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.
Associate Dean (Teaching)
School of Business and Economics, Loughborough University,
LOUGHBOROUGH, LE11 3TU, United Kingdom.
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.
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.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
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
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
3. Discounting peer-moderated marks of groups with less than 50% participation.
Dept of Mechanical Engineering
University of Bath