showSidebars ==
showTitleBreadcrumbs == 1
node.field_disable_title_breadcrumbs.value ==
Centre for Teaching Excellence

Utilising PSFS & PET

Utilising Peer Learning and Grading Tools

 

Instructors can enhance group assignments or projects through two tools available on eLearn: the Peer and Self Feedback System (PSFS) and the Peer Evaluation Tool (PET). These tools let students evaluate their own and their peers’ group contribution. This process not only creates a monitoring and feedback mechanism for group contribution but also helps students identify areas for improvement (e.g. come to meetings on time), fostering a culture of self-reflection and growth. Instructors have flexibility in how they incorporate these evaluations into their grading structure. They may choose to assign a specific weighting of the module grade to peer and self-evaluations (see Teaching Handbook p. 44 for assessment component guidelines). They can also use students’ self and peer feedback reports to inform their grading of students’ group work, allowing for a more comprehensive assessment of individual contributions and teamwork.

I. Peer and Self Feedback System (PSFS)

The PSFS is a student-centred and user-friendly system that facilitates the collation of peer feedback for courses with group projects. It features standardised yes/no descriptors that allow students to assess both their own contributions and those of their peers. This enables self-reflection while fostering the evaluation of teammates’ performance. The PSFS enables peers to provide constructive feedback on the SMU Graduate Learning Outcomes of Collaboration and Leadership across three categories: (1) Responsibility and commitment, (2) Contribution to team effectiveness, and (3) Contribution towards team deliverables (quality and quantity of work).

PSFS ratings and descriptors for responsibility and commitment

PSFS ratings and descriptors for team effectiveness

PSFS ratings and descriptors for team deliverables

Note: The specific descriptors students can check off depend on the selected rating in the top row. For example, if they rate their peers as 'meet expectations', they will select the descriptors in that column only.

This system is easy to navigate and use for students and instructors and, because it uses a standard measurement across courses, will provide valuable insights into learners' development over time, both for the learner and for the University. For instructors, please visit the PSFS User Guide for detailed screenshots and instructions on accessing PSFS.

Upon entering the system, students will be presented with instructions on how to proceed with their evaluation.

PSFS Screenshot - Entering System

During the evaluation process, they will be presented with a number of questions (Refer to the diagram above) and be tasked to evaluate based on these criteria.

PSFS Screenshot - Evaluation Process

Once the evaluation is complete, students will be able to see the results of their group's evaluation.

PSFS Screenshot - Results 1

PSFS Screenshot - Results 2

 

II. Peer Evaluation Tool (PET)

For instructors who prefer more flexibility, PET offers a customisable alternative. This tool allows instructors to create tailored evaluation questions that align with specific course objectives and assessment criteria. Students can respond to these questions, with both quantitative ratings and qualitative comments, as set by the instructor, assessing both their own performance and that of their peers. This provides an opportunity for deeper self-reflection and encourages more comprehensive feedback on individual contributions within the group. Instructors can refer to the survey items in the CATME Tool when designing their own custom questions for the peer evaluation tool. For more information, please visit the PET User Guide for detailed screenshots and instructions on accessing PET.

PSFS vs PET Comparison Table

  PSFS PET
Evaluation Questions
  • Standardised evaluation questions in three categories: (1) Responsibility and commitment; (2) Contribution to team effectiveness; (3) Contribution towards team deliverables (quality and quantity of work)
  • Uses fixed rating scale of “Yet to meet expectations”, “Meet expectations” and “Exceeds expectations” with a set of selectable descriptors based on the given rating
  • No fixed questions as instructors have full flexibility to set any number of evaluation questions, scales, and scoring calculation methods (i.e., average, sum, weighted, or normalised)
  • Instructors can also allow for evaluators to give targets qualitative comments for each evaluation question
Customisation
  • Uses a set of 14 standardised yes/no questions aligned with SMU GLOs of Collaboration and Leadership
  • No customisation of questions by instructors
  • Flexible question creation, possibly aligned with SMU GLOs
  • Instructors can create custom questions based on specific peer evaluation needs
Setup and configuration

User Guide: PSFS

  • Evaluation limited to self and own group members only
  • Single evaluation point per module

User Guide: PET

  • Students can evaluate themselves, their own group members, other groups, and Teaching Assistants. Instructors can evaluate students and student groups.
  • Supports multiple evaluation points (e.g., mid-term and final evaluations)
Instructor View
  • Instructors can download results in an excel file organised by target student. One can see the students' completion status as evaluators but other than the qualitative comments (organised by target), there is no visibility of ratings at the single-evaluator-single-target level.
  • Instructors can view and download results by target and by evaluator and have full visibility of single-evaluator-single-target ratings and comments.
Student input
  • Students can only evaluate themselves and their own group members
  • Students can evaluate themselves, group members, other groups and/or their Teaching Assistants
Student view
  • Students can view their self-feedback via a student dashboard, which provides an overview of their contributions towards group projects
  • Instructor has control over which questions’ ratings and/or comments are released to students when for each evaluation point (labeled “session”)

 

Bibliography

 
  1. Carnegie Mellon University (n.d. b) How can I assess group work? https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/designteach/design/instructionalstrategies/groupprojects/assess.html
  2. UNSW Sydney (n.d. a). Guide to Group Work. https://www.student.unsw.edu.au/groupwork