Peer Evaluation in an Active Learning Group Project

Hollis Bray-Associate Prof.David Manry-Associate Prof.

StudentsBrandon Brumley•Brandon Fryday•Matthew Lee

University of Louisiana at MonroeSchool of Construction Management

Presented atAssociated Schools of Construction Region

V Meeting September 20, 2007

Construction Phases

Topping Out Fall 2006

Fall 2006

• More realistic

• More manageable

• Peer grading

Project Enhancements Fall 2006

OwnerHead of School

Project Manager

Owner’s RepresentativeInstructor

Assistant Owner’s Representatives

Field Engineer Superintendent

Assistant Superintendent

Group TwoConcrete/Earthwork

Group ThreeFormwork/Alignment

Group FourIronworkers

Group OneProject Management

Team

PROJECT

ORGANIZATION

• Do students learn from peer assessment?

• Do they want to assess their peers?

• Will they do a critical assessment?

• Can we devise an efficient way to carry out the assessment?

Peer Evaluations

Comments From Student Essays

• “…problems associated with employees concerning tardiness, work attendance, work ethics, and conduct...”

• “We did not sit down and lay out any kind of responsibilities for each member which, with hindsight, was a mistake.”

• “…it was thought by many of our group members that a particular member was taking too much control over the project…”

• “One setback was the lack of communication between our team members and sometimes just getting everyone to show up at the same time and be effective as a team.”

• “One of the major problems was on the subject of group organization and cohesiveness...”

• “While our group did not have total communication failure, communication was severely crippled.”

A Rubric

Concrete/Earthwork Crew

Instructor’s Assessment of Group Peer Assessment of GroupCONCRETE WAS FREE FROM VOIDS AND HONEYCOMBS.

20 LEADERSHIP-SHOWED INDIVIDUAL LEADERSHIP IN THE FORM OF PREPARATION, ENTHUSIASM, COMMITMENT, ORGANIZATION, AND COMMUNICATION TO THE DEGREE APPROPRIATE TO THE POSITION WITHIN THE GROUP BY TAKING INITIATIVE.

20

CONCRETE SLABS FINISH SMOOTH AND FLAT WITHIN 1/8” (ACTUAL SIZE).

20 ATTENDANCE-PRESENT AND ON TIME FOR WORK.

20

CONCRETE ELEMENTS WERE SQUARE, PLUMB AND ALIGNED ACCORDING TO THE PLANS TO 1/8” (ACTUAL SIZE). EXCAVATION WAS ACCURATE ACCORDING TO PLANS, WITHIN ¼” HORIZONTALLY AND WITHIN 1/8” VERTICALLY (ACTUAL SIZE).

20 COOPERATION-WILLINGNESS TO WORK TOGETHER TO ACCOMPLISH THE JOB OF THE GROUP.

20

CONCRETE WAS DELIVERED TO THE JOB IN A TIMELY MANNER IN THE QUANTITIES ORDERED (WASTE WAS MINIMAL).

10 COMMUNICATION-SHARED INFORMATION WITH THE GROUP.

20

WASTE CONCRETE DISPOSAL WAS ACCORDING TO ENGINEER’S INSTRUCTIONS.

10 PARTICIPATION-DID THE APPROPRIATE SHARE OF WORK.

20

CONCRETE TEST CYLINDERS BROKE WITHIN 10% OR HIGHER THAN THE TARGET STRENGTH.

10

WORK AREA WAS CLEANED. 10

TOTAL 100 TOTAL 100

Peer Assessment in Groups By Rubric; Collected by Spreadsheet

Group Evaluations Tabulated; Individual Grades Assigned

Instructor Assigns Group GradeBy Rubric

Process

Assigned Points

Group in the IndividualAn toAssigned PointsIER

Students by Controlled Grade of %1% Grade, Group

IER% Grade, GroupStudents by Controlled Grade of %% Score, Individual

Individual Evaluation Ratio (IER)

(Feigenbaum & Holland, 1997)

(Berryman, 1999)

The average of individual grades in a group equals the group grade

Algorithm

Thanks For Your Time