Mayo’s Clinic: Peer Evaluations and Small Groups
06 January 2011By Dr. Fred Mayo, CHE, CHT
Using an evaluation form makes a difference in the way students work in small groups, encouraging them to provide feedback to each other.
Last month, we discussed using small groups in classes; this month, we will discuss peer evaluations as a way both to help students learn to work with other students and to assess their own work and the work of others.
Process
When I use small groups on long-term projects, one of the ways that I encourage students to work together more effectively is to require them to think about what contributions their fellow students make to the project work. An essential element of any final report is the submission, in hard copy, of a self evaluation and peer evaluations of each of the students in the small group.
Providing them with a form indicating the criteria they should consider helps focus their assessment. When I read the forms, I look for the information provided and the match between what several students say about their teammates and how their self assessment matches the evaluations of their peers. I also look for the reasoning behind the ratings, as well.
To make this system work, I guarantee them confidentiality and assure them that no on will see the forms except for me. One way I honor that guarantee is to accept only hard copies of the forms, no electronic submission. That way there is no electronic record. In addition, after I read their comments and make appropriate comments or grading notions in my records, I shred the forms.
Criteria
The form asks students to rate themselves and their peers on a five-point Likert scale from 1 for Strongly Disagree to 5 for Strongly Agree, with NEI (not enough information) as an option, since there may be some instances when students do not have enough information about a group member to make comments. Interestingly, I find the NEI column rarely used.
The issues that I asked students to rate (in a recent Customer Relationship Management course project) were the following:
The person listed above…
1. Helped the group get organized
2. Generated useful insights and evidence
3. Communicated regularly and consistently
4. Thought clearly and analytically in this project
5. Challenged others to improve the case study
6. Did quality work
7. Cooperated, effectively, with the group
8. Met our established deadlines
9. Helped others to meet our deadlines
10. Supported the work of the team
11. Added to my learning experiences
12. Provided positive leadership to group
Below each rating, there are several lines for Comments and Examples, which I expect them to complete in order to substantiate their ratings. I also ask for suggestions about areas that this person could improve.
Impact
Using this form—or one like it that you can create—has made a difference in the way students work in small groups and has encouraged them to provide feedback to each other. I often find their perceptions very insightful and the recommendations for improvement very accurate. Of course, some do not take the process seriously, and give everyone all 5s and have no information to support their rating. They lose points for not conducting a real evaluation. Most of the students like the appraisal process and mention that they have never thought about how well or poorly their fellow team members were until they had to assess their performance.
Summary
Thank you for reading this column. If you have other ideas or suggestions about using small groups, let me know and I will share them in future Mayo’s Clinics. Next month, we will talk about making large classes feel like small classes.
Dr. Fred Mayo, CHE, CHT, is a clinical professor at New York University and a frequent presenter at CAFÉ events nationwide. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..