The in class peer rating for my classes is base on 9 assessments and the
opportunity to give a bonus. They rate their teammates from 0-3 on each
item. Students are instructed not to grade themselves and not to give
every student the same rating. I show them data that never in my history of
TBL have all students on the same team done the same on the iRAT (one of
the the items is "How well did the team member prepare for the iRAT?" This
comes out in the T-RAT discussions. If a student says, "I just guessed" or
"honestly, I didn't read that part", or "I remember in the text, it
said..." you know how well they prepared). So I challenge them that by
abstraction it is doubtful that all the team members did exactly the same
on the rest of the measures. They also can give one team member a bonus
(but they are not required to give anyone a bonus).
The qualitative responses ("what is the team member doing well" and "what's
one area where the team member might improve") should compare with the
score ratings. If the team member was rate low on their contribution to
the T-RAT discussion, then the improvement should say something about
speaking up more ore studying better for the RATs.
So far this has been the most efficient way for me to gather the peer
ratings and to get the students to do them in a reasonable amount of time
as well as get meaningful feedback that I use to help the teams to
improve. I've only had one team that seemed to game the system by
colluding on peer ratings. I over heard them say one time "ok, who gets
the bonus this time?" Sure enough each time one member got the bonus the
bonus from each of the other members and it rotated. It was hard for me to
get upset with them because they were a high performing team and made sure
that everyone was participating and contributing even if a member was
absent (I over heard that one member even went to get another when they had
car trouble).
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Bridges, Kristie
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> I think this would be possible if it were a single course but we've not
> reached consensus on how to incorporate peer evaluation grades
> longitudinally across multiple courses. Even if we counted their
> evaluation scores toward a grade, I'm not sure it would address issues such
> as providing identical feedback to all team members. We would need to
> grade the quality of their feedback as well as the scores they receive from
> peers. Is that what you do?
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Dee Fink <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 1, 2014 5:36 PM
> *To:* Bridges, Kristie
> *Cc:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Poor quality peer evaluation
>
> Kristie,
>
> Why don't you count the peer evaluations toward the course grade? Is
> there a reason for that?
> It seems like if you did, students would take them seriously.
>
> My view is/was that one of my learning goals was for students to learn
> how to work effectively as part of a group.
>
> - If that was a course learning goal, then I had to support that and
> assess that.
> - Peer evaluation is the primary way of assessing that.
> - And if I want students to take it seriously, I have to make it
> matter. And making it part of the course grade is my way of "making it
> matter."
>
> Dee Fink
>
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Bridges, Kristie <[log in to unmask]
> > wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>>
>> We were wondering how others handle the issue of students who do not take
>> peer evaluation seriously. We currently use iPeer and the Koles method
>> but the results don't count toward a grade. With 2 classes of 200 students
>> each and limited resources, it's difficult to provide individual feedback
>> to students regarding the quality of their comments. Students who make
>> inappropriate comments are reported for lack of professionalism but this
>> happens very rarely. Much more common issues include students copying and
>> pasting identical feedback for multiple team members, using brief one-word
>> responses or stating in the self-evaluation that their own performance is
>> perfect. They've been addressed as a class regarding this and are given
>> examples of helpful/unhelpful responses but there currently are no
>> individual or team consequences. We've considered several options
>> including grading the responses (probably not viable for us at this time),
>> reporting all students whose responses don't meet a minimum standard for
>> lack of professionalism or making the entire group re-do the evaluation if
>> any team member fails to take it seriously. We'd love to hear how the rest
>> of you handle this type of behavior. Many thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kristie Bridges
>>
>>
>>
>> Kristie Grove Bridges, PhD
>>
>> Associate Professor, Biomedical Sciences
>>
>> WVSOM
>>
>> 400 N Lee St
>>
>> Lewisburg, WV 24901
>>
>> 304-647-6223
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ***********************
> L. Dee Fink
> 234 Foreman Ave.
> Norman, OK 73069
> Phone/FAX: 405-364-6464
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Websites:
> www.designlearning.org [multiple resources on course design]
> www.deefinkandassociates.com [offer workshops & online courses]
> www.finkconsulting.info [Fink's consulting activities &
> publications]
>
> **Former President of the POD Network in Higher Education (2004-2005)
> **Author of: *Creating Significant Learning Experiences* (2003,
> Jossey-Bass)
> **Senior Associate, Dee Fink & Associates Consulting Services
>
>
>
--
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
********************************************************************************
Saruman believes it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but
that is not what I have found. I found it is the small everyday deeds of
ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and
love. -- Gandalf the Grey from the 2012 motion picture "The Hobbit"
*********************************************************************************
|
