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 Graduate Programs in Communication <http://www.uky.edu/CommInfoStudies/GRAD/welcome.html> College of Communications & Information Studies <http://www.uky.edu/CommInfoStudies/> 133 Grehan Building University of Kentucky <http://www.uky.edu/> Lexington, KY 40506-0042 Tel: (859) 257-7805 Fax: (859) 323-9879 Email: [log in to unmask] Faculty website: 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 feedback-it 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 experiences-having students develop their own team peer evaluation procedures and criteria. For more information you can visit: 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 feedback-especially anonymous negative feedback-destroys 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 Graduate Programs in Communication <http://www.uky.edu/CommInfoStudies/GRAD/welcome.html> College of Communications & Information Studies <http://www.uky.edu/CommInfoStudies/> 133 Grehan Building University of Kentucky <http://www.uky.edu/> Lexington, KY 40506-0042 Tel: (859) 257-7805 Fax: (859) 323-9879 Email: [log in to unmask] Faculty website: 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.