Jenny: My opinion is that students receiving negative feedback need no managing from the faculty in any way. The feedback, if it clearly identifies behaviors that need to be improved, is powerful enough from both a psychologic and social standpoint to motivate behavioral change. The desire to do better in team activities develops without any guidance, unless the student who is getting negative feedback has a character disorder (e.g., narcissism) or psychosis. Regarding how the team will function after "negative" but professionally written feedback is shared, the team will adjust and self-manage itself over time. There may be a blip in their academic performance temporarily, but in the long run learning will be enhanced and team dynamics will adjust after honest critical feedback.
Regarding a team member "self-assessing" their contribution to the team in any deliberate manner, I would counsel against that. Normally, team members are constantly self-assessing as they interact in real time and process those interactions. Again, this happens automatically in all but the most hardened sociopaths.
These opinions are offered on the basis of observation and experience only; I am not a psychologist or social scientist--just a pathologist whose eyes and ears are open. Paul
On Apr 11, 2012, at 5:42 AM, Jenny Morris wrote:
> Hi Paul
>
> Thanks so much for your advice on this. I just have one further issue that others may also be able to help with and that is how to manage the process in event of a student receiving negative feedback (even though it is anonymised). The process we are considering is that throughout the module each member of the team will self-assess their contribution to the team using a traffic light system on the form you developed (see attached); and then the peer feedback will take place on the last day of the course.
>
> We were thinking of several options: (i) students would be given the anonymised sheets to take away with them; or (ii) we would take away and score and send them a summary as you have suggested. However this is quite labour intensive (we have 300 students in the group). Whichever system we use that enables the students to receive the feedback from their peers, we are also concerned about how best to manage the process for the students who might receive negative feedback.
>
> Any advice would be most welcome.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jenny
>
> Dr Jenny Morris
> Associate Professor (Senior Lecturer) in Health Studies
> Faculty of Health, Education and Society
> University of Plymouth
> Knowledge Spa
> Treliske
> Truro TR1 3HD
> Cornwall
>
> Tel: 01872 256461
> Web: http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/faculties/health
>
> ‘High quality education for high quality care’
>
>
> <image003.jpg>
>
> From: Paul Koles [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 20 February 2012 22:24
> To: Jenny Morris
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Peer feedback & Individual/Team testing weighting
>
> Jenny: glad to see you are implementing peer feedback. Each student should receive all of the ratings and comments made by everyone on the student's team. In most situations where students have spent less than 6 months together, the feedback should be de-identified, i.e., the receiver should not be able to determine the individual source of each comment or rating. We usually accomplish this by collating all the ratings and comments into one summary page or web-based report.
>
> On Feb 20, 2012, at 10:22 AM, Jenny Morris wrote:
>
> We will be using peer feedback as formative assessment only as this is the first time we will be running the module using tbl (2nd year module in undergraduate nursing programme) and it is the only module using tbl. We have divided the module into four units and felt that it was best to include as formative only as the teams will not have worked together prior to this module. The feedback will be collected on the last day of the module and we were discussing how best to give the students the feedback from this exercise. If anyone has advice on this, that would be useful.
> <Personal TBL Feedback form Koles Aug-Dec 2011.doc>
|
