In the 5 years I have used TBL in my graduate nurse practitioner gyn
course, I have experienced gaming the system and rebellion against forced
ranking so extensively that I decided to omit peer evaluation entirely
this semester. With the exception of one team 3 years ago (with one
individual being the primary cause of the dissonance), the teamwork has
been very high functioning especially as the refinement of the course has
occurred. I may consider incorporating qualitative peer evaluation back
into the course in the future.
Robin L. Hills, MS, RN, WHNP-BC, CNE
Clinical Assistant Professor
VCU School of Nursing
Department of Family and Community Health Nursing
Box 980567, Richmond, VA 23298
(804) 828-5578
From:
"Levine, Ruth" <[log in to unmask]>
To:
[log in to unmask]
Date:
03/23/2011 12:30 PM
Subject:
Re: Forced ranking in the peer evaluation process?
Sent by:
Team-Based Learning <[log in to unmask]>
Hi Maria:
In my experience with medical students, when I forced them to discriminate
in their peer evaluations they were very unhappy. In consultation with
many other schools I have heard similar stories, and many people actually
abandoned their discriminative peer evaluation system because of
rebellion on the part of the students. The more ?high functioning? the
team, the more likely they were to dislike the requirement to score one
teammate higher than another, and the more likely to ?game? the system so
that each teammate could have a similar score.
I spent considerable time discussing this dilemma with Larry Michaelsen,
who created the ?forced discrimination? peer evaluation system, and he
told me that ?gaming the system? was not necessarily a bad thing, since it
was an indication of cohesion on the part of the team. He and I have
debated this point?I believe that in health science students ?gaming? can
create an unprofessional environment and set up adversarial relationship
between the instructor and the class.
Larry and I agreed to disagree about the whole point of the merits of
forced discrimination. I have chosen (and recommend) to instructors who I
counsel about peer evaluation to use a system like the one devised by Dee
Fink in which students can choose to give everyone the same score or not
(in his system, students divide 100 points among their teammates?in a team
of 6, a student can give all his peers 20 points or give some more or some
less, but not everyone can get high scores so there is no problem with
grade inflation). I use the sum of the scores and multiply them by the
group grade for an ?adjusted? group grade and give the qualitative
feedback back to the students.
The advantage of the Fink method (in which there is both quantitative and
qualitative peer evaluation) is that students can CHOOSE to discriminate
or not in their allocation of points. In my experience students do so
about 20% of the time. The meaningful evaluation comes mostly from the
qualititative feedback.. This evaluation is much more popular with the
students but also provides evaluation which can be used for both grading
and useful formative and summative feedback.
Ruth Levine
University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston
From: Team-Based Learning [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Summa, Maria
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 10:19 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Forced ranking in the peer evaluation process?
Dear TBL Community,
Our School of Pharmacy is launching a 3-calendar-year (33-month)
post-baccalaureate Doctor of Pharmacy program this coming Fall. The
curriculum follows a modified-block model with a heavy emphasis on
active-learning instructional strategies.
Beginning with our inaugural class, we will pilot a process for
peer/learner evaluation at a curricular level (rather than at the
individual course level). Teams of 6 students will complete peer
evaluations multiple times each academic term. A ?capstone? course at the
end of each calendar year will ?house? the grade for peer evaluations,
although learners will receive timely feedback on their progress after
each evaluation submission. The peer evaluations will represent a
significant portion of the capstone course final grade.
The peer evaluation tool we have developed is based on a forced-ranking
system, whereby learners would use a scale to rank each member of their
learning team on a set of abilities. The abilities were developed from
our School?s ability-based outcomes and literature on effective teams. In
addition to ranking their peers, learners will be required to justify each
ranking through brief written comments that clearly identify areas of high
performance and those requiring further growth/development. Comments will
be evaluated by faculty and will constitute a portion of the overall peer
evaluation grade.
While our faculty has approved the peer evaluation process and the
associated tool, there is some degree of hesitation with the use of a
forced ranking system, despite our requirement for peer score
justification and written comments. I would appreciate hearing all
opinions on the use of forced ranking in peer evaluation from this group,
particularly from those of you who employ this model.
Thank you,
Maria Summa
Maria A. Summa, PharmD, BCPS
Associate Professor, Pharmacy Practice and Administration
Saint Joseph College School of Pharmacy
229 Trumbull Street, Hartford, CT 06103
Phone: 860.231.5885
Fax: 860.231.5759
Email: [log in to unmask]
Click here to read our new Blog!
|
