The Use of Self-Ratings and Peer Ratings to Evaluate Performances of Student Group Members

Abstract

The use of self- and peer ratings to evaluate individual performances in group settings in university classrooms has become accepted practice in higher education. This research-based article examines the relationship between self- and peer evaluations and discusses the effective use of both types of ratings when student groups are used in the classroom. Gender differences in both self- and peer evaluations are also examined.

Students' Perceptions of Peer Evaluation: An Expectancy Perspective

“…This research indicates that peer assessment reflects the perspective of peer students who are in close contact and are familiar with group member behaviors and characteristics that may not otherwise be apparent to an instructor (Barrett, 1996;Cederblom & Lounsbury, 1980). Research on peer evaluations often examines issues such as the development and validity of an evaluation instrument (Johnson & Smith, 1997;Levi & Cadiz, 1998;Smith, 1998), the validity (Beatty et al, 1996) and reliabil-ity (Morahan-Martin, 1996) of peer ratings in measuring student performance, and the potential bias of peer ratings (Ghorpade & Lackritz, 2001;Hass, Hass, & Wotruba, 1998). Very few studies, however, have examined students' perceptions of peer evaluations and their motivation to participate in the evaluation.…”

Assessing the Different Roles of Marketing Theory and Practice in the Jaws of Economic Uncertainty

“…Moreover, Beatty, Haas, and Sciglimpaglia (1996) pointed out that the free-rider problem can be addressed effectively; particularly if the group members' individual efforts can be monitored. Haas, Haas, and Wotruba (1998) include the variables of group equity and overall evaluation as key rating criteria for accurate and fair peer evaluations. Thus, the peer evaluation process is strengthened by the inclusion of measures that address the presence (or absence) of a free-rider.…”

“…Typical class projects and assignments include case analyses, marketing plan development, competitive intelligence in a specific industry, and computer simulations (Haas, Haas, & Wotruba 1998;Beatty, Haas, & Scimpaglia, 1996). In fact, prevalent instructor use of team-based work to bridge theory and practice and its resulting effectiveness have led to its acceptance as a legitimate pedagogical tool in higher education (Haas, Haas, & Wotruba, 1998;Beatty, Hass, & Scimpaglia 1996;Haas & Wotruba, 1990).…”

“…He suggested that the instructors emphasize the importance of accuracy and truthfulness in students' reporting efforts throughout the project life. In addition, Haas, Haas, and Wotruba (1998) proposed that the instrument include evaluation criteria that allows for just assessment of individual performance. These criteria are measures of dependability and availability, input and work quality, group equity and interaction, and an overall assessment of student efforts.…”

Let Them Decide: Student Performance and Self-Selection of Weights Distribution

“…Efforts to overcome this barrier are numerous, with the use of self-and peer grading in the college classroom as rather common (Haas, Haas, & Wotruba, 1998). Involving students in this way prepares them to some extent to take responsibility for their performance.…”