**Title**
* Defines the name of the activity as seen by students.\
Use a **clear and meaningful title**, e.g. *“Team Contribution Evaluation”*.
**Instructions**
* Provide guidance to students on **how to complete the evaluation**.
* This is critical to ensure students:
* Understand the **criteria**
* Know **what is expected**
* Provide **constructive and honest feedback**
### Rating Criteria
This is the core of the activity, where you define **how students will evaluate peers and themselves**.\
**You can add multiple criteria using different evaluation methods.**
There are **5 different evaluation types** you can use:
1. **Star rating (Likert scale)**
2. **Ranking**
3. **Hedging (Point Allocation)**
4. **Comments (Qualitative)**
5. **Rubrics**
{% hint style="success" %}
### Educational Value of Peer Evaluation (Tips for Effective Use)
* **Make the self-evaluation component explicit**\
Encourage students to **honestly reflect on their own contribution**, not just rate others
* **Discuss discrepancies openly**\
Differences between **self and peer ratings** can spark valuable discussion and insight
* **Use clear, behaviour-based criteria**\
Focus on observable aspects like **preparation, participation, and collaboration**
* **Start simple**\
Begin with rating scales, then introduce **more nuanced or hybrid approaches**
* **Encourage constructive feedback**\
Provide guidance on how to give **specific, actionable comments**
* **Consider anonymity where appropriate**\
This can improve honesty in peer ratings
* **Use results as a learning opportunity**\
Highlight patterns such as:
* Overestimation or underestimation of self-performance
* Strong or weak team dynamics
* **Apply it consistently across activities**\
This builds **trust, fairness, and student confidence in the process**
{% endhint %}
#### Star rating (Likert scale)
* Allows students to **rate peers using a scale (e.g. 1–5 stars)**.
* Ideal for **quick, intuitive evaluations**.
Options:
* **Criterion name**: Define what is being evaluated (e.g. *Participation*, *Preparation*)
* **Minimum number of ratings**: Require a minimum number of peers to rate
* **Maximum number of ratings**: Limit how many peers can be rated
* **Allow students to comment on other students**: Adds a qualitative feedback layer alongside the rating
{% hint style="info" %}
**Use when**: You want a **simple and scalable evaluation method**, especially for large cohorts.
{% endhint %}
#### Ranking
* Students **rank peers relative to one another** (e.g. *best to least contribution*).
Options:
* **Criterion name**: e.g. *Overall contribution*
* **Rank limit**:
* **ALL**: Rank all peers
* Or limit ranking to a subset
{% hint style="info" %}
**Use when**: You want to **force differentiation** between students.
{% endhint %}
#### Hedging (Point Allocation)
* Students allocate a **fixed number of marks across peers**, based on contribution.
* This is one of the most **powerful accountability mechanisms**.
Options:
* **Criterion name**
* **Hedge mark**: Total points available (e.g. 100)
* **Scale**:
* **Total**: Distribute points across the whole group
* **Per student in group**: Allocate points individually
* **Ask for justification**:
* Require students to **explain their allocation**
* **Minimum words in justification**:
* Enforces **depth and quality of reflection**
{% hint style="info" %}
**Use when**: You need **clear differentiation and accountability**, especially in graded group work.
{% endhint %}
#### Comments (Qualitative)
* Students provide **written feedback** on peers.
Options:
* **Minimum / maximum number of comments**
* **Minimum word count**:
* Encourages **meaningful and detailed feedback**
{% hint style="info" %}
**Use when**: You want to **develop reflection and feedback skills**.
{% endhint %}
#### Rubrics
* Allows you to define **structured, criteria-based evaluation grids**.
Options:
* **Max score**: Defines the scoring range
* **Column headers**: Performance levels (e.g. *Poor → Excellent*)
* **Row headers**: Criteria (e.g. *Communication*, *Collaboration*)
* **Column content**: Descriptions for each level
{% hint style="info" %}
**Use when**: You need **clear, standardised, and transparent evaluation criteria**.
{% endhint %}
### Advanced Settings
#### Review Options (Feedback after completion)
Control what students can see after completing the evaluation.
* **Feedback they provided**
* Students can review **their own submitted evaluations**
* **Feedback they received**
* Students can see **how peers evaluated them**
* **Maximum number of reviews**
* Limits how many evaluations a student can complete
* Particularly relevant for **Star Rating criteria**
***
#### Self Assessment
* **Allow self review**
* Enables **self-evaluation using the same criteria as peer evaluation**
This is a **key feature**, as it:
* **Encourages reflection**
* Allows comparison between **self-perception and peer perception**
#### **SPA & SAPA Factors**
When you use Peer & Self Evaluation, LAMS can generate **SPA and SAPA factors** to help you interpret results in a fair, structured, and meaningful way.
The **SPA factor** is a fairness adjustment score that reflects how much each team member contributed to a group task, based on the ratings given by their peers and their own self-assessment.
The **SAPA factor** compares how a student rates themselves versus how their peers rate them.
What is the SPA Factor? (Student Performance Adjustment)
The **SPA factor** is a **fairness adjustment score** that reflects **how much each student contributed to the group**, based on:
* **Peer ratings**
* **Self-evaluation**
* The **overall distribution of scores within the team**
#### What does it actually do?
It helps you:
* **Differentiate individual contribution** within group work
* **Adjust marks fairly**, so stronger contributors are recognised
* Identify **under- or over-contributors**
#### How to interpret it
* **SPA > 1.0** → The student contributed **more than the team average**
* **SPA = 1.0** → The student contributed **at the expected level**
* **SPA < 1.0** → The student contributed **less than the team average**
{% hint style="info" %}
In practice, you can use SPA to **scale individual grades** from a group mark.
{% endhint %}
#### Why it matters
Without SPA, group work often leads to:
* **Free-riding**
* **Unfair grade distribution**
With SPA, you introduce **accountability and fairness**, making contributions **visible and measurable**.
What is the SAPA Factor? (Self vs Peer Assessment Alignment)
The **SAPA factor compares**:
**How a student rates themselves vs how their peers rate them**
#### What does it reveal?
It gives you insight into a student’s **self-awareness and perception accuracy**.
#### How to interpret it
* **SAPA ≈ 1.0** → The student’s self-assessment is **aligned with peer perception**
* **SAPA > 1.0** → The student **rates themselves higher** than their peers do
* **SAPA < 1.0** → The student **rates themselves lower** than their peers do
#### Why it matters
SAPA helps you identify:
* **Overconfidence** (inflated self-perception)
* **Underconfidence** (students undervaluing their contribution)
* **Mismatch in perception**, which can indicate:
* Lack of awareness
* Communication issues within the team
* Misunderstanding of expectations
### SPA vs SAPA , What’s the difference?
* **SPA = Contribution (fairness and grading)**
* **SAPA = Self-awareness (reflection and development)**
👉 Think of it this way:
* **SPA tells you “how much did this student contribute?”**
* **SAPA tells you “how accurately does this student understand their own contribution?”**
**How you can use these in your teaching**
Use SPA to:
* Adjust **individual marks in group assessments**
* Identify **imbalanced team contributions**
* Support **fair grading decisions**
Use SAPA to:
* Prompt **reflective discussions**
* Develop **professional self-awareness**
* Identify students who may need:
* Feedback on expectations
* Support with confidence or engagement
***
#### Rubrics Settings (Advanced)
* **Student rubrics view**
* Defines how students see rubric evaluations (e.g. *by student*)
* **Require evaluation for all peers**
* Prevents students from skipping evaluations
* **Add in-between columns in rubrics**
* Adds **more granular performance levels**, improving clarity and consistency
***
#### End of Activity
* **Lock when finished**
* Prevents students from **editing their evaluations after submission**
* Important for maintaining **assessment integrity**
***
### Learning Outcomes
{% hint style="success" %}
**Mapping learning outcomes to activities is very useful for curriculum mapping.**
{% endhint %}
Add learning outcomes to the activity
As with all activities in LAMS, you can map your learning outcomes to this activity. If you want to add a learning outcome, just search for the particular outcome or type a new one it will be added to your list of learning outcomes for the future.
You can search Learning Outcomes by code or name.
---
# Agent Instructions: Querying This Documentation
If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question.
Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter:
```
GET https://docs.lamsfoundation.org/lams/tools/peer-and-self-evaluation/create.md?ask=
```
The question should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language.
The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation.
Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.