Sandy:
I say that honesty is the best policy. If, because of curving, the peer
evaluation really is zero-sum, then there's no point in obscuring that.
You'll exchange your current unhappy students, who don't understand curving,
for a smarter set who question your sincerity.
As far as them being unhappy, it depends on the course. In
business/economics, what I teach, I'd try to have a sympathetic discussion
with them on how some work settings involve zero-sum competition (and that
it's good to experience and think about this). Promotion and recognition
tournaments are generally zero-sum. Help them grow.
Best,
Fritz Laux
From: Team Learning Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Sandy Cook
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 6:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Peer Evaluations
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 |
|
