JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for WEBPA Archives


WEBPA Archives

WEBPA Archives


WEBPA@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

WEBPA Home

WEBPA Home

WEBPA  November 2010

WEBPA November 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Algorithm Question Again

From:

Paul A Chin <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

WebPA Project <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 15 Nov 2010 15:11:53 -0000

Content-Type:

multipart/mixed

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (150 lines) , text/plain (4 lines)

Hi Simon,

This is something I'm currently looking at too. I've got data going back
several years which I am about to analyse in detail to see if there are
any statistical differences in marking - with the aim to identify an
optimal number for a group. E.g. depending on group size, do marking
differences make *that* much difference?

Also, I'm looking at the algorithm, as already discussed, to see if
there is an optimal way to present the scores. I'm wary of mark
discrepancies too and also risks that students can get more than 100%.
Other assessment processes do the same (e.g. Derek Rowntree's model) and
I think its not always best just to give say, 100% if the mark is over
100%. Ideally, the algorithm should hold for all group sizes, marks and
conditions. What might be nice is if an algorithm produced results which
were always within a pre-determined set margin. E.g. if the group mark
is 50% each group member would end up with a mark between 45-55%?

I should add that I didn't design this algorithm but it is very similar
to one I've used by Lawrence Li, which itself has evolved over the last
decade or so. [Li, L. K. Y. (2001). Some Refinements on Peer Assessment
of Group Projects. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Carfax
Publishing Company. 26: 5-18.]

There are two issues therefore: is the current algorithm fair enough to
smooth out group differences in marking, that students consider
'appropriate' (I'm avoiding using the word 'fair'); and is the algorithm
actually reflecting the students efforts based on their marking? I'm
looking at this by considering the marking, evaluating how they are
actually working in a group (observation etc) and triangulating this
with what they consider is 'fair' after the marks are made. For example,
is the mark that important if the students are happy with ranking, are
they bothered if a group member scored X% as long as they are happy with
their mark? Etc etc.

Regards

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: WebPA Project [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Simon
Brookes
Sent: 15 November 2010 14:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Algorithm Question Again

There is another problem with the WebPA algorithm (I think!).  According
to the "worked example of the scoring algorithm" in WebPA Help, the
final individual WebPA score a student gets is a function of the number
of students in the group - the combined fractions awarded by each
student for each individual. So, the more students within each group,
the higher the scores will be!  

This problem is most exaggerated in a scenario where one student
performs very poorly compared with the rest of the group or vice versa -
a common occurrence in my experience.  

See my worked example showing the difference in final marks for groups
of students with 5 and 4 members respectively.  The group marks were the
same (74) but look at the effect on the final mark.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AlaZW47BQdRVdHZCY0FoOGNRUXNTR1d
GdUswR2lrZGc&single=true&gid=3&output=html

Do the designers of the algorithm have any comments?

Cheers

Simon


>>> Neil A Gordon <[log in to unmask]> 11/11/2010 16:37 >>>
Hi Simon
 I share your reservations - and usually end up moderating such cases,
and similarly when the algorithm ends up allocating a mark of 100% to
individual members of a team.

 Some colleagues use the option to alter the proportion of how much is
allocated by the algorithm, e.g. 50% from the original mark, 50%
through
webpa - although in my view that introduces another artificial
allocation (so within a team, a student who was allocated zero by the
algorithm would still get 50% of the overall team mark).

 It seems to me that tutor moderation is the safest bet rather than
relying fully on the output from the algorithm.

 A cap on the top mark could be one solution - although I'm not aware
of
that functionality at the moment - beyond using the proportion option
to
restrict the available variability.
 
 What do others think?

Neil

-----Original Message-----
From: WebPA Project [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Simon
Brookes
Sent: 11 November 2010 16:04
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Algorithm Question

Hi

I have been playing around with the WebPA algorithm in a spreadsheet
this afternoon.  I would welcome some thoughts/advice please.

You can see the example here:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AlaZW47BQdRVdDlTWHpMU3JXNDRMMEh

Yb3lsaWE5b1E&hl=en_GB&single=true&gid=3&output=html


I completely understand how the current algorithm works - this is not
my
issue.  The problem I have is illustrated if you compare the marks for
Groups A and B.

1. You'll see that both groups received the same group mark (74%)
2. The individual marks are modified by the peer assessment.
3. However, I am really unhappy that one student in Group B ends up
with
a mark of 97% while the top mark in Group A ends up as 82%.
4. Overall I deemed that the appropriate mark for both presentations
was
74% but the calculation ends up awarding one student in one group
(which
received exactly the same group as the other) a much higher final
mark.
5. To me, this does not seem fair.  Group B's work was not any better
than Group A but, because of a quirk of the system (actually because
one
student performed particularly poorly in Group B), these students
mostly
end up with much higher marks.

I have always felt uncomfortable about this when using this type of
algorithm in the past.  The individual mark distribution works fine
within groups but not when one compared between groups.

Would there be a way of say capping the top mark at that given as the
group mark then all other marks distributed relative to that?

Thanks

Simon


***************************************************************************************** To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *****************************************************************************************

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
January 2018
November 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
February 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager