Based on this ratio, a grade is calculated which reflects their individual contribution. It does this through an algorithm that compares ratings each student receives with the average of the group. This tool also allows group grades to be personalized based on individual contribution. The teachers oversee the quality and quantity of feedback being given and intervene when needed.īut this is where it gets interesting. The Group Member Evaluation tool facilitates this reflection by getting students to evaluate each others’ contributions anonymously against a set of criteria set by the teacher. While receiving feedback from peers improves the depth of learning, the process of giving feedback also builds on skills like collaboration, coaching and debate.Ĭonsidering the frequency of group projects and the value of giving/receiving feedback, adding structure to the evaluation process has a clear use case in higher education. And in the process, they are able to cultivate skills like critical-thinking and problem solving. But when they hear feedback from their peers, the students would try to challenge it. When a teacher gives feedback, the students accept it for what it is. Research shows that students evaluating each other, a key part of collaborative learning, encourages them to reflect deeply on their skills and contribution in a group setting and take a more active role in their learning. But because confrontation can be awkward, the other group members just accept this as the inevitable consequence of working in a group. Open communication and feedback can control free-riding to some extent. Some will take on more work to make up for those who free-ride knowing everybody will end up with the same grade.
Students dread group work because they know that not every member contributes equally.
0 kommentar(er)
