A Rigorous Capstone Peer Evaluation Process

Todd W Polk; Robert Hart

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2025 ASEE -GSW Annual Conference
Location: Arlington, TX, Texas
Publication Date: March 9, 2025
Start Date: March 9, 2025
End Date: March 11, 2025
Page Count: 10
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--55025
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/55025
Download Count: 10

Paper Authors

biography

Todd W Polk University of Texas at Dallas

visit author page

Dr. Todd Polk is a Professor of Practice in the Bioengineering Department at the University of Texas at Dallas. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from Texas A&M University. He received his Master of Science and PhD in Electrical Engineering from the University of Texas at Dallas. He brings over 20 years of industry experience to the classroom.

visit author page

biography

Robert Hart P.E. University of Texas at Dallas

visit author page

Robert Hart is a Professor of Practice in the Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Texas at Dallas (UTD). He teaches the capstone design course sequence and serves as a Director for the UTDesign program, which facilitates corporate sponsorship of capstone projects and promotes re-source sharing and cross-disciplinary collaboration among engineering departments. Upon joining UTD in 2012, he developed the capstone design course sequence in the newly-formed mechanical engineering department and has been responsible for teaching it since. In 2017, he was a recipient of a University of Texas System Regents’ Outstanding Teaching Award. His professional interests are in the areas of engineering education, fluid mechanics, and thermal science. Robert is an active member of ASEE and the Capstone Design Conference Organizing Committee and has held leadership positions in both organizations. Before joining UTD, he worked as an engineer for 10 years, primarily at Southwest Research Institute. Robert is a licensed professional engineer in Texas and holds a B.S. and M.S. degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Houston and a Ph.D. degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Peer evaluations are an important tool to help students learn in a team-based project. In our engineering capstone design program we utilize a multi-step peer evaluation process that provides substantial feedback to help prepare students to become better engineers. In addition, these evaluations help us to address issues that can lead to team conflict. Anonymous peer evaluations are conducted twice per semester during the two-semester capstone design course for a total of four evaluations. For the first three evaluations, each student rates each of their teammates (and themselves) in six categories that reflect different aspects of teamwork. In addition, students are required to provide a pair of written comments for each of their teammates and themselves. The first comment must mention at least one thing that the person is doing well, and the second comment must mention at least one thing that they could improve or do differently.

After each of these evaluations, the instructors read all the comments and average the ratings for each student. The peer evaluations with the comments are then released back to the students for their review. This entire process is supported by classroom instruction to help students understand how to evaluate their peers and how to receive and use the feedback they are given.

Although these peer evaluations are used in grading, we believe that peer feedback and self-reflection are the most important parts of the process. A student’s peers have the most familiarity with the student’s work and thus are in the best position to offer feedback. When a student has ratings below a certain threshold, the instructors schedule a meeting with them individually to discuss their performance. These meetings are structured as coaching sessions and are kept very casual to help the student feel at ease. Our goal is not to establish blame, but to understand each student’s situation and offer advice and strategies they can use to improve their performance and better engage with their project and their teammates. We look for common themes in the comments to help students understand where there is room for improvement (e.g., punctuality, professionalism, etc.). We also try to understand if there are external factors originating outside of the university affecting their performance and we refer students to university resources if necessary.

This paper describes the overall peer evaluation process we use. We detail the follow-up meeting process and present data on how it helps these students improve by examining their ratings in subsequent peer evaluations after meeting with us.

Citation
Format

Polk, T. W., & Hart, R. (2025, March), A Rigorous Capstone Peer Evaluation Process Paper presented at 2025 ASEE -GSW Annual Conference, Arlington, TX, Texas. 10.18260/1-2--55025

TY - CPAPER
AB - Peer evaluations are an important tool to help students learn in a team-based project. In our engineering capstone design program we utilize a multi-step peer evaluation process that provides substantial feedback to help prepare students to become better engineers. In addition, these evaluations help us to address issues that can lead to team conflict. Anonymous peer evaluations are conducted twice per semester during the two-semester capstone design course for a total of four evaluations. For the first three evaluations, each student rates each of their teammates (and themselves) in six categories that reflect different aspects of teamwork. In addition, students are required to provide a pair of written comments for each of their teammates and themselves. The first comment must mention at least one thing that the person is doing well, and the second comment must mention at least one thing that they could improve or do differently.

After each of these evaluations, the instructors read all the comments and average the ratings for each student. The peer evaluations with the comments are then released back to the students for their review. This entire process is supported by classroom instruction to help students understand how to evaluate their peers and how to receive and use the feedback they are given.

Although these peer evaluations are used in grading, we believe that peer feedback and self-reflection are the most important parts of the process. A student’s peers have the most familiarity with the student’s work and thus are in the best position to offer feedback. When a student has ratings below a certain threshold, the instructors schedule a meeting with them individually to discuss their performance. These meetings are structured as coaching sessions and are kept very casual to help the student feel at ease. Our goal is not to establish blame, but to understand each student’s situation and offer advice and strategies they can use to improve their performance and better engage with their project and their teammates. We look for common themes in the comments to help students understand where there is room for improvement (e.g., punctuality, professionalism, etc.). We also try to understand if there are external factors originating outside of the university affecting their performance and we refer students to university resources if necessary.

This paper describes the overall peer evaluation process we use. We detail the follow-up meeting process and present data on how it helps these students improve by examining their ratings in subsequent peer evaluations after meeting with us.

AU - Todd W Polk
AU - Robert Hart P.E.
CY - Arlington, TX, Texas
DA - 2025/03/09
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - A Rigorous Capstone Peer Evaluation Process
UR - https://peer.asee.org/55025
DO - 10.18260/1-2--55025
ER -