I use the peer evaluations to weight the group portion of the grade.
Then, I don't have to set some base for what "average" means - average
means the group's score on activites and RATs throughout the semester.
This then rewards groups that work better together and produce better work
more than groups that don't do as good work.
Some groups do quite well with nearly equal contributions from all
members. Then they are all equally rewarded by doing well as a group, as
I find that groups that really work well together end up with everyone
averaging very close to 10.
I also do the peer evaluations at least once in the middle of the
semester, as well as at the end, but the midsemester evaluation doesn't
count toward the final grade. It does, however, allow me to give feedback
to students. I remind them that mathematically there are two ways to
improve the group portion of their grade (which again is weighted for
individuals by the peer evaluations, with some subjective consideration on
my part): increase the group's scores or increase their own peer
evaluations scores. Usually, efforts to improve one's own peer evaluation
score will also increase the group's grades.
I've only had one student complain to me directly, upset that the group
activities were bringing her grade down. She was wrong, however,
mathematically.
Molly Espey
Applied Economics and Statistics
Clemson University
> There was a great thread about Peer evaluation in January, which was
> informative, but truthfully, I did not appreciate the discussion at the
> time.
>
>
>
> We have just completed our first peer evaluation process and I have some
> questions. We believe in the peer evaluation process and will not
> abandon it, but there have been some issues.
>
>
>
> In the TBL book there are two forms of peer evaluation described
> (percentage and maintenance). Several pros and cons are listed, but
> mostly ending with a suggestion of a positive learning note. Of the two
> methods described, selfishly I chose the percentage one because it made
> more sense to me and was easier to calculate. The students however, are
> incensed (well maybe too strong of a word, but upset) that it is a
> zero-sum game. They don't mind giving points to those who contribute,
> but they do not want to take points away from those who contribute less.
>
>
> * How do you rationalize the zero-sum concept?
>
> * How does one explain the value of moderating the scores?
> Maybe it is a cultural thing - being nice, but the idea of taking away
> something they believe they have earned is painful. How do you tell them
> that they have not really earned the group scores unless they
> participate in the group?
>
> * When the group size results in a proportion that is not easily
> divisible by 5 - and they want to give the team equal marks - but can't.
> For example a team of 7, with 6 ratings can only give 16.7 and 16.6 -
> someone will be a bit higher and a bit lower.
>
>
>
> Using the maintenance method might solve the logical problem by making
> the peer assessment an added component to the grade - not subtractive
> (on the surface). If I were to switch to that method,
>
> * How do you decide what % of the final grade should the peer
> assessment be?
>
> * Is it really any difference - or does it just appear that way
> to the students because they see it as adding not subtracting?
>
> * How do faculty feel about inflating grades by making portion
> of success be solely on peer points?
>
> * Will I exchange a student fight for a faculty one?
>
>
>
> This is quite a contentious topic, and I can see why people give up on
> it - or move away to more feedback rather than grade moderation - but we
> really feel that it is important to keep - so any advice on how to deal
> with student's anxiety is most welcomed.
>
>
>
> Sandy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ***************************************
>
>
>
> Sandy COOK, PhD | Associate Dean, Curriculum Development | Duke-NUS
> Graduate Medical School Singapore | W: (65) 6516 8722| F: (65) 6227 2698
> |
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
