Many, many thanks to you all that responded on the freerider issues. Very
helpful. It seems that, with variations, the peer evaluation remains the
primary tool to deal with them.
Thanks, again.
stan
Stan Williamson, Ph.D.
Professor of Management
Scott Endowed Professor for Teaching Excellence, 1999-2002
Management Program
College of Business Administration
University of Louisiana at Monroe
Monroe, LA 71209-0100
318.342.1195
fax: 318.342.1101
-----Original Message-----
From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv
[mailto:
OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Dina Mansour-Cole
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 8:26 PM
To:
OB@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
Subject: Re: dealing with student team freeriders
Sorry I am so late to the conversation. Here are a few points, some that
echo those of others.
1. When the project course first starts, we discuss the issue of
self-limiting behavior - not simply social loafing- so that potential
reasons for holding back participation are surfaced. When students
understand that it is not necessarily about laziness, they try harder to
include each other, and the conversation also signals all members that
social loafing will not be tolerated.
2. Depending on course objectives, I sometimes use the point system
discussed by others (and I usually have a 'no tie' rule)-- other times
we go through a more time intensive process of deciding how the team
will motivate each other (much like a team contract). We talk about the
importance of fairness in peer evaluation, and the probability that
there will be uneven performance by individual members. Why? If all
are using their skills and abilities to the fullest, and all are taking
responsibility for leading the team to a high quality project, their
contributions will be greater in some areas (e.g., idea generation,
facilitation) than others (e.g., writing, boundary spanning). Coming up
with a custom instrument for that group of people makes sense- trying to
force fit equality doesn't.
3. When I make peer evaluation a substantial portion of the grade (more
than 5%), I make sure I insert a line into the syllabus that mentions I
reserve the right to raise or lower a peer evaluation grade by one
letter grade if I believe there has been under or over-inflation based
on my observations, capriciousness or discrimination.
4. This conversation also puts more pressure on me as the
instructor/course designer to make sure the tasks are appropriate
collaborative tasks (requiring more than simple cooperation) and to keep
clarifying the link between projects and course objectives.
4. Like Bill, I recognize that sometimes a 'work around' cannot be
found for an unproductive member. When that student begins to hinder
the progress of the team, I reserve the right to remove the student from
the team rather than let the team fire them. Of course, the team must
give a clear warning, talk with me, etc. The Loafer must then work out
the consequences with me-- sometimes that means an alternative task set,
sometimes they elect the retake the course another semester. Again,
this is protection for all: the team does not determine the changes in
graded assignments- I do.
Dina
Dina Mansour-Cole, Ph.D.
Division of Organizational Leadership and Supervision
Indiana University Purdue University Fort Wayne
mansour@ipfw.edu
>>> "Snavely, William B. Dr." <
snavelwb@MUOHIO.EDU> 10/15/07 7:47 PM >>>
While I do a lot of the same sort of things as have been suggested, I
would add 2 comments...
1. I allow teams to "fire" a team member, in which case I find something
else for them to do. There is a procedure involved (i.e. they have to
prove that they tried to fix the problem first, they have to give a
clear warning, etc.) - This has only been used a couple of times, but in
both cases it worked as it should. I think in most cases, the existence
of the option helps motivate social loafers.
2. In a much different vein, I recommend being very careful how much
adjusting you do on their grades. As associate dean I came across a
number of student grievances where the faculty member just could not
prove that there was not just a personality problem or discrimination
that led to the lower rating instead of real performance differences. I
think it is problematic to just rely on the student feedback to "grade"
a student, especially if a hefty percentage is attached. Many students
are not all that mature about performance appraisal...
Bill
Dr. William B. Snavely
Director and Professor
School of Communication
San Diego State University
5500 Campanile Drive
San Diego, CA 92182-4560
Tel: 619 594-0895
Fax: 619 594-0704
Mobile: 513-461-1450
E-mail:
wsnavely@mail.sdsu.edu