october 2012 - TOJET the Turkish online journal of educational ...

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2012, volume 11 Issue 4
Table 1:. Results of self- assessment and hetero-assessment by groups concerning the presentation of a lesson
Group
Number
of
members.
Number of
respondents’
members.
Time spent
(coordinator)
(h)
Average
time spent
(other
members)
Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology
(h)
Deviation
between
coordinator
and other
b
Grade of
selfassessment
(coordinator)
Average
grade of
self-
/heterot
A 4 4 6 8,3 -2,3 4 4,4
B 4 3 7 4,0 3,0 4 4,0
C 3 3 22 20,0 2,0 4 4,7
D 4 4 37 26,3 10,7 4 4,8
E 2 2 10 10,0 0,0 5 5,0
F 3 3 12 12,5 -0,5 4 4,0
G 3 3 15 9,5 5,5 5 4,7
H 3 3 10 10,0 0,0 5 4,3
I 2 2 10 7,0 3,0 4 3,5
In what concerns the presentation of a lesson, the results of self- assessment and hetero-assessment by groups
show that 27 out of 28 (96%) students did answer the questionnaire [Table 1]. Noteworthy is the fact that the
majority of the groups present a positive deviation between the time spent by the coordinator and the average
time spent by other members, which seems to indicate that the coordinator did responsible shoulder his role. In
fact, we can assume that if it was not like that, all the group work would have been compromised and the
necessary time to fulfill the task proposed (prepare the presentation of the lesson) would be longer. However, the
substantially different results between the groups relatively to the average time spent in the activity, makes us
wonder about the relative merits of the work done. However this aspect does not seem to have occurred since all
groups self-assessed with a 4 or even a 5 grade (good or very good performance). So, maybe the collaborative
task did really get students actively involved in the learning process.
Table 2:. Results of self- assessment and hetero-assessment by groups concerning the analysis and presentation
of a case study
Group
A
Number
of
members.
4
Number of
respondents’
members.
4
Time spent
(coordinator)
(h)
4
Average
time spent
(other
members)
(h)
3,7
Deviation
between
coordinator
and other
b
0,3
Grade of
selfassessment
(coordinator)
4
Average
grade of
selfassessment
( )
4,3
B 4 3 3 4,0 -1,0 5 4,3
C 3 3 6 5,5 0,5 4 3,7
D 4 3 8 7,5 0,5 4 4,3
E 2 2 10 11,0 -1,0 5 5,0
F 3 3 20 7,5 12,5 4 4,0
G 3 1 - 3,0 - - 4,0
H 3 3 10 11,5 -1,5 4 4,0
I 2 2 5 4,0 1,0 4 4,0
As regards to the analysis and presentation of a case study, Table 2 shows that 24 out of 28 (86%) students did
answer the questionnaire. In this situation there are more cases of discrepancy between the time spent by the
coordinator and the average time spent by other members. In fact, in three situations the deviation is negative.
One more time, most groups self-assessed their performance as grade 4 or 5. Eventually, one can assume that the
empirical nature of this task is much more appropriate to group discussion than the presentation of a lesson
assumed to be much more in compliance with theoretical concepts and, consequently, easier to prepare.
Table 3:. Results of self- assessment and hetero-assessment by groups concerning the use of a wiki tool and the
simulation of a business environment
Group
A
Number
of
members.
4
Number of
respondents’
members.
2
Time spent
(coordinator)
(h)
25
Average
time spent
(other
members)
12,0
(h)
Deviation
between
coordinator
and other
13,0
b
Grade of
selfassessment
(coordinator)
5
Average
grade of
selfassessment
(
4,5
)
B 4 3 - 9,7 - - 4,3
C 3 3 20 32,5 -12,5 5 4,6
D 4 3 24 24,0 0,0 4 4,3
386