This article summarizes various efforts by instructors to grade and
evaluate student interaction in management courses. Obstacles to effective
evaluation are discussed. Four criteria are proposed for systems involving
peer evaluation. The development of a highly effective system which utilizes
behaviorally anchored rating scale (BARS) performance appraisal tech niques is described.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Boyatzis, Richard.The Competent Manager, A Model for Effective Performance.
New York: John Wiley
, 1982.
2.
Knauf, J.
, and
Benson, P.A Peer Rating Information SystemPaper presented at American Psychological Association. 86th, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, August, 1978.
3.
Meiss, Guy T.Evaluating peers in group projectsJournalism Educator , Winter,1984,
25-27
4.
.
Michaelsen, Larry K.
,
Cragin, John P.
, and
Watson, Warren E.Grading and anxiety: A strategy for copingExchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal , 1981, 6(1),
8-14
5.
.
Michaelsen, Larry K.
,
Watson, Warren E.
,
Cragin, John P.
, and
Fink, L. Dee.Team learning : A potential solution to the problems of large classes
. Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal,1982, 7(1),
13-22
6.
.
Olsen
,
Turee. Grading alternatives: An ERIC/RCS report
. English Journal, 1975, 64(3),
106-108
7.
.
Parker, Richard C.
and
Kristol, D.S.Student peer evaluationJournal of Chemical Education , 1976, 53(3),
177-178
8.
.
Pasternack, Steve R.Properly motivated, students become good peer graders
. Journalism Educator, 1981, 36(3),
17-18
9.
.
Schrader, M.S.
, and
Westphal, R.Reliability of Student Evaluations of Student Performance
: Final Report, Wisconsin State Board of Vocational, Technical, and Adult Education,1976,
64
pp.
10.
Siders, James A.Instructor, self and peer review: A formative evaluation triadCollege Student Journal,1983, 17(2),
141-44
.
