Dulaski, D. M. (2014, June), Team Grading in Capstone – What the Students Think When They Grade One Another  Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana. 10.18260/1-2--23107

\bibitem{asee_peer_23107}
  Dulaski, D. M. (2014, June), \emph{Team Grading in Capstone – What the Students Think When They Grade One Another}
  Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana.
  10.18260/1-2--23107

Daniel Michael Dulaski P.E..  "Team Grading in Capstone – What the Students Think When They Grade One Another".  2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana, 2014, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2014.  https://peer.asee.org/23107 Internet.  20 Sep, 2024

\bibitem{asee_peer_23107}
  Daniel Michael Dulaski P.E..
  "Team Grading in Capstone – What the Students Think When They Grade One Another".
  \emph{2014 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana, 2014, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2014.
  https://peer.asee.org/23107 Internet.  20 Sep, 2024

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_23107
author = "Daniel Michael Dulaski P.E."
title = "Team Grading in Capstone – What the Students Think When They Grade One Another"
booktitle = "2014 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2014"
month = "June"
address = "Indianapolis, Indiana"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/23107}
number = {10.18260/1-2--23107}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -        Team Grading in Capstone – What the Students Think When They                            Grade One AnotherAs part of the transportation Capstone track at XXXX University, students work in smallteams, ranging in size from 4-6 members. Over the course of the 14-week semester, eachstudent has various responsibilities, typically assigned by another student who functionsas the leader or project manager. Most of the work is performed on an independent basis– the student works on their component and then submits it to the team. The material isthen integrated into the final product.Throughout the semester, the faculty advisor meets with the team on close to a weeklybasis. Based on the interactions in the weekly meetings, the advisor has an appreciationfor what students the students are working on – those that are doing the work and thosethat are not contributing. As a result, the advisor was often required to grade the studenton the work that was submitted by the team and participation at weekly meetings.Although this approach was objective, it was not the most comprehensive – it lacked peerinput for team members. The students may experience something on a daily basis thatmay not be observed in a meeting – missed deadlines, lack of contributions – all elementsthat should be included when grades are issued.In order to have a better appreciation of what students were actually contributing, theadvisor uses team member reviews at two points over a semester, to inform grading.Students are required at the midpoint and end of semester to provide a grade as well aswritten feedback regarding each team member’s participation. The students also have toevaluate themselves. Each student must include the rationale behind their grade, as wellas a summary table of their work, and examples of their work.This approach has reinforced observations from the team meetings as well enlightenedthe instructor. Student feedback has indicated that it has changed their work habits, hashelped them appreciate the amount of work that is required in a project, and given theman appreciation for assigning a “letter grade” based on others’ work. This paper presentsthe findings from a team-review survey that was given to recent graduates of theprogram.  
AU  - Daniel Michael Dulaski P.E.
CY  - Indianapolis, Indiana
DA  - 2014/06/15
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Team Grading in Capstone – What the Students Think When They Grade One Another
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/23107
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--23107
ER  -