MAILING LISTS

Impressive that you are able to identify this issue among such a large group of students. Although some might argue that such a situation is rare in team learning, you are dealing with a common problem in group processes.

Cliques can emerge within teams. This can result in evaluations that reflect more on personality than on performance or contribution. This is why it is important for grading criteria to include "faculty observation", and for faculty to closely observe for opportunities to engage with and needs to intervene in team activities.

Actively engaging as an observer and coach can help the faculty intervene in dysfunctional group processes. With "faculty observation" as a grading criteria, you can adjust grades to compensate for inequities inherent in group processes.



-----
Brent Duncan


via iPhone

On 2012/01/27, at 18:48, "J.Aires de Sousa" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear TBLers
> 
> I'm using TBL in a large course of General Chemistry (1st year undergraduate students of Engineering) with 450 students in classes of ca 80 students.
> 
> I have a problem with the peer evaluation in one team, and I'd like to get suggestions before I make a decision.
> 
> This is a team of 6 members in which one of the students contributed mostly(apparently to me). This conclusion is confirmed by the marks obtained in the final exams (she scored 4 points above the other team members in a 0-20 scale). Peer evaluation was performed before the scores of the final exams were known. Students distributed the 100 points by the other team members and submitted the evaluations directly to me. Only the final sums were released. Probably due to conflicts within the team, this student ended up with 98 points and two of the others got above 110. She is complaining the evaluation was clearly unfair, and I'm inclined to agree.
> 
> I'm considering several options:
> 
> - Do nothing
> - Ask the team if everyone feels comfortable with the final sums and, if not, repeat the evaluation
> - Repeat the evaluation, this time openly
> 
> I'm sure this should happen frequently in TBL. I had a similar problem before, but more evident, with a rather small team (4 members). At that time I "vetoed" the result and repeated the evaluation.
> 
> It would be great if someone could help.
> 
> Thanks,
> Joao
> 
> -- 
> Joao Aires de Sousa
> Departamento de Quimica, Faculdade de Ciencias e Tecnologia,
> Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal
> Tel: (+351) 21 2948300  x 10907  Fax: (+351) 21 2948550
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> www: http://joao.airesdesousa.com