In September, I reviewed a paper called “Turning Student Groups into Effective Teams.”
In one of my classes, we do a large project in groups of four. Based on a suggestion by the paper, the professor has implemented a peer review system.
The peer review system compares an evaluation of me to the average evaluations for my group.
Here is the system:
- Every teammate gives a rating for every other teammate’s performance for each assignment. In a group of four, I make three ratings and I am rated three times.
- My overall rating is the average of the three ratings of me.
- The baseline rating is the average of all the overall ratings.
- The professor assigns a mark to the group.
- If my overall rating is higher than the baseline rating, my mark is the group mark plus an adjustment bonus.
- If my overall rating is lower than the baseline rating, my mark is the group mark minus an adjustment penalty.
Game theorists have a concept called “Truthful Mechanisms.” A truthful mechanism is a system in which every player’s best interest is to tell the truth.
This is a non-truthful mechanism. Nobody should use it ever.
Imagine I give all my teammates a perfect rating. If any teammate gives me a less-than-perfect rating, my overall rating will be lower than otherwise and my mark goes down. By giving everyone a perfect rating, I raise the team average and hurt myself.
Imagine I give all my teammates a zero rating. If any teammate gives me a better-than-zero rating, my overall rating will be higher than otherwise and my mark goes up. By giving everyone a zero rating, I lower the team average and help myself.
The professor argues that, because we perform this evaluation rigmarole several times, unfair conduct will be weeded out. I say, garbage in, garbage out. The incentive becomes “mark your teammates as low as you can get away with.”
The system is malicious: It pits teammates against each other.
The system is also very dumb. It can punish individuals in perfectly functional teams!
Let’s say a team works really well together. Pete thinks, “Everything went very well. I’ll give everyone ‘Excellent.’” Everyone else thinks, “Everything went well. I’ll give everyone ‘Very Good’.” Result: Pete’s mark is adjusted downward. Everyone else is adjusted upward. Oops!
Please, do not use the system presented in the Oakley paper.
