The Pilar Model as a Measure of Peer Ratings of Collaboration Viability in Small Groups

Datos Bibliográficos

ID13026075
AutoresBenjamin Heslop (0000-0002-9465-558X, University of Newcastle Australia, autor de correspondencia), Kathryne Bailey (0000-0002-8109-7662, University of Newcastle Australia), Jonathan Paul (0000-0003-3064-6358, University of Newcastle Australia), Elizabeth Stojanovski (0000-0002-2507-3877, University of Newcastle Australia)
Año2018
Volumen7
Número3
Páginas49-49
Fecha de publicación2018-03-20
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaSocial Sciences (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 2076-0760 • E-ISSN: 2076-0760
EditorialMDPI AG (PUBLISHER • IT)
DOI10.3390/socsci7030049
OpenAlexW2791001626
IdiomaEN
Referencias citadas45

The PILAR (prospects, involved, liked, agency, respect) model provides a dynamical systems perspective on collaboration. Two studies are performed using peer assessment data, both testing empirical support for the five Pillars that constitute members’ perceptions of collaboration viability (CoVi). The first study analyses peer assessment data collected online from 458 first-year engineering students (404 males; 54 females). A nine-item instrument was inherited from past year’s usage in the course, expanded with four additional items to elaborate upon the agency and liked Pillars. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on student responses to test whether they thematically aligned to constructs consistent with the five Pillars. As anticipated, twelve of the thirteen items grouped into five components, each aligned with a Pillar, providing empirical evidence that the five Pillars represent perceptions of collaboration. The second study replicated the first study using a retrospective analysis of 87 items included in the Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness (CATME) peer assessment tool. The associated factor analyses resulted in five components and conceptual alignment of these components with Pillars was evident for three of five CATME components. We recommend a peer assessment instrument based upon PILAR as potentially more parsimonious and reliable than an extensive list of behaviours, such as employed by CATME. We also recommend including items that target inter-rater bias, which is aligned with the liked Pillar, that instruments such as CATME exclude

Agency (philosophy · Empirical research · Exploratory factor analysis · Mathematics education · Medical education · Peer Assessment · Peer review · Perspective (graphical · Pillar · Political science · Psychometrics · Sociology · Statistics · Test (biology · Applied Psychology · Clinical Psychology · Computer Science · Engineering · Innovative Education and Learning Practices · Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods · Medicine · Psychology · Social Psychology · Team Dynamics and Performance · Artificial Intelligence