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  June 2014

WEBPA June 2014

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Sceptical Results from worst case scenarios

From:

Paul A Chin <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

WebPA <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 25 Jun 2014 20:02:45 +0000

Content-Type:

multipart/mixed

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines) , text/plain (6 lines)

Hi Jeff, 
 
Unfortunately I'm a harsher penaliser than Keith, partly because I explain to the students they have a responsibility to their fellow group members to submit their marks and don't want them to let each other down. But like Keith, I put the caveat in that I may have to arbitrate and override the marks. I tell them that I have the final say in cases of dispute - though fortunately I've never had to step in and disregard the WebPA marks, so far... 
 
Regards 
 
Paul 
   
 
-----Original Message----- 
From: WebPA [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Keith Pond 
Sent: 25 June 2014 2:55 PM 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: Sceptical Results from worst case scenarios 
 
I've always used a small penalty - 5% for non-participation (that's 5 percentage points deducted from an individual mark, it seems to be enough. The opportunity to add text comments to scores in later versions also helps to engage. 
 
Over many years, however, I have found that those not participating are also those not participating in the group work. 
Also - the system does not always deal well with extremes and tutors may need to intervene to discount the Web_PA score and bang student heads together.  After a while tutors can build up a sense of whether the scores given and received make sense.  I always reserve the right to NOT use WebPA for particular groups where there is evidence of group disputes etc. 
 
Keith 
 
Keith Pond 
Associate Dean (Teaching) 
School of Business and Economics, Loughborough University, LOUGHBOROUGH, LE11 3TU, United Kingdom. 
+44(0)1509 223290 
P Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this e-mail? 
 
This e-mail is intended only for the above addressee.  It may contain privileged information.  All statements and opinions in this e-mail are made without liability and without prejudice.  If you are not the addressee you must not copy, distribute, disclose or use any of the information in it.  If you have received it in error please delete it and notify the sender immediately. 
 
-----Original Message----- 
From: WebPA [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of SEIFERHELD Inger 
Sent: 25 June 2014 14:19 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: Sceptical Results from worst case scenarios 
 
We see the peer assessment as part of the assessment so we will apply the same kind of penalty for not returning peer marking as if it was the work itself. 
~Inger 
 
 
 
-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. 
 
 
-----Original Message----- 
From: WebPA [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Barrie 
Sent: 25 June 2014 13:27 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Sceptical Results from worst case scenarios 
 
All, 
 
I would appreciate your advice on this issue. 
 
At the University Of Bath, we have been running trials in replacing our paper-based peer-assessment procedures with WebPA. Initial results are promising however we find that in some groups, not all students participate (some are forgetful, or just can't be bothered). 
 
The peer assessment is conducted in groups of 6, they are peer-assessed only (i.e. no self-assessment) and there is no penalty for not taking part. Their contribution is assessed using Likert scale 1-5 and 20% of their marks are peer-moderated 
 
So, lets take a look at a group of 6 students, students A,B,C,D,E,F.  
Students E and F take part in WebPA but A-D do not. Students E and F give everyone a score of 1 (excluding themselves). The group mark is 70%-so (0.2 x 70)=14 marks are peer moderated 
 
The total received score is 2 for students A-D and 1 for students E-F.  
The total awarded score is 0 for students A-D and 5 for students E-F (according to the WebPA). 
 
As Students E and F participated (and the others did not), their cake is split into 5 slices, with scores of 1, each member of the team (excluding themselves) gets a fractional score of 0.2. 
 
This is where it gets interesting, as now a fudge factor is applied, in this case 6 students/2 students = 3. 
 
Because Students A-D get two scores of 1, their  WebPA scores are 
(0.2+0.2)x3=1.2 each, so the final marks are 56%+(1.2 x 14)=72.8% 
 
Students E-F only get one score of 1 (from each other) so their WebPA scores are 0.2 x 3=0.6 each. The final marks are 56%+(0.6x14)=64.4% 
 
So, in summary students E-F are hard done by, getting lower marks despite thinking that everyone was rubbish and participating in the WebPA process. Students A-D are laughing as they have had their marks increased by doing nothing. 
 
If students E-F, give all scores of 5. The marks come out the same! 
 
Is this right or have I made a miscalculation? We are considering: 
 
1. Adding a penalty to non-participation 2. Adding self-peer assessment (so students E-F have a say in their own 
performance) 
3. Discounting peer-moderated marks of groups with less than 50% participation. 
 
Any thoughts? 
 
Best Regards, 
 
Jeff Barrie 
 
Dept of Mechanical Engineering 
University of Bath 


************************************************** To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www2.hull.ac.uk/legal/disclaimer.aspx **************************************************

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

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