Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)
Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)

an Open Access Journal

SINTA

1.6519

Impact

GScholar

16

H-Index

Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)

an Open Access Journal

Predictive Validity of Peer Assessment in Micro-Teaching: Correlation with Teacher Ratings among Indonesian Preservice EFL Teachers

Santi Farmasari ORCID
University of Mataram ROR
Indonesia
santifarmasari@unram.ac.id
Lalu Ali Wardana ORCID
University of Mataram ROR
Indonesia
La Ode Alfin Haris Munandar ORCID
University of Mataram ROR
Indonesia
Hartati Suryaningsih ORCID
University of Mataram ROR
Indonesia
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study investigates the predictive validity of peer assessment of teacher evaluations in English micro-teaching performance among preservice teachers

    Methodology: This study used a quantitative correlational-predictive design with 48 preservice teachers selected through random cluster sampling. The study used peer and teacher performance assessment rubrics covering eight teaching skills, which were previously validated by two experts (CVI = 1.0). Data were analyzed using Pearson correlation, linear regression, and paired-sample t-tests to examine predictive validity, alignment, and discrepancies between peer and teacher evaluations in micro-teaching performance.

    Main Findings: Data reveal a moderate to strong correlation between peer and teacher scores (r = 0.645, p < 0.001), with peer assessments significantly predicting teacher evaluations (R² = 0.416). However, peer scores were consistently lower (M = 34.02 vs. 38.33, p < 0.001), particularly in complex areas like classroom management and reinforcement. This highlights peer assessment’s value as a supplementary tool for evaluating teaching and fostering reflection, while underscoring the need for assessor training and rubric calibration to ensure reliability.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This study brings a new perspective by exploring whether peer assessment in English micro-teaching can actually predict teacher evaluations. Unlike most research that sees peer review only as a learning aid, this study shows peers can meaningfully mirror teacher judgments, while also revealing where their views differ. The findings highlight the potential of peer assessment as both a learning and an evaluative tool in teacher education.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    “Predictive Validity of Peer Assessment in Micro-Teaching: Correlation with Teacher Ratings among Indonesian Preservice EFL Teachers”, Jor. Eva. Edu, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 1406–1414, Oct. 2025, doi: 10.37251/jee.v6i4.2113.

    More Citation Formats

  • 258
    Abstract views
    178
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. L. Li, Y. Xiong, C. V Hunter, and X. Guo, “Does peer-assessment promote student learning? A meta-analysis,” Assess. Eval. High. Educ., vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 193–211, 2020, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1620679. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1620679
    2. E. Panadero, “A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research,” Front. Psychol., vol. 11, no. 234, 2020, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00234
    3. W. Cheng and M. Warren, “Enhancing the reliability of peer-assessment through adaptive training: A study in higher education,” Assess. Eval. High. Educ., vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 709–724, 2021, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2021.1884842.
    4. J. Tai, R. Ajjawi, D. Boud, and P. Dawson, “Developing evaluative judgement: A meta-analysis of peer-assessment,” Assess. Eval. High. Educ., vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 187–203, 2021, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2021.1875865.
    5. M. Alqassab, J. W. Strijbos, E. Panadero, J. F. Ruiz, M. Warrens, and J. To, “A Systematic Review of Peer Assessment Design Elements,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 35, no. 1. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10648-023-09723-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09723-7
    6. C. N. Prilop, K. E. Weber, F. J. Prins, and M. Kleinknecht, “Connecting feedback to self-efficacy: Receiving and providing peer feedback in teacher education,” Stud. Educ. Eval., vol. 70, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101062. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101062
    7. M. J. González-Rodríguez, D. M Perales-Palacios, F. J Martínez-Segura, “Microteaching as an effective instructional strategy for pre-service teachers: A systematic review,” Int. J. Instr., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 207–222, 2020, doi: 10.29333/iji.2020.13239a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13239a
    8. E. Panadero and M. Alqassab, “An empirical review of anonymity effects in peer assessment, peer feedback, peer review, peer evaluation and peer grading,” Assess. Eval. High. Educ., vol. 44, no. 8, 2019, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1600186. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1600186
    9. T. Nguyen, “Peer feedback in micro-teaching: Implications for pre-service teacher development,” J. Educ. Teach., vol. 48, no. 7, pp. 923–937, 2022, doi: 10.1080/02607476.2022.2047385.
    10. R. Yuan and L. J. Zhang, “Teachers grow with their students’: Examining the teacher identity development of EFL teachers in China,” System, vol. 96, no. 102406, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.system.2020.102406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102406
    11. K. S. Double, J. A. McGrane, and T. N. Hopfenbeck, “The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance: A Meta-analysis of Control Group Studies,” Educ. Psychol. Rev., vol. 32, no. 2, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3
    12. E. Panadero, H. Andrade, and S. Brookhart, “Fusing self-regulated learning and formative assessment: A roadmap of where we are, how we got here, and where we are going,” Aust. Educ. Res., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 1–22, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s13384-019-00376-4.
    13. M. Zhang, F., Schunn, C., Li, W., & Long, “Changes in the reliability and validity of peer assessment across the college years,” Assess. Eval. High. Educ., vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 841–854., 2020, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1697166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1724260
    14. R. Shible and M. Sharma, “Designing effective peer assessment systems in higher education,” Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 67–86, 2024, doi: 10.29333/iji.2023.16149a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2023.16149a
    15. A. Jongsma, S. Vink, and A. Ros, “Scaffolding peer evaluation to enhance student reflection and learning outcomes,” Teach. High. Educ. Adv. online Publ., 2024, doi: 10.1080/13562517.2024.1160458.
    16. L. T. T. Nguyen, “Peer feedback in higher education: A systematic review,” Assess. Eval. High. Educ., vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 510–525, 2022, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2022.2052507.
    17. N. Liu and D. Carless, “Peer feedback: The learning element of peer-assessment,” Teach. High. Educ., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2020, doi: 10.1080/13562517.2019.1599302.
    18. S. Lertsakulbunlue and A. Kantiwong, “Evaluating the dependability of peer assessment in project-based learning for pre-clinical students: A generalizability theory approach,” BMC Med. Educ., vol. 25, no. Article 260, 2025, doi: 10.1186/s12909-025-06772-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-06772-0
    19. Y. Zhang, “Predictive validity in educational assessment: Current issues and future directions,” Stud. Educ. Eval., vol. 73, no. 101161, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-491X(22)00038-4
    20. C. C. Deneen and H. T. Hoo, “Connecting teacher and student assessment literacy with self-evaluation and peer feedback,” Assess. Eval. High. Educ., vol. 48, no. 2, 2023, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2021.1967284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1967284
    21. R. Craig and D. Kay, “Online peer assessment in higher education: A systematic review,” Comput. Educ., vol. 203, no. 104708, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104708.
    22. S. Taghizadeh Kerman, N Banihashem and M. Karami, “Online peer feedback in higher education: A synthesis of the literature,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 29, pp. 763–813, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-12273-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12273-8
    23. O. Noroozi, H. J. A. Biemans, and M. Mulder, “Factors affecting the quality of peer feedback in online education: A review and implications for practice,” Educ. Res. Rev., vol. 36, no. 100423, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100423.
    24. T. Tanti, D. Darmaji, A. Astalini, D. A. Kurniawan, and M. Iqbal, “Analysis of user responses to the application of web-based assessment on character assessment,” Journal of education technology, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 356-364, 2021, doi: 10.23887/jet.v5i3.33590. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23887/jet.v5i3.33590
    25. K. Misiejuk and B. Wasson, “Backward evaluation in peer assessment: A scoping review,” Comput. Educ., vol. 175, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104319
    26. J. W. Creswell and J. D. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches - John W. Creswell, J. David Creswell - Google Books. 2018.
    27. T. Tanti, W. Utami, D. Deliza, and M. Jahanifar, “Investigation in vocation high school for attitude and motivation students in learning physics subject”, Jor. Eva. Edu, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 479-490, 2025, doi: 10.37251/jee.v6i2.1452. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37251/jee.v6i2.1452
    28. D. Edelmann, T. F. Móri, and G. J. Székely, “On relationships between the pearson and the distance correlation coefficients,” Stat. Probab. Lett., vol. 169, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.spl.2020.108960. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spl.2020.108960
    29. F. Polit and C. T. Beck, Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice, 11th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins., 2021.
    30. M. S. B. Yusoff, “ABC of Content Validation and Content Validity Index Calculation,” Educ. Med. J., vol. 11, no. 2, 2019, doi: 10.21315/eimj2019.11.2.6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2019.11.2.6
    31. Y. Han and Y. Xu, “The development and validation of a rubric for assessing peer feedback in EFL writing,” Assess. Writ., vol. 39, no. 14, pp. 14–28, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2018.12.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.12.002
    32. L. van der M. Dasoo, N., & Muller, “Teacher advocacy for the enhancement of professional learning and development in continuous professional teacher development programmes,” South African J. High. Educ., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 45–59, 2020, doi: 10.20853/34-4-3485. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20853/34-4-3485
    33. L. Doyle, P. . Harris, and M. . Easterbrook, “Quality and quantity: How contexts influence the emergence of teacher bias,” Soc. Psychol. Educ., vol. 27, pp. 1855–1882, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11218-023-09882-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-023-09882-z
    34. D. A. Kurniawan, A. Astalini, D. Darmaji, T. Tanti, and S. Maryani, “Innovative learning: Gender perception of e-module linear equations in mathematics and physics,” Indonesian Journal on Learning and Advanced Education (IJOLAE), vol. 4, no. 2, pp, 92-106, 2022, doi: 10.23917/ijolae.v4i2.16610. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23917/ijolae.v4i2.16610
    35. M. Wong and W. C. Liu, “Enhancing pre-service teachers’ identity development through basic psychological need satisfaction in coursework,” Teach. Teach. Educ., vol. 135, no. 104415, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2023.104415. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104415
    36. S. Kang, M. O’Reilly, G. Lancioni, T. S. Falcomata, J. Sigafoos, and Z. Xu, “Comparison of the predictive validity and consistency among preference assessment procedures: A review of the literature,” Research in Developmental Disabilities, vol. 34, no. 4. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2012.12.021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.12.021
    37. S. Farmasari. “Pre-service EFL teachers’ language assessment literacy satisfaction and assessment preparedness,” Int. J. Lang. Educ., vol. 7, no. 4, 2023, doi: 10.26858/ijole.v7i4.47445. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v7i4.47445
    38. T. T. P. Nguyen and C. D. Nguyen, “An evaluation of researcher–teacher collaboration with practitioners engaged in instructing English language with young learners,” Educ. 3-13, 2024, doi: 10.1080/03004279.2024.2323648. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2024.2323648
    39. B. Mansouri, K. Molana, and M. Nazari, “The interconnection between second language teachers’ language assessment literacy and professional agency: The mediating role of institutional policies,” System, vol. 103, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.system.2021.102674. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102674
    40. M. Barahona and X. Ibaceta-Quijanes, “Chilean EFL student teachers and social justice: ambiguity and uncertainties in understanding their professional pedagogical responsibility,” Teach. Teach. Theory Pract., vol. 30, no. 2, 2024, doi: 10.1080/13540602.2022.2062726. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2022.2062726
    41. W. Cheng and M. Warren, “Peer assessment of language learning in higher education: Practices and challenges,” Assess. Eval. High. Educ., vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 623–637, 2021, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2020.1819743.
    42. X. Li and P. Ke, “Becoming feedback literate: A case study of a Chinese University EFL teacher,” Asia-Pacific Educ. Res., vol. 33, no. 2, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s40299-023-00743-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-023-00743-z
    43. E. Caffrey, D. Fuchs, and L. S. Fuchs, “The predictive validity of dynamic assessment: A review,” Journal of Special Education, vol. 41, no. 4. 2008, doi: 10.1177/0022466907310366. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466907310366
    44. K. Sugihartini, N., Hadi, S., Wahyuni, D. S., & Agustini, “Peer-assessment integrated microteaching course with e-learning system,” EAI Endorsed Trans. e-Learning, 2022, doi: 10.4108/eai.6-10-2022.2327353. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.6-10-2022.2327353
    45. H. Y. Phuong et al., “The impact of training vietnamese EFL learners for self-assessment on writing performance. , 17(2), 237-258.,” Int. J. Instr., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 237–258, 2024, doi: 10.29333/iji.2024.17214a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2024.17214a
    46. J. Axt, N. Buttrick, and R. Y. Feng, “A Comparative Investigation of the Predictive Validity of Four Indirect Measures of Bias and Prejudice,” Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull., vol. 50, no. 6, 2024, doi: 10.1177/01461672221150229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221150229
    47. G. Luria and Y. Kalish, “A social network approach to peer assessment: Improving predictive validity,” Hum. Resour. Manage., vol. 52, no. 4, 2013, doi: 10.1002/hrm.21541. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21541
    48. M. Ishak and F. Hussin, “Predictive validity study of sustainable leadership for learning questionnaire,” Int. J. Instr., vol. 15, no. 2, 2022, doi: 10.29333/iji.2022.15233a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15233a
    49. A. G. Greenwald, T. A. Poehlman, E. L. Uhlmann, and M. R. Banaji, “Understanding and using the implicit association test: III. Meta-Analysis of predictive validity,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., vol. 97, no. 1, 2009, doi: 10.1037/a0015575. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015575
    50. D. E. Morisky, L. W. Green, and D. M. Levine, “Concurrent and predictive validity of a self-reported measure of medication adherence,” Med. Care, vol. 24, no. 1, 1986, doi: 10.1097/00005650-198601000-00007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-198601000-00007
    51. B. P. D. Riyanti, A. O. Suryani, C. W. Sandroto, and S. Y. Soeharso, “The construct and predictive validity testing of Indonesian entrepreneurial competence inventory-situational judgment test model,” J. Innov. Entrep., vol. 11, no. 1, 2022, doi: 10.1186/s13731-022-00202-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-022-00202-x