Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, Singapore, 117549, Singapore.
National University Hospital, Department of Surgery, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.
BMC Med Educ. 2017 Sep 20;17(1):172. doi: 10.1186/s12909-017-0987-z.
Although peer assessment has been used for evaluating performance of medical students and practicing doctors, it has not been studied as a method to distribute a common group work mark equitably to medical students working in large groups where tutors cannot observe all students constantly.
The authors developed and evaluated a mathematical formulation whereby a common group mark could be distributed among group members using peer assessment of individual contributions to group work, maintaining inter-group variation in group work scores. This was motivated by community health projects undertaken by large groups of year four medical students at the National University of Singapore, and the new and old formulations are presented via application to 263 students in seven groups of 36 to 40 during the academic year 2012/2013.
This novel formulation produced a less clustered mark distribution that rewarded students who contributed more to their team. Although collusion among some members to form a voting alliance and 'personal vendettas' were potential problems, the former was not detected and the latter had little impact on the overall grade a student received when working in a large group. The majority of students thought the new formulation was fairer.
The new formulation is easy to implement and arguably awards grades more equitably in modules where group work is a major component.
尽管同伴评估已被用于评估医学生和执业医生的表现,但在大型小组作业中,导师无法持续观察所有学生,因此无法将共同的小组作业成绩公平地分配给学生,这种情况下尚未对同伴评估进行研究。
作者开发并评估了一种数学公式,通过该公式,可使用同伴对个人对小组作业的贡献进行评估,从而在小组作业成绩方面保持组间差异,为小组内成员分配共同的小组成绩。这是受新加坡国立大学大四医学生进行的社区卫生项目的启发,并且在 2012/2013 学年中,通过对 7 个小组(每组 36 至 40 人)中的 263 名学生的应用,展示了新公式和旧公式。
这种新颖的公式产生了分布不那么集中的分数,从而奖励了对团队贡献更多的学生。尽管一些成员之间存在串通投票联盟和“个人恩怨”的潜在问题,但前者并未被发现,后者对学生在大型小组中获得的总体成绩影响很小。大多数学生认为新公式更公平。
新公式易于实施,并且在小组作业是主要组成部分的模块中,可以更公平地授予成绩。