Hi Sandy,
I think the peer eval process is crucial, but I certainly understand its
difficulties!
I may have posted this to the list before, but just in case, here's what
we've done to maximize the benefit and minimize the head-ache of the
peer eval process.
* We do the peer-eval process AT LEAST twice during the term,
usually about 1/3 and 2/3 of the way through the semester.
* In our process, the students do NOT assign each other points.
* On their peer eval form, students write down "Appreciations" and
"Requests" for each of their team-mates, and those forms are collected
by the teacher.
* The teacher (or TA) then types all the appreciations and
requests for each student into an e-mail, and sends them out to each
individual student. So, students receive "anonymous" feedback, but the
teacher knows who said what about whom.
HERE'S THE GOLDEN PART:
When explaining how TBL works in the first week of class, we say
something like this:
"At the end of the semester, there is always a long line of students
outside my door. These are folks who are just a few points shy of
the-next-grade-up (e.g., from a B+ to an A-) and they always ask if
there is any extra credit they can do to get that bump. At that point
in the semester, the answer is no, BUT I will look at the requests and
appreciations your team-mates made across the semester. If they were
all good or started out rough but got better and you really are just a
few point shy of a bump, then yes--it looks good for you to get the
bump. But if the requests and appreciations reflect that you weren't
coming prepared, or weren't working well with your team-mates, then no
dice."
The great thing about this is that no students know until very late in
the semester if this might apply to them, so it motivates good behavior
all term long.
I realize this might not work in all cases, but it is simple,
easy-to-explain, and math-free for us, while still giving students the
feedback they need for good group process and motivating good team-work
at the individual level.
Hope this helps. And, if I said all this before, apologies for
repetition. Just wanting to help! :-)
-Michael
-----Original Message-----
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 |
|
