Nicola Wilkinson wrote:
> What I mean is, say a report for a 4-person group got 80%, and I had
> decided to use a 40% PA weighting. Therefore, each student effectively
> controls a 10% stake of their 80% mark. What is to prevent one of them from
> marking themselves 5/5 on every criterion and their peers 1/5? Assuming the
> other scores were completely even, this would give them a webPA score of
> 1.375. 1.375 x 40% = 55%, giving a total score for the selfish student of
> 95% and scores for the others of 0.875 x 40% + 40% = 75%. Essentially, the
> selfish student has taken 5% from each of the others. Is there a flag to
> alert the assessor of this? In this example it would be fairly obvious, but
> I imagine that when the other numbers vary it would be easy to miss that.
I'm not too familiar with WebPA in use, so forgive my potentially naive
When I did peer review as a lecturer (many years ago now, I'm no longer
a lecturer) I made it clear that people are rewarded for self-awareness,
honesty and integrity. To do this I used an algorithm that compared
self-awarded marks to those provided by the rest of the team.
The closer the self-awarded marks were to teamates marks the more they
scored on the self-awareness, honesty and integrity marks. In other
words, my own (tutor) marks for the people involved would reflect this.
I later progressed to using this to ensure a personality clash was not
forcing an individuals marks down (i.e. person A gives person B low
scores, whilst everyone else awards high).
My justification for this was that someone who is fully aware of their
strengths and weaknesses is best placed to improve themselves, and
someone who can see past personal differences makes for a good team player.
This worked fairly well, although did open me up for criticism for those
who were marked down on this as, in most cases, I marked the other party
up as well.