Knowledge transfer among peers can favor learning. On the other hand, coevaluation, as understood in this investigation, implies the evaluation of peers' assessment when transferring knowledge developed by them. Additionally, knowledge transfer and coevaluation contribute in the development of certain competences in assignments that comprise: 1) sharing the results with the whole class, 2) analysis, 3) commitment and 4) responsibility. However, objectivity when assessing peer performance is an issue and a concern, basically due to the fact that, although peers are recipients of the information being shared, they do not get involved in the evaluation as stakeholders. As part of the evolution of learning, students need to evolve to recognize their capability to evaluate, since for some, peer evaluation can be intimidating. In this investigation, the use of AHP have been applied in three courses and to a total of 103 students in engineering at Universidad Metropolitana, particularly those almost at the end of their programs to investigate the feasibility of getting a more objective coevaluation of students by their peers. Methodology, results and final grading are discussed and next steps are presented. There is still much to do in this area to get objectivity from evaluation since high inconsistencies were found and final grading allocation has not yet been defined. However, AHP is still considered the best technique to address this problem.

No abstract

Definition and execution of a Strategic Plan for a Venezuelan University; as Critical Success Factor in this Plan, it will be necessary to count on stakeholders involvement (professors, students, employees, organizations, among others) in the decision making process. Venezuelan universities are submerged in a changing country; in this sense, they must be always prepared for adapting to new challenges and to adjust and continue to be able to generate knowledge valuable for Venezuelan society. As part of the redefinition of the 2010-2014 strategic plan, Universidad Metropolitana defined six strategic guidelines or key development areas that are aligned with University´s mission and vision. The strategic guidelines are the base for projects to be developed for years to come. Once strategic guidelines were openly defined, discussed and accepted there was a need to prioritize them. Based on the experience using AHP and ANP, the Planning Commission decided to utilize AHP as a technique to determine relative importance to each one of the strategic guidelines objectively and with the participation of major stakeholders in one session. The 24 Participants were divided into five groups. Each stakeholder answered a questionnaire of 15 questions with his/her judgments. Results are divided into groups and a combined for all groups. Results were presented to participants and satisfaction was measured. Calculated priorities are currently the based to annually define projects.