e
s
i
n
T
a
b
l
e
5
a
r
e
e
x
a
m
i
n
e
d
,
i
t
i
s
s
e
e
n
t
h
a
t
a
l
a
r
g
e
m
aj
o
ri
ty
o
f
t
h
e
preser
vi
c
e
t
e
ac
h
e
r
s
(f=2
0)
expre
s
se
d
p
o
si
ti
ve
o
p
i
nio
n
s
abo
u
t
t
he
ir
b
e
in
g
asses
s
ed
by
t
h
eir
p
e
ers
.
H
o
w
eve
r,
it
ca
n
be
s
a
i
d
tha
t
a
con
s
i
d
era
b
l
e
n
umbe
r
of
p
re
se
rvice
t
e
ac
he
rs
(
f=1
2
)
had
n
e
gat
i
ve
o
p
in
io
ns
o
f
the
ir
be
i
ng
assess
ed
b
y
t
h
eir
pee
r
s.
A
fe
w
o
f the
preser
v
i
c
e
t
e
ache
r
s’
opini
o
n
s i
n
th
i
s re
gar
d
are
as
f
ollow
s
:
“
…I kne
w
a
b
out te
ac
hi
ng
str
a
te
g
i
es,
m
eth
ods
an
d t
ech
n
i
q
u
es
as f
a
r a
s
I
st
ud
ie
d
the
m
.
I
better
lea
r
ne
d t
h
e
task
I prepa
r
ed
th
ank
s
to m
y
fri
e
nds’
c
r
i
t
icism
s
.
”
(PT-3)
“
…I
re
alize
d
tha
t I had ser
io
u
s s
h
ort
c
om
ings.
It he
l
p
ed
m
e elim
ina
te
m
y shor
t
c
om
ings
in t
h
is
reg
a
rd. I
have
to
ta
l
c
o
n
fide
n
c
e in m
y
f
r
ie
n
d
s.
T
h
e sc
ores
they
gav
e
are
the
one
s I h
a
ve
deserve
d
. Wh
at
m
a
t
t
e
r
s
is I
sho
u
l
d
t
a
k
e
m
y
lesson
from
thi
s
score
.
”
(PT
-
5)
“
…
Th
e
s
c
o
r
e
ma
y
b
e
l
owe
r th
an
i
t
no
rmal
ly
sh
oul
d
ha
v
e
b
e
e
n
b
eca
use
I
t
hin
k
no
t
ev
eryo
n
e
in
th
e
cla
ssro
o
m
wi
ll
b
e
ab
le t
o
ac
t o
b
jec
tive
l
y.
Any
w
ay
, t
h
e
sc
ore d
o
es n
o
t
me
a
n
eve
ryt
h
i
n
g.
Wh
at ma
t
t
e
r
s
i
s
wh
et
h
e
r
we
ha
ve
l
e
a
r
n
e
d
so
met
h
ing
.
I k
n
ow
tha
t
I re
in
f
o
rced
wha
t
I l
e
a
r
n
e
d
and k
n
e
w
, a
nd
cor
r
ec
t
e
d
i
n
co
rre
ct
know
l
e
dg
e.” (P
T-7
)
“
…My
f
r
ien
d
s
not
ice
d
t
h
e
p
o
i
n
t
s
t
h
a
t esc
a
pe
d m
y
a
tte
n
tio
n.
…I
do
n
o
t
t
h
i
n
k m
y frie
nd
s w
ere
en
tire
ly
im
p
a
rti
a
l, all t
h
e
sam
e.
”
(PT-12)
“
…My cl
assm
ate
s
i
n
v
o
l
v
ed
t
h
ei
r p
e
rso
n
a
l
pro
b
lem
s
in
th
i
s
a
f
f
a
ir. O
r
, th
ey
g
a
v
e
low
gr
ade
s
wi
t
hou
t
ev
en li
ste
n
ing
t
o
the p
r
e
s
e
n
tat
i
o
n
les
t
o
t
her
s
g
o
t
h
i
g
h
e
r
sco
r
es th
an t
h
e
m
.”(PT-
10)
“
…
No
bod
y
wa
s a
sse
sse
d
ob
j
ecti
v
el
y
.
Fo
r, t
h
e
y
t
h
o
ugh
t
tha
t
th
e
qu
est
i
on
s a
s
k
e
d
wer
e
ai
med
a
t
pus
hi
ng the
m
.”
(PT
-
18)
“
A
ltho
u
gh
we
ha
d
s
o
m
e
d
if
f
ic
u
lty
in
t
h
i
s
pr
ocess, I
th
i
n
k
we
im
p
l
e
m
en
te
d a
true
le
arn
i
ng. I w
a
s no
t
trou
b
led
by
th
e
critic
i
s
m
s
be
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
ey wer
e
not u
n
fa
ir.
O
n
t
h
e co
n
tra
ry, the
y m
a
de a
p
o
s
itiv
e co
n
tr
ibut
i
on.
We fo
und a
n
o
p
p
o
r
tun
i
ty t
o
g
et
ri
d
of
o
u
r sh
or
tcom
in
gs.”
(PT
-
23)
4.
DISC
USSION
A
c
cordi
n
g
t
o
t
he
q
ua
nt
i
tat
ive
fi
nd
ing
s
o
f
t
h
is
s
tud
y,
w
hi
c
h
aim
e
d
to
re
vea
l
t
he
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
ns
h
i
p
be
t
w
e
en
p
e
e
r
a
n
d
i
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
o
r
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
o
p
i
n
i
o
n
s
o
f
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
teac
hers
a
s
a
r
e
sult
o
f
c
l
a
ss
a
c
ti
v
ities
pl
an
n
e
d
in
ac
cord
a
nce
w
it
h
a
sse
s
s
m
ent-ba
se
d
le
a
r
ni
ng,
a
s
ig
ni
fican
t
rel
a
t
i
ons
h
ip
i
s
s
ee
n
betw
e
e
n
in
s
truc
tor
assessm
ent
a
n
d
pe
er
a
sse
s
sm
ent.
T
ha
t
is
t
o
say,
a
s
the
inst
ruc
t
o
r
a
ssessment
scor
e
increa
ses,
s
o
doe
s
t
h
e
pe
er
assessm
ent
sc
ore,
and
as
t
h
e
i
n
s
truc
tor
a
s
se
ssme
n
t
sc
or
e
decr
ea
ses,
s
o
d
o
es
t
he
p
eer
as
sess
m
e
nt
s
core.
In
stud
ies
c
o
n
duc
ted
by
[6],
[
1
5
]
a
nd
[17],
w
h
i
ch
su
p
port
the
fi
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
t
h
i
s
s
t
u
d
y
,
a
h
i
g
h
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
w
as
fo
un
d
be
t
w
ee
n
peer
s
c
o
res
an
d
tea
cher
sc
ores
a
nd
t
h
e
m
ea
n
s
o
f
p
e
er
scor
es
t
ur
ne
d
o
u
t
t
o
b
e
hi
g
h
er
t
han
the
me
ans
of
t
ea
cher
s
cor
es.
I
n
an
ot
her
s
t
u
d
y
co
n
duc
te
d
by
[
19]
,
it
w
as
f
oun
d
t
h
a
t
t
he
l
e
v
e
l
of
ag
re
e
m
e
n
t
betw
ee
n te
a
che
r
s
and s
t
u
d
e
n
ts
w
ere
31% an
d
it w
as c
o
n
c
l
u
d
e
d t
h
a
t 62%
of
th
e
st
u
d
en
ts ga
v
e
h
i
gh scor
es. The
fi
n
d
in
g
o
f
t
his
st
ud
y
ma
y
be
inter
preted
t
o
me
an
tha
t
pres
er
vi
c
e
teac
hers
w
e
r
e
able
t
o
a
c
t
i
n
a
way
si
milar
to
the
ins
truc
t
or in th
e asses
s
me
nt pr
o
ce
ss a
n
d
dist
i
ng
uish
go
o
d
w
ork
from
i
nade
qua
te
one
.
Th
i
s
sit
ua
ti
o
n
is
a
l
s
o
sup
por
t
e
d
by
t
he
qua
lit
at
i
v
e
fin
d
i
n
gs
o
f
t
h
e
st
u
dy,
s
o
muc
h
s
o
tha
t
w
hen
t
h
e
o
p
in
i
o
ns
o
f
t
h
e
pres
er
vi
c
e
t
e
a
c
h
e
rs
w
e
r
e
e
x
ami
n
ed
,
th
ey
s
t
a
t
e
d
t
h
at
m
ak
ing
a
sse
ssme
n
ts
con
t
r
ib
ut
ed
to
l
e
arni
ng
a
nd
t
h
at
th
e
y
l
ea
rn
ed
to
ma
ke
f
a
i
r
asse
ssm
ents
i
n
the
proc
ess,
w
h
i
c
h
i
n
d
i
cate
s
t
ha
t
the
y
a
re
i
nd
eed
a
b
l
e
to
t
el
l
ap
a
r
t
ef
fi
c
i
ent
wo
rk
from
ine
ffic
ie
n
t
w
ork.
A
n
o
ther
f
in
d
i
n
g
o
f
t
he
s
t
u
dy
w
a
s
tha
t
th
ere
w
a
s
a
sta
tis
tic
a
lly
s
i
g
n
i
fi
c
a
n
t
di
ffere
n
ce
be
t
w
e
en
t
e
ac
her
assessm
ent
sc
or
es
a
nd
peer
a
ssessm
ent
s
c
ores
a
nd
tha
t
t
hi
s
dif
f
eren
ce
wa
s
i
n
fa
vo
r
o
f
p
ee
r
a
sse
ssmen
t
sc
o
r
es.
In
s
t
udi
e
s
c
o
nd
u
c
t
e
d
by
[
13]
a
n
d
[
16
],
wh
i
c
h
s
e
e
m
to
s
u
ppo
rt
t
h
is
f
i
nd
ing
of
t
he
st
ud
y,
a
s
ta
ti
s
t
ica
ll
y
sign
ifica
n
t
d
i
f
f
er
ence
w
as
o
b
s
er
ved
i
n
f
a
v
or
o
f
pe
ers
be
tw
e
en
t
he
a
ssessments
s
c
o
res
for
ins
t
r
u
ctors
and
pee
r
s.
T
his
s
i
t
u
ati
o
n
is i
n
c
o
nt
radic
t
i
o
n
w
ith
the
q
ua
lita
t
ive
find
in
g of
t
he
s
t
udy
; t
h
is i
s
s
o
m
uch
so tha
t,
w
he
n
the
preser
vic
e
t
eac
hers’
o
p
i
n
i
ons
a
b
o
u
t
t
he
i
r
b
e
i
n
g
assesse
d
b
y
t
h
e
i
r
p
e
e
r
s
a
r
e
e
x
a
m
i
n
e
d
,
t
h
e
v
i
e
w
s
t
h
a
t
a
f
a
i
r
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
S
N
:
225
2-
88
22
IJERE Vo
l
. 7
,
No
.
2
,
Ju
n
e
201
8
:
1
18–
126
12
4
assessm
ent
was
not
made;
relat
i
on
s
h
ips
a
nd
pe
rso
n
al
p
ro
b
l
em
s
ne
ga
ti
ve
ly
affec
te
d
a
sses
s
me
nt
a
nd
the
r
efore
p
e
ers
g
a
v
e
l
o
w
s
co
re
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
e
wo
r
t
h
y
.
T
h
e
ref
o
re,
al
tho
ugh
o
p
i
n
i
on
s
o
f
s
o
m
e
stude
n
t
are
n
ega
t
ive,
w
he
n
t
h
e
me
ans
of
t
he
s
cor
es
are
e
x
am
i
n
e
d
,
it
is
s
ee
n
tha
t
m
e
an
peer
s
c
o
res
is
h
i
ghe
r
t
h
a
n
m
ea
n
i
n
s
t
ruct
or
s
core
s.
T
hi
s
situa
t
io
n
m
ay
be
i
n
t
e
r
pre
t
e
d
to
me
a
n
t
ha
t
s
o
m
e
s
t
ude
n
ts
do
n
o
t
tru
s
t
t
h
eir
pe
ers.
I
n
[12]
’s
s
t
udy,
w
hic
h
sup
por
t
s
t
he find
i
ng
s of
t
his stu
d
y
, it w
as co
ncl
u
ded
t
h
at te
a
c
her
s
w
er
e of the
o
pin
i
o
n
t
ha
t stu
d
e
n
ts
d
i
d
n
o
t
a
c
t
ob
jec
t
i
v
e
l
y
in
p
ee
r
a
s
se
ssm
e
nt.
L
i
k
ew
i
s
e,
it
w
as
c
onc
l
u
d
ed
in
[1
8]
’s
s
t
u
d
y
t
ha
t
c
l
ose
fri
e
ndl
y
re
l
a
t
i
on
shi
p
s
w
er
e one
of
th
e im
porta
nt fac
to
rs
a
ffec
t
i
n
g
p
ee
r a
s
se
ssme
n
t.
A
n
o
t
her
p
o
i
n
t
is
t
ha
t
the
mo
st
i
m
p
orta
nt
r
easo
n
b
eh
i
nd
th
e
use
of
t
he
p
eer
assessm
ent
m
e
thod
i
n
classes
is
t
o
c
o
nt
r
i
b
u
t
e
t
o
l
ear
nin
g
.
F
o
r,
m
a
k
i
n
g
a
n
a
sses
s
me
nt
i
s
a
h
i
gher
or
der
sk
i
l
l.
M
a
k
in
g
a
n
a
sse
ssm
ent
in
vol
ves
k
now
in
g
the
c
onc
e
p
ts
r
ela
ted
t
o
th
e
to
p
ic,
e
n
g
age
in
r
ea
son
i
ng,
m
akin
g
c
o
mpa
r
isons
a
nd
ar
ri
vin
g
at
a
c
o
n
c
l
u
si
on.
O
p
i
ni
o
n
s
obta
i
ne
d
from
t
he
s
t
u
de
nts
a
l
so
s
u
p
p
o
rt
th
is
e
xp
l
anat
i
on.
F
or,
a
large
m
ajor
i
t
y
o
f
the
stude
n
t
s
sta
t
e
d
tha
t
m
ak
i
ng
a
s
se
ssm
ent
s
a
n
d
be
i
n
g
a
s
se
ss
ed
b
y
t
he
i
r
pe
e
r
s
ga
ine
d
t
he
m
ques
ti
o
nin
g
a
bi
lit
y,
c
o
nt
ribu
t
e
d
t
o
l
ea
rni
ng
a
nd
erro
n
e
ou
s
knowl
e
dg
e
wa
s
c
o
rre
c
t
ed
.
It
w
a
s
c
onc
l
ude
d
in
s
tud
ies
c
o
n
duc
te
d
by
[8],
[
9]
and
[
10]
,
w
h
ich
a
r
e
am
ong
s
t
u
di
es
tha
t
su
pp
ort
th
i
s
r
esul
t
o
f
t
he
s
t
udy,
tha
t
m
o
st
o
f
t
h
e
s
tude
n
ts
assessed
b
y
t
h
e
ir
p
ee
rs
w
er
e
hap
p
y
a
nd
se
l
f
-
c
onfi
d
en
t
;
one
-th
i
r
d
of
t
he
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
incr
eas
e
d
the
ir
le
v
e
l
o
f
sel
f
-
con
f
ide
n
c
e
a
n
d
it
w
as
a
fru
it
f
ul
c
la
ssr
o
o
m
a
ctivi
t
y.
L
ike
w
i
s
e
,
i
n
s
t
u
die
s
co
n
duc
te
d
by
[5],
[
7]
and
[
11],
prese
r
vice
tea
c
h
er
s
sta
t
e
d
t
ha
t
pee
r
a
ssessm
ent
ra
ised
t
heir
a
w
are
n
e
ss
of
t
he
i
r
s
tre
n
gths
and
w
e
a
knes
s
e
s
;
an
d
con
tri
b
u
te
d
t
o
the
ir
k
n
o
w
le
d
g
e
a
nd
sk
i
l
l
s
w
ith
r
e
s
pec
t
to
the
t
e
ach
ing
p
r
o
f
ession
i
n
t
e
rms
o
f
u
nd
erst
a
ndi
ng
them
se
lves
a
nd
ea
ch o
ther
. It w
a
s als
o
c
o
n
c
l
ude
d t
h
at
th
is m
eth
o
d
ga
i
ne
d
t
h
em
c
ritic
a
l
, cre
ative
a
nd re
flec
t
i
ve
sk
i
l
ls
;
i
n
cr
ease
d
i
n
ter
act
i
o
n
an
d
c
o
ope
r
ati
o
n
;
im
prov
ed
b
ei
n
g
o
p
en
to
cri
ti
ci
sm
s;
an
d
ga
in
e
d
assessm
ent s
k
ills.
A
c
cordi
n
g to [25],
the pee
r
a
sse
ssme
n
t me
t
hod is
n
o
t
o
nl
y a
pro
ce
du
re
i
nv
ol
v
i
ng
g
iv
ing
sco
r
e
s
bu
t
i
t
is
a
lso
a
lea
r
ning
p
r
o
cess
w
h
e
r
e
som
e
s
ki
lls
a
re
g
a
i
ne
d.
A
c
cord
in
g
t
o
the
f
in
d
i
n
gs
o
f
th
e
s
tu
dy,
the
s
tude
nts
st
a
t
ed
t
ha
t
i
n
a
dd
i
t
i
o
n
t
o
i
ts
c
on
t
r
ib
ut
i
on
t
o
l
e
arni
ng,
p
e
er
a
ssessm
ent
ma
de
one
r
ea
lly
f
e
el
li
ke
a
t
ea
c
h
e
r
,
and
c
o
nt
ribu
t
e
d
t
o
m
a
k
in
g
f
a
i
r
a
sse
ssmen
t
s
a
n
d
d
e
v
el
op
i
ng
a
sen
s
e
o
f
r
esp
ons
i
b
il
it
y.
E
spec
ia
ll
y
in
t
e
ache
r
t
r
a
i
n
i
ng
i
nsti
t
ut
i
on
s
,
s
o
m
e
p
r
o
f
es
sion
a
l
t
e
a
c
h
i
ng
s
ki
ll
s
n
e
e
d
t
o
be
i
m
p
ro
ve
d
as
w
e
l
l
as
l
ear
n
i
ng
o
f
sc
h
o
o
l
subj
ects.
T
heref
o
re,
it
i
s
thou
g
h
t
t
hat
w
h
e
n
t
he
p
ee
r
ass
e
ssme
n
t
me
t
hod
i
s
ap
pli
e
d
i
n
c
l
a
ssroo
m
p
r
a
ct
i
ces,
some
p
r
o
fess
i
o
nal
t
e
ac
h
i
ng
s
k
ills
ca
n
b
e
gai
n
ed
s
uch
as
u
s
i
ng
m
et
hod
s
rel
a
t
e
d
to
t
e
s
ti
ng
and
e
v
al
u
a
ti
on
,
a
nd
tak
i
ng re
sp
on
si
bi
lit
y [4]
.
O
n
t
h
e
o
t
h
e
r
h
a
n
d
,
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
r
e
s
u
l
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
y
i
s
t
h
a
t
a
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
ab
le
n
u
m
ber
of
s
t
u
de
nt
s
e
xpresse
d
view
s
a
b
ou
t
th
e
gr
ades
g
ive
n
by
the
i
r
pe
ers
rather
t
ha
n
th
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
io
n
o
f
t
h
i
s
met
hod
t
o
l
e
a
r
ni
n
g
.
I
t
wa
s
seen
am
o
ng
t
h
e
r
e
s
ear
ch
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
t
h
at
s
ome
st
ude
n
t
s
s
t
a
t
e
d
t
ha
t
p
e
e
r
s
d
i
d
n
o
t
m
a
k
e
f
a
i
r
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
;
t
h
e
y
pri
o
rit
i
z
e
d
p
e
r
son
al
pr
oble
m
s
or
friend
s
h
i
ps
;
pe
ers
ac
t
e
d
t
o
ler
a
n
t
l
y
t
ow
a
r
ds
o
ne
ano
t
h
er;
an
d
ma
ki
n
g
assessm
ent
s
d
id
n
ot
m
a
k
e
a
n
y
co
ntr
i
b
u
ti
o
n
t
o
lea
r
n
i
ng.
T
h
i
s
sit
ua
ti
on
c
a
n
b
e
in
te
rprete
d
to
m
e
an
t
h
at
s
om
e
stude
n
t
s
d
i
d
n
o
t
co
n
ce
nt
r
a
te
o
n
le
ar
ni
n
g
i
n
the
assessme
n
t
-
base
d
teac
h
i
n
g
m
etho
d
;
i
n
ste
ad,
the
y
c
once
n
tra
ted
on
t
he
g
rade
s
gi
ve
n.
T
he
ref
o
re,
i
t
n
ee
d
s
t
o
be
s
pec
i
f
i
c
a
lly
e
mp
ha
siz
ed
th
a
t
th
e
e
sse
n
t
ia
l
o
bjec
ti
ve
o
f
t
h
e
pe
er
assessm
ent m
e
th
o
d
e
mplo
ye
d
in
c
lassro
o
m
pra
c
tices
i
s
to
c
on
tri
b
ute t
o
le
a
r
ni
ng.
5.
CONCL
U
S
ION A
ND S
U
G
GESTIONS
It
c
an
b
e
sa
id
b
ased
o
n
th
e
op
ini
on
s
of
t
h
e
p
r
ese
r
v
i
c
e
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
t
ha
t
i
n
t
h
i
s
c
o
urse,
w
h
ic
h
w
a
s
gro
u
n
d
e
d
o
n
asse
ssm
ent-
b
a
s
e
d
l
ear
ni
n
g
a
ppr
oach,
lear
n
ers
a
re
a
c
tive
and
a
t
t
he
c
ente
r
o
f
t
he
c
l
a
sses,
classro
o
m
prac
t
i
c
e
s
are
b
a
s
ed
o
n
l
e
arn
i
n
g
b
y
doi
ng
a
nd
lea
r
ni
ng
t
h
r
ou
gh
ex
per
i
e
n
ce
,
and
t
h
e
l
ear
nin
g
expe
r
ience
ta
k
e
s
p
lac
e
o
n
th
e
ba
sis
o
f
ex
p
lor
in
g,
que
st
i
oni
n
g
,
c
r
itic
i
z
in
g,
d
isc
u
ss
i
ng,
m
a
k
ing
c
o
mpa
r
i
s
o
n
s
and
dra
w
i
n
g
c
onc
lus
io
n
s.
I
n
add
i
ti
on,
g
ive
n
t
he
p
e
er
a
n
d
ins
tru
ctor
a
ssessm
ent
scores,
i
t
c
an
b
e
said
t
hat
prese
r
vice
teac
hers
w
ere a
b
l
e
to
be
ha
ve
i
n
a
sim
i
l
a
r w
ay to the
ins
t
r
uctor in ass
essment
.
I
t
s
ee
ms
n
at
ura
l
t
hat
the
r
e
s
h
o
u
ld
b
e
a
s
i
gn
ifi
cant
differ
enc
e
be
tween
p
ee
r
and
instruc
tor
a
sse
s
sm
ent
score
s
acc
ordi
ng
t
o
t
h
e
r
esu
l
t
s
of
t
he
s
t
u
d
y
b
ec
au
se
m
ak
in
g
ass
e
s
sme
n
t
s
i
s
a
hi
gh
er
o
rde
r
s
k
i
ll
.
It
i
s
t
ho
ugh
t
tha
t
i
t
w
ill
be
h
ard,
i
n
t
h
e
a
cqu
isi
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
he
a
ssessme
n
t-
base
d
le
arn
i
n
g
s
ki
ll,
t
o
a
t
ta
in
t
o
desire
d
r
esu
lts
espec
ial
ly
f
or
s
t
ude
n
ts
w
i
th
ina
de
qua
te
r
ea
di
ne
ss
le
v
els
w
i
t
h
j
us
t
a
fe
w
classroom
p
r
act
ice
s
.
It
m
ay
b
e
sug
g
es
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
s
o
far
a
s
it
is
p
ossib
l
e,
t
e
ac
h
i
ng-
le
arni
n
g
ac
t
i
vit
i
e
s
b
e
so
s
tru
ctu
re
d
as
t
o
a
l
lo
w
su
ch
p
rac
t
i
c
es
in o
t
h
er
c
ourse
s,
too.
I
t
i
s
n
o
t
e
w
ort
h
y
t
h
a
t
s
om
e
pre
s
ervice
t
e
ac
h
e
r
s
st
a
t
ed
t
ha
t
the
i
r
peer
s
ga
v
e
l
ow
s
c
o
res
p
u
rp
osel
y
d
u
e
to
c
e
r
ta
in
p
e
r
s
ona
l
pro
b
l
e
m
s
a
lt
h
o
u
g
h
p
ee
r
a
ssessme
n
t
me
an
s
c
o
r
es
w
ere
h
i
g
h
er
t
ha
n
in
st
r
u
c
t
or
a
sse
ssm
ent
score
s
a
ccor
d
ing
to
the
r
e
s
ea
r
ch
fi
nd
ing
s
.
At
thi
s
p
o
in
t,
it
c
a
n
be
s
u
g
g
es
te
d
tha
t
it
ne
ed
s
to
b
e
i
n
t
e
r
n
al
iz
e
d
b
y
lear
ners
t
ha
t
t
h
e
pee
r
assessme
n
t
m
et
h
od
is
i
m
p
lem
en
t
ed
t
o
ensu
re
p
e
r
m
anen
t
l
ear
nin
g
r
athe
r
t
h
a
n
j
us
t
gi
v
i
n
g
grade
s
an
d
t
ha
t
a
classroom
a
t
m
osp
h
ere
sho
u
l
d be
b
a
s
ed
o
n dem
o
c
r
at
i
c
r
elati
ons
hi
ps fou
n
d
e
d
o
n c
o
nfide
n
ce.
Tod
a
y
,
i
n
oppo
si
tio
n
t
o
t
h
e
t
ra
d
i
t
i
on
a
l
t
e
a
c
h
i
ng
,
t
h
e
i
m
port
a
n
c
e
o
f
m
et
ho
d
s
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
o
n
l
e
a
r
ni
ng
by
do
ing
a
n
d
lear
n
i
n
g
thr
o
ugh
e
xpe
r
ience
,
w
h
ic
h
a
r
e
cons
truc
ti
v
ist
classr
oo
m
pr
actice
s
,
ha
ve
f
urt
h
er
i
ncr
ease
d
in
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
IJERE
IS
S
N
:
2252-
88
22
A M
i
x
e
d
Met
h
od Re
se
arc
h
o
n
Peer
Asse
ssm
e
n
t(G
o
k
h
a
n
Izga
r)
12
5
impor
ta
nce.
I
n
this
c
on
te
x
t
,
r
esea
r
che
r
s
maybe
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
nded
t
o
c
o
n
duc
t
stu
d
i
es
aim
e
d
at
e
lim
i
n
a
tin
g
t
h
e
l
i
mit
ati
on
s e
xpe
ri
en
ced
i
n
t
h
e i
m
p
l
eme
n
t
a
ti
on
o
f
th
e
p
e
er as
s
es
sm
ent
me
t
h
od.
REFE
RENCES
[1]
To
pp
ing,
K
.
J
.
(
20
09
).
P
eer
as
s
e
s
s
m
en
t
.
Theory I
n
to
Practice
,
48
(1
),
2
0-27
.
[2]
Fa
lc
hik
o
v
,
N
.
,
&
G
old
f
inc
h
,
J.
(
20
00
).
S
tu
de
n
t
p
e
e
r
a
sse
ssme
n
t
i
n
h
ig
her
ed
ucati
on:
A
m
eta-an
aly
s
is
c
o
m
paring
peer an
d
t
eacher
m
arks
.
R
eview of
E
d
u
c
ati
o
n
a
l Re
s
e
ar
ch
,
70
(3),
2
87-322.
[3]
v
a
nGen
nip,
N
.
A.,
Seg
e
rs,
M.
S
.,
&
T
i
llema,
H.
H
.
(2
01
0
)
.
Peer
a
s
s
es
sm
en
t
as
a
c
o
l
l
a
bo
rativ
e
l
earnin
g
acti
v
it
y:
T
he
r
o
le
o
f
in
te
r
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
v
a
r
i
a
b
le
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
c
e
p
ti
on
s.
Lear
ni
ng
an
d
In
stru
ctio
n
,
20
(4)
, 280-290.
[4]
M
i
nistry
o
f
Na
ti
on
a
l
E
ducat
ion
(M
oN
E).
(2
0
0
6).
T
e
mel
eğiti
me
d
e
st
ek
p
ro
jes
i
:
Öğretm
enlik
m
e
s
l
eği
gen
e
l
yet
erlikleri
.
Re
t
r
ieved
J
a
n
u
ary
25
,
2
0
1
8
,
f
r
o
m
h
tt
p
:
//oyg
m
.
m
eb.
gov.tr/
www/ogretm
e
n
l
i
k-
m
e
slegi-genel-
yet
e
rlikleri/i
ceri
k
/
39
[5]
Ko
ç,
C
.
(201
1).
S
ı
n
ı
f
ö
ğ
retmen
i
adayl
a
rın
ı
n
öğ
retm
enlik
u
y
g
u
l
a
m
ası
n
da
a
kran
d
eğerlendir
meye
ilişk
i
n
görüş
l
e
r
i
.
Kur
a
m
ve Uygulamada E
ğ
i
t
i
m
B
ilimleri Dergi
s
i
,
11
(4
),
1
96
5-19
8
9
.
[6]
Bay,
E
.
(20
1
1
)
.
Ö
ğ
retm
en
a
dayları
n
ı
n
a
k
r
an
d
eğ
erl
e
nd
irm
e
ye
i
l
i
ş
kin
g
ö
rü
şl
eri.
Gazian
t
e
p Ü
n
i
vers
i
t
e
s
i
Sosy
al
Bil
i
m
ler Derg
i
s
i
,
10
(2),
909-925
.
[7]
Biri,
H.
(
20
14
).
Akra
n de
ğ
erl
e
ndi
rm
e yö
nt
em
in
in
ö
ğ
re
tme
n
e
ğ
i
t
imine katk
ı
s
ı
.
Ya
yı
nl
an
m
a
mış
Y
ü
k
s
ek
L
is
ans
T
e
z
i
.
Trab
zon:
Karad
eni
z
Tek
n
i
k
Üniversi
tesi.
[8]
Bozk
urt,
E
.,
&
D
em
ir,
R.
(
2
012).
P
eer
as
s
es
sm
ent
thro
ug
h
stud
en
ts
o
p
i
ni
ons:
A
case
st
ud
y
.
Il
kogr
etim Online
,
11
(4), 966-978.
[9]
D
o
c
h
y
,
F
.
J
.
R
.
C
.
,
S
e
g
e
r
s
,
M
.
,
&
S
l
u
i
j
s
m
a
n
s
,
D
.
(
1
9
9
9
)
.
T
h
e
u
s
e
of
s
elf
-
,
peer
a
n
d
co-
a
s
s
ess
m
ent
in
h
ig
her
edu
catio
n:
A
r
ev
iew
.
Stud
ie
s in
High
e
r
Ed
uc
a
tio
n
,
2
4
(3),
331-35
0.
[10]
Ham
zaday
ı,
E
.
(20
1
5
)
.
Yab
a
n
c
ıl
ara
Türk
çe
öğret
im
i
nde
C
1
dü
z
e
y
i
n
d
e
y
a
z
ıl
ı
a
k
r
a
n
ge
r
i
b
ildirimler
i
ne
i
l
i
şkin
gö
rün
üm
l
er.
Z
eitschr
if
t
f
ür
d
i
e
Wel
t
d
er
Türken
/Jo
urn
al of
W
o
r
l
d of T
urks
,
7
(2),
287-298.
[11]
Öz
a
n
,
S.
(
20
08
).
Öz
ve a
k
r
an de
ğ
erlendirmenin t
e
mel
ileti
ş
im becer
il
eri
üz
er
ind
eki etkileri
.
Yay
ınlanma
mış
Dokt
ora
T
e
zi
. İz
m
i
r
:
Dokuz Eylül Ün
i
v
ersit
e
si
.
[12]
Gel
b
al,
S.,
&
K
e
lecio
ğ
l
u
,
H.
(
20
0
7
).
Ö
ğ
r
etm
e
nlerin
ö
lçm
e
v
e
d
e
ğ
e
r
len
d
i
r
m
e
y
ö
n
te
m
l
eri
hakk
ın
dak
i
y
eterl
i
k
algıl
a
rı
ve karşı
laşt
ıkları sorunlar
.
H
a
cettep
e
Ün
ivers
i
t
e
si
E
ğ
i
tim Fakül
t
es
i Dergisi
,
33
,
1
35-145
.
[13]
Kw
an,
K.
P
.
,
&
L
eun
g,
R
.
W.
(
199
6).
Tuto
r
versu
s
p
eer
g
roup
ass
e
s
sm
ent
o
f
s
tudent
p
erf
o
rm
ance
i
n
a
sim
u
lation
trai
n
i
ng
exercis
e
.
A
ssessment &
Evalua
ti
on
in
Hi
gh
e
r
Ed
uc
a
tion
,
21
(3), 20
5
-
21
4.
[14]
Ors
m
o
nd,
P
.
,
Merry
,
S
.
,
&
Rei
l
ing,
K
.
(1
99
6).
The
im
p
o
rt
ance
o
f
m
ark
i
ng
crit
eria
i
n
t
h
e
u
s
e
o
f
peer
a
s
s
es
sm
ent
.
As
sessment &
E
v
al
uati
on in Hi
g
h
er
E
d
uc
ati
o
n
,
21
(3),
239-250.
[15]
Özd
e
mi
r,
O
.,
&
E
rd
em
,
D.
(
2017
).
T
he
e
ff
ect
o
f
f
r
ien
d
s
h
i
p
s
to
p
eer
a
ssessme
n
t
of
p
resent
at
ion
skills.
Tu
rk
i
s
h
J
o
urna
l o
f
Edu
c
a
t
ion
a
l
Stud
ie
s
,
4
(1) 21-40.
[16]
Taşdemı
̇
r,
M
.
(20
1
4
)
.
K
e
ndin
i
d
e
ğ
erl
endi
rm
e,
akran
d
eğ
erl
end
irm
e
v
e
ö
ğ
r
et
men
değerlendirmenin
y
azılı
sınav
sonuçlarına
etki
si
v
e
başar
ı
y
or
dayıcılığı.
T
u
rk
ish
St
ud
ies-Interna
t
i
onal P
e
ri
od
ical
for T
h
e
L
angu
ages
,
Litera
ture
an
d H
i
sto
r
y of
Tu
rki
s
h
o
r
T
u
r
kic
,
9
(5),
191
1-1
9
2
9
.
[17]
Uysal, K
.
(2008)
.
Ö
ğ
ren
cil
er
i
n
ölçm
e
de
ğ
erlen
d
i
r
m
e
sü
recin
e
kat
ı
lm
as
ı
: Akr
an
de
ğ
erlen
di
r
m
e ve öz
d
e
ğ
erl
end
ir
me
.
Yay
ı
nl
anm
a
m
ı
ş Y
ü
k
s
ek
L
is
ans Tezi
. Bolu: Ab
a
nt İzzet Bay
sal
Üniv
ers
i
t
e
s
i
.
[18]
Yal
man
cı,
S.
G
.
(2
01
6).
Mikro
öğret
im
u
yg
u
l
am
al
arı
n
d
a
a
kran
d
eğe
rl
endi
rmeleri
n
i
et
k
i
le
yen
nitelikler
i
n
bel
i
rl
enm
e
si.
Ka
stamon
u
E
ğ
it
im Derg
i
s
i
,
24
(4
),
200
5-2
020
.
[19]
Jo
hn
son
,
R
.
B.,
&
O
n
wu
egb
u
zi
e,
A
.
J.
(
20
04
).
M
ixed
met
ho
d
s
r
es
e
arch
:
A
research
p
ar
adig
m
w
h
o
s
e
tim
e
h
as
com
e
.
E
d
u
ca
t
ional
Res
ear
cher
,
33
(7),
14-26.
[20]
Ted
d
lie,
C.
,
&
Yu,
F
.
(
200
7).
M
i
x
ed
met
h
o
d
s
sam
p
li
ng:
A
t
ypolo
g
y
wi
th
e
xa
mp
le
s.
Jour
na
l of
Mi
xed
M
eth
o
d
s
Research
,
1
(1),
77-100.
[21]
An
drade,
H
.
G.
(
2
0
0
0
).
U
si
ng
rubrics
to
p
rom
o
t
e
t
h
i
n
k
in
g
and
le
arni
ng
.
E
ducati
onal
L
e
ad
e
r
sh
ip
,
57
(5),
13-19
[22]
Hu
ck,
S
.
W.
(
2012).
Rea
d
in
g statistics an
d r
e
search
(
6th ed
.). Bosto
n
,
MA: P
earson
.
[23]
Yıldır
ım,
A.,
&
Şi
mşek,
H.
(2006
).
So
sy
a
l
bi
lim
le
rde
ni
te
l
a
r
a
ş
ti
rma
yönt
eml
eri
(
6.
B
as
kı
).
A
nk
a
r
a:
S
eçki
n
Y
ayın
c
ılık
.
[24]
Mi
l
e
s,
M
.
B.
,
H
u
b
erm
a
n,
A
.
M
.
(1
994
).
Qua
l
itati
ve d
a
ta
a
n
a
l
ysis:
An
exp
an
ded
so
ur
ceboo
k
(2n
d
E
di
tion
)
.
Calif:
SAGE
P
ub
l
i
c
a
tio
ns.
[25]
Som
e
rvell,
H
.
(
1
993).
Is
sues
i
n
ass
e
ss
m
e
nt
,
ent
e
rpris
e
a
nd
h
igh
er
e
d
u
c
a
ti
on
:
t
h
e
c
a
s
e
f
or
s
el
f
-
,
peer-
an
d
col
l
abo
r
ati
v
e l
earni
ng.
As
ses
s
men
t
and Evalu
a
tion i
n
Hig
h
er
Ed
u
c
at
io
n
,
18
, 2
21
-
2
3
3
.
B
I
OGRAPHIES
OF AUTHO
RS
G
o
khanIz
g
a
r
i
s
c
urren
tly
s
erve
s
as
a
n
ass
i
st
ant
p
r
of
ess
o
r
at
a
s
t
a
te
u
n
i
versi
t
y
in
Turkey.
He
co
mp
let
e
d
h
i
s
d
o
ct
oral
d
i
s
s
e
rtat
ion
i
n
t
h
e
f
iel
d
o
f
c
u
rricu
l
um
and
i
n
structio
n
in
2
0
13.
H
is
res
earch
in
t
eres
ts
in
c
lu
de v
a
l
ues edu
cati
o
n
, curri
c
u
l
u
m d
e
velo
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
i
nstructional
m
e
th
ods.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
S
N
:225
2-
8
8
22
I
J
ERE
V
ol.
7,
N
o.
2
,
June2
0
18
:
1
1
8
–
1
2
6
12
6
AhmetOguzA
k
t
ur
k
i
s
c
h
a
i
r
a
n
d
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
o
r
i
n
t
h
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
Edu
cati
o
n
and
In
st
ru
cti
o
n
a
l
Tech
nol
og
y
a
t
N
ecm
etti
n
Erb
a
kan
Un
iv
ersi
ty
(
T
urkey
)
.
His
research
a
nd
teachi
n
g
f
o
cu
s on
appro
p
ri
ate u
s
es
of i
n
stru
ctio
n
a
l
tech
no
lo
g
i
e
s
a
n
d l
earn
i
n
g
stra
t
egi
e
s.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.