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
Graduate
Programs in Communication
College of Communications
& Information Studies
133 Grehan Building
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
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/
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
Graduate
Programs in Communication
College of Communications
& Information Studies
133 Grehan Building
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
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.