Papers and extended abstracts from the Poster presentation
4 Peer assessment results and the students’ evaluation of the process The peer and self-assessment showed some interesting results:
• All students gave fellow team members grades from average and up (i.e. 7, 10 and 12 on the Danish scale. The Danish grading scale is a 7-point scale with the following grades: 12(A), 10(B), 7(C), 4(D), 02(E), 00(Fx) and -3(F). Letters in parentheses are the equivalent ECTS grades).
• No students self-assessed their own grades higher that the average peer assessment.
• Variation between peer assessments of the same fellow student was not higher than +/- one (1) grade level.
Values and norms:
• “We work for a high grade report”
• “All team members must help each other in order to reduce… stress”
• “Be polite and ready to be criticized”
• “Take initiative”
• “Liability: All team members agree to follow through with commitments and take responsibility for their work and behaviour.”
• “Be prepared”
Rules:
• “Chairman on rotational basis, one week at a time. The chairman must organize e.g. meetings, the topics to prepare.”
• “All team members should be present and participate in the project meetings…”
• “All group members must come prepared to all meetings and work sessions, having done what they are required to do before certain deadlines.”
195 Examples of four groups’ assessment of each other can be seen in table 3.
Table 3: Result of peer and self-assessment from four teams. A, B…P: students. Grade in (): self-assessment.
FG: given final grade point, average of peer assessments. TR: student assessment of the team’s overall performance. ECTS conversion: 12=A; 10=B; 7=C; 4=D; 02=E; 00=Fx; -3=F.
Team 1 Assessed student Team 2 Assessed student
Assessing student A B C D TR
Assessing student E F G H TR
A (10) 10 10 12 12 E (4) 12 12 12 10
B 12 (10) 10 12 7 F 7 (12) 12 12 12
C 10 10 (10) 10 10 G 7 12 (12) 12 10
D 10 10 7 (10) 10 H 7 12 12 (12) 12
FG 10 10 10 12 FG 7 12 12 12
Team 3 Assessed student Team 4 Assessed student
Assessing student I J K L TR
Assessing student M N O P TR
I (7) 10 10 7 10 M (7) 10 10 12 12
J 10 (10) 12 7 10 N 10 (10) 10 12 12
K 10 10 (12) 7 10 O 10 10 (10) 10 12
L 12 12 12 (7) 12 P 10 10 7 (10) 12
FG 10 10 12 7 FG 10 10 10 12
The assessments in the four teams shown in table 3 are characteristic examples of the pattern in the team mate assessment. Students E and L are generally rated low compared to team average. Comments from the two teams and the two students in question reveal a joint understanding of the reason, and this is confirmed by the self-assessment of the two respective students. Team 2 shows full agreement in the peer assessment, and Teams 1, 3 and 4 show minor variations in the assessment, but generally the team mate assessment is consistent and relatively high.
The process reports reveal that all teams were functioning without major conflicts. Teams rated their performance as team from middle to very high.
After the end of the semester the students were individually asked how the knowledge about the final peer assessment element influenced their own and the overall team performance (figure 4).
196
Figure 4. Answers to questions regarding the peer assessment process: A) How did it influence your own performance in the team that you knew this would be evaluated by your team mates at the end of the semester? B) How do you think it influenced your team’s performance that you had to assess each other at the end of the project? (17 students out of totally 24 responded).
It is notable that all respondents indicate a neutral to positive effect of the assessment on their personal performance in the team, and even stronger positive effect on their team’s performance. Most students’
comments were positive to the peer assessment element, but also slightly negative comments were given, e.g.:
“I do believe it pushes some people to do better. It depends on the character of the person. I also think it is a bit delicate sometimes to give a mark to your team mates. I, personally, am not a big fan of it.”
5 Conclusion
Using an AC is by students seen as a positive instrument to support collaboration and team performance.
Students’ comments point to the fact that the effect of the AC probably could be higher, if it was discussed and revised half way in the project period and not just in the beginning.
The peer assessment of fellow teammates’ performances is by students seen as a supportive assessment tool.
No self-assessment is higher than the joint team’s peer assessment of a given student. This indicates a tendency to be nice to your team mates. This is probably the case in teams that have been able to function and manage problems and challenges. There are only small variations between peer assessments of the same team member, and between the average of peer assessments and the self-assessment of a given student.
Based on this it is fair to conclude that the assessment model seems to be in accordance with the set objectives. Whether the peer assessment as quality control of the students’ compliance with the collaboration learning requirement as instrument is precise can be questioned, but since these standards are set by teams, and the fulfillment is experienced primarily by the team, the peer assessment must be the most reasonable approach. The peer grading seems to result in grades on the high side. The students’ response indicates that the assessment fulfills other purposes such as providing feedback, and it aligns with the learning objective, by stimulating their own and the team’s performance. This was one of the key reasons to introduce the CCCP course, so the assessment process appears to support the learning objective.
The use of comments given to motivate the grading is important, in particular if big variations between self-assessment and peer self-assessment appear, and if big variations in the self-assessment of one particular student
197 appear in a team. The Process Report can also be an important tool to understand discrepancies and therefore be useful in the final assessment of the individual students.
References
Belbin, M. 2004. Management Teams – Why They Succeed or Fail. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Biggs, J. 2003. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. 2nd Ed. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Dahl, A., Dich, T., Hansen, T. & Olsen, V. 2012. Group-projects in a problem-oriented setting. Biofolia.
Farreras, M. & Bofill, P. 2012. Active learning for a student-based definition and self-assessment of team work and autonomous learning. 11th Active Learning in Engineering (ALE) workshop, Denmark, June 2012, Abstracts (Unpublished).
Holgaard, J.E., Ryberg, T., Stegeager, N., Stentoft, D., & Thomassen, A.O. 2014. Problembaseret læring og projektarbejde ved de videregående uddannelser. Samfundslitteratur.
Kolmos, A., Du, X., Holgaard, J.E. & Jensen, L.P. 2008. Facilitation in a PBL environment. Aalborg: The Research Group PBL-ARTES. Online publication.
Maribo, P. & Nielsen, J.B. 2002. The International Semester in Environmental Construction Engineering at the Engineering College of Aarhus. Global Journal of Engineering Education. Vol. 6, No.2. Special Issue – Engineering Education In Denmark.