Wiki contents

Journals

2019 Learning journals
2018 Learning journals
2015 Learning journals
2014 Learning journals
2013 Learning journals

Smartsims Support Centre

Blog updates

Recently Updated

Recent updates

Recently Updated

All updates

Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Wiki Markup
Task Objectives
\begin{itemize}
\item To distribute groups grades amongst individual team members.
\item To make individuals responsible for their contribution to the
  products of their team.
\end{itemize}




The benefits of Peer Evaluation include:
\begin{itemize}
\item It provides you with important feedback on your performance, and
\item it distributes the grades that accrue to the whole team based on
  individuals contribution to the team, and thus
\item it reduces free-riding or social-loafing.
\end{itemize}

This is a compulsory assignment. \emph{You have to successfully
  complete it in order to pass the course}. If you do not complete
this assignment, then your final grade will be recorded as DNC (Did
not complete).

In this assignment you evaluate the contribution of your peers. This
is done by allocating 100 points across your other team
members\footnote{You do not evaluate your own contribution.}. It is
important that you give more points to team members who have
contributed the most to the team and fewer points to those you
perceived contributing at a lower level. Thus, those who contribute
the most should receive the full worth of the team's grades; those who
did not contribute fully should only receive partial
credit. Therefore, you may not award identical points to any two team
members. This will result in a spread of at least five points between
the highest and the lowest points awarded.

Some of the of the factors you might consider include\footnote{This
  list is not comprehensive so you might include other factors in your
  evaluation.}:
\begin{description}
\item[Preparation] Were they prepared when they came to class?
\item[Contribution] Did they contribute productively to team
  discussion and work?
\item[Respect for others' ideas] Did they encourage others to
  contribute their ideas?
\item[Flexibility] Were they flexible when disagreements occurred?
\end{description}

As well as evaluating your peer's contribution by awarding points you
need to justify your evaluation. You should write one or two
paragraphs of feedback to each of your peers\footnote{You will do this
  all through Cecil.}. Typically, the justification will explain (a)
why you gave the number of points, and (b) which one or two behaviours
they might change to improve how you evaluated them.  The
justification must be meaningful and consistent with the points you
allocate. It is inappropriate and misleading to award someone 5/100
and simply say\footnote{And, of course, the volume of feedback in this
  example is also inadequate.}  ``You are a hard worker who is always
prepared''.

Such ranking systems are frequently used in industry for deciding
matters such as bonuses, promotions, and in some contexts,
firing\parencite[][See for example, ]{grote_forced_2005}.

Many students will find evaluating the performance of their peers a
challenging activity; that is one reason why there is a Practice Peer
Evaluation. The second reason for doing the practice round is so that
you can have some sense of how your peers perceive you, and what you
might do to improve your standing in the team.

Shortly after the due date, you will be provided with the feedback
from your peers.

This assignment---both in terms of providing feedback, and in the
feedback your receive---may provide a rich vein of material for your
learning journals. It would not be unusual to devote the entirety of
your Learning Journal in Week 6 or 7 to your sensemaking around peer
evaluations.