When we use the fink method.......we tell students...
giving everyone the same high score.....makes everyone average
And we tell students that average evaluation score will be awarded some
fixed percent (usually 75%)
jim
> From: "Jackson, John Mark" <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: "Jackson, John Mark" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:35:29 -0500
> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Forced ranking in the peer evaluation process?
>
> Ruth, I'm not following your comment that with Dee's method "not everyone can
> get high scores so there's no problem with grade inflation."
>
> Can you elaborate on this? It seems if they are allowed to give everyone full
> credit and choose to do so, even if some didn't deserve full points, then that
> leads to grade inflation for the "slackers".
>
> John Mark
> ---------------------------------
>
> John Mark Jackson, OD, MS, FAAO
> Southern College of Optometry
> (901) 722-3314
> Skype: jacksonsco
>
> From: "Levine, Ruth" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Reply-To: "Levine, Ruth" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:28:57 -0500
> To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>"
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Subject: Re: Forced ranking in the peer evaluation process?
>
> Hi Maria:
> In my experience with medical students, when I forced them to discriminate in
> their peer evaluations theywere 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 ³high functioning² the team, the more likely they were to
> dislike the requirement to score one teammate higher than another, and the
> more likely to ³game² the system so that each teammate could have a similar
> score.
>
> I spent considerable time discussing this dilemma with Larry Michaelsen, who
> created the ³forced discrimination² peer evaluation system, and he told me
> that ³gaming the system² 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 ³gaming² 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 asystem 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 ³adjusted² 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 morepopular 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]<mailto:[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 ³capstone² course at the end of each calendar year will
> ³house² 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
> theirlearning team on a set of abilities. The abilities were developed from
> our School¹s 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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> Click here<http://www.sjc.edu/about/social_media/parisi.html> to read our new
> Blog!
|
