EU countries spend a third less on research and development than America or Japan, as a share of GDP, and are out-invested even by China nowadays. But there also it has preferred to stay tucked in behind others. Europe could have invested the savings in pioneering innovation. Europe was left to whinge about whether it got sufficient access to the intelligence it did little to produce.Īll the money not spent on guns makes for more butter. It was overwhelmingly America that undertook basic military tasks such as surveillance flights. The run-up to the war in Ukraine demonstrated these shortcomings. Too much goes on pensions rather than on advanced kit. Worse, when it comes to gauging the ability of an army to do anything beyond its borders, a lot of Europe’s spending is wasted on dozens of redundant national schemes. That is despite a swell of new military spending following America indicating it was pivoting to Asia a decade ago, not to mention the terrifying prospect of having Donald Trump be the guarantor of anything important. Big countries like Germany (1.5%), Italy (1.4%) and Spain (just 1%) slink away when the subject comes up. Europeans in NATO spend only 1.7% of GDP on their armed forces, well short of the 2% NATO target and the 3.5% America splurges. The combined military spending in the 34 European countries that are part of either NATO or the EU is less than half that of America’s, despite a bigger economic output and nearly twice the population. This functionality (group contribution factor) was co-created with Tiffany Gunning from our EdTech DoTank partner, Deakin University.Defence is where criticism of Europe’s ways has been loudest-and where it is currently being most acutely felt. This further improves their performance in future group projects. Supplementing this learning activity with self-assessment can help students spot discrepancies between how they view their own efforts and how they are perceived by others. By doing this, overachievers are rewarded and underachievers are penalised.īy putting a numerical value to individual contribution of group members this way, free-riding is eliminated. Based on this ratio, a grade is calculated which reflects their individual contribution. It does this through an algorithm that compares ratings each student receives with the average of the group. This tool also allows group grades to be personalized based on individual contribution. The teachers oversee the quality and quantity of feedback being given and intervene when needed.īut this is where it gets interesting. The Group Member Evaluation tool facilitates this reflection by getting students to evaluate each others’ contributions anonymously against a set of criteria set by the teacher. While receiving feedback from peers improves the depth of learning, the process of giving feedback also builds on skills like collaboration, coaching and debate.Ĭonsidering the frequency of group projects and the value of giving/receiving feedback, adding structure to the evaluation process has a clear use case in higher education. And in the process, they are able to cultivate skills like critical-thinking and problem solving. But when they hear feedback from their peers, the students would try to challenge it. When a teacher gives feedback, the students accept it for what it is. Research shows that students evaluating each other, a key part of collaborative learning, encourages them to reflect deeply on their skills and contribution in a group setting and take a more active role in their learning. But because confrontation can be awkward, the other group members just accept this as the inevitable consequence of working in a group. Open communication and feedback can control free-riding to some extent. Some will take on more work to make up for those who free-ride knowing everybody will end up with the same grade. Students dread group work because they know that not every member contributes equally.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |