Sandy:
I agree that it's smart for the instructor to be a bit flexible/adaptable
and even political, especially when doing something new.
One quibble. You say, that must temper your inclination to "hold firm to
our values" with the need to be "sensitive and caring." This is very loaded
and misleading language. I would have said that, "because I am a sensitive
and caring professor, I see the need to hold firm to my values."
...There's a large nurturing element in all of this. We'd all recognize the
need to use judgment in adapting to the needs of any given situation.
Best,
Fritz Laux
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Team Learning Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Sandy Cook
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 7:42 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Peer Evaluations
>
> Dear Vance,
>
> Thank you. Interestingly, our first course was pass fail and the
> evaluations made absolutely no difference in passing or not - just in
> the "total marks." This was enough to put people into a tizzy. This
> next course is honors/pass/fail. So it is possible that someone could
> drop from honors to pass if their team score was not high enough -
> perhaps a valuable lesson to learn - but certainly a painful one. The
> team score could also raise someone from pass to honors - which is a
> good thing.
>
> When you said you would not let the peer evaluation lower someone's
> letter grade, did you just mean if they got a 9? What if they got a 7 -
> would/could it lower from A- to B+? Get much flack on that?
>
> I know the best thing is to hold firm to our values and principles and
> tell them that is the game - play or lose- but since this is our first
> time and we are trying not to punish the students for our ineptitude -
> we try to be sensitive and caring.
>
> ***************************************
>
> Sandy COOK, PhD | Associate Dean, Curriculum Development | Duke-NUS
> Graduate Medical School Singapore | W: (65) 6516 8722| F: (65) 6227 2698
> |
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Team Learning Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Fried, Vance
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 5:31 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Peer Evaluations
>
> Sandy,
> I get a few complaints, but do it any way. I've never seen a group of
> five or more (whether in TBL or real world) where everybody contributed
> equally. Sometimes they all may put in the same amount of work, but even
> in the most balanced of groups somebody is always a little better).
>
> I do set it up where it is clear that you get a reasonable peer grade (7
> or above) if you come regularly to class and are prepared, even if other
> group members are much better. I also make it clear that a 9 isn't
> going to lower anybody's score by a letter grade.
>
> Disclaimer: I've never taught in an Asian culture.
>
> Vance Fried
> Management
> Oklahoma State University
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Team Learning Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Fritz Laux
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 7:32 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Peer Evaluations
>
> Sandy:
>
> My students often complain and resist. When I respectfully insist (and I
> am
> indeed doing so sincerely, and for the benefit of learning), they end up
> being fine with it. Of course, my Dept Chair and Dean both understand
> what's
> going on with TBL and support it (perhaps this is the underlying
> problem?).
> If you don't have support, or perhaps even had opposition, then that's
> an
> interesting one. I think you need to dance that one with some
> subtlety...
> and make buy-in from Chairs and such a real priority.
>
> The only beef I've had with peer evaluations (a case where perhaps most
> of
> us would have bent the rules if it had affected a letter grade) is when
> the
> free-riders in a team colluded to give bad evaluations (and nasty
> comments)
> to the one member of their team who I saw doing the work (easy to see
> looking at I-RATs, as well). My guess is that students realize that you
> may/will protect them from this kind of stuff and trust you on it. If
> not,
> in an ugly class (which I don't think you'd have at a med school) some
> might
> rightly get skittish.
>
> Best,
>
> Fritz Laux
> Economics
> Northeastern State University
>
>
> From: Team Learning Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On
> Behalf Of Sandy Cook
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 6:36 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Peer Evaluations
>
> Thank you all for your comments. I find it very interesting that those
> who
> use the percentage/weightage method have not mentioned much push back
> from
> the class about "lowering" some people's scores at the expense of
> others.
> Just to let everyone know, we outlined the peer evaluation process in
> the
> very beginning. Gave them an example to work out (sort of a TBL) on
> grade
> setting to see the impact of both the varying percentages of IRAT,GRAT &
> application as well as the peer. We also did a "trial" run of the peer
> for
> feedback purposes. That is where we are now - the comments have been:
> * I didn't realize that giving more points to one meant others get
> lower
> * I didn't realize the percentage impact. For example one group's
> total resulted in on individual getting 108% and another 92% - that
> meant
> that from the student's perspective, one student's grades jumped very
> high
> by 8%, but another dropped by 8%. They really wanted to acknowledge one
> person - but they did not want to penalize that much.
> * Why must we penalize one in order to praise another?
> * Can't we just give points - not take away points?
> What I cannot seem to convey to them is that their group scores are not
> theirs until it is moderated by the team contribution. They feel they
> have
> earned all the group points - and the moderation is "subtracting" from
> what
> is rightfully theirs.
> On another note, in our first course experience there actually have been
> a
> couple of students who's final grade was in fact brought down, ever so
> slightly, by the group process. This is mainly a function of some group
> processing issues they still have to work out. Those individuals
> actually
> did better on the IRATs than the group did on the GRAT, explained by the
> group that it usually was because that one person "guessed" right and
> was
> not confident enough to convince the rest of the group that their answer
> was
> right - thus went with majority rules. Plus, as we are new to
> developing
> our applications, some application scores are lower than the
> individual's
> general averages on tests and IRATs - but the difference is usually
> miniscule - less than 1 percentage point - but it has had an impact.
> Telling them that life is full of zero-sum experiences and that this is
> an
> important lesson to learn and to work with - is not flying well.
> Again, thanks for your input.
>
> **************************************************
> Sandy Cook, PhD
> Associate Dean for Curriculum Development
> Duke/NUS Graduate School of Medicine
>
>
> From: Team Learning Discussion List on behalf of Molly Espey
> Sent: Tue 10/16/2007 5:55 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Peer Evaluations
> 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
> > |
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
|
