See attached file.
Use Knowledge in Chapter 5 - Measuring Results and Behaviors
You are a newly hired professor with a Ph.D. in Human Resources Management. You have special interests in both training and in performance measurement. You decide to develop a comparative performance measurement system to measure student performance in your HR Management classes.
1. Critically assess the advantages and disadvantages of implementing such a system.
2. Explain the kinds of systems that are available for you to consider. Choose one approach and provide both a description of how you would implement it in a class of 30 students and an explanation of why this was the best choice of the variety of comparative systems.
At the end of the school year, a student initiative calls for a revision of the grading system at UAE University. Every professor will be required to develop an absolute performance measurement system. The process is complicated by the fact that many students are distance learners who interact on the Internet rather than in person.
3. Describe how you will implement an absolute performance measurement system in your classes next year, recognizing that you can devote no more than 10 hours per week to preparing for each class, actually participating in the class, and developing and grading any homework and exams. What will you consider in choosing a system and how will you go about implementing it?© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 10, 2019, 2:57 am ad1c9bdddf
Please refer to the attached file for the response.
MEASURING RESULTS AND BEHAVIORS
COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM AS A MEASURE OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE
1. Advantages and disadvantages of implementing such a system.
Easy to explain
All the researcher/analyst has to do is get the list of the students and determine the position of each student in the list as compared to the other members of the class. Hence, each student is compared with the other members of the class, not with a baseline /performance factor or a criterion. It is therefore norm-referenced, not criterion-referenced.
According to Cherrington (1995), this procedure is a natural one for most evaluators because most people are accustomed of ranking objects and people, informally.
There are no other factors to consider. All the raters will have to do is to compare one person with another person, or with the rest that are supposed to be rated. There are no assumptions or premises that are needed to be put in place. This makes the rating a very informal one and may not be safe as basis in coming up with critical decisions (e.g. scholarships, academic awards, etc.)
Better control for biases and errors found in absolute systems
This may still prevail because as a person compares two persons (e.g. in a paired comparison), he may be lenient to one and tough over another because of certain subjectivity.
This may still happen when one is comparing two persons as to more preferred or lesser preferred. Because of certain biases or some incidents in the past, he may not prefer/be severe to a person; or because of certain favors provided by a person in the past, there is a tendency to prefer him or select a better/lighter description for him (forced distribution).
• Central tendency. Yes, this may be avoided because it is either a person is preferred or not by a rater. However, parallel to this is the issue of determining people to be placed in the ...
The expert examines measuring results and behaviors.