# Student view ## Feedback Example To illustrate with an example, here's a set of criteria and methods for assessing peers in LAMS ### 1. Star Rating - Likert Scale **Criterion: Contribution to Clinical Discussion** How effectively did this student contribute to the team’s clinical reasoning and discussion? * ⭐ 1, Very limited contribution * ⭐⭐ 2, Occasional contribution, lacked depth * ⭐⭐⭐ 3, Adequate contribution, some useful input * ⭐⭐⭐⭐ 4, Strong contribution, clear clinical reasoning * ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5, Excellent contribution, insightful and evidence-based *** ### 2. Ranking **Criterion: Overall Contribution to the Group Task** Rank your team members (including yourself) from highest to lowest overall contribution to the case analysis. * Rank 1 = Highest contribution * Rank N = Lowest contribution Students must rank all members of your group *** ### 3. Hedging (Point Allocation) **Criterion: Distribution of Contribution** Students have 100 points to distribute across the team members (including themselves), based on their overall contribution to the task. * Allocate more points to those who contributed more * Allocate fewer points to those who contributed less Additional requirement: * Provide a justification (minimum 20 words) explaining your allocation *** ### 4. Qualitative Feedback (Comments) Criterion: Written Feedback Provide constructive feedback for each team member (including yourself). The feedback should address: * Strengths (e.g. clinical reasoning, teamwork, preparation) * Areas for improvement * Specific examples where possible Minimum length: 30 words ## Students giving feedback Below you can see how students provide feedback for each of these criterias and methods. ### Star Rating (Likert Scale) Students use stars to give feedback to each other. Additionally, students might be ask to qualify their selection.

### Ranking When using ranking, students must rank their peers relative to one another.

#### Hedging (Point Allocation) Students allocate a fixed number of marks across peers, based on contribution.

#### Qualitative feedback (comments) Students provide written feedback on peers.

### Rubrics Allows students to rate each other using a structured, criteria-based evaluation grids. Rubrics ensure a clear, standardised, and transparent evaluation criteria.

## Feedback Results After all peers have given each other feedback and the teacher has disclosed the results, this is what students see as results. {% hint style="warning" %} **Feedback to students is always anonymous** However, teachers can always see who left the feedback/comments. {% endhint %} {% hint style="info" icon="envelope-open-text" %} Students also receive results via email. {% endhint %}

--- # 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/student-view.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.