Hello -
Jennifer and Paul both make excellent points. Jennifer, so far my best answer to the question of whether students have difficulty discussing their interactions face-to-face is "not that I've noticed yet." The first time they use the processing activity is in the 4th week of class so they've had multiple opportunities to work together as a team, just not on an activity that was graded as a team. Paul, that might alleviate some of your concerns about processing team interactions too early. However, having a critical conversation about their team interactions after the first graded team activity might still be too early in the term for an effective discussion.
There's also undoubtedly some teams where this conversation is less about improving their team performance and more about maintaining positive emotions within the team. I work with first- and second-year undergraduates at a smallish public university in a very poor, very rural state. I've never had a team spontaneously discuss the process they used during a graded team activity. I'll take any kind of discussion about the team interactions I can get, even if the initial forays aren't as critical as might be desired. Even a less-than-ideal discussion beats nothing. I can see that a different student population (e.g., med students) might react very differently. Also, I hope that students get better at processing their team interactions over the term the same way they get better at working together. This is why teams repeat the processing activity after each graded team activity (four or five times during the term).
I welcome any other thoughts or suggestions about ways to encourage teams to talk about their interactions. The approach I'm using now is better than what I did before but its clearly not optimal.
Thanks much!
lm
Laura Madson, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003
[log in to unmask]
(575) 646-6207
On Feb 8, 2012, at 11:49 AM, Jennifer Imazeki wrote:
> Have you ever had problems with having the students discuss these
> evaluations face-to-face? That is, I'm imagining a situation where one
> team member feels differently than everyone else and either doesn't
> want to speak up (like with a very shy student) or the team discussion
> turns into more of an argument than a productive discussion (like with
> a very immature student.
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Laura Madson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Good morning everyone -
>> May I throw an idea into our collective hat and see what you think?
>>
>> I've tried various approaches to peer evaluation (e.g., iPeer, paper, one
>> global peer evaluation at the end of the term, peer evaluations after each
>> big team activity) but I was never satisfied that it was as effective as it
>> could be. My hope was that using evaluations after each big team activity
>> (i.e., 4 or 5 times during the semester) would both hold students
>> accountable to their teams and help students refine their behavior to be
>> more effective in the team. Instead, students seemed unwilling to change
>> their behavior.
>>
>> These days, I'm using the attached activity to help teams discuss and
>> process their interactions. Teams complete it in-class immediately following
>> each big team activity (there are 5 during the term), before they receive
>> feedback on the team product they submitted. I've only used it for one full
>> semester but it seemed to be more successful at getting students to
>> explicitly discuss their team interactions than anything else I've tried.
>> There's also the possibility that completing the processing activity will
>> put ideas in students' heads about specific things they could do differently
>> to improve their team interactions. The end-of-the-semester peer evaluation
>> (also attached) is very similar to the team processing activity so the
>> end-of-semester peer evaluation includes the same dimensions they've been
>> discussing during the term.
>>
>> I welcome all suggestions and feedback!
>> Thank you!
>> lm
>>
>> Laura Madson, Ph.D.
>> Associate Professor
>> Department of Psychology
>> New Mexico State University
>> Las Cruces, NM 88003
>> [log in to unmask]
>> (575) 646-6207
>>
>>
>> On Feb 7, 2012, at 9:19 AM, Bridges, Kristie wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks! We've considered approaches such as these but with a class of 200
>>> students I'm afraid it will be overwhelming and error-prone.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Team-Based Learning [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>>> Behalf Of Jennifer Imazeki
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 11:16 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: electronic peer evaluation
>>>
>>> I use the quiz tool in Blackboard and that generates a spreadsheet similar
>>> to what you'd get with a Google Docs form. However, I still have to do a lot
>>> of manipulation to that spreadsheet once I've got all the information. The
>>> way I set up the survey in BB is to ask each student to give the name of a
>>> teammate, give that teammate's score, and then write a qualitative
>>> evaluation so each of those responses is a separate column in the resulting
>>> spreadsheet. What creates the headache for me is that students don't enter
>>> their teammates in the same order so I have to do a lot of cutting and
>>> pasting to gather together all the scores and comments for a given student.
>>> Since I have more students than Herb (two classes each with 12-13 teams of
>>> 5-6 students), it can be quite time-consuming. Some of the web-based tools
>>> look quite useful but I really don't want to make my students create yet
>>> another account for an external service so I'd be particularly interested if
>>> anyone either has an ea
>>> sier way
>>>
>>> Jennifer
>>> ****************************
>>> Jennifer Imazeki
>>> Department of Economics
>>> San Diego State University
>>> homepage: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~jimazeki/
>>> Economics for Teachers blog: http://economicsforteachers.blogspot.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Herbert Coleman <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I don't have "large" numbers (only 6 groups of 5-6 students) but, I
>>>> use a Google docs form for students to enter their peer evaluations.
>>>> I like it because,... well, I love spreadsheets (so now you know) and
>>>> the data is automatically entered and ready for me to manipulate. I
>>>> can also quickly see who has submitted their review and who is
>>>> lacking. I can tabulate the results and apply the grade weight. I
>>>> can also capture the comments to share with the student when needed.
>>>> Students are give time in class to go to the lab or library to
>>>> complete the assignment or they can do it at home.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Bridges, Kristie
>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>> Has anyone used iPeer, SparkPlus or other program for peer evaluation
>>>>> with a large number of students/groups ? If so, what were the pros
>>>>> and cons? Any recommendations for web-based peer evaluation tools
>>>>> would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kristie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kristie Grove Bridges, PhD
>>>>>
>>>>> Associate Professor, Biochemistry
>>>>>
>>>>> WVSOM
>>>>>
>>>>> 400 N Lee St
>>>>>
>>>>> Lewisburg, WV 24901
>>>>>
>>>>> 304-647-6223
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Herb Coleman, Ph.D
>>>> Dir. Instructional Computing and Technology Adjunct Professor of
>>>> Psychology Austin Community College Highland Business Center
>>>> 5930 Middle Fiskville Rd.
>>>> Austin, TX 78752
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> 512-223-7746
>>>> *************************************************
>>>> Don't Think Small
>>>>
>>>> "Arthur: It would have to be a 747.
>>>> Cobb: Why is that?
>>>> Arthur: Because on a 747 the pilot is up top, and the first class
>>>> cabin is in the nose, so no one would walk through. But you'd have to
>>>> buy out the entire cabin. And the first class flight attendant.
>>>>
>>>> Saito: I bought the airline.....It seemed neater."
>>>>
>>>> From the motion picture Inception
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAm_Cp3OKik
>>>> *************************************************
>>>
>>
>
|
