Discussion: View Thread

Like Ted Legatski, I have students in teams evaluate themselves, but use that
score is part of their participation score (25% of course) and I give all
members of the team the same the paper grade. I find that students are very
fair evalutors of themselves and, more importantly, minimize "freeloading" and
conflict because they know that they will be held accountable by their peers
who can observe their behavior and not by me, who can't.

The text of the form is given below and I have posted the full form on my
website in RTF (Rich Text Format, readable by most word processors). Permission
is granted for commercial and non-commercial use at no fee, but I would really
appreciate a letter or email acknowledging use so that I can impress my Dean.
See:
http://www.pitt.edu/~naman/teameval.rtf

In keeping with my attempt to practice what I preach, my assessment instrument
is drawn from Judith Gordon 1987 Ch. 6 Assessing Group Performance & Dyer 1977
Team Building and therefore arguably has some research-based validity. History:
The first year I had each student complete 12 Gordon and Dyer questions about
each teammate, which generated a lot of data (teamsize squared x # teams x 12
questions = > 5k numbers), and used it to reduce to seven principal components,
which became part of the instruction. Now I record only a single overall
assessment of each student (which reduces the data!) and average the scores
given by the other teammates. The scores given to self are NOT used, but I note
are almost always lower than that assessed by teammates (people are hard on
themselves).

Teammate Participation Evaluation (required)
As stated in the syllabus, individual participation will be assessed by "360
degree evaluation" by your teammates and professor, each of whom will be
similarly assessed by you. Please complete this evaluation form for each one of
your teammates and yourself. All your responses are confidential and students
will not see each others evaluations. All teammate evaluations and the
professor's independent evaluation will be combined into a single overall
participation grade.
Please use the following criteria and evaluate only performance, not
personality or whether you like them. Give a fair and honest evaluation of each
person's contribution and participation on your team project and expect the
same in return.
... contributed to Team Assignment,
... was available to the rest of team when needed
... shared responsibility for completing required work by the deadline
... pulled own weight, i.e., put in as much time and effort as others did
... gave a fair hearing to my ideas and others' ideas
... was very open to suggestions
... set a high standard of excellence for this project
(Source: Judith Gordon 1987 Ch. 6 Assessing Group Performance & Dyer 1977 Team
Building)
Evaluation of (please print all names): Self ___ 2. ____ 3. ____ ...
Rated 1-5 = Excellent-Poor
Evaluation by (please sign your name): ____________
Please return to Prof. John Naman in person, via faculty mailbox or fax to
xxx-xxxx.
If you have comments or a special situation, please print clearly below and on
the back, if needed:


Notes: 1. The evaluation is required and each student must sign their name
(they take it seriously and signature seems to prevent fakes)
2. Confidentiality guarantee promotes honest assessments.
3. For some reason, people like to hand it in in person or fax and I receive
few by mail.
4. About 10% of teams have a special case that causes extra comments. Cases
range from "slacker disappeared" to "she had her baby in the middle of the
term, but contributed well up to that point".
--
Prof. John L. Naman naman+@pitt.edu
http://www.pitt.edu/~naman/teameval.rtf

I spent the better part of two years experimenting with a variety of team projects
and formats in graduate and undergraduate classes, the results of which were
published as

Craig Poulenez Donovan, "Developing High Performance Teams in the Public Management
Classroom," Journal of Public Administration Education, Spring 1998.



--
Lectori Salutem!

Prof. Craig Poulenez Donovan, Ph.D.
Director BA/MPA Program
Kean University
School of Business, Govt. & Technology
1000 Morris Avenue
Union NJ 07083
(732) 901-1200
(908) 352-0485 (fax)
cpdonova@turbo.kean.edu

Dear John,m Thank you for sharing your "Peer Evaluation" form with me. I
rpinted it out, and will keep it for future reference.

Regrads, Kim Boal

At 11:26 AM 3/6/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Like Ted Legatski, I have students in teams evaluate themselves, but use that
>score is part of their participation score (25% of course) and I give all
>members of the team the same the paper grade. I find that students are very
>fair evalutors of themselves and, more importantly, minimize "freeloading"
and
>conflict because they know that they will be held accountable by their peers
>who can observe their behavior and not by me, who can't.
>
>The text of the form is given below and I have posted the full form on my
>website in RTF (Rich Text Format, readable by most word processors).
Permission
>is granted for commercial and non-commercial use at no fee, but I would
really
>appreciate a letter or email acknowledging use so that I can impress my Dean.
>See:
>http://www.pitt.edu/~naman/teameval.rtf
>
>In keeping with my attempt to practice what I preach, my assessment
instrument
>is drawn from Judith Gordon 1987 Ch. 6 Assessing Group Performance & Dyer
1977
>Team Building and therefore arguably has some research-based validity.
History:
>The first year I had each student complete 12 Gordon and Dyer questions about
>each teammate, which generated a lot of data (teamsize squared x # teams x 12
>questions = > 5k numbers), and used it to reduce to seven principal
components,
>which became part of the instruction. Now I record only a single overall
>assessment of each student (which reduces the data!) and average the scores
>given by the other teammates. The scores given to self are NOT used, but I
note
>are almost always lower than that assessed by teammates (people are hard on
>themselves).
>
>Teammate Participation Evaluation (required)
>As stated in the syllabus, individual participation will be assessed by "360
>degree evaluation" by your teammates and professor, each of whom will be
>similarly assessed by you. Please complete this evaluation form for each
one of
>your teammates and yourself. All your responses are confidential and students
>will not see each others evaluations. All teammate evaluations and the
>professor's independent evaluation will be combined into a single overall
>participation grade.
>Please use the following criteria and evaluate only performance, not
>personality or whether you like them. Give a fair and honest evaluation of
each
>person's contribution and participation on your team project and expect the
>same in return.
>... contributed to Team Assignment,
>... was available to the rest of team when needed
>... shared responsibility for completing required work by the deadline
>... pulled own weight, i.e., put in as much time and effort as others did
>... gave a fair hearing to my ideas and others' ideas
>... was very open to suggestions
>... set a high standard of excellence for this project
>(Source: Judith Gordon 1987 Ch. 6 Assessing Group Performance & Dyer 1977
Team
>Building)
>Evaluation of (please print all names): Self ___ 2. ____ 3. ____ ...
>Rated 1-5 = Excellent-Poor
>Evaluation by (please sign your name): ____________
>Please return to Prof. John Naman in person, via faculty mailbox or fax to
>xxx-xxxx.
>If you have comments or a special situation, please print clearly below
and on
>the back, if needed:
>
>
>Notes: 1. The evaluation is required and each student must sign their name
>(they take it seriously and signature seems to prevent fakes)
>2. Confidentiality guarantee promotes honest assessments.
>3. For some reason, people like to hand it in in person or fax and I receive
>few by mail.
>4. About 10% of teams have a special case that causes extra comments. Cases
>range from "slacker disappeared" to "she had her baby in the middle of the
>term, but contributed well up to that point".
>--
>Prof. John L. Naman naman+@pitt.edu
>http://www.pitt.edu/~naman/teameval.rtf
>
--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu

John,
I have not used teams for years because of student complaints and the problems
of evaluation. I have printed out yours and others forms offered hereon and may
give teams a try again in light of this thread. I'll let you know whether I use
your form; it is nice and succinct in RTF format. Thanks.
Leon

"John L. Naman" wrote:

> Like Ted Legatski, I have students in teams evaluate themselves, but use that
> score is part of their participation score (25% of course) and I give all
> members of the team the same the paper grade. I find that students are very
> fair evalutors of themselves and, more importantly, minimize "freeloading" and
> conflict because they know that they will be held accountable by their peers
> who can observe their behavior and not by me, who can't.
>
> The text of the form is given below and I have posted the full form on my
> website in RTF (Rich Text Format, readable by most word processors). Permission
> is granted for commercial and non-commercial use at no fee, but I would really
> appreciate a letter or email acknowledging use so that I can impress my Dean.
> See:
> http://www.pitt.edu/~naman/teameval.rtf
>
> In keeping with my attempt to practice what I preach, my assessment instrument
> is drawn from Judith Gordon 1987 Ch. 6 Assessing Group Performance & Dyer 1977
> Team Building and therefore arguably has some research-based validity. History:
> The first year I had each student complete 12 Gordon and Dyer questions about
> each teammate, which generated a lot of data (teamsize squared x # teams x 12
> questions = > 5k numbers), and used it to reduce to seven principal components,
> which became part of the instruction. Now I record only a single overall
> assessment of each student (which reduces the data!) and average the scores
> given by the other teammates. The scores given to self are NOT used, but I note
> are almost always lower than that assessed by teammates (people are hard on
> themselves).
>
> Teammate Participation Evaluation (required)
> As stated in the syllabus, individual participation will be assessed by "360
> degree evaluation" by your teammates and professor, each of whom will be
> similarly assessed by you. Please complete this evaluation form for each one of
> your teammates and yourself. All your responses are confidential and students
> will not see each others evaluations. All teammate evaluations and the
> professor's independent evaluation will be combined into a single overall
> participation grade.
> Please use the following criteria and evaluate only performance, not
> personality or whether you like them. Give a fair and honest evaluation of each
> person's contribution and participation on your team project and expect the
> same in return.
> ... contributed to Team Assignment,
> ... was available to the rest of team when needed
> ... shared responsibility for completing required work by the deadline
> ... pulled own weight, i.e., put in as much time and effort as others did
> ... gave a fair hearing to my ideas and others' ideas
> ... was very open to suggestions
> ... set a high standard of excellence for this project
> (Source: Judith Gordon 1987 Ch. 6 Assessing Group Performance & Dyer 1977 Team
> Building)
> Evaluation of (please print all names): Self ___ 2. ____ 3. ____ ...
> Rated 1-5 = Excellent-Poor
> Evaluation by (please sign your name): ____________
> Please return to Prof. John Naman in person, via faculty mailbox or fax to
> xxx-xxxx.
> If you have comments or a special situation, please print clearly below and on
> the back, if needed:
>
> Notes: 1. The evaluation is required and each student must sign their name
> (they take it seriously and signature seems to prevent fakes)
> 2. Confidentiality guarantee promotes honest assessments.
> 3. For some reason, people like to hand it in in person or fax and I receive
> few by mail.
> 4. About 10% of teams have a special case that causes extra comments. Cases
> range from "slacker disappeared" to "she had her baby in the middle of the
> term, but contributed well up to that point".
> --
> Prof. John L. Naman naman+@pitt.edu
> http://www.pitt.edu/~naman/teameval.rtf

Here is one I use in an engineering transfer.
Adapt to your audiences:

http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/etech/advanced/class/finalreview/survey.html

Note: For Academic Fair Use Purposes Only
Please cite.

Hope this helps.

--
P.A. Gantt, Computer Science Technology Instructor
Electronic Media Design and Support Homepage
http://user.icx.net/~pgantt/
mailto:pagantt@technologist.com?Subject=etech
http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/vision/1998-11.asp
Common sense is not common, and conventional wisdom is not
wisdom. But at least you can have conventional sense. ~~ Daily Whale