TEAMLEARNING-L Archives

Team-Based Learning

TEAMLEARNING-L@LISTS.UBC.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Carter, Neal" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Carter, Neal
Date:
Fri, 1 Nov 2019 01:00:20 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines)
I have them rate others but not themselves, with the score averaging 10 but they can't give everyone the same grade.  I also request qualitative explanation of their grades.

Neal Carter

BYU-Idaho



-----Original Message-----

From: Team-Based Learning [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Stevens

Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 4:11 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Potential problem with Fink method for peer evaluation



Hi everyone -



I've been using the Michaelsen method of peer evaluation for the last several years, but this year I decided to try the Fink method for the first time. I'm looking at the results from my class, and I see that most students gave all of their teammates a full score of 10, which was to be expected because that is usually what happens in my classes. But a few students gave each of their teammates a score of less than 10, which was permissible according to the rules but seems potentially problematic now that I think about it.



In the case of one particular student on a team of 6, they gave each of their teammates a 9, whereas all other member of the team gave everyone a 10. As a result, the student who gave 9s ends up receiving a Fink multiplier equal to 1.017 (because their average individual score is greater than the average team score), whereas the students who gave 10s receive a Fink multiplier score equal to 0.997 (because their average individual score is lesser than the average team score). The difference between the multiplier scores is small, but the fact remains that the student who gave 9s ends up receiving a higher multiplier simply by virtue of downgrading their teammates, which doesn't really seem fair or like a desirable feature of peer evaluation. If a student has reason to believe that their teammates will probably give out full scores of 10, then the student could intentionally "game the system" by giving all

sub-10 scores, thereby securing for themselves a higher multiplier.



Has anyone else seen this as a problem? If so, how have you dealt with it?



Thanks,

Mark



--

Mark Stevens, PhD, MCIP

Chair, Masters of Community & Regional Planning Program University of British Columbia

433-6333 Memorial Road

Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada

http://www.scarp.ubc.ca/people/mark-stevens

604-822-0657



########################################################################



To unsubscribe from the TEAMLEARNING-L list, please click the following link:

https://lists.ubc.ca/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=TEAMLEARNING-L&A=1



Further information about the UBC Mailing Lists service can be found on the UBC IT website.



########################################################################



To unsubscribe from the TEAMLEARNING-L list, please click the following link:

https://lists.ubc.ca/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=TEAMLEARNING-L&A=1



Further information about the UBC Mailing Lists service can be found on the UBC IT website.


ATOM RSS1 RSS2