Hi all
Interesting conversation....maybe someone should do a panel on the use
of peer evaluation in TBL at the upcoming conference?
http://2007.teambased.org
We use an online tool to do peer evaluations. It is a tool that we have
developed in house (see attach screenshot).....students really can't
game the system since giving everyone 100% only makes them average in
the group....student may be able collude in sub-teams to game the
system...
We give a formative version after 4 weeks of class and then a summative
at the end of the course....we release the formative evals back to
individuals with names automatically stripped off, randomized and
written comments moderated by instructor
I do like Michaels "appreciations" and "requests" ....I might change our
commenting to include this
More info of the tool at http://ipeer.apsc.ubc.ca/ipeer_site/ open
source and free to download
Jim
_________________________________________________
Jim Sibley
Manager
Centre for Instructional Support
Faculty of Applied Science
University of British Columbia
2208-6250 Applied Science Lane
Vancouver, BC Canada
V6T 1Z4
Phone 604.822.9241
Fax 604.822.7006
Email [log in to unmask]
Web www.learning.apsc.ubc.ca
Blog: Adventures in Instructional Support -
http://ipeer.apsc.ubc.ca/wordpress/
Portfolio: Jim's Wiki Portfolio
________________________________________________
(c) Copyright 2006, Jim Sibley, All rights reserved The information
contained in this e-mail message and any attachments (collectively
"message") is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the
recipient (or recipients) named above. If the reader of this message is
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have
received this message in error and that any review, use, distribution,
or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail,
and delete the original message.
___________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Team Learning Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Michael Gholam
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: FW: Peer Evaluations ("Hold the Peevishness!")
Hi all,
This is my response to Michael Sweet.
Stay well
Michael Gholam
Lebanon
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Gholam [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:33 AM
To: 'Sweet, Michael S'
Subject: RE: Peer Evaluations ("Hold the Peevishness!")
Hi Michael,
I like your way of dodging the "Peevishness and gaming the system", but
the fact remains that all will decide to give each other "positive"
"appreciations and requests" knowing that would lead to your bump. If
students want to game the system, they will. It is a matter of personal
integrity. Besides, I would forfeit upgrading or downgrading the group
performance grade if I informally find that the points given to one
member do not "correlate" with the progress as seen by their individual
RAT's. If I see equal grades allocated to all and collective improvement
in individual scores, I would consider giving the exact group grade to
all. I am not saying that correlating iRat's with points allocated to
each individual is the perfect solution, but it can be an indicator. I
also would observe from time to time how groups are wprking at
application tasks or a culminating group task, and also conduct an
informal corroborative investigation.
Michael Gholam
Lebanon
-----Original Message-----
From: Team Learning Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Sweet, Michael S
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:54 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Peer Evaluations ("Hold the Peevishness!")
We don't have students give each other points anymore, just written
feedback.
BUT we have figured out a way to keep peer evaluations at the forefront
of their minds while avoiding the peevishness and "gaming the system"
that can arise when you have them distribute points to each other.
Instead of points, we have them provide anonymous "appreciations and
requests" twice during the semester. (Each student provides at least
one "appreciation" and one "request" for each of their team-mates.)
These are then fed-back to the students anonymously, as most people do
it.
BUT we introduce the peer evaluations at the beginning of the semester
by
saying:
"At the end of the semester, I often have students come to my office and
say 'I am so close to the next grade up--is there anything I can do for
extra credit to bump me up?'
I tell them 'No, but I will look at your peer evaluation feedback. If
the appreciations and requests are all positive or started out rough and
improved, then I will give you that bump. If not, then, nope--sorry,
nothing to be done."
The beauty of this is that none of the students know whether they will
be candidates for a "bump" until the very end of the term, so they are
on good behavior for the entirety of the course while still getting the
important group process information in the form of "appreciations" and
"requests."
-M
________________________________
From: Team Learning Discussion List on behalf of Kubitz, Karla
Sent: Wed 1/24/2007 1:48 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Forced Ranking in Peer Evaluation
For what it's worth, I've found it helpful to put the following
statement on the back of the peer evaluation form (Michaelsen's version)
and ask them to sign it.
I hereby certify that I have provided an honest assessment of the
contribution of my teammates to our team's productivity. My team
maintenance scores are not based on any 'in or out-of-class' agreements
among my teammates and myself to distribute points in a particular way
(i.e., a way that does not consider the quality or quantity of
individual efforts).
Karla Kubitz
________________________________
From: Team Learning Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Maureen Jonason
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 12:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Forced Ranking in Peer Evaluation
I usually do not tell students about this ahead of time. They read it to
themselves on the last day of class and figure it out and quietly do
what I ask. In the past, I made the mistake of giving the team evals out
to fill out outside of class. One team simply ignored me and gave
everyone equal scores. Another team cleverly figured out a way to give
equal points by each agreeing to make one of the others the low-pointer
and, so they all ended up with equal scores anyway! I had to give them
credit on that one. I am not bothered by rule-breaking, so I accepted
their decisions/choices. AS others have pointed out, if the teams bond
and everyone does truly contribute equally in their view, then the
lesson has been learned. usually, when there is clearly someone who does
less work, they are more than happy to give points accordingly.
________________________________
From: Team Learning Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Don McCormick
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Forced Ranking in Peer Evaluation
Hi TBLers
I teach management and I used the peer evaluation form that requires
students to rate their peers and give at least one a "9" (which is one
below
average) and one "11" (which is one above average). When I announced it
last night, the class exploded in a revolt, objecting that it wasn't
fair because "in my group everyone did an equally good job of
contributing," they couldn't figure out a basis for rating others one
way or another, etc.
I know the form says "If you give everyone pretty much the same score
you will be hurting those who did the most and helping those who did the
least, " but I also am sympathetic to the students' point of view.
I understand the reason given above for forcing some minimal ranking and
I also realize that students are often terrified of giving negative
feedback to other students. I want to help them learn to overcome this
fear because they need to learn how to give negative feedback in the
workplace. If they don't learn to do this, they will truly suck as
managers. But it isn't clear that in the cases where they genuinely feel
each person in their group has contributed equally how forced ranking
will help them learn this.
Is there more to the requirement of forced ranking that I am missing?
From your point of view, what is the learning objective that this helps
students to meet?
- Don
---
Don McCormick
Department of Management
College of Business and Economics
California State University Northridge
https://www.csun.edu/~dmccormick/Don%20McCormick/Home.html
|
