Assessment and examination criteria for the project work

The project work undertaken by the students needed to be assessed and evaluated.

Accordingly, I designed an assessment and evaluation scheme for the 25 marks, as shown in table 4.5. The 25 marks were important and were included in the term work marks (refer to table 4.2). The focus was to assess the field work, teamwork, presentation, question and answer sessions and the project report. Each item was allotted marks, as shown in table 4.5.

Also, criteria for evaluation and the evaluators of the project are mentioned in the table 4.5.

Detailed explanation is provided in the following text.

79 Table 4.5 Assessment and evaluation scheme for a project activity

Evaluation for Allotted

marks Evaluators

Fieldwork 5 Teacher and Peers

Teamwork 5 Peers

Presentation and question and answer

session

10 Teacher and Peers

Quality of

project report 5 Teacher

Total marks 25 4.4.7.1 Field work assessment

In the project, fieldwork was a very important activity. In fact, the outcome of the project largely depended on the quality of the fieldwork. Hence, five marks were allotted for the fieldwork. These five marks were provided in order to motivate the students to move outside of the classroom and see the machine and mechanism from a close distance. Students were asked to include proof of their fieldwork (photos of group work done at the site and communication letters, if any) in the report.

4.4.7.2 Teamwork assessment

This assessment was to be done by the students themselves (peer assessment). In the chapter 2 it is discussed that many authors (Luis et al., 2005, Raucent, 2001, Esche, 2002, Cawley, 1991) used peer assessment methods to find individual contribution in the project work. Also, it made sense to include this method because the students were the ones who worked with their teammates and knew their performance during project work. In addition, it would give them a tool to control and evaluate the non-performing students from their group.

Table 4.6 shows a scheme for teamwork assessment. This scheme was developed by taking inspiration from Bellman and Ryan (2010), who have developed and written about eight collaboration indicators. Teamwork was assessed through observation and feedback from team members on a five-point scale. A sample teamwork assessment form is included below for reference. In this assessment scheme, each student was asked to rate their peers on a five-point scale from zero (min.) to five (max.).

As an example, imagine I am one of the members of a group comprising of Nitin, Payal and Vyas. I would rate my teammates, as shown in the table 4.6. Using this table, readers can see that, according to me, Nitin, Payal and Vyas would get 3.2, 3.4 and 3.8 marks respectively. Each group member would similarly rate each of their teammates. In this way; a total of 4 sheets would be generated. At the end, all of the marks earned out of five would be added and divided by the total number of assessors. Final marks out of five would be calculated this way. For example, if Nitin and Payal thought Vyas should get 3.2 and 3.5

80 respectively,then Vyas would get (3.8+3.2+3.5) / 3 = 3.5. Through this method, each student would be awarded marks out of five for teamwork, as determined by their teammates.

Table 4.6 Teamwork assessment sheet Sr.

No. Collaboration indicator

Name Name Name Nitin Payal Vyas

1. Involvement in the project work 3 4 3

2. Attendance and punctuality in group

meetings 4 4 4

3. Participation in group activity and learning 3 2 4 4. Contribution in presentation and report

preparation 4 5 4

5. Leadership qualities 2 2 4

Total out of 25 16 17 19

Total/5 16/5=

3.2 17/5=3.4 19/5=3.8 4.4.7.3 Assessment of presentation and question-answer session

Ten marks were allotted for the students‘ performance in a presentation and a question-answer session. Student groups were allowed to present their work for 20 minutes.

Afterwards, presentation evaluation would be done on the basis of presentation quality and responses given to questions asked by the evaluators. Presentations would be assessed by both the teacher and the students. Students‘ involvement in the assessment was included with the intention of improving students‘ ability to critically question and evaluate other groups and their work. This would also form part of their learning process. Students and the teacher were expected to evaluate the student groups. Finally, all of these marks were added and average marks for each individual would be calculated, as shown in the following sample calculation table 4.7.

81 Table 4.7 Sample evaluation for presentation and question answer sessions

Sr.

No. Collaboration indicator

Name Name Name

Nitin Payal Vyas

1. Teacher 7 8 6

2. Student 1 5 5 4

3. Student 2 8 5 4

4. Student 3 8 6 6

Total out of 10 28/4=7 24/4=6 20/4=5

4.4.7.4 Assessment of technical report

At the end of the project activity, each group had to submit the project report according to the format already given to them. The quality of this report was assessed for technical content, plagiarism and adherence to the given format, as discussed in chapter 3. Because it was difficult to predict individual contribution to the report, each member was given equal marks for the report. In summary, the marks earned by the students in each activity would be added together to generate the final mark sheet for that group. A sample final mark sheet for a group is provided in table 4.8. The marks for all of the sub-items would get added in order to grade the individual students‘ project work out of 25. In this model, the students would be assessed in a group and graded individually. The individual grades of the students would be added into the other 25 marks that the students earned in the regular assigned laboratory work. Each student would be awarded a total of 50 marks for term work, as shown in table 4.1.

Table 4.8 Example of final mark sheet for a group

Student’s name

Fieldwork 5

Teamwork 5

Presentation and question-

answer session

10

Project report

5

Total out of 25

Vikas 4 3.2 6 3 16.2

Nitin 4 3.5 7 3 17.5

Payal 4 3.9 6 3 16.9

Vyas 4 3.5 5 3 15.5

82