The findings of this study have important educational implications for aspiring English teachers. It is essential due to the significance of using a solid assessment as a standard for evaluating students. According to earlier study, it is crucial for education students to have a better understanding of how to assess people as teacher candidates in order to optimize teaching and learning. The implications of these three assessments are proven to be worthy of being brought to class to be used as material for lecturers to consider when assessing their students so that they can also know themselves and friends judge their friends' fairness based on their own assessments. The research results show that the correlation between self-, peer-, and lecturer-assessment is very high.
This study has useful ramifications for classroom instruction in addition to the theoretical implications covered in the aforementioned sections. Finding practical strategies to assist students in forming fruitful self-assessment habits might be difficult. Since most students don't learn to evaluate themselves on their own, someone must instruct and mentor them in doing so. Public speaking is a skill that students can use to their benefit in the future. Of course, knowing their own strengths and flaws will be simpler for them now that they are able to evaluate themselves.
The benefits of self-assessment would point to their integration into classroom practice as a long-term strategy for integrating assessment and learning if other studies confirm the findings of this one. Future research can examine whether
49
facilitating students' self-evaluation using external feedback, rubrics, or scripts improves their learning results in comparison to just public speaking.
5.3 Recommendation
The recommendation is provided to the future researchers and TEFL practitioners. For future researcher, this study is advised for ongoing, similar research on student evaluation by peers, lecturers, and self. The statistical association of the three assessments—self, peer, and lecturer assessment—is the main emphasis of this study. However, the viewpoints of the students as to their skills or experience as determined by a prior assessment were not fully discussed in this study. It will offer broader and more significant insight if we understand more about how they view assessment.
It has been demonstrated that using self-, peer-, and lecturer assessments can produce assessments that are comprehensive and complex. In order to make the evaluation feel more fair, lecturers will be familiar with the assessment side from the perspective of the student. Of course, using these three tests will benefit students as students of English Education Department in a variety of ways.
50 REFERENCES
Adachi, C., Tai, J., & Dawson, P. (2018). A framework for designing, implementing, communicating and researching peer assessment. Higher Education Research and Development, 37(3), 453–467.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1405913
Allen, M., Titsworth, S., & Hunt, S. (2013). Introduction to quantitative research.
Quantitative Research in Communication, 45(1), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452274881.n1
Andrade, H., & Brookhart, S. M. (2016). The role of classroom sssessment in
supporting self-regulated learning. 5(1)293–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 319-39211-0_17
Andrade, H. L. (2019). A critical review of research on student self-assessment.
Frontiers in Education, 4(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00087
Angraini, Y. (2016). Rules of three analysis in persuasive public speaking
presentation. Jurnal Ilmiah Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, 7(1), 3.
https://doi.org/10.33373/anglo.v7i1.542
Ashenafi, M. M. (2015). Assessment & evaluation in higher education peer-
assessment in higher education – twenty-first century practices , challenges and the way forward, 293(8), 23-34.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1100711
Bacquet, J. N. (2020). Implications of summative and formative assessment in Japan – A review of the current literature. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 8(2), 28-37. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.8n.2p.28
Brown, C. E., Back, A. L., Ford, D. W., Kross, E. K., Downey, L., Shannon, S. E., Curtis, J. R., & Engelberg, R. A. (2018). Self-assessment scores improve after
51
simulation-based alliative care communication skill workshops. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, 35(1), 45–51.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049909116681972
Brown, G. T. L., Andrade, H. L., & Chen, F. (2015). Accuracy in student self- assessment: Directions and cautions for research. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy and Practice, 22(4), 444–457.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.996523
Caires, S., Almeida, L., & Vieira, D. (2012). Becoming a teacher: Student teachers‘
experiences and perceptions about teaching practice. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 163–178.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.643395
Chen, L., Leong, C. W., Feng, G., Lee, C. M., & Somasundaran, S. (2015). Utilizing multimodal cues to automatically evaluate public speaking performance. 2015 International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, ACII 2015, 55(2)394–400. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACII.2015.7344601
Cheng, J., & Xiong, Y. (2017). The quality evaluation of classroom teaching based on FOA-GRNN. Procedia Computer Science, 107(5), 355–360.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.03.117
Chung, H. Q., Chen, V., & Olson, C. B. (2021). The impact of self-assessment, planning and goal setting, and reflection before and after revision on student self-efficacy and writing performance. Reading and Writing, 34(7), 1885–1913.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10186-x
Coblentz, C. (2001). Self-assessment test. Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal, 52(3), 140–141. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp/books/12324_16
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational reseach (Fourth Edi). University of nebraska-
52 Lincoln.
Cristina, A., Javier, F., Elena, M., Huertas-abril, C. A., Palacios-hidalgo, F. J., &
Gómez-parra, M. E. (2021). Peer assessment as a tool to enhance pre-service primary bilingual teachers ’ training peer assessment as a tool to enhance pre- service primary bilingual teachers ’. 24(2), 89-98.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.24.2.28788
Dandu G. Charyulu G.M. Kumari L. Latha M. Kesavakumar P. (2021). Teaching communicative activities of learning English language speaking and its challenges for the young aspirants: A schematic view. Turkish Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, 32(2), 840–845.
de Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2012). How effective are self- and peer assessment of oral presentation skills compared with teachers‘ assessments?
Active Learning in Higher Education, 13(2), 129–142.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412441284
Divjak, B., & Maretić, M. (2017). Learning analytics for peer-assessment:
(Dis)advantages, reliability and implementation. Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences, 41(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.31341/jios.41.1.2
Dixson, D. D., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Formative and summative assessment in the classroom. Theory into Practice, 55(2), 153–159.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1148989
Ekua, A. T., & Sekyi. (2016). Assessment, Student Learning and Classroom Practice:
A Review. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(21), 1–6.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1109385&
site=ehost-live
El Soufi, N., & See, B. H. (2019). Does explicit teaching of critical thinking improve
53
critical thinking skills of English language learners in higher education? A critical review of causal evidence. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 60(8), 140–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.12.006
Elmasri, R. (2017). Data definition. Encyclopedia of Database Systems, 13(2), 1–2.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7993-3_80736-1
Enisa; ATAY, M. (2017). English language teachers‘ assessment literacy: the Turkish context. Dil Dergisi, 168(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1501/dilder_0000000237 Fonteyne, E., Matthys, C., Bruneel, L., Becue, L., De Bruyn, H., & Van Lierde, K.
(2021). Articulation, oral function, and quality of life in patients treated with implant overdentures in the mandible: A prospective study. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 23(3), 388–399.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12989
Girardelli, D. (2017). Impromptu speech gamification for ESL/EFL students.
Communication Teacher, 31(3), 156–161.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2017.1314522
Gray, J. M. (2005). Interlocutor informative speech. Communication Teacher, 19(3), 84–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/14704620500201764
Hill, D. (2007). Critical teacher education, new labour, and the global project of neoliberal capital. Policy Futures in Education, 5(2), 204–225.
https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2007.5.2.204
Hirschman, K., & Wood, B. (2018). 21st Century learners: changing conceptions of knowledge, learning and the child. The New Zealand Annual Review of
Education, 23, 20. https://doi.org/10.26686/nzaroe.v23i0.5280
Huta, V. (2017). Meaning as a subjective experience. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 30(1), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2015.1119088
54
Iglesias Pérez, M. C., Vidal-Puga, J., & Pino Juste, M. R. (2022). The role of self and peer assessment in Higher Education. Studies in Higher Education, 47(3), 683–
692. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1783526
Imaniah, I. (2018). The studens‘ difficulties in presenting the academic speaking presentation. Globish: An English-Indonesian Journal for English, Education and Culture, 6(1), 44–51.
Inayah, A. T., & Anwer. (2017). Objectivity in subjectivity: Do students‘ self and peer assessments correlate with examiners‘ subjective and objective assessment in clinical skills? A prospective study. BMJ Open, 7(5), 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012289
Joo, S. H. (2016). Self- and peer-assessment of speaking. Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 68–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.7916/D8FN2D1S
Kamolson, S. (2007). Fundamentals of quantitative research. Language Institute, 67(5),20. http://www.culi.chula.ac.th/e-Journal/bod/Suphat
Sukamolson.pdf%5Cnhttp://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1463827.files/20 07_Sukamolson_Fundamentals of Quantitative Research.pdf
Kelsen, B. A. (2019). Exploring public speaking anxiety and personal disposition in EFL presentations. Learning and Individual Differences, 73(6), 92–101.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.05.003
Kilic, D. (2016). An examination of using self-, peer-, and teacher-assessment in higher education: a case study in teacher education. Higher Education Studies, 6(1), 136. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v6n1p136
Körner, R., Petersen, L. E., & Schütz, A. (2021). Do expansive or contractive body postures affect feelings of self-worth? High power poses impact state self- esteem. Current Psychology, 40(8), 4112–4124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-
55 019-00371-1
Kusumawardani, S. A., & Mardiyani, E. (2018). The correlation between english grammar competence and speaking fluency. PROJECT (Professional Journal of English Education), 1(6), 724. https://doi.org/10.22460/project.v1i6.p724-733
Langan, A. M., Shuker, D. M., Cullen, W. R., Penney, D., Preziosi, R. F., & Wheater, C. P. (2008). Relationships between student characteristics and self-, peer and tutor evaluations of oral presentations. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(2), 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701292498
Li, Yingxia, Gao, Y., & Zhang, D. (2015). To speak like a TED speaker—a case study of ted motivated English public speaking study in EFL teaching. Higher Education Studies, 6(1), 53. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v6n1p53
Li, Yue‘e, Wang, X., Wang, L., & Xin, L. (2019). Stylistic features of impromptu speech of Chinese learners. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 09(03), 191–
205. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2019.93018
Lin, J. W., Tsai, C. W., Hsu, C. C., & Chang, L. C. (2021). Peer assessment with group awareness tools and effects on project-based learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(4), 583–599.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1593198
Liu, X., Li, L., & Zhang, Z. (2017). Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Small group discussion as a key component in online assessment training for enhanced student learning in web-based peer assessment. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(5), 131-148.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1324018
Luckyardi, S., & Syaroni, D. A. W. (2020). Assessment of lecturer satisfaction, working quality and productivity toward learning management system.
56
Proceedings of the International Conference on Business, Economic, Social Science, and Humanities – Economics, Business and Management Track (ICOBEST-EBM 2019), 112, 56–61.
https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.200108.016
Manworren, R. C. B., & Stinson, J. (2016). Pediatric Pain Measurement, Assessment, and Evaluation. Seminars in Pediatric Neurology, 23(3), 189–200.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spen.2016.10.001
Medhanit, B., Meseret, G., & Akililu, G. (2015). Perception and practice of self- assessment in EFL writing classrooms. Journal of Languages and Culture, 6(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5897/jlc2013.0254
Meluch, A., Feehan, K., & Starcher, S. (2019). Instructor disclosures of
communication apprehension and student perceptions of instructor credibility in the public speaking classroom. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 31(2), 299–309.
Miller, E. (2019). Debating and public speaking training for pre-service teachers:
experiences and advantages. EDULEARN19 Proceedings, 1(8), 1963–1967.
https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2019.0542
Misiejuk, K., & Wasson, B. (2021). Backward evaluation in peer assessment: A scoping review. Computers and Education, 175(3), 104-108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104319
Mohamed Jamrus, M. H., & Razali, A. B. (2019). Using self-assessment as a tool for English language learning. English Language Teaching, 12(11), 64-73.
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n11p64
Mulia Siregar, V. M., & Sugara, H. (2018). Implementation of artificial neural network to assesment the lecturer‘s performance. IOP Conference Series:
57
Materials Science and Engineering, 420(1), 233-242.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/420/1/012112
Murillo-Zamorano, L. R., & Montanero, M. (2018). Oral presentations in higher education: a comparison of the impact of peer and teacher feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(1), 138–150.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1303032
Nalbantoğlu Yılmaz, F. (2017). Reliability of scores obtained from self-, peer-, and teacher-assessments on teaching materials prepared by teacher candidates.
Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 17(2), 395–409.
https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2017.2.0098
Namaziandost, E., Dehkordi, E. S., & Shafiee, S. (2019). Comparing the effectiveness of input-based and output-based activities on productive
knowledge of vocabulary among pre-intermediate EFL learners. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 4(1), 23-35.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-019-0065-7
Ndoye, A. (2017). Peer / self assessment and student learning. International Journal of Teaching, 29(2), 255–269. http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/
Noori, A., Shafie, N. H., Mashwani, H. U., & Tareen, H. (2017). Afghan EFL Lecturers ‘ Assessment Practices in the Classroom continuous monitoring of learning and teaching. 10.
Panadero, E., & Alqassab, M. (2019). An empirical review of anonymity effects in peer assessment, peer feedback, peer review, peer evaluation and peer grading.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(8), 1253–1278.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1600186
Prihantoro, A. (2021). Success and failure of english-as-a-foreign-language lecturers
58
in applying the assessment as learning in higher education. International Journal of Educational Spectrum Uluslararası, 3(November 2021), 63–70.
https://doi.org/10.47806/ijesacademic.896661
Puth, M., & Neuh, M. (2014). Effective use of Pearson ’ s product e moment correlation coef fi cient. 93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.05.003
Rao, M. S. (2017). Tools and techniques to boost the eloquence of your body
language in public speaking. Industrial and Commercial Training, 49(2), 75–79.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-04-2016-0023
Rao, P. S. (2019). The importance of speaking skills in English classrooms. Alford Council of International English & Literature Journal, 2(2), 6–18.
www.acielj.com
Ratminingsih, N. M., Artini, L. P., & Padmadewi, N. N. (2017). Incorporating self and peer assessment in reflective teaching practices. International Journal of Instruction, 10(4), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2017.10410a
Reinholz, D. (2016). The assessment cycle: a model for learning through peer assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 301–315.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1008982
Rossette-Crake, F. (2020). ‗The new oratory‘: Public speaking practice in the digital, neoliberal age. Discourse Studies, 22(5), 571–589.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445620916363
Schmidt, N., & Wehmeyer, H. (2016). Self-assessment training in the ESL classroom: a crucial step in developing learner autonomy. Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching, 97, 74–97. http://slat.arizona.edu/arizona-working- papers-second-language-acquisition-teaching
Sharma, R., Jain, A., Gupta, N., Garg, S., Batta, M., & Dhir, S. (2016). Impact of
59
self-assessment by students on their learning. International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research, 6(3), 226. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-
516x.186961
Sluijsmans, D. (2015). Establishing learning effects with integrated peer assessment tasks Dominique Sluijsmans. Measurement, January.
Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2002). Peer assessment training in teacher education: Effects on performance and
perceptions. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 443–454.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293022000009311
Sokhanvar, Z., Salehi, K., & Sokhanvar, F. (2021). Advantages of authentic assessment for improving the learning experience and employability skills of higher education students: A systematic literature review. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70(February 2020), 101030.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101030
Staubitz, T., Petrick, D., Bauer, M., Renz, J., & Meinel, C. (2016). Improving the peer assessment experience on MOOC platforms. L@S 2016 - Proceedings of the 3rd 2016 ACM Conference on Learning at Scale, 389–398.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2876034.2876043
TetukoBarruansyah, R. (2018). Applying Impromptu Speech Technique to Improve Students‘ Speaking Ability at the Fourth Semester Students of STIBA Persada Rauf. Journal of English for Academic, 57–72.
Tighe-Mooney, S., Bracken, M., & Dignam, B. (2016). Peer Assessment as a Teaching and Learning Process: The Observations and Reflections of Three Facilitators on a First-Year Undergraduate Critical Skills Module *. 8(2).
http://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/view/[283]
60
To, J., & Panadero, E. (2019). Peer assessment effects on the self-assessment process of first-year undergraduates. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 920–932. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1548559
Topping, K. (2006). Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. In Optimising New Modes of Assessment: In Search of Qualities and Standards (pp. 55–87). https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48125-1_4
Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 20–27.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577569
Vonkova, H., Bendl, S., & Papajoanu, O. (2017). How Students Report Dishonest Behavior in School: Self-Assessment and Anchoring Vignettes. Journal of Experimental Education, 85(1), 36–53.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2015.1094438
Wang, J., Yang, H., Shao, R., Abdullah, S., & Sundar, S. S. (2020). Alexa as Coach:
Leveraging Smart Speakers to Build Social Agents that Reduce Public Speaking Anxiety. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376561
Wanner, T., & Palmer, E. (2018). Formative self-and peer assessment for improved student learning: the crucial factors of design, teacher participation and
feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(7), 1032–1047.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1427698
Wong, K. M., & Mak, P. (2019). Self-assessment in the primary L2 writing classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 75(2), 183–196.
https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.2018-0197
Yan, Z., & Brown, G. T. L. (2017). A cyclical self-assessment process: towards a model of how students engage in self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in
61 Higher Education, 42(8), 1247–1262.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1260091
Yang, M., Pan, R., Chen, Z., & Duan, L. (2019). Strategies to Improve College Students ’ Writing Skills of English Informative Speeches. Ic3er, 282–288.
https://doi.org/10.25236/ic3er.2019.054
Zhang, X., Ardasheva, Y., & Austin, B. W. (2020). Self-efficacy and english public speaking performance: A mixed method approach. English for Specific
Purposes, 59, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.02.001
62 APPENDICES
INSTRUMENTS 1. The Documentation of Public Speaking Score
Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence (www.cmu.edu/teaching/assessment )
Grade Score
Excellent >81
Very Good 61-80
Good 41-60
Fair 21-40
Poor <20
Speaking Review Form
Public Speaking Class of English Education Student Speaker :
Talk Title :
Reviewer :
Mechanics of Communication Excellent Very Good
Good Fair Poor Was the speaker familiar with the equipment?
Were the slides easy to read and not overcrowded?
Was the talk audible from every seat in the room?
Were all crucial slides presented for long enough?
63 Was the projected image easily viewable?
Did the speaker avoid distractive movement and gesture?
Presentation Excellent Very
Good
Good Fair Poor
Was the talk well presented?
(e.g. no major typos, no slides out of order, good time management?)
Did the speaker strive to keep the audience's attention?
(e.g., eye contact, varying voice and facial expression, movement, humor, mystery, surprise.)
Was the speaker attentive to the needs of a general audience?
(e.g., "You might think X, but", "the point of this was", this sounds similar to X, but", "you might misread this chart because", "can you see from the back?")
Did the speaker avoid jargon in cases where a simple English phrase would suffice? (e.g., explaining technical acronyms, which might be unfamiliar to general audience, and avoiding convoluted phrases.)
The Introduction Excellent Very
Good
Good Fair Poor
Did the talk have a distinct introductory section?
Did this section make it clear what the talk would be about?
Did this section provide adequate motivation for the work?
Did the introduction make the audience curious about the promised content?
The Middle Excellent Very Good Fair Poor
64
Good Did the talk have a distinct middle section?
Did this section explain the main results and techniques clearly and correctly?
Did the speaker strive to make subtle ideas simpler?
Did the speaker minimize the amount of information used to illustrate concepts?
Did the speaker explain all crucial technical terms clearly for a general audience?
The Conclusion Excellent Very
Good
Good Fair Poor
Did the talk have a distinct concluding section?
Did this section summarize the important ideas and results?
Was it clear what the audience should take away from the talk?
Did the speaker mention applications and directions for future work?
Questions Excellent Very
Good
Good Fair Poor
Did the talk stimulate interesting questions?
Did the speaker repeat or paraphrase questions that were unclear?
Did the speaker strive to understand the questions?
Did the speaker answer questions adequately?
65 5. Score Of Public Speaking Class
NAMA CLASS Peer 50% Self 20% Lecturer 30%
Student 1 CLASS A 63 44 53
Student 2 CLASS A 82 83 77
Student 3 CLASS A 86 85 85
Student 4 CLASS A 81 80 77
Student 5 CLASS A 85 86 81
Student 6 CLASS A 64 43 55
Student 7 CLASS A 81 84 81
Student 8 CLASS A 71 73 69
Student 9 CLASS A 84 67 67
Student 10 CLASS A 81 84 83
Student 11 CLASS A 73 71 76
Student 12 CLASS A 81 82 81
Student 13 CLASS A 85 90 79
Student 14 CLASS A 82 86 76
Student 15 CLASS A 74 78 61
Student 16 CLASS A 77 80 69
Student 17 CLASS A 75 72 73
Student 18 CLASS A 84 83 83
Student 19 CLASS A 77 68 75
Student 20 CLASS A 82 70 71
Student 21 CLASS A 68 73 73
Student 22 CLASS A 80 85 77
Student 23 CLASS A 85 82 73
Student 24 CLASS A 78 80 68
Student 25 CLASS A 76 73 75
Student 26 CLASS A 74 72 75
Student 27 CLASS B 23 12 18
Student 28 CLASS B 76 67 68
Student 29 CLASS B 74 78 76
Student 30 CLASS B 75 77 77
Student 31 CLASS B 76 80 75
Student 32 CLASS B 66 48 43
66
Student 33 CLASS B 71 71 73
Student 34 CLASS B 74 64 79
Student 35 CLASS B 81 84 81
Student 36 CLASS B 80 78 85
Student 37 CLASS B 62 51 43
Student 38 CLASS B 81 86 83
Student 39 CLASS B 83 81 83
Student 40 CLASS B 79 77 84
Student 41 CLASS B 71 72 72
Student 42 CLASS B 78 68 75
Student 43 CLASS B 79 81 66
Student 44 CLASS B 70 81 67
Student 45 CLASS B 78 71 64
Student 46 CLASS B 72 72 69
Student 47 CLASS B 79 86 81
Student 48 CLASS B 72 72 74
Student 49 CLASS B 55 49 49
Student 50 CLASS B 73 66 75
Student 51 CLASS B 83 77 89
Student 52 CLASS B 81 80 80
Student 53 CLASS B 83 83 65
Student 54 CLASS B 69 71 72
Student 55 CLASS B 70 75 74
Student 56 CLASS C 79 81 83
Student 57 CLASS C 72 82 61
Student 58 CLASS C 74 69 71
Student 59 CLASS C 86 83 84
Student 60 CLASS C 80 80 80
Student 61 CLASS C 80 78 76
Student 62 CLASS C 71 67 80
Student 63 CLASS C 73 71 73
Student 64 CLASS C 76 78 80
Student 65 CLASS C 81 83 80
Student 66 CLASS C 80 83 84
Student 67 CLASS C 77 70 75
Student 68 CLASS C 86 78 90
Student 69 CLASS C 39 37 42
Student 70 CLASS C 73 66 69
67
Student 71 CLASS C 75 80 82
Student 72 CLASS C 75 74 70
Student 73 CLASS C 83 84 87
Student 74 CLASS C 76 62 68
Student 75 CLASS C 86 76 79
Student 76 CLASS C 68 70 77
Student 77 CLASS C 80 78 83
Student 78 CLASS C 75 61 78
Student 79 CLASS C 82 91 82
Student 80 CLASS C 74 75 68
Student 81 CLASS C 75 88 83
Student 82 CLASS C 55 35 44
Student 83 CLASS D 71 75 68
Student 84 CLASS D 76 67 65
Student 85 CLASS D 84 90 87
Student 86 CLASS D 82 82 75
Student 87 CLASS D 83 81 84
Student 88 CLASS D 76 77 78
Student 89 CLASS D 72 72 79
Student 90 CLASS D 78 77 75
Student 91 CLASS D 85 91 92
Student 92 CLASS D 83 79 78
Student 93 CLASS D 75 75 73
Student 94 CLASS D 76 74 77
Student 95 CLASS D 77 68 73
Student 96 CLASS D 83 82 77
Student 97 CLASS D 78 74 77
Student 98 CLASS D 78 83 83
Student 99 CLASS D 77 71 69
Student 100 CLASS D 73 67 73
Student 101 CLASS D 81 83 85
Student 102 CLASS D 73 73 66
Student 103 CLASS D 69 76 80
Student 104 CLASS D 79 73 74
Student 105 CLASS D 69 69 68
Student 106 CLASS D 80 75 78
Student 107 CLASS D 70 70 77
Student 108 CLASS D 75 70 72