Project Based Learning in International Teams – Monitoring the Effectiveness of Teamwork

2010 ◽  
Vol 450 ◽  
pp. 581-584 ◽  
Author(s):  
David W.C. Ashworth
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Team Member ◽  
Project Based Learning ◽  
Project Team ◽  
Constructive Feedback ◽  
European Project ◽  
University College ◽  
Different Cultures

Students working on semester-long projects in international teams, such as the European Project Semester programme at the Ingeniørhøjskolen i København – University College (IHK), face many challenges, not the least of which is communication between different cultures. The supervisor pays a key role in supporting a project team and monitoring its effectiveness. One of the key tools employed is a self and peer review assessment, undertaken twice by each team member during the semester. The assessment considers the quantity and quality of the contribution made by each team member and their participation in teamworking activities. The supervisor uses the assessment to monitor teamworking and to give constructive feedback and advice where needed. Comparison of the responses from self and peer review assessments was undertaken and the findings are presented. Limited results over a 3 year period were analysed and compared with Autumn 2009 semester results and conclusions drawn.

scholarly journals Improving Student Feedback Quality: A Simple Model Using Peer Review and Feedback Rubrics

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 238212052093660 ◽  
Author(s):  
Troy Camarata ◽  
Tony A Slieman
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Concept Maps ◽  
Clinical Skills ◽  
Peer Feedback ◽  
Student Feedback ◽  
Feedback Training ◽  
Constructive Feedback ◽  
Quality Feedback ◽  
Feedback Quality

Constructive feedback is an important aspect of medical education to help students improve performance in cognitive and clinical skills assessments. However, for students to appropriately act on feedback, they must recognize quality feedback and have the opportunity to practice giving, receiving, and acting on feedback. We incorporated feedback literacy into a case-based concept mapping small group-learning course. Student groups engaged in peer review of group-constructed concept maps and provided written peer feedback. Faculty also provided written feedback on group concept maps and used a simple rubric to assess the quality of peer feedback. Groups were provided feedback on a weekly basis providing an opportunity for timely improvement. Precourse and postcourse evaluations along with peer-review feedback assessment scores were used to show improvement in both group and individual student feedback quality. Feedback quality was compared to a control student cohort that engaged in the identical course without implementing peer review or feedback assessment. Student feedback quality was significantly improved with feedback training compared to the control cohort. Furthermore, our analysis shows that this skill transferred to the quality of student feedback on course evaluations. Feedback training using a simple rubric along with opportunities to act on feedback greatly enhanced student feedback quality.

scholarly journals Grant Review Feedback: Appropriateness and Usefulness

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen A. Gallo ◽  
Karen B. Schmaling ◽  
Lisa A. Thompson ◽  
Scott R. Glisson
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Funding Agency ◽  
Constructive Feedback ◽  
Competitive Funding ◽  
Grant Proposals ◽  
Funding Success ◽  
Negative Perceptions ◽  
Grant Review ◽  
Research Grant

AbstractThe primary goal of the peer review of research grant proposals is to evaluate their quality for the funding agency. An important secondary goal is to provide constructive feedback to applicants for their resubmissions. However, little is known about whether review feedback achieves this goal. In this paper, we present a multi-methods analysis of responses from grant applicants regarding their perceptions of the effectiveness and appropriateness of peer review feedback they received from grant submissions. Overall, 56–60% of applicants determined the feedback to be appropriate (fair, well-written, and well-informed), although their judgments were more favorable if their recent application was funded. Importantly, independent of funding success, women found the feedback better written than men, and more white applicants found the feedback to be fair than non-white applicants. Also, perceptions of a variety of biases were specifically reported in respondents’ feedback. Less than 40% of applicants found the feedback to be very useful in informing their research and improving grantsmanship and future submissions. Further, negative perceptions of the appropriateness of review feedback were positively correlated with more negative perceptions of feedback usefulness. Importantly, respondents suggested that highly competitive funding pay-lines and poor inter-panel reliability limited the usefulness of review feedback. Overall, these results suggest that more effort is needed to ensure that appropriate and useful feedback is provided to all applicants, bolstering the equity of the review process and likely improving the quality of resubmitted proposals.

scholarly journals Reviewer Acknowledgements

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 133
Author(s):  
Wendy Smith
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Sao Paulo ◽  
São Paulo ◽  
Indiana University ◽  
Statistics And Probability ◽  
University College ◽  
University College London ◽  
Science And Education

International Journal of Statistics and Probability wishes to acknowledge the following individuals for their assistance with peer review of manuscripts for this issue. Their help and contributions in maintaining the quality of the journal is greatly appreciated.Many authors, regardless of whether International Journal of Statistics and Probability publishes their work, appreciate the helpful feedback provided by the reviewers.Reviewers for Volume 7, Number 5Jacek Białek, University of Lodz, PolandJingwei Meng,   Indiana University, USALuiz Ricardo Nakamura, University of Sao Paulo, BrazilPablo José Moya Fernández, Universidad de Granada, SpainRebecca Bendayan, University College London, UKSajid Ali, Quaid-i-Azam University,            PakistanSubhradev Sen, Alliance University, India Wendy SmithOn behalf of,The Editorial Board of International Journal of Statistics and ProbabilityCanadian Center of Science and Education

scholarly journals Grant Review Feedback: Appropriateness and Usefulness

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Gallo ◽  
Karen Schmaling ◽  
Lisa Thompson ◽  
Scott Glisson
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Funding Agency ◽  
Constructive Feedback ◽  
Competitive Funding ◽  
Grant Proposals ◽  
Funding Success ◽  
Negative Perceptions ◽  
Grant Review ◽  
Research Grant

AbstractThe primary goal of the peer review of research grant proposals is to evaluate their quality for the funding agency. An important secondary goal is to provide constructive feedback to applicants for their resubmissions. However, little is known about whether review feedback achieves this goal. In this paper, we present a mixed methods analysis of responses from grant applicants regarding their perceptions of the effectiveness and appropriateness of peer review feedback they received from grant submissions. Overall, 56%-60% of applicants determined the feedback to be appropriate (fair, well-written, and well-informed), although their judgments were more favorable if their recent application was funded. Importantly, independent of funding success, women found the feedback better written than men, and more white applicants found the feedback to be fair than non-white applicants. Also, perceptions of a variety of biases were specifically reported in respondents’ feedback. Less than 40% of applicants found the feedback to be very useful in informing their research and improving grantsmanship and future submissions. Further, negative perceptions of the appropriateness of review feedback were positively correlated with more negative perceptions of feedback usefulness. Importantly, respondents suggested that highly competitive funding pay-lines and poor inter-panel reliability limited the usefulness of review feedback. Overall, these results suggest that more effort is needed to ensure that appropriate and useful feedback is provided to all applicants, bolstering the equity of the review process and likely improving the quality of resubmitted proposals.

A Study of Medical Board Peer Reviews in Nevada

2010 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-29
Author(s):  
Jerry C. Calvanese
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Study Objective ◽  
Clark County ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Medical Examiners ◽  
Washoe County ◽  
Total Average Cost ◽  
Total Average

ABSTRACT Study Objective: The purpose of this study was to obtain data on various characteristics of peer reviews. These reviews were performed for the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners (NSBME) to assess physician licensees' negligence and/or incompetence. It was hoped that this data could help identify and define certain characteristics of peer reviews. Methods: This study examined two years of data collected on peer reviews. The complaints were initially screened by a medical reviewer and/or a committee composed of Board members to assess the need for a peer review. Data was then collected from the peer reviews performed. The data included costs, specialty of the peer reviewer, location of the peer reviewer, and timeliness of the peer reviews. Results: During the two-year study, 102 peer reviews were evaluated. Sixty-nine percent of the peer-reviewed complaints originated from civil malpractice cases and 15% originated from complaints made by patients. Eighty percent of the complaint physicians were located in Clark County and 12% were located in Washoe County. Sixty-one percent of the physicians who performed the peer reviews were located in Washoe County and 24% were located in Clark County. Twelve percent of the complaint physicians were in practice in the state for 5 years or less, 40% from 6 to 10 years, 20% from 11 to 15 years, 16% from 16 to 20 years, and 13% were in practice 21 years or more. Forty-seven percent of the complaint physicians had three or less total complaints filed with the Board, 10% had four to six complaints, 17% had 7 to 10 complaints, and 26% had 11 or more complaints. The overall quality of peer reviews was judged to be good or excellent in 96% of the reviews. A finding of malpractice was found in 42% of the reviews ordered by the medical reviewer and in 15% ordered by the Investigative Committees. There was a finding of malpractice in 38% of the overall total of peer reviews. The total average cost of a peer review was $791. In 47% of the peer reviews requested, materials were sent from the Board to the peer reviewer within 60 days of the original request and 33% took more than 120 days for the request to be sent. In 48% of the reviews, the total time for the peer review to be performed by the peer reviewer was less than 60 days. Twenty seven percent of the peer reviews took more than 120 days to be returned. Conclusion: Further data is needed to draw meaningful conclusions from certain peer review characteristics reported in this study. However, useful data was obtained regarding timeliness in sending out peer review materials, total times for the peer reviews, and costs.

Editorial peer-review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
TO Jefferson ◽  
P Alderson ◽  
F Davidoff ◽  
E Wager
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Quality Of Reports

scholarly journals Acknowledgment to Reviewers of Logistics in 2020

Logistics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 6
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Driving Force ◽  
High Quality

Peer review is the driving force of journal development, and reviewers are gatekeepers who ensure that Logistics maintains its standards for the high quality of its published papers [...]

scholarly journals Acknowledgment to Reviewers of Brain Sciences in 2020

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 138
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Driving Force ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Brain Sciences

Peer review is the driving force of journal development, and reviewers are gatekeepers who ensure that Brain Sciences maintains its standards for the high quality of its published papers [...]

scholarly journals Acknowledgment to Reviewers of Dairy in 2020

Dairy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-72
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Driving Force ◽  
High Quality

Peer review is the driving force of journal development, and reviewers are gatekeepers who ensure that Dairy maintains its standards for the high quality of its published papers [...]

scholarly journals Acknowledgment to Reviewers of Cosmetics in 2020

Cosmetics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 11
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Driving Force ◽  
High Quality

Peer review is the driving force of journal development, and reviewers are gatekeepers who ensure that Cosmetics maintains its standards for the high quality of its published papers [...]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document