Co-evaluation as a strategy to improve working group dynamics: an experience in Sport Sciences

The aim of this study was to analyze if the perceptions of students before and after carrying out the work, that is, their perception of different aspects of the functioning of the group, the working skills acquired as well as those they think that need to be improved, varied depending on whether the contribution of the different members of the group was being co-evaluated or not. 144 students of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences participated in this study. In order to analyze the students' perception of group work the adapted questionnaire by Bourne et al. (2001) was used. Results showed that groups which implemented co-evaluation assessed more negatively the experience in general than those which did not. However, co-evaluation groups perceived their competence to work as a team had improved to a greater extent than the groups without co-evaluation, evaluating more positively both the performance and the result of work and increasing their knowledge of the other team members. Using a co-evaluation system seems to generate both a better assessment of the running of the team and the result of its work.

Averroes y las cosas justas por naturaleza

En su comentario a la Ética a Nicómaco, Averroes se ocupó del pasaje donde Aristóteles distingue entre las cosas que son justas por naturaleza y aquéllas que lo son en virtud de la ley (V, 7 1134b18-1135a5). Su comentario es particularmente breve, pero plantea algunas dificultades importantes, como su alusión a un derecho naturale legale, que, según Leo Strauss, vendría a ser simplemente un derecho positivo de aceptación general. En este artículo se busca caracterizar lo justo natural y lo justo positivo en el comentario de Averroes y mostrar el alcance de la variación de los criterios propios de la justicia positiva.