June 23, 2013
June 23, 2013
June 26, 2013
23.32.1 - 23.32.9
A Comparison of Peer Evaluation Methods in Capstone DesignThe chemical engineering capstone design course at our university consists of a semester-longproject where students work in predetermined groups. The emphasis of the experience is to allowstudents to develop and explore their engineering creativity while at the same time cultivate theimportance of communication and teamwork skills. Students receive an industrially relevantopen-ended problem statement and face a rigorous schedule with specific weekly deliverables.We concentrate on building teamwork skills, ownership of the project, accountability,communication and self-assessment. We use the projects to incorporate the skills our graduatesneed to join the workforce or graduate schools while inspiring students to evaluate, defend, andtreasure their creations. Measuring group dynamics, division of labor, engagement, group versusindividual experiences is a challenging task. Student grades are highly dependent on peerevaluation, as the team does not receive the same grade for group assignments, but instead, groupgrades are multiplied by a peer assessment factor (for example if student’s X peer assessment is50 percent, all group grades for that student will be multiplied by 0.5. In the spring of 2012, twoseparate methods were employed as part of peer assessment: a traditional “point division”method  and CATME, the Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness .The point division method instructs students to divide 100 points between the group members; ifthere are five team members in a group and a student believes all the students in the groupparticipated equivalently in the project then he/she will assign 20 points to every student in thegroup. CATME allows the students to evaluate team members in more behavioral areas:contribution to the team, interaction with peers, keeping team on track, quality of work,proficiency in the discipline. Because the point division method is effectively a zero-sum gamewhose philosophy may contradict the cooperative nature of the course, we are interested inreplacing it, and therefore have explored correlations between it and CATME. Additionally, weused the data from both methods to evaluate how students rated themselves compared to theratings of their peers. In this report we share the results of our analysis. We have determined thatthe two methods have a statistically significant positive correlation and that students on averageself assess higher than their peers assess them. Michaelsen, L. K., A. B. Knight, and L. D. Fink (eds.), Team-Based Learning: ATransformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching. Sterling, Va.: Stylus, 2004. Ohland, Matthew W., H. R. Pomeranz, and H. W. Feinstein, “The ComprehensiveAssessment of Team Member Effectiveness: A New Peer Evaluation Instrument,” Proceedingsof the American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June 2006.
Enszer, J. A., & Castellanos, M. (2013, June), A Comparison of Peer Evaluation Methods in Capstone Design Paper presented at 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia. https://peer.asee.org/19046
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2013 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015