Use Of Peer Evaluations Research Articles

Student active learning in a digital classroom: high-performing science students’ perceptions of their experiences

In March 2020 higher education institutions across Norway closed campuses in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study explored five high-performing science students’ perceptions of their experiences with active learning in a digital physiology classroom. A thematic analysis explored the detailed first-person subjective experiences of learning in the digital classroom to add to the knowledge base about how science students can be supported to learn physiology in remote and digital learning contexts. Five superordinate themes central to the students’ experience were identified: ‘accountability and self-regulation’, ‘building strategy and structure’, ‘creating community and social learning’, ‘difficulty and discomfort essential’ and ‘efforts to reframe adversity’. The students recognised the importance of self-regulation, structure, social interactions, and challenge, explaining how aspects of the course helped or hindered their learning. Differential responses to the use of peer-evaluation and the ability of high-performing students to reframe adversity were evident. Active learning approaches in the digital classroom supported science students in gaining a deeper understanding of physiology.

Towards Sustainable Assessment in Higher Education: Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives

Abstract Assessing students’ knowledge and skills has been widely discussed among educators. The present study investigates lecturers’ and learners’ views on the assessment practices implemented in two higher education institutions. Their perceptions on providing feedback, variety of assessment tasks, use of peer-evaluation, and promotion of learning through the assessment activities have been explored. Twenty-one students and thirteen teachers from the Uzbek university and ten students and eight lecturers from the Latvian university participated in the semi-structured interviews. The comparative analysis revealed participants’ similar opinions on the importance of varying assessment assignments and feedback-giving practices. However, different views on the peer review, assessment and students’ learning processes were observed. The study has identified that despite some differences teachers at both universities promote sustainable assessment practices.

Bias in student evaluations: Are my peers out to get me?

The use of peer evaluations to evaluate performance is commonplace, especially in higher education. Yet, researchers and educators have long expressed concerns about the accuracy of such ratings. While research has found student peer evaluations to be consistent with instructor evaluations, rater bias is inherent in all evaluations, and students are not exempt from this. This study examines task completion and identity threat to determine if experience and identity play a role in shaping student peer evaluations. A sample of MBA students evaluated their peers before and after completing a course presentation. Results showed that students’ peer evaluations were significantly “lower” or more critical after having completed the presentation themselves. This study illuminates the importance of experience and training in the implementation of performance evaluations.

Development and Validation of a Peer Evaluation Tool for Team‐Based Learning

Background and Aims Team-based learning (TBL) is an increasingly common pedagogical approach in health science education to promote active, small group learning. Peer evaluation is an essential component of classic TBL that has been used to assess interpersonal skills, evaluate personal effort, and promote professional behavior. While a variety of approaches exist for TBL peer evaluation, no standardized instrument exists and there is variability in the use of peer evaluation for summative and formative assessments. Further, some studies have questioned the reliability and validity of current instruments and health science educators have encountered difficulty using peer evaluation for summative assessment purposes. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to develop and validate a peer evaluation tool for formative assessment in the context of a graduate-level TBL course in histology. Methods A formative peer evaluation tool (PET) was developed based on recommendations for TBL peer evaluations in the literature. The PET contained 10 items that relate to preparedness, interpersonal skills, and team engagement rated on a four-point scale from never to always. Students enrolled in a graduate histology course between 2018-2020 at Indiana University completed the PET at the middle and end of the semester, PET1 and PET2, respectively. Students completed a PET for each member of their TBL team (4-6 members) and points were awarded for completion of the PET but not for received scores. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a promax rotation and Cronbach's alpha were used to assess the validity and reliability of the PET, respectively. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) tested the dimensionality of the tool. Pearson's correlations were used to evaluate the relationships between scores on PET1 and PET2 and average scores on TBL quizzes (i.e., iRAT [individual readiness assurance test]) at the middle and end of the semester. Results The EFA of peer evaluation scores for PET1 (n=467) revealed a three-dimensional model: (1) Accountability and preparedness for TBL activity (3 items), (2) Providing constructive feedback (3 items), and (3) Receptiveness to feedback and teamwork (4 items). Internal consistency reliability was acceptable for individual factors and overall (Factor 1 α = 0.76, Factor 2 α = 0.786, Factor 3 α = 0.624, Overall α = 0.813). A CFA performed on scores on PET2 scores (n=451) demonstrated an acceptable model fit for the three-factor model (c2 = 0.000, RMSEA = 0.08). Pearson's correlations (n=90) indicated low to moderate positive correlations between PET1 and mean iRAT scores at mid-semester (r=0.266, p=0.011) and PET2 and iRAT mean scores at the end of the semester (r=.379, p<0.001). Conclusion These results indicate that the PET is a reliable and valid tool for peer evaluation within a graduate TBL course. Further, this research demonstrates that student peers are able to provide reliable and valid feedback about students’ preparedness, engagement, and teamwork skills. Future research will focus on determining the optimum number of evaluations needed to improve the reliability of the PET using generalizability analysis.

Team Health and Project Quality Are Improved When Peer Evaluation Scores Affect Grades on Team Projects

The use of team projects is common in higher education. Teamwork offers an avenue to help students learn to collaborate and develop the interpersonal skills needed for career success. However, the teams are not always effective, which may undermine student learning, growth, and development. In the current research, we integrate accountability, valence, motivation, and social loafing theories in order to advance an understanding of the role of peer evaluations conducted at the end of a team project. We use a state-of-the-art peer feedback system that allows students to assess and evaluate each other on five competencies critical to teamwork. This system also permits the assessment of overall team functioning. These outcomes are critical as they are related to learning as well as grades on team projects. Over three years and using a total sample size of 162 teams and 873 students, we found that the use of peer evaluations for grading purposes, compared to a control group, promoted effective team member behavior and overall team health. Future research is needed to further investigate the optimal use of peer evaluations in a variety of contexts using a variety of methods.

Peer‐Evaluation in a Team‐Based Learning Curriculum: Investigating the Relationship between Peer‐Evaluation Scores and Team Rank

IntroductionMany medical school and health care professional curricula are incorporating teaching methods along with learning and assessment approaches, which aim to foster communication skills, professionalism, teamwork, and leadership skills. Team‐based learning (TBL) is a commonly used pedagogical approach to accomplish the flipped classroom and to foster professionalism, teamwork, and communication skills. Two components of TBL curriculum are 1) the utilization of peer evaluations for assessment purposes and 2) a team competition as an incentive structure. No standardized instrument exists for TBL peer evaluation and some studies have questioned the reliability and validity of the instruments for assessment purposes. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between averaged peer‐evaluation scores and rank in the team competition.MethodsTeams (n=5) within a TBL graduate histology course during the fall semester of 2018 were ranked weekly in a team competition following each of the 10 TBL sessions. Rank was calculated based on averaged individual readiness assurance test scores (iRAT), group readiness assurance test scores (gRAT), and group activity scores for each TBL and was updated throughout the semester. Students (n=31) conducted peer‐evaluations of their team members at two different points (mid‐ and end‐of‐semester). The instrument for the peer‐evaluation contained 10 items that assessed professionalism and team engagement (e.g., is well‐prepared for team activities) on a four‐point scale from never to always. This tool was developed based on recommendations for TBL peer evaluations in the literature. Spearman correlations were used to determine the relationship between peer‐evaluation scores and team rank at each time point. Alpha was set at p≤0.05.ResultsThere was a statistically significant (p=0.037) negative correlation between peer‐evaluation scores and TBL team rank at mid‐semester (r=−0.375) and stronger negative correlation existed at the end‐of‐semester (r=−.591, p&lt;0.001). In other words, students on teams with a lower rank tended to give their peers lower evaluation scores.Discussion and ConclusionThe relationship between the peer‐evaluation scores and the TBL team rank demonstrate a negative relationship. Thus, within this graduate level histology course utilizing the peer‐evaluation as a summative assessment may not be warranted as it may be unduly penalizing poor performing teams. Other courses utilizing team rank incentives may consider evaluating the use of peer evaluations as summative assessments. Furthermore, this study demonstrates a need for a standardized and reliable instrument for peer evaluations in a TBL curriculum.

한국어교육실습 모의수업에서 동료 평가 활용 방안에 대한 연구

한국어교육실습 모의수업에서 동료 평가 활용 방안에 대한 연구

The impact of peer evaluation on team effort, productivity, motivation and performance in global virtual teams

PurposeThis study aims to assess the effect of peer evaluations on team-level effort, productivity, motivation and overall team performance.Design/methodology/approachThis study explores the impact of a peer evaluation system on 895 multicultural and transnational global virtual teams (GVTs) composed of 5,852 university students from 130 different countries. The study uses a quasi-experiment in which the group project is implemented under two conditions over two sequential iterations. In the first condition, team members do not receive peer evaluation feedback during the project. In the second condition, participants completed detailed peer evaluations of their team members and received feedback weekly for eight consecutive weeks.FindingsResults suggest that when peer evaluations are used in GVTs during the project, teams show: higher levels of group effort; lower levels of average productivity and motivation; and no clear evidence of improved team performance. Results cast doubts on the benefits of peer evaluation within GVTs as the practice fails to reach its main objective of improving team performance and generates some negative internal dynamics.Practical implicationsThe major implication of the study for managers and educators using GVTs is that the use of peer evaluations during the course of a project does not appear to improve objective team performance and reduces team motivation and perception of productivity despite increases in teams’ perceptions of effort and performance.Originality/valueThis study contributes to the scanty literature regarding the impact of peer evaluation systems on group-level dynamics and performance outcomes.

Students' Perception of Peer Evaluation in Oral Presentation at the University of Indonesia

This study aims at examining students’ perception of peer evaluation in a group oral presentation by English for Academic Purposes (EAP) students at the University of Indonesia. Questionnaires were administered after the peer evaluation process to 65 students studying EAP taught at the University of Indonesia. The peer assessment was incorporated into the course to seek out whether and to what extent their speaking skills may enhance and to investigate students’ attitudes towards this form of evaluation in oral presentations. Data were obtained through a Likert scale questionnaire of peer evaluation. Data were analyzed using SPSS Software. The results specified a statistically significant result of the use of peer evaluation in oral presentation. The findings of the present study suggest that, when assessment criteria are definitely established, peer assessment empowers students to evaluate the performance of their peers in a manner comparable to those of the teachers. The responses from the questionnaires show that the evaluation and comments given by students were considered fair, useful and sufficient. Results also suggest that students strongly agree to the use of this methodology because comments and evaluations given are useful for making improvements. Nevertheless, the students preferred teachers to peers to evaluate their performance in the discussion and they wanted to get more instructive comments from the teachers. As for its limitations, students highlight the responsibility that comes with it and a certain amount of distrust in fellow students’ abilities to peer-assess. The teacher’s possible roles in peer evaluation are presented at the conclusion of this study.

Student Perceptions of Peer Evaluation in an Online RN-to-BSN Course

The purpose of this study was to explore student perceptions of peer-evaluation experiences in an online RN-to-BSN nursing research course. A total of 140 students completed the online survey. A majority of students reported their peer-evaluation experience was helpful for learning (69%), and 81.8% of students indicated their writing skills improved. Findings of the study support the use of peer evaluation in online nursing courses.

Why peer evaluations in student teams don’t tell us what we think they do

There is increasing use of peer evaluations in academic settings to assess student performance in team activities. Building on Kenny’s social relations model, the authors analyzed peer ratings from 85 teams of graduate students enrolled in a teamwork and leadership course. Results indicate the presence of greater assimilation at mid-semester and increased consensus for all performance criteria and uniqueness for most performance criteria at the end of the semester. Results further indicate the source of variance varied for different performance dimensions. Implications for the use of peer evaluations are discussed as well as future application and research direction.

Using peer assessment to evaluate teamwork from a multidisciplinary perspective

This article analyses the use of peer evaluation as a tool for evaluating teamwork and students’ perceptions of this type of evaluation. A study was conducted of six subjects included on five degree courses at the University of Girona. In all of these subjects, students carried out a team activity, evaluated the performance of the team and the involvement of its different members, and responded to a survey on their perceptions of this evaluation system. We found the main factors influencing the evaluation and perception of teamwork to be teachers’ and students’ prior experience in this type of evaluation activity, the field where it is applied, the academic year students are enrolled on and the weight of the activity in the final mark. The results show that, in general, students’ views regarding such evaluation procedures are positive.

Students’ Opinions on Summative Team Assessments in a Three-Year Concentrated Pharmacy Curriculum

Objective. To investigate student opinions of team assessment. Methods. University of Maryland Eastern Shore School of Pharmacy first-year (P1) to third-year (P3) students (n=125) completed an online survey regarding team assessments. Students rated their opinions on a Likert scale. Responses were examined using Mann-Whitney U test with respect to academic performance and class. Results. One hundred twenty-five students (75%) completed the survey. A majority of students agreed that team assessment was beneficial (90%). In contrast, 78% of the students perceived that the discussion helped clarify misconceptions. Students were not in agreement on occurrence of free riders (51%) and the use of peer evaluation (38%). Overall, students ranked the benefits of team assessment as improving individual score, then promoting collaboration, followed by enhancing understanding of material. Conclusion. Students had favorable opinions regarding team assessment. Educational benefits of team assessments include enhanced understanding of the material, being a meaningful activity for promoting collaboration, and developing communication skills.

No Need to Fear Peer Evaluation: an Alternate Model for Expert and Novice Evaluations in Business Studies

This research was conducted to determine if there were consistent differentials, or patterns in the peer grading that could be utilized to further understand the potential impact on student grades with the use of summative peer evaluations in this presentation style of interactive assessment activity for first year business students. The data was reviewed in aggregate, and then on individual, booth by booth comparison. The evaluation grades from the peer or ‘novice’ evaluators were within the same range as those provided by the faculty or ‘expert’ evaluators. The research also introduced a variant on peer evaluation as the peer evaluators were senior year students three years ahead of their ‘peers’. The available information on peer assessment studies targeting year one students is limited (Nulty, 2011) and this case study provides further evidence of the use of peer evaluation in first year of post-secondary.

Integration of pharmacotherapy topics across the curriculum using a “Create-Your-Own-Patient Case” team project

Background Creativity in didactic pharmacy education is documented in course design, delivery, and assessment; yet paucity exists in encouraging students' creativity toward the application, analysis, synthesis, and integration of knowledge in creating their own work. Objective To design, implement, and evaluate a creative team project within a psychopharmacotherapy course allowing students to (1) integrate prior content with psychiatric pharmacotherapy, (2) apply disease state knowledge, and (3) accurately correlate diagnoses' symptomatology to describe a patient through case narratives. Design Second-year Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) students were randomly given a list of psychiatric/medical diagnoses and personality disorders and assigned to create a patient case within team-based frameworks during a six-day (36-h) psychopharmacotherapy course. Results All teams accurately integrated assigned diagnoses in a patient-specific manner using varied levels of complexity, creating cases consistent with a 21-item rubric based on a comprehensive psychiatric/medical evaluation. Most teams (85%) accurately commented on their patients' mental status and assigned correct psychiatric evaluation and diagnostic tests to their patient. Individually, students reported great satisfaction and benefit from participating in this project. Evaluation of case content revealed areas of instruction within pharmacy curricula that may warrant further investigation, such as formal referrals to other providers, health literacy, physical assessment, and the use of peer evaluation. Conclusions A creative project in which student teams synthesized their own patient cases allowed them to apply didactic content to integration of psychiatric/medical diagnoses as they synthesized a patient case narrative, and helped the instructor identify areas in which to optimize pharmacy instruction.

ASSESSING PEER EVALUATION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PEER EVALUATION METHODS USED IN AN ENGINEERING DESIGN COURSE

Peer evaluation is one way to address group issues in undergraduate teams while at the same time providing feedback and assessment. Two common evaluation methods (point- and rubric-based peer evaluation) are examined and compared in terms of student perception within a University of British Columbia second year mechanical engineering design course. As part of normal course requirements, 118 students in 20 teams completed two full-time multi-week design projects with six regularly-spaced peer evaluations. Student feedback was gathered through two online surveys. Students expressed a slight preference for the rubric style evaluation, citing increased fairness and helpfulness in the feedback. Regardless of evaluation approach, student perceptions of peer evaluation were statistically unrelated to external factors including GPA, gender, and Myers-Briggs personality type. The findings suggest, at least in the student mind, that the use of peer evaluation as a design project assessment tool is fair and unbiased. Additional survey data show students see peer evaluation as a useful tool in undergraduate team design projects and that they feel more comfortable with the prospect of engaging in peer evaluation in the workplace in future as a result.

Assessing the relationship between peer and facilitator evaluations in case-based learning

Attempts to validate peer evaluation and to incorporate it into the curriculum have met with mixed results. The purpose of this study was to assess the use of peer evaluations in a Year 1 case-based learning course. As part of the formal grading process for the course, all faculty facilitators (n = 69 over 3 years) completed a 12-item evaluation form for each student at the conclusion of each case. As part of a course assignment, students (n = 415 over 3 years) completed brief evaluations of their peers based on 2 criteria: the overall quality of written reports, and participation in group discussion. In addition, students provided anonymous feedback in the written end-of-course evaluation about the peer evaluation process, and faculty were asked to comment during the wrap-up luncheon for small-group facilitators. Response rates for the 3 Year 1 medical student classes ranged from 95% to 99%. The average number of peer evaluations completed for each student was 4.6. The G coefficients for the rater-nested-within-person generalisability study were 0.52 for written reports and 0.60 for group participation; both were based on an average of 4-5 ratings. Correlation coefficients between peer and faculty evaluations in each of the 3 consecutive years of the course ranged from 0.46 to 0.63; all were statistically significant at P < 0.001. A correction for attenuation suggests that the true score correlation between faculty and peer measures is near 1.0. This study provides strong evidence that facilitator and peer ratings measure similar constructs and shows that, even among Year 1 medical students, peer evaluation can be conducted in a valid manner.

You Are Fired! A Method to Control and Sanction Free Riding in Group Assignments

Marketing students are regularly required to participate in group assignments. A frequently voiced student complaint is that some group members fail to contribute their fair share of work or fail to contribute at all. “You Are Fired!” is a system for resolving the free rider problem (collecting the benefits of a group project without contributing work to the project). Most efforts to control free riding have been through the use of peer evaluations, sometimes augmented by progress reports and journals. Since it has been suggested that multiple administrations of peer appraisals are necessary, a large amount of class time may be consumed. We test the “You Are Fired!” method in two upper division marketing classes at a large state university. Students strongly disliked free riders and strongly supported using “You Are Fired! “ to sanction free riding behavior. “You Are Fired!” is a highly effective means of eliminating the worst aspects of free riding and requires minimal class time to implement. Students suffering from the free rider are empowered to correct the problem, therefore greatly increasing the student credibility of group projects.

Some Ideas for Using Cases in the Classroom

Abstract This chapter provides ideas about how to use cases in the classroom. The more “alive” the learning experience, the more the students are interested and involved in their own learning. Cases can provide the realism that can make a topic come alive. This chapter describes five mechanisms used in the development and implementation of cases in the classroom. These mechanisms help the students develop technical skills, professional conduct, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills. The five mechanisms are: use of practitioners, use of consultations, use of role-playing, use of peer evaluations, and use of grading sheets.

The role of gender in perceived speaker competence: an analysis of student peer critiques

Previous research suggests that college students bring gender biases to their evaluations of male and female instructors. Increasingly, college oral communication classes are utilizing peer evaluation of student speeches. This study of 330 student evaluators at a Midwestern university examined gender bias in student peer evaluations of public speeches. Findings indicated that neither speaker sex nor sex of the student evaluator affected overall ratings of speaking competence. Formality of attire, however, did influence the ratings and types of comments provided to speakers. Speaker sex did influence the degree to which evaluators were persuaded and the types of comments given by student evaluators, however. Positive open‐ended comments about female speakers were limited to remarks about quality of external sources, whereas positive comments addressed to male speakers covered a wider range of attributes. In general, results encourage use of peer evaluations of public speaking performance, since they appear to be relatively immune to extraneous biases.