Information and archives about the IAMSE TBL Webinar are available at
http://www.iamse.org/development/2010/was_2010_fall.htm
Yesterday was a great session on peer eval....they already have the archive
up
Here is the schedule
Sept 23 12:00 pm ET
TBL 101 - Where to begin
Sept 30 12:00 pm ET
Voices of Experiences - Adopting TBL Into your Course
Oct 7 12:00 pm ET
Peer Evaluation - The Keys for Success
Oct 14 12:00 pm ET
Writing TBL Questions
Oct 21 12:00 pm ET
The 12 Tips of Creating a Good TBL Course
Oct 28 12:00 pm ET
Research in Team-Based Learning
jim
From: Jana McCreary <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Jana McCreary <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 20:05:54 -0400
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: peer evaluation practices
Hi Laura and others,
Here is the language from my syllabus:
o Work in Teams. Your participation in team work will be assessed by your
team members using a quantitative assessment. Team members will compile
this information three times during the semester. For each assessment
period, the lowest score received by a team member in each category will be
dropped.
The average of the three evaluations will count as 2% of each studentıs
final grade.
To implement this, I printed a chart with all team membersı names in rows
and four columns as follows: (1) Is prepared for discussions; (2)
Participates in discussions; (3) Avoids dominating discussions; and (4)
Listens respectfully. The team members used that chart to allocate points
among team members. Each student filled out one sheet of paper.
For points, essentially, I take the number of people on the team, minus one,
times 5. Thus, if they have 6 team members, each person allocates 25 points
for each category [(6-1)*5 = 25]. If they have five team members, each
person allocates 20 points per category [(5-1)*5 = 20]. Thus, if everything
is fine on the team, they give everyone a score of 5. (They do not give
themselves points, thus the subtraction of one before multiplying times
five.) And if they feel a need to score a person lower than a 5, theyıll
have to score someone else higher. Thus, there must be a genuine reason to
decide not to give everyone a score of 5. I was worried this would be
confusing, but they all understood (two large sections of 80 students each).
By dropping the lowest score in each category, if there is a personal
dispute (or a single problem about ethnicity/race), it will not affect a
personıs score. Also, no one average score in any category will be below a
5 unless at least two people on the team believe that person deserved lower
than a 5. My theory was that if at least two people out of five or six
identify a problem, then it really needs to be addressed.
Allocating the points prevents someone from ³gaming² the competitive nature
of grades and grading all of their teammates more harshly or lower.
(Students here are graded on a strict curve.) It also prevents the people
who have a tendency to score high from falsely giving everyone a high score
over others who think ³average² is good for everyone.
Finally, for the first round, I included a page with the open questions of
³list something positive about each person² and ³list something youıd like
this person to improve² for each person to fill out. My assistant typed up
the comments on a single sheet of paper for each student, and I computed the
averages to report (after dropping the lowest in each category); that
average for each category was also reported on the sheet with the typed
comments (typed to protect anonymity). I gave that sheet to the students
within a week of them completing the evaluations.
My hope is that by the time we get to the final assessment, everyone on all
teams give each other 5s in each category.
Itıs a bit labor intensive, but Iıve already seen some people improve after
receiving comments---things they would never have ³heard² if Iıd said
something similar.
I hope this helps some.
Jana
Jana R. McCreary
Assistant Professor of Law
Florida Coastal School of Law
8787 Baypine Road
Jacksonville, Florida 32256
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
(904) 256-1222
(904) 680-7771 (fax)
From: Team-Based Learning [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Laura Madson
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 2:57 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: peer evaluation practices
Hello everyone -
Iım curious about the peer evaluation procedures you use. Would you take a
few moments to respond to the following ³straw poll?² In addition, please
feel free to send any thoughts or comments about peer evaluations.
1. How many times do you collect peer evaluations during a term (e.g., once,
twice, after each team activity)?
2. Do you use a numerical peer evaluations (e.g., assigning points or
answering survey items on a 1-to-7 scale), open-ended comments, both, or
something else?
3. Do you share peer evaluations with students?
In the spirit of sharing, I tell you my answers to the above questions. I
teach undergraduates in large-enrollment sections (N=140) of Introduction to
Psychology. In the past, Iıve collected peer evaluations at the end of the
term using survey items rated on a 1-to-7 scale and I havenıt shared peer
evaluations with students (unless they asked about their final grade). This
semester, Iım experimenting with collecting open-ended comments after each
team activity and sharing those formative comments with students. Its too
early in the semester to determine the effect of the new peer evaluation
procedure but the change got me wondering about the variety of peer
evaluation procedures used by other TBL folks.
Many thanks for your thoughts and time!
lm
Laura Madson, Associate Professor and Graduate Director
Department of Psychology
Box 30001/MSC 3452
Las Cruces, NM 88003
(575) 646-6207
--
|
