Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cica!iuvax!sadlerl
From: sadlerl@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (LoriLee M Sadler)
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: Group projects
Message-ID: <51556@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Date: 20 Jul 90 15:30:13 GMT
References: <1990Jul17.120036.8944@pdn.paradyne.com> <804@qusunitg.queensu.CA> <1990Jul19.215334.28746@nmt.edu>
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Lines: 21

In article <1990Jul19.215334.28746@nmt.edu> john@nmt.edu (John Shipman) writes:
>I am a great believer in confidential peer review.  If you
>want to know whether someone did their share of the work,
>ask the other people on the team (in private).  I don't
>think that someone on a successful team should get a good
>grade if that person didn't do a fair share of the work.
>
I agree. For group projects in my class, each student is assigned an 
individual grade based 80% on the final product and 20% on peer
review.  For the peer review, each student is asked to divide 100
points among group memebers, including him/herself.  The students are able 
to freely distribute points as they see fit.  I total the points for each
person and then divide by the number of members in the group.  It's
amazing how accurate this system seems to be.  On only one occasion
was there significant disparity between the points one person in the group
assigned himself and his team members and the points given by the
rest of the group members.  The students know up front that this
is to be a part of their grade and I think that in itself encourages
them to work well together.