Peer Ratings In Cooperative Learning Teams
Peer Ratings In Cooperative Learning Teams
复制标题
合作学习团队中的同伴评级
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1999
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
R. Felder
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. B. Kaufman;H. Fuller;R. Felder
概要 关于合作学习的一个普遍担忧是可能存在“搭便车者”，即未能履行团队职责的团队成员，但却获得与更负责任的队友相同的高分。减少搭便车的常见方法是使用同行评级来评估团队成员的个人表现，并根据团队成员的平均评级调整团队项目的等级。然而，同行评级也有潜在的缺点。常见的担忧是，团队成员会同意给予彼此相同的高评分，或者根据性别或种族偏见给予评分，或者在收集自我评分时夸大自己的评分。一些老师还担心，许多学生会不满自己的成绩受到队友评分的影响。本研究的目的是检验这些担忧的有效性。皇家墨尔本理工学院开发的同行评分系统经过修改并用于两门大二化学工程课程。学生在每门课程中以教师组成的小组完成作业，并计算每个小组的平均作业成绩。每门课程结束时，学生们都会根据规定的九个术语（从“优秀”到“缺席”）列表对他们和每个队友履行团队职责的情况进行保密评分。教师为每个评分分配数值，并计算每个学生的权重因子，即学生的个人平均评分除以团队平均评分。学生的最终作业成绩是权重因子和团队项目成绩的乘积。计算同伴评分与考试成绩、同伴评分与自我评分、对同性和异性队友的评分以及对相同种族背景和不同种族背景的队友的评分之间的相关性。同伴评分与考试成绩显着相关，表明更负责任的学生往往是那些学业成绩最好的学生和/或学业成绩较好的学生被认为对团队努力贡献最大。自我评价与同行评价非常一致。学生对自己的评价很少高于其他队友对他们的评价；事实上，更多的人（尽管仍然相对较少）给自己的评分低于他们从队友那里得到的评分。团队中所有成员的相同评级的发生率也相对较低，大约为所有团队的 5-10%。数据中没有出现性别偏见的证据。非少数族裔学生对少数族裔学生的评分低于其他非少数族裔学生；种族偏见可以部分解释这一结果，但其他解释也同样可能或更有可能。大约 7% 的学生被揭露可能是搭便车的人（从他们的队友对他们的评分不太令人满意就可以看出），但对系统的抱怨几乎不存在。因此，本研究的结果并未证实大多数经常提出的关于合作学习中同伴评级的担忧。在最终消除这些担忧之前，还需要进行大量额外的研究。
Synopsis A universal concern about cooperative learning is the possible existence of “hitchhikers, ” team members who fail to fulfill their team responsibilities but get the same high grade as their more responsible teammates. A common way to minimize hitchhiking is to use peer ratings to assess individual performance of team members and to adjust the team project grade for individual team members based on their average ratings. Peer ratings have potential drawbacks, however. Common concerns are that team members will agree to give one another identically high ratings, or give ratings based on gender or racial prejudice, or inflate their own ratings if self-ratings are collected. Some instructors also worry that many students will resent having their grades affected by their teammates’ ratings. The objective of this study was to examine the validity of these concerns. A peer rating system developed at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology was modified and used in two sophomore-level chemical engineering courses. The students completed their homework in instructor-fo rmed teams in each course, and an average homework grade was computed for each team. At the end of each course the students confidentially rated how well they and each of their teammates fulfilled their team responsibilities, taking the ratings from a prescribed list of nine terms ranging from “excellent” to “no show.” The instructor assigned numerical values to each rating and computed a weighting factor for each student as the student’s individual average rating divided by the team average. The student’s final homework grade was the product of the weighting factor and the team project grade. Correlations were computed between peer ratings and test grades, peer ratings and self-ratings, ratings given to teammates of the same sex and of the opposite sex, and ratings given to teammates of the same ethnic background and of different ethnic backgrounds. Peer ratings correlated significantly with test grades, indicating that the more responsible students tended to be those who did best academically and/or that the academically stronger students were perceived as contributing most to the team effort. Self-ratings were remarkably consistent with peer ratings. Students rarely rated themselves higher than the rest of their teammates rated them; in fact, more (although still relatively few) gave themselves ratings lower than any they received from teammates. The incidence of identical ratings for all members of a team was also relatively low, on the order of 5–10% of all teams. No evidence of gender bias appeared in the data. Nonminority students gave lower ratings to minority students than to other non-minority students; racial prejudice could account in part for this result, but other explanations are equally likely or more so. Roughly 7% of the students were revealed as possible hitchhikers (as evidenced by their receiving less than satisfactory peer ratings from their teammates), but complaints about the system were almost non-existent. Most of the concerns frequently raised about peer ratings in cooperative learning were thus not borne out by the results of this study. Much additional research will be needed before the concerns can be definitively set aside.