Accounting for Individual Effort in Cooperative Learning Teams
By D. B. Kaufman, Richard M. Felder, H. Fuller. 2000
281 citations recorded by the source corpus.
An “autorating” (peer rating) system designed to account for individual performance in team projects was used in two sophomore‐level chemical engineering courses in which the students did their homework in cooperative learning teams. Team members confidentially rated how well they and each of their teammates fulfilled their responsibilities, the ratings were converted to individual weighting factors, and individual project grades were computed as the product of the team project grade and the weighting factor. Correlations were computed between ratings and grades, self‐ratings and ratings from teammates, and ratings received and given by men and women and by ethnic minorities and non‐minorities. Incidences of “hitchhikers” (students whose performance was considered less than satisfactory by their teammates), “tutors” (students who received top ratings from all of their teammates), dysfunctional teams, and teams agreeing on a common rating were also determined. The results suggest that the autorating system works exceptionally well as a rule, and the benefits it provides more than compensate for the relatively infrequent problems that may occur in its use.
Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Media Technology
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2f6cd8492751fadbe3dd3aadb37cc6396696a5b8
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Developmental and Educational Psychology
In Media Technology
Citations in the corpus
- Effective Strategies for Cooperative Learning. (2001, methodology): “Kaufman, Felder, & Fuller (2000) outline the method and present data from a study in which many of the potential drawbacks of such systems—e.g., ratings reflecting personal bias, inflated self-ratings, teams agreeing to give everyone the top rating, and student resentment—occurred too infrequently ”