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.

Star rating and comments

Ranking

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

Rank peers

Hedging (Point Allocation)

Students allocate a fixed number of marks across peers, based on contribution.

Hedging marks across peers

Qualitative feedback (comments)

Students provide written feedback on peers.

Qualitative feedback to peers

Rubrics

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

Rubrics to assess peers

Feedback Results

After all peers have given each other feedback and the teacher has disclosed the results, this is what students see as results.

Feedback to students is always anonymous

However, teachers can always see who left the feedback/comments.

Students also receive results via email.