English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Although peer assessment has been used for evaluating performance of medical students and practicing doctors, it has not been studied as a method to distribute a common group work mark equitably to medical students working in large groups where tutors cannot observe all students constantly.    Methods  The authors developed and evaluated a mathematical formulation whereby a common group mark could be distributed among group members using peer assessment of individual contributions to group work, maintaining inter-group variation in group work scores. This was motivated by community health projects undertaken by large groups of year four medical students at the National University of Singapore, and the new and old formulations are presented via application to 263 students in seven groups of 36 to 40 during the academic year 2012/2013.    Results  This novel formulation produced a less clustered mark distribution that rewarded students who contributed more to their team. Although collusion among some members to form a voting alliance and ‘personal vendettas’ were potential problems, the former was not detected and the latter had little impact on the overall grade a student received when working in a large group. The majority of students thought the new formulation was fairer.    Conclusions  The new formulation is easy to implement and arguably awards grades more equitably in modules where group work is a major component.    Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-017-0987-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Using peer review to distribute group work marks equitably between medical students