Hi there Derek. Thanks for your timely and comprehensive response. Clearly the student inquiry about anonymous feedback triggered additional thoughts for me, hence my posting to the listserve. We have used a reference article on giving feedback which included many of the characteristics noted in your referenced article. We have also completed a team exercise in giving feedback based on some familiar team examples (individuals not being prepared or coming late for agreed meetings, as well as members working hard to include everyone etc). The outcome of the exercise was that several teams identified that this is hard to do, recognition that these skills had application to other parts of their lives where they might practice feedback skills and the suggestion that feedback might be given in person, privately or in the group. We are also working on each team developing 3-5 norms, that speak to behaviours about how they do their work together. This can facilitate more comfortable discussion if a team member seems to be acting outside of the agreed norms. Here is a copy of the initial material that I referenced. In summary, agree with your recommendation and will be going back to the class to discuss the importance of sharing feedback clearly and in an accountable way. thanks again for your response. peter c. At 01:38 PM 01/10/2006, Lane, Derek R wrote: >Sorry, I’ve changed email accounts and the >listserv bounced the email back to me. I’m re-forwarding to the list. > >-Derek > >Derek R. Lane, Ph.D. >Associate Dean for ><http://www.uky.edu/CommInfoStudies/GRAD/welcome.html>Graduate >Programs in Communication ><http://www.uky.edu/CommInfoStudies/>College of >Communications & Information Studies >133 Grehan Building ><http://www.uky.edu/>University of Kentucky >Lexington, KY 40506-0042 >Tel: (859) 257-7805 >Fax: (859) 323-9879 >Email: [log in to unmask] >Faculty website: <http://www.uky.edu/~drlane>http://www.uky.edu/~drlane > >IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER REGARDING THIS TRANSMISSION: >The contents of this email message and any >attachments are confidential and intended solely >for the addressee(s). The information may also >be confidential and legally privileged. This >transmission is sent in trust, for the sole >purpose of delivery to the intended >recipient(s). If you have received this >transmission in error, any use, reproduction, or >dissemination of this transmission is strictly >prohibited. Neither the transmission of this >email message and any attachments nor any error >in transmission or misdelivery shall constitute >waiver of any applicable legal privilege. If >you are not the intended recipient, please >immediately notify the sender by reply email and >delete this message and any attachments. > >---------- >From: Lane, Derek R >Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 1:32 PM >To: 'Peter Coughlin'; [log in to unmask] >Subject: RE: Use of Peer Appraisal Forms and >including name of member in team providing the feedback >Importance: High > >Peter, > >Your students are correct in their >challenge. Feedback SHOULD be direct, clear, >and make members accountable to the rest of the >team. The value of the feedback is that all of >the members of the team have the opportunity to >discuss the feedback and make performance improvements. > >Peer feedback/appraisal is a critical component >of TBL. However, the >collaborative/cooperative/TBL learning research >is clear about the impact of anonymous >feedbackit can do more damage than it can >help. I encourage you to review Michaelsen’s >(1988) guidelines for “Making Feedback Helpful” >that was originally published in volume 13, >issue 1 of the Organizational Behavior Teaching >Review on pages 109-113. In the updated >article, he and his co-author Emily Schultheiss >outline the following seven "Characteristics of >Helpful Feedback." Helpful Feedback is: > >(1) Descriptive, not evaluative, and is "owned" by the sender. >(2) Specific, not general. >(3) Honest and sincere. >(4) Expressed in terms relevant to the self-perceived needs of the receiver. >(5) Timely and in context. >(6) Desired by the receiver, not imposed on him or her. >(7) Usable; concerned with behavior over which the receiver has control. > >If you are simply providing your students the >peer evaluation form (with descriptors) and >asking students to complete them anonymously for >each of their team members, you may be missing >out on one of the most powerful TBL >experienceshaving students develop their own >team peer evaluation procedures and >criteria. For more information you can >visit: ><http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/TBL_PEEREVALS/>http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/TBL_PEEREVALS/ >It is obviously too late in the semester to have >the teams develop peer evaluation procedures and >criteria, but it is critical that the feedback >they do provide to each other follows the seven characteristics. > >Even if you are going to give your students the >evaluation criteria (behavioral descriptors) and >the procedures to use, it is vital that the >feedback be OWNED by the sender because >anonymous feedbackespecially anonymous negative >feedbackdestroys trust and group cohesion. On >the other hand, when peer feedback follows the >seven characteristics, teams can discuss their >concerns, make corrections, and perform more effectively. > >I have been doing some research with the College >of Engineering at the University of Kentucky and >have accumulated several criteria that seem to >capture the criteria that undergraduate >engineering students believe are most >important. I’ll be presenting a paper at the >National Communication Association conference in >San Antonio in November with one of my doctoral >students. I’ve provided the abstract below: > >The exchange of helpful feedback between team >members working on design projects is an >essential communication activity to increase >team productivity and maintain production >quality. It is, of course, important to >determine what constitutes "helpful" feedback as >well as to develop a mechanism using either an >internally or externally derived set of >procedures and criteria to evaluate the feedback >process. Data collected from the past two >semesters of a senior civil engineering capstone >course indicate that students are able to >successfully integrate peer evaluation >procedures and criteria to more successfully >complete their design projects. Our paper >reports specific details regarding the criteria >employed as well as the strategies implemented by student civil engineers. > >I would be interested in seeing the Wright State >University Peer Evaluation Scale with the 12 >behavioral descriptors. Will you please send me a copy? Thanks. > >Good luck! > >-Derek > >Derek R. Lane, Ph.D. >Associate Dean for ><http://www.uky.edu/CommInfoStudies/GRAD/welcome.html>Graduate >Programs in Communication ><http://www.uky.edu/CommInfoStudies/>College of >Communications & Information Studies >133 Grehan Building ><http://www.uky.edu/>University of Kentucky >Lexington, KY 40506-0042 >Tel: (859) 257-7805 >Fax: (859) 323-9879 >Email: [log in to unmask] >Faculty website: <http://www.uky.edu/~drlane>http://www.uky.edu/~drlane > >IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER REGARDING THIS TRANSMISSION: >The contents of this email message and any >attachments are confidential and intended solely >for the addressee(s). The information may also >be confidential and legally privileged. This >transmission is sent in trust, for the sole >purpose of delivery to the intended >recipient(s). If you have received this >transmission in error, any use, reproduction, or >dissemination of this transmission is strictly >prohibited. Neither the transmission of this >email message and any attachments nor any error >in transmission or misdelivery shall constitute >waiver of any applicable legal privilege. If >you are not the intended recipient, please >immediately notify the sender by reply email and >delete this message and any attachments. > >---------- >From: Team Learning Discussion List >[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Coughlin >Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 11:33 AM >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Use of Peer Appraisal Forms and >including name of member in team providing the feedback > >I am preparing to use a Peer Appraisal feedback >form as a component of the TBL activities for a >class of undergraduate students in a human >studies course. The class is divided into five >learning teams each with six members. > >The model I have introduced is based upon the >work of Wright State University Boonshoft School >of Medicine – Academic Affairs - the Peer >Evaluation Scale with 12 behavioural >descriptors. The form is initially set up to >allow for the student author's name to be >removed prior to the return to each member of the group. > >The learning teams in the class have gently >challenged this step, suggesting that feedback >should be direct and clear and within the >accountability of working within a team, there >can be an opportunity to discuss the feedback >with the person providing the peer appraisal. > >There are risks to providing the name of the >person completing the feedback, most obvious >being that students will shy away from lower >ratings for a peer, anticipating some negative >feedback. However, there is also a sense of >validity to the issue of including the author's >name and am wondering if other users of a peer >appraisal scale have experience of including the >names of the student completing the peer appraisal, and any implications? > >many thanks > >peter c.