Hi all
Another option that we have been piloting in recent year at several
universities here in Australia builds on Michael's great idea.
We administer the whole (self and) peer evaluation task several times
during the semester and to use the feedback during the following
in-class session to help students improve their perception of their
contribution and identify opportunities for improvement. Thus the
students get to see it applied once or twice for formative purposes and
the last time for summative.
Cheers
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Team Learning Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Sweet, Michael S
Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2007 9:54 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Peer Evaluations ("Hold the Peevishness!")
We don't have students give each other points anymore, just written
feedback.
BUT we have figured out a way to keep peer evaluations at the forefront
of their minds while avoiding the peevishness and "gaming the system"
that can arise when you have them distribute points to each other.
Instead of points, we have them provide anonymous "appreciations and
requests" twice during the semester. (Each student provides at least
one "appreciation" and one "request" for each of their team-mates.)
These are then fed-back to the students anonymously, as most people do
it.
BUT we introduce the peer evaluations at the beginning of the semester
by saying:
"At the end of the semester, I often have students come to my office and
say 'I am so close to the next grade up--is there anything I can do for
extra credit to bump me up?'
I tell them 'No, but I will look at your peer evaluation feedback. If
the appreciations and requests are all positive or started out rough and
improved, then I will give you that bump. If not, then, nope--sorry,
nothing to be done."
The beauty of this is that none of the students know whether they will
be candidates for a "bump" until the very end of the term, so they are
on good behavior for the entirety of the course while still getting the
important group process information in the form of "appreciations" and
"requests."
-M
________________________________
From: Team Learning Discussion List on behalf of Kubitz, Karla
Sent: Wed 1/24/2007 1:48 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Forced Ranking in Peer Evaluation
For what it's worth, I've found it helpful to put the following
statement on the back of the peer evaluation form (Michaelsen's version)
and ask them to sign it.
I hereby certify that I have provided an honest assessment of the
contribution of my teammates to our team's productivity. My team
maintenance scores are not based on any 'in or out-of-class' agreements
among my teammates and myself to distribute points in a particular way
(i.e., a way that does not consider the quality or quantity of
individual efforts).
Karla Kubitz
________________________________
From: Team Learning Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Maureen Jonason
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 12:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Forced Ranking in Peer Evaluation
I usually do not tell students about this ahead of time. They read it to
themselves on the last day of class and figure it out and quietly do
what I ask. In the past, I made the mistake of giving the team evals out
to fill out outside of class. One team simply ignored me and gave
everyone equal scores. Another team cleverly figured out a way to give
equal points by each agreeing to make one of the others the low-pointer
and, so they all ended up with equal scores anyway! I had to give them
credit on that one. I am not bothered by rule-breaking, so I accepted
their decisions/choices. AS others have pointed out, if the teams bond
and everyone does truly contribute equally in their view, then the
lesson has been learned. usually, when there is clearly someone who does
less work, they are more than happy to give points accordingly.
________________________________
From: Team Learning Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Don McCormick
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Forced Ranking in Peer Evaluation
Hi TBLers
I teach management and I used the peer evaluation form that requires
students to rate their peers and give at least one a "9" (which is one
below average) and one "11" (which is one above average). When I
announced it last night, the class exploded in a revolt, objecting that
it wasn't fair because "in my group everyone did an equally good job of
contributing," they couldn't figure out a basis for rating others one
way or another, etc.
I know the form says "If you give everyone pretty much the same score
you will be hurting those who did the most and helping those who did the
least, " but I also am sympathetic to the students' point of view.
I understand the reason given above for forcing some minimal ranking and
I also realize that students are often terrified of giving negative
feedback to other students. I want to help them learn to overcome this
fear because they need to learn how to give negative feedback in the
workplace. If they don't learn to do this, they will truly suck as
managers. But it isn't clear that in the cases where they genuinely feel
each person in their group has contributed equally how forced ranking
will help them learn this.
Is there more to the requirement of forced ranking that I am missing?
From your point of view, what is the learning objective that this helps
students to meet?
- Don
---
Don McCormick
Department of Management
College of Business and Economics
California State University Northridge
https://www.csun.edu/~dmccormick/Don%20McCormick/Home.html
|
