The accounting classroom today is one in which emphasis is placed not only on the development of analytical and problem-solving skills but also on the development of the skills required to be a productive team player. Integrating team work into the classroom requires effort on the part of the instructor as well as the students. An area that is particularly troublesome, for both students and professors, is the inherent problem of assigning individual grades for work completed in groups. One of the most common problems associated with student work groups is the unequal distribution of individual effort that is devoted to the completion of group tasks. Problems arise when individual efforts within groups are not rewarded or reflected in the grade distribution (Abelson and Babcock 1986). A number of studies have found what is commonly referred to as "social loafing," the reality that people are likely to exert less energy when working in groups than when working individually (Petty, Harkins, Williams, and Latane 1977, Harkins, Latane and Williams 1980). On the other hand, "social loafing" is reduced if individual outcomes are identifiable or can be compared with the effort of other group members in an overt fashion (Harkins and Jackson 1985).

Perhaps the most common method of evaluation of individual effort on group assignments is the "peer evaluation." Research shows that the presence of peer evaluations, which account for between 20 and 40 percent of grade assignments, is directly related to student perceptions of positive group experience (Feichtner and Davis 1985). However, the effectiveness of peer rating systems depends on students' willingness and ability to participate in the process (Summey, Taylor, and Long 1980, Johnson and Johnson 1991). While there has been a great deal written on group formation, group decision making and team-based approaches to learning, the literature is sparse on the topic of evaluation. This paper presents the results from an exploratory study on the use of peer evaluations. Specifically, this study investigated faculty and student perceptions of the peer evaluation process.

METHODOLOGY

Student participants were individuals currently enrolled in the second year or higher of a business administration program. First year students were not solicited, because most introductory level course tend toward the traditional lecture format and rarely, if ever, assign group-based tasks. Faculty respondents consisted of full-time faculty members in the business faculty, as well as part-time lecturers with industry experience. All faculty respondents had used, or were currently using, groups in the classroom. Information was collected from students through focus group interviews. Participants were instructed to discuss the use of groups in the classroom and to consider topics such as group formation, task assignment and evaluation procedures. At the end of the focus groups students were presented with examples of peer evaluation forms and asked to discuss the pros and cons associated with each form. Faculty respondents were given an open-ended questionnaire asking them to provide their views on the use of groups in the classroom. The same topics: formation, task assignment and evaluation procedures, were included. Sample peer evaluation forms were attached to the back of the questionnaire and respondents were asked to provide an evaluation of each of the forms. Following completion of the questionnaire the authors engaged in discussions with faculty respondents regarding the use of groups in the classroom.

FINDINGS

The findings are presented as a list of numbered suggestions that should improve instructors' ability to implement an effective and efficient peer evaluation process. These suggestions are based on the findings of this research study, with a particularly heavy emphasis given to the student results. Exhibit I summarizes the suggestions with a discussion of the research findings related to each suggestion being presented below.

1. Individual contributions should be identifiable and considered in the assignment of individual grades.

Students and faculty members alike agree that an effective group evaluation form must at least give the illusion that individual contributions are identifiable and will be considered in the assignment of individual grades. Situations where peer evaluations are completed but are not explicitly used in the calculation of individual grades for group work tend to promote social loafing behaviors because there are no observable penalties in place for those group members who choose not to participate or limit their participation based on an expectation that other group members will carry the load. Students tend to prefer evaluation forms which state that results will be used to calculate individual grades and show how those calculations will be made.

Faculty members, on the other hand, recognize the need to differentiate between individual levels of participation, but tend to shy away from using forms that bind them to applying a specific formula when calculating grades. Instead, faculty prefer to use the peer evaluation results as an additional tool for assigning grades. Concerns about personality conflicts and other subjective influences that may taint the accuracy of peer evaluations result in a less rigid application of the peer evaluation process.

2. Every attempt must be taken to maintain confidentiality.

Students agree that evaluations should be conducted on a project-by-project basis, but they are concerned about confidentiality issues. Students find themselves caught in a "catch 22" situation; they want feedback from the evaluations so that they can adjust their performance accordingly, however, group members do not want their peers to have access to the actual evaluation forms if individual evaluators can be identified.

Regardless of a desire for fairness in the distribution of grades, students do not want to risk jeopardizing relationships with their peers. This "need for belonging," however, tends to dissipate when individuals see their overall grades being jeopardized by the lack of commitment of a particular group member.

Most faculty participants indicate that they conduct peer/group evaluations toward the end of the semester. While some faculty members may include sections dealing with projects on an individual basis, the evaluation itself is done on a one-time, end-of-term basis. Faculty perceive this type of evaluation as being all encompassing, covering all group work throughout the term. They also see it as protecting student confidentiality and alleviating conflicts that may result from providing specific feedback to individual group members.

3. Peer evaluations must differentiate only between group members.

Not surprisingly, faculty and students agree that peer evaluations must differentiate only between group members and must not be shared between groups. Both sets of participants believe that the instructor should assign the "total project grade" to all group members and then use the peer evaluation results to adjust individual scores.

4. Students must be given proper instructions on how to complete peer evaluation forms as well as operational definitions for criteria.

Perhaps the most interesting, if not the most relevant, findings relate to the use, rather than the design, of peer evaluation forms in the classroom. Faculty tend to focus on the development of peer evaluation tools that force students to measure relative contributions of group members using some type of objective criteria. The evaluations are given out, collected, and tabulated but never discussed with the students. The overwhelming concern from the students' perspective was that, although they were given forms to fill out, they were very rarely given instruction on how to accurately complete these forms and, in the case of criterion-based scales, they were never provided with operational definitions of the criteria that they were to use to evaluate themselves and/or their peers.

This is consistent with research by Johnson and Johnson (1991) and Summey, et. al. (1980) which asserts that students must be not only be willing to participate in the evaluation process, but they must also have the skills necessary to do so. This requires that instructors carefully explain the form to be used and train students to use the evaluation form properly. From a pedagogical perspective this also requires that faculty be trained in the effective development and evaluation of groups within the classroom. Despite the acknowledgement by faculty that group skills are necessary for students to compete effectively in the job market, there still exists a hesitancy to fully integrate the use of groups in the classroom. The majority of these reservations are based on a lack of knowledge of and confidence in their own ability to use groups in the classroom to promote an effective learning environment for students.

Peer evaluation forms must allow for an explanation of the reasoning behind the distribution of the points given to an individual, be given on a project-by-project basis, and students must be properly trained on how to use the feedback provided by the forms.

Almost without exception, students believe that for the peer evaluation process to work effectively, instructors must train students to use the forms properly. They believe that constructs must be explicitly defined and the method by which the evaluations will be used by the instructor must be explained. Students believe that peer evaluation forms, while maintaining some degree of objectivity, must also allow for an explanation of the reasoning behind the distribution of points given to an individual. Students believe that these evaluations should be done on a project by project basis so that individuals can receive feedback on their performance. This information can then be used to improve group dynamics, thus improving the outcome of the next group task. Confidentiality, however, remains an important issue that must be considered when feedback is given to individuals.

Faculty also recognize the positive impact of providing feedback early in the semester so that group members can correct any problems that may exist. However, the confidentiality issue and the probability that some discussion will result makes faculty members hesitant to engage in such activities.

CONCLUSION

Faculty members believe in the importance of the peer review process. They recognize the need to introduce some level of individual accountability into the group-based activities. However, overwhelmingly, faculty are concerned about their own abilities to effectively form, manage and evaluate groups within the classroom. Given the pedagogical direction of the future, the increasing use of team-based learning practices and a better understanding of the development, use and impact of the peer review process have become imperative.

EXHIBIT I

PEER EVALUATION SUGGESTIONS

1. Individual contributions should be identifiable and considered in the assignment of individual grades.
   
   
2. Every attempt must be taken to maintain confidentiality.
   
   
3. Peer evaluations must differentiate only between group members.
   
   
4. Students must be given proper instructions on how to complete peer evaluation forms as well as operational definitions for criteria.
   
   
5. Peer evaluation forms must allow for an explanation of the reasoning behind the distribution of the points given to an individual, be given on a project-by-project basis, and students must be properly trained on how to use the feedback provided by the forms.

REFERENCES

Abelson, Michael A. and Judith A. Babcock (1986), "Peer Evaluation Within Group Projects: A Suggested Mechanism and Process," Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 10, 4, 98-100.

Feichtner, Susan Brown and Elaine Actis Davis (1985), "Why Some Groups Fail: A Survey Of Students' Experiences With Learning Groups," Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 9, 58-73.

Harkins, Stephen G. and Jeffrey Jackson (1985), "The Role of Evaluation In Eliminating Social Loafing," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 4, 457-465.

_______, Bibb Latane and Kipling Williams (1980), "Social Loafing: Allocating Effort or Taking it Easy?," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 457-465.

Johnson, David W. and Frank P. Johnson (1991), Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Petty, Richard E., Stephen G. Harkins, Kipling D. Williams and Bibb Latane (1977), "The Effects of Group Size On Cognitive Effort and Evaluation," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 579-582.

Summey, John H., Ronald D. Taylor and Clayton S. Long (1980)"Evaluation of Three Techniques For Peer Grading of Group Project Team Members, in Evolving Marketing Thought for 1980, Southern Marketing Association Conference Proceedings, John H. Summey and Ronald D. Taylor (Eds), Louisiana, 271-273.