Evaluating the Reliability of Self and Peer

Evaluation as a measure of Students’

contributions to Group Performance.

A Comparative Analysis presented to The SHS

Statistics and Probability 11 teacher of Don Bosco
Technical Institute-Tarlac

Performance Task in
STATISTICS AND PROBABILITY 11

Members:
Michael Reypert B. BARTOLOME
Christopher T. CALLAHAN
Peter John Christopher D. GARCIA
Steven Joseph A. NUNAG
David Clarence A. SALCEDO
Gabrielle Brian S. TAN
Lianne Princess U. ESPINOSA
Arabella P. OBENA
I. Introduction about the Project

This project was titled, “MATHEMATICS COLLOQUIUM: EXPLORING THE BASIC

CALCULUS WITHOUT LIMITS”. A seminar workshop teaching the students of Grade 11

about Basic Calculus.

The students conducted a seminar workshop teaching the audience about Basic Calculus.

The section of Rutkowski taught the last lesson of the 3 rd Quarter of Basic Calculus, that being

Transcendental Functions, with each group having a designated task to do on the seminar. The

section was divided by each task, that being the presenter, the ice breaker or commonly known as

a mini game, a commercial for entertainment, a floor director team, and an infographics and

documentation team. After less than a week of preparation the seminar workshop ran nicely, but

not smoothly. The group had notably technical issues that needed to be addressed; it was brought

by the lack of preparation and time constraints on behalf of the group. After the seminar

workshop was done, we had an evaluation form or survey that was conducted. It was presented

in the screen utilizing their subject, ICT 11, as a QR code that the audience had to scan using

their mobile devices. This evaluation form was then answered by the audience first, then the

whole section of Rutkowski, the presenters, afterwards.

This evaluation plays a significant role in evaluating the seminar and determining if the

section met the viewers' standards, and if the own section was satisfied with their performance.

Using statistical tools, we can then get a clear comparison between the section’s self-evaluation

and the audience’s evaluation.

II. Computation and Graphs

The segment assigned to our group for the seminar was the commercial. Upon assessing

the evaluation form of our audience under the criteria for commercial, we have come to these

statistics and analytics.

II. A. Peer-Evaluation (De Reggi, Cogliandro, Baggio)

II. A. 1. Video includes all required information, with ample examples and details throughout

Video includes all required information, with ample examples and details throughout

X Freq P(X) xP(X) (x-μ)² (x-μ)² P(X)

4 31 31/58 62/29 0.25 0.1336
3 25 25/58 75/58 0.25 0.1078
2 2 1/29 2/29 2.25 0.0776
1 0 0/58 0 6.25 0
Total = 58 μ = 7/2 or 3.5 σ² = 0.319
σ = .5648
II. A. 2. Video presents the advertisement in a logical and interesting way that can be watched

over and over to see more each time.

Video presents the advertisement in a logical and interesting way that

can be watched over and over to see more each time.
X Freq P(X) xP(X) (x-μ)² (x-μ)² P(X)
4 31 31/58 62/29 0.2857 0.1527
3 23 23/58 69/58 0.2167 0.0859
2 4 2/29 4/29 2.1477 0.1481
1 0 0/58 0 6.0787 0
Total = 58 μ = 201/58 or 3.4655 σ² = 0.3867
σ = 0.6219

II. A. 3. Video used extensive images, music, and/or sounds that supported the information and

enhanced the understanding of the inventions depicted.

Video used extensive images, music, and/or sounds that supported

the information and enhanced the understanding of the inventions depicted.
X Freq P(X) xP(X) (x-μ)² (x-μ)² P(X)
4 31 31/58 62/29 0.25 0.1336
3 25 25/58 75/58 0.25 0.1078
2 2 1/29 2/29 2.25 0.0776
1 0 0/58 0 6.25 0
Total = 58 μ = 7/2 or 3.5 σ² = 0.319
σ = .5648
II. A. 4. Video follows the required min-max of time and format.

Video follows the required min-max of time and format.

X Freq P(X) xP(X) (x-μ)² (x-μ)² P(X)

4 32 16/29 64/29 0.2167 0.1196
3 25 25/58 75/58 0.2857 0.1231
2 1 1/58 1/29 2.3547 0.0406
1 0 0/58 0 6.4237 0
Total = 58 μ = 205/58 or 3.5345 σ² = 0.2833
σ = 0.5323
II. A. 5. It has an exceptionally video cinematography and a clear audio.

It has an exceptionally video cinematography and a clear audio.

X Freq P(X) xP(X) (x-μ)² (x-μ)² P(X)

4 26 13/29 52/29 0.4293 0.1924
3 26 13/29 39/29 0.1189 0.0533
2 6 3/29 6/29 1.8085 0.1871
1 0 0/58 0 5.4981 0
Total = 58 μ = 97/29 or 3.3448 σ² = 0.4328
σ = 0.6579
II. B. Self-Evaluation (Rutkowski)

II. B. 1. Video includes all required information, with ample examples and details throughout.

Video includes all required information, with ample examples and details throughout.

X Freq P(X) xP(X) (x-μ)² (x-μ)² P(X)

4 21 7/12 7/3 0.1975 0.1152
3 14 7/18 7/6 0.3087 0.1201
2 1 1/36 1/18 2.4199 0.0672
1 0 0 0 6.5311 0
Total = 36 μ = 32/9 or 3.5556 σ² = 0.3025
σ = 0.55

II. B. 2. Video presents the advertisement in a logical and interesting way that can be watched

over and over to see more each time.

Video presents the advertisement in a logical and interesting way that

can be watched over and over to see more each time.
X Freq P(X) xP(X) (x-μ)² (x-μ)² P(X)
4 26 13/18 26/9 0.0772 0.0558
3 10 5/18 5/6 0.5216 0.1449
2 0 0 0 2.966 0
1 0 0 0 7.4104 0
Total = 36 μ = 67/18 or 3.7222 σ² = 0.2007
σ = 0.448
II. B. 3. Video used extensive images, music, and/or sounds that supported the information and

enhanced the understanding of the inventions depicted

Video used extensive images, music, and/or sounds that supported

the information and enhanced the understanding of the inventions depicted.
X Freq P(X) xP(X) (x-μ)² (x-μ)² P(X)
4 26 13/18 26/9 0.1512 0.1092
3 6 1/6 1/2 0.3734 0.0622
2 4 1/9 2/9 2.5956 0.2884
1 0 0 0 6.8179 0
Total = 36 μ = 65/18 or 3.6111 σ² = 0.4598
σ = 0.6781
II. B. 4. Video follows the required min-max of time and format.

Video follows the required min-max of time and format.

X Freq P(X) xP(X) (x-μ)² (x-μ)² P(X)

4 26 13/18 26/9 0.3333 0.2407
3 9 1/4 3/4 0.4444 0.1111
2 0 0 0 2.7779 0
1 1 1/36 1/36 7.1113 0.1975
Total = 36 μ = 11/3 or 3.6667 σ² = 0.5493
σ = 0.7411

II. B. 5. It has an exceptionally video cinematography and a clear audio.

It has an exceptionally video cinematography and a clear audio.

X Freq P(X) xP(X) (x-μ)² (x-μ)² P(X)

4 15 5/12 5/3 0.605 0.2521
3 15 5/12 5/4 0.0494 0.0206
2 5 5/36 5/18 1.4938 0.2075
1 1 1/36 1/36 4.9382 0.1372
Total = 36 μ = 29/9 or 3.2222 σ² = 0.6174
σ = 0.7857
GUIDE QUESTIONS:

1. Compare and evaluate the self- and peer-evaluations of the students in every segment. Is there

a significant difference between the self and peer evaluations?

Yes, numerous variables could impact our section throughout the seminar, which is why

our ranking differs from the other sections. The absence of information in the video is one thing

that could have an impact on the other sections as well as ours. For this reason, certain votes in

the evaluation form indicate that some people disagree, even though many votes were cast for

strongly agreeing. Another reason our group voted disagree and strongly disagree is that there

was little planning and communication. While creating the commercial video, we also ran into

several issues. Some spontaneous adjustments may have an impact on our vote. Based on the

observations from the gathered data we got from our section and the other sections it doesn’t

have a big difference since the whole section, Rutkowski, and the other three sections mostly

voted for Strongly Agree and Agree. There are only a few responses from people who chose

Disagree and Strongly Disagree. Despite the issues we encountered during the presentation,

surprisingly the responses we gathered in our survey from the other three sections seem

somewhat satisfied with our presentation, and though we the presenters know better and what to

improve therefore there is a slight difference in our satisfaction level compared to the others.
2. What will be your recommendation to the students as well as to the subject teacher to maintain

or improve the performance?

The overall performance garnered a somewhat successful outcome. Though encountering

some difficulties, the project was put together with the help of everyone’s efforts. The suggestion

that was needed to be implemented was ample time and preparation. The project was done in less

than a week, while the section only had one chance to have a practice inside the auditorium thus

having a rushed output.

3. What do you think the problem of getting the lowest or highest rating of the students and/or

teacher’s rating is? In the recommendation part, what can you recommend for improving your

seminar workshop?

The judgment of others is the most likely issue that could arise as a result of ratings.

Receiving a lower rating could damage a section's reputation since people would form their own

opinions about it after reading the rating. Jealousy and biases are another issue that could arise. If

the ratings are disclosed, there is a chance that jealousy could lead to an outage. For example, if

"this section" received the highest rating from "this teacher" or "from another section," the

section with the lowest rating might organize and criticize the winner, believing that it was all a

hoax and was planned.

4. Explain the mean and standard deviation of your results and compare them to each other. Is

there a significant factor that might affect the rating of peer evaluation based on self-evaluation?

To give an example, question number five,” It has an exceptionally video

cinematography and a clear audio.” will be used since it was the most noticeable factor of our

presentation. The mean of that question for the audience’s evaluation is 3.3448 while its

standard deviation is 0.6579. For our self-evaluation, the mean is 3.2222 while its standard

deviation is 0.7857. Comparing them, both audience and presenters show a lesser satisfaction on

video cinematography and a clear audio with the presenters noticing the issue more. Our

presentation had technical difficulties thus the audio came from the projector, which the audio

had little to no sound across the auditorium.

5. Compare the behavior of the self and the peer evaluation. Do you think self-evaluation can

predict peer evaluations, or vice versa?

According to the results of our survey, our self-evaluation which is done by our section

mostly chose strongly agree followed by multiple agrees and only had 10 disagrees and 2

strongly disagrees. On the other hand, the peer evaluation which is done by the other sections

had similar results but has more disagrees than the self-evaluation. The peer evaluation has 15

disagrees in total and 0 strongly disagrees with similar SA and A with the self-evaluation. We

think that the self-evaluations can predict the peer evaluations by considering the flow of the

seminar. If we could notice the performance of the seminar and what problems we had during it,

then we could predict the evaluations of the other section and our own.
III. Conclusion, Presentation and Recommendation

Upon gathering data, doing the computations, and creating the histograms, it is shown

that we had a total of 94 respondents, with 36 from Rutkowski and 58 from the combined

sections of De Reggi, Cogliandro, and Baggio.

Firstly, when assessing the respondents' agreement regarding question number one,

“Video includes all required information, with ample examples and details throughout”, a high

percentage of respondents from Rutkowski, at 97.22% (35 out of 36), either strongly agreed or

agreed compared to the combined sections, where 96.55% (56 out of 58) either strongly agreed

or agreed. This indicates that everyone, both presenters and audience, were satisfied with the

content of the commercial.

Moving on, assessing the respondent’s answers on question number two, “Video presents

the advertisement in a logical and interesting way that can be watched over and over to see more

each time”, all respondents of Rutkowski (36 out of 36) showed agreement while the combined

sections had 93.1% (54 out of 58) of respondents agreeing. This shows that the tiny percentage

of the audience does not seem to want to watch it over and over, but most respondents seemingly

want to watch it again.

On question number three, “Video used extensive images, music, and/or sounds that

supported the information and enhanced the understanding of the inventions depicted”, 88.88%

(32 out of 36) of respondents of Rutkowski had chosen strongly agree or agree, while 96.55%

(56 out of 58) of the audience had chosen strongly agree or agree. Using this interpretation, the

commercial was enjoyed by most and used many elements to enhance viewer enjoyment, with

6.38% (6 out of 94) of the total disagreeing.

For further assessment, question number four, “Video follows the required min-max of

time and format”, shows that 97.22% (35 out of 36) of Rutkowski strongly agreed or agreed,

while the audience shows that 98.28% (57 out of 58) of them strongly agreed or agreed. Using
this information, most if not all viewers noticed that the video did not lack nor exceed the

prescribed time limit and format.

Lastly, for question number five, “It has an exceptionally video cinematography and a

clear audio”, 83.33% (30 out of 36) of Rutkowski chose strongly agree or agree, while 89.66%

(52 out of 58) of the audience chose strongly agree or agree. The commercial lacked volume due

to technical issues therefore reflecting on the evaluation.

Focusing on the criteria our performance clearly lacked, we shall reflect on the last

question, “It has an exceptionally video cinematography and a clear audio”. With further

preparation, the problem of lacking volume and encountering technical issues would be fixed.

The needed knowledge should also be learned by the people responsible for the issue so that no

problems will be encountered in the future.

In conclusion, our analysis has provided valuable insights into the satisfaction levels of

respondents from different sections regarding our commercial. The data indicates both the

audience and the presenting section, Rutkowski, had a minimal discrepancy in their enjoyment of

the commercial. While our commercial has met many criteria, there remains an opportunity for

improvement to ensure maximum satisfaction among everyone. Despite challenges posed by

time constraints and preparation limitations, the group put out a video with utmost effort. With

ongoing enhancements and creative advancements, we have the assurance to provide an

exceptional encounter that surpasses the expectations of our audience.