39
Ha : sig.2 tailed < 0.05 (there is a significant correlation between self- assessment and lecturer-assessment)
Ho : sig. 2 tailed > 0.05 (there is no significant correlation between self- assessment and lecturer-assessment)
The result of the computation showed that the coefficient of correlation between Peer-Assessment (Y) and Lecturer-Assessment (Z) was 0.817. Then the significant was 0.001 less than 0.05 (sig. 2 tailed 0.001 < 0.05), it can be concluded that there is correlation between self-assessment and lecturer-assessment.
The interpretation about the rate of the correlation coefficient was formed by certain rule, were as follows:
Table 4.7
The Indexes of Correlation Coefficient
No Coefficient Interval Level of Correlation
1 0.800-1.000 High Correlation
2 0.600-0.800 Sufficient Correlation
3 0.400-0.600 Fair Correlation
4 0.200-0.400 Low Correlation
5 0.000-0.200 Very Low Correlation
Based on the computation, it was known that the value of rxy=0.817. It will be categorized by using coefficient correlation criteria above. It is know that 0.817 was classified interval 0.800-1.000 on the high correlation.
40
The description of the data collected through test as explained in the previous section shows that self-assessment, peer-assessment, and lecturer-assessment at the fifth semester English pre-service teacher in Public Speaking Class of English Education Department at UIN Jakarta in academic year 2022/2023 was correlated.
This research also determines that self/teacher and peer/teacher reliability estimates are erroneous with respect to self, peer, and lecturer self-assessment behavior. Research determines that there is no major difference between the scores, it could be argued that small differences arise from the tendency of the first peer to make the score more severe or lenient compared to the other. In decision studies, reliability is observed to increase when the number of judgments is not only from lecturers but also oneself and colleagues.
This research focuses on finding out correlation between three variables, self- assessment as variable X, peer-assessment as variable Y, and lecturer-assessment as variable Z. There were a research questions formulated and divided into three sud- questions: (1) The statically significance correlation among self-, peer-, and lecturer- assessment; (1a) The statically significance correlation between self- and peer- assessment, (1b) The statically significance correlation between self- and lecturer- assessment, (1c) The statically significance correlation between peer- and lecturer- assessment.
The fifth semester English pre-service teacher Public Speaking Class of the English Education Department at UIN Jakarta showed a strong association between self-assessment and peer-assessment. Based on the data, the calculation's outcome revealed that rxy=0.855 was the final result's mean score for the correlation between self- and peer-assessment. According to the table of criteria, it can be inferred from the index correlation table that the level of this correlation is 0.800–1.000, and the r
41
Product Moment was in the high correlation. Thus, it can be said that self- and peer- assessment are significantly related to one another.
Refer to Ratminingsih (2017), "Incorporating Self and Peer Assessment in Reflective Teaching Practices," this article explains ways to motivate students to take ownership of their education. Therefore, studies on the effects of self- and peer- assessments on learning were conducted. According to the current study's findings, self- and peer-assessment was viewed favorably by participants. They learned from the public speaking that they might get a profound understanding of their own performance, including both strengths and faults, by regularly performing self- assessments.
Since it enables students to work cooperatively to learn from feedback supplied by peers on how to construct a better lesson plan and deliver a more effective teaching, self- and peer-assessment is regarded to be helpful for preparing the real teaching practicum and future career development. However, according to Joo (2016) there were several issues that they struggled with, such as feeling subjective when evaluating themselves and their peers, feeling embarrassed and less confident, and having limited time in the classroom to conduct assessments and reflections. The current study's findings demonstrate a strong link between the two forms of evaluation, indicating that students of English Education Department will find great value in both.
Self- and peer-evaluation are becoming more and more crucial components of student-centered assessment systems in higher education (Wanner & Palmer, 2018).
Both types of assessment are still uncommon at universities despite mounting evidence that they are effective in helping students develop key abilities like greater ownership of their learning, a better understanding of the subject matter, assessment criteria, and their own values and judgments, as well as the ability to critically reflect.
42
The fifth semester English pre-service teacher's self-evaluation and lecturer's assessment in the Public Speaking Class of the English Education Department at UIN Jakarta had a strong association. Based on the data, calculations revealed that rxy=0.833 was the final mean score of the correlation between self- and peer- assessment. According to the table of criteria, it can be inferred from the index correlation table that the level of this correlation is 0.800–1.000, and the r Product Moment was in the high correlation. Therefore, it may be said that self-assessment and lecturer-assessment have a substantial link.
The development of higher order thinking abilities, the consolidation of subject information, and personalized feedback for each participant are all advantages of peer-assessment (Staubitz et al., 2016). Thus, learning effects can be considered as more than just positive consequences of the process; they may even be used to emphasize learning. Student achievement is measured, a student's understanding is deepened, and a program's effectiveness is evaluated through educational assessment.
Peer-assessment is a very versatile type of educational evaluation that can be used for summative or formative assessment, or even both at once by combining different elements. It is common practice to have students evaluate one another's work and provide written feedback as part of formative peer assessment. Since grades should be fair, uniform, and similar for all students, summative peer assessment of other students' work is a more difficult task that needs careful instruction from a teacher (Tighe-Mooney et al., 2016).
Although the statistical correlation is the main emphasis of this study, it may also explain the significance of peer evaluation and its impact on student learning. It would also want to provide some observations on how peer assessment affects teaching practice. Peer evaluation seems to provide a number of benefits over more
43
conventional types of assessment, as described earlier in this article. Teaching staff in higher education institutions are obliged to manage large class numbers and various student demands (Tighe-Mooney et al., 2016).
Refer to Sluijsmans (2002), the peer evaluation exercise has many advantages, not the least of which is an increase in the volume and immediateness of formative input given. Reduced formative input produced only by facilitators and a less passive assessment experience for students are two benefits of moving toward greater student involvement in the assessment process. Peer assessment enables students to develop their writing and critical-thinking skills in the present rather than having to wait for the facilitator to provide a summative grade and feedback at the end of each module.
In other words, students can immediately apply what they have learned from formative feedback to their work (across all modules).
This study indicates that facilitators shouldn't think on peer assessment as a quick fix or a simple option. Even though each student received a significant amount of input as a result of the exercise, there is still more work to be done to ensure that the process is productive and enjoyable for all involved. Additionally, third-level students have a variety of needs, and higher education institutions have a responsibility to look out for their pupils. When conducting peer assessments, facilitators need to be aware of the vast range of potential problems, such as taking into account students with learning disabilities who can feel vulnerable about sharing their work with other students.
As a result, it is the facilitator's duty to ensure that students are motivated to actively participate in the feedback process by assessing the feedback's quality and determining whether the comments and recommendations made are adequately supported. We discovered that students benefited from a comprehensive introduction to the peer assessment activity that included an open discussion on the purpose of
44
assessment in general, specific grading criteria, and intended learning outcomes, as well as crucial concepts like "objectivity" and "constructive criticism."
At the fifth semester English pre-service teacher Public Speaking Class of the English Education Department at UIN Jakarta, there was a strong association between peer assessment and lecturer assessment. Based on the research, the calculation's outcome revealed that the mean correlation score between peer and lecturer evaluations was rxy=0.817. According to the table of criteria, it can be inferred from the index correlation table that the level of this correlation is 0.800–1.000, and the r Product Moment was in the high correlation. Therefore, it may be said that peer assessment and lecturer assessment have a big relationship.
As facilitators, the activity encourages the development of crucial abilities including analysis and evaluation, making conclusions, and offering proof and backing for those decisions (Coblentz, 2001). The students were better able to give and receive active feedback, reflect on the process and their contributions to it, and communicate verbally and in writing. Additionally, given the current student population or when facilitators are solely responsible for evaluating student work, the exercise allowed students to receive thorough and timely formative assessments of their work, which is not always possible. The students appeared to take more ownership of their own learning because they played an active rather than a passive role throughout the exercise.
The success of the activity depends on the facilitator's job. It is the responsibility of facilitators to be mindful that students could feel uncomfortable discussing their ideas and opinions in a group setting. It's crucial to create a welcoming, judgment- free workplace. It can be difficult to handle peer and group communication, potential learning weaknesses, cultural diversity, and other factors. Our combined wealth of
45
teaching expertise, as well as our informal discussion of concerns that came up, were quite helpful in this situation.
A previous related study that is relevant to and supports the findings from this research is assumed, as well as studies that contradict the findings, of all the conclusions that have been drawn from this research. The first is previous research from Kilic (2016) noted that to determine the degree of agreement between pre- service teachers' self-, peer-, and teacher assessments of presentation performances.
When compared to self- and teacher-assessments, the peer evaluation outcome differed significantly. Meanwhile, teacher-assessment is correlated with self- assessment. Accordingly, based on the findings of this study, we concur with this research because there is a significant correlation between peer-assessment and lecturer-assessment. When examining the correlation between peer-assessment and lecturer-assessment, this study's findings are, nevertheless, different. Peer-assessment and lecturer-assessment differed significantly in earlier study. However, the results of the current study show a strong correlation.
The second related previous study was carried out by Iglesias (2022) that using Moodle workshop. This study is concerned about comparing lecturer-assessment, self-assessment, and peer-assessment. The finding of this study is the level of agreement between self and lecturer-assessment is balance and also significance of gender effect. The finding for lecturer-assessment compared with peer-assessment conclude that there is no significance differences between that three kind of assessment. The outcomes of the current study and those of this earlier investigation are strikingly comparable. The prior study covered self-, peer-, and lecturer- assessment as well, and there was a strong link between the three studies.
In the context of oral presentation and public speaking, Langan et al. (2008) executed a study about relationships between student characteristics and self-, peer
46
and tutor-evaluations of oral presentation. The result was significance correlation among self-, peer-, and tutor-assessment. However, the differences within this current study is the previous study discussed about relationship between student characteristic while current research not.
Another research was accomplished by Nalbantoğlu Yılmaz (2017). From the analysis carried out in line with these objectives, the scores related to the material for prospective teachers were determined not to change when comparing the assessments of candidates, peers, or teachers; the scores did not show much difference. This research also has similarities with the current research.
In conclusion, linked prior studies typically offer conclusions that are similar to those of recent investigations. Findings from earlier studies revealed a strong association between results assessed for self-assessment, peer-assessment, and lecturer-assessment. Even if there are still some discrepancies in the results, such as how peer-assessment results differ from lecturer-assessment results, there are other parallels as well.
In that study, the self-rating conditions were also extracted, the reliability coefficient is also calculated for other conditions from related aspects (peers and teachers). As a result of these calculations, the differences between the reliability coefficients were set to be normal both when extracting self-, peer-, and lecturer- assessments from the study and when that three assessments were included.
47