CAN
PEER EVALUATION
BE A SOCIAL INCENTIVE?
Research Proposal
1
Background
As educators learn more about how human beings learn best, they become more
and more learner centered. As Gueldenzoph and May claim “… instructional strategies
are moving away from “lecture and learn” toward “collaborate and create.”
(Gueldonzoph, May, 2002) Incorporation of group projects to the traditionally designed
courses is one of the most used methods to assign the responsibility of learning to
learners. Fostering both social and cognitive abilities, group work has an invaluable place
among the collaborative learning techniques. However, evaluation of group work is a
challenging issue. How should students be assessed for their participation in group
projects? How can an instructor encourage equal participation to group work? These are
the questions facing any instructor who is worried about forming effective groups and
fair grading. Group conflicts may cause headaches for instructors but more importantly as
Dyrud (2001) mentions students may develop a phobia about group work, which may
really be harmful for their life after school. Peer evaluation is one of the ways both to
control group dynamics and to maintain a fair grading. When we look at the literature
there are controversial ideas about whether to use peer evaluation or not. Cohen is against
assessing individual contributions: “Never grade or evaluate students on their individual
contributions to the group product. Even if it were true that a student contributed almost
nothing, it is never clear that the student is at fault. Other students may have acted to
exclude him or her from the process. Since the individual’s lack of participation may be a
consequence of a status problem, it is unfair to blame the victim for the group’s low
expectations of him or her…It is better to look on such an event as a failure of the group
work technique rather than as a failure of the individual student.” (Cohen, 1994) Cohen
also quotes Awang Had who states that telling students that their individual contributions
will be evaluated will have the effect of making low status students unwilling to risk
active participation. On the contrary Michaelsen, Knight and Fink assert that
“…..creating cohesive and effective learning teams requires using a grading system in
which individual members’ contributions to the success of their teams and team
performance are assessed and rewarded. (Michaelsen, Knight, Fink, 2002) Another
advantage of peer assessment that is of particular interest is that it can be used as a means
of individualizing students’ grades in a collaborative learning context. In this way, the
kind of free-riding problem or unfairness of uniform grading within group described
earlier can be discouraged by awarding students marks or grades based on their
individual contributions to the group work. (Cheng, Warren, 2000). Here is an
interpretation closely related to the subject of my study: “I believe that peer evaluation
should be an important component in team projects, not only because it is the simplest
way for getting estimates of individual effort, but also because it encourages participation
and cooperation and provides a sense of team ownership.” (Pimmel, 2002)
In theory, peer evaluation appears to be an effective method of collaborative
assessment. However, the data obtained from most of the peer evaluation forms is limited
to student perceptions. Therefore, the validity of those perceptions and how to quantify
them are other questions related to group work assessment. Therefore, I believe that the
peer evaluation data should not be a basic component of the grading system but peer
evaluation could be used to prevent free riding and provide a base for even participation
2
of the group members. Kruck and Reif found out in their study about peer evaluation that
most of the students, 80 percent, were not motivated by peer evaluations, indicating that
these evaluations did not affect their contributions to the group. Simultaneously students
felt that peer evaluations motivated more than one-third of their group members to
contribute more to the group’s success. I have found this as an interesting contradiction
and wanted to work on it.
The Present Study
In this study, I will not be dealing with the role of peer evaluation on
individualizing the grades or with the essential features of peer evaluation forms. My
question is whether students believe that the awareness of peer evaluation has a positive
effect on the contributions of members of their group. In this study peer evaluation has
been implemented without including any threat of deduction in grades to obtain honest
responses. When there is threat of low grading, students may not want to cause a
deduction in their peers’ grades even if they are not pleased with their participation level.
I have considered peer evaluation as a social incentive.
Methodology
The subjects of the study were 28 undergraduate students in one of the
Microeconomics courses at Indiana University. The students had different class standings
and were coming from various majors. During the semester they have had to do five
homework in groups. The instructor formed them into groups of two and three. Each
homework they were supposed to do was composed of problems some of which require
critical thinking and certain web searches. For the first homework no peer evaluation was
used. However, immediately after the first homework they have filled out a survey which
asked their opinions about group work. This first homework served as a controlling factor
to measure the effect of peer evaluation on students’ performance. Listening to the
advice that “Before peer evaluation tools can be effectively used in the classroom, the
instructor should build the foundation. Students must be provided a clear understanding
about the who, what, when, why, and how of the collaborative experience as well as the
assessment process.” (Gueldonzoph, May, 2002), the instructor informed the students
before the second homework that they would be filling out peer evaluations after the
completion of the second homework. He posted them the criteria with which they will be
evaluated by their teammates before they begin to deal with the second homework. He
also emphasized that the lower ratings would not bring about any deduction in their
grades but the students who take higher ratings would be given bonus points according to
a certain calculation system.
Mark and Michael (2001) present that no evidence had been found in the
literature that one set of peer evaluation categories worked more effectively than any
other. The peer evaluation form used in this study (Appendix A) was tailored out of a
peer evaluation form adapted from Farago, Cramer, and Sharon. (1994). Two survey
questions were added to this form to learn the views of students about the effect of peer
evaluation.
3
Results
The survey implemented after the first homework was composed of the
following questions:
Q: 1) What are the advantages of working in a group?
Q: 2) What are the disadvantages of working in a group?
Q: 3) Do you think each member of your group contributed to the result equally?
Q: 4) Do you think working in a group influences the level of your motivation? If yes, is it a positive
or negative influence, please explain.
18 out of 28 students mentioned that working in a group influences their motivation
positively. The most mentioned reason about this positive influence was the social
pressure they felt as a result of working in a group: Some examples from students’
responses:
“Yes, I believe working in a group positively influences my motivation. Since I’m in a group, I
have to do the work because if I don’t, not only will I be letting myself down, but the entire rest of the
group too.”
“It's a positive increase in motivation usually. I want to do well because more than just my grade
depends on the results of the homework.”
“Yes, if you have respect for other group members or for yourself it is a positive influence. You
want to look good in front of others and you don't want to let yourself down either.”
The two survey questions added to the peer evaluation form were the following:
12) Before your team started working on this homework, team members knew that they would be evaluated
by their teammates.
a) Did this information affect your performance positively with respect to the previous homework?
(1) Yes
(2) No
Comments:
b) Did this information affect your teammates' performance positively with respect to the previous
homework?
(1) Yes
(2) No
Comments:
Even though there were a few comments on the positive effect of being aware of the peer
evaluation on their contributions most of the answers reflected that this awareness did not
bring about any considerable change. Some examples from students’ responses:
4
“We worked in the same fashion on both homeworks with little regard to the fact that we were
going to be evaluated.”
“Same amount of work done, but I was glad we knew we were getting evaluated.”
Discussion
As the results prove, no matter there is a peer evaluation process or not group
work itself is motivating the equal contribution. However, I think that this kind of
motivation is only valid for responsible students. When I compared the responses to the
first survey with the responses to the survey about peer evaluation I realized that the
students who thought after first homework that not each of their teammates contributed
equally were the ones who provided positive comments about peer evaluation. For
instance one of them who was not pleased with his teammate’s contribution during the
first homework made the following comment after the second homework in the survey:
“….. was a much better team player.”
This proves that although peer evaluation may not have an effect on responsible
students’ performance, its use is still legitimate where there are ones who tend to freeride. Peer evaluation is a potential contributor to the social incentive that group work
provides.
References

Cheng, Winnie; Warren, Martin. (2000) Making a Difference: using peers to
assess individual students’ contributions to a group project. Teaching in Higher
Education, 5(2), 243-250.

Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing Group Work.Teachers College, New York &
London.

Dyrud, Marilyn A. (2001) Group Projects and Peer Review. Business
Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 106-11.

Farago Cramer, Sharon. (1994) Assessing Effectiveness in the Collaborative
Classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, n59.
5

Gueldenzoph, Lisa E.; May, Gary L. (2002) Collaborative Peer Evaluation: Best
Practices for Group Member Assessments. Business Communication Quarterly,
65(1), 9-20.

Kruck, S. E.; Reif, Harry L. (2001) Assessing Individual Student Performance in
Collaborative Projects: A Case Study. Information Technology, Learning, and
Performance Journal, 19(2), 37-47.

Lejk, Mark; Wyvill, Michael. (2001) Peer Assessment of Contributions to a
Group Project: A Comparison of Holistic and Category-based Approaches.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(1), 61-72.

Michaelsen L.K., Knight A.B., Fink L.D. Team Based Learning: A
Transformative Use of Small Groups. Praeger, Westport.

Pimmel, Russ. (2002) Team monitoring and peer evaluation,
http://129.219.116.31/Assess_PDFs/Monitoring.pdf
6
APPENDIX A
Peer Evaluation Form
Instructions:
Please evaluate your peers’ contributions, using a scale of 1 to 5, with 5
being the highest. You should fill out an evaluation form for everyone in
the group except yourself. If you think that one of the items is not
applicaple for your group work process, please select "no response" .
These ratings will not cause a deduction in your teammates' grades but
high ratings will be used to give them bonus points. So please be as
precise as you can.
Your Name:
The name of the member that you are evaluating:
Team Number:
`
The above member of your team
1) Shows up for team meetings
(1) 1
(2) 2
(3) 3
(4) 4
(5) 5
2) Produces the tasks that were agreed upon by the group
(1) 1
(2) 2
(3) 3
(4) 4
(5) 5
3) Volunteers when tasks need to be accomplished
(1) 1
(2) 2
(3) 3
(4) 4
(5) 5
4) Constructively develops ideas with group members
(1) 1
7
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
2
3
4
5
5) Makes helpful suggestions
(1) 1
(2) 2
(3) 3
(4) 4
(5) 5
6) Is a careful listener
(1) 1
(2) 2
(3) 3
(4) 4
(5) 5
7) Demonstrates respect for other team members
(1) 1
(2) 2
(3) 3
(4) 4
(5) 5
8) Meets deadlines
(1) 1
(2) 2
(3) 3
(4) 4
(5) 5
9) Demonstrates interest in and knowledge of topic
(1) 1
(2) 2
(3) 3
(4) 4
(5) 5
10) Shares resources
(1) 1
(2) 2
(3) 3
(4) 4
(5) 5
11) Incorporates course materials and outside sources
(1) 1
(2) 2
(3) 3
(4) 4
(5) 5
8
12) Before your team started working on this homework, team members knew
that they would be evaluated by their teammates.
a) Did this information affect your performance positively with respect to the
previous homework?
(1) Yes
(2) No
Comments:
b) Did this information affect your teammates' performance positively with
respect to the previous homework?
(1) Yes
(2) No
Comments:
9