Quantifying the Impact of Peer Evaluations on Student Team Project Grading

Gransberg, Douglas D.; Frics,

doi:10.1080/15578771003590326

Cited by 15 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, other authors consider that to ensure a fair distribution of marks, students should feel free to distribute them as they see fit (Fellenz 2006;Gransberg 2010). Our study reinforces the position of the latter authors given that even though there was no requirement for differential evaluations some groups still opted for an unequal distribution of the mark.…”

Section: Correlation Analysissupporting

confidence: 53%

“…Positive attitudes towards the use of peer assessment activities have also been previously reported (Fellenz 2006;Wen and Tsai 2006;Sergi 2007;Carson and Glaser 2010;Gransberg 2010;Neus 2011;Weaver and Esposto 2012), and student attitutes towards groupwork have even been described as more positive when peer assessment is used (Chapman and van Auken 2001). This positive perception can be explained by the advantages of peer assessment compared to the traditional system of evaluation, which assigns a mark to all members of a workgroup.…”

Section: Correlation Analysismentioning

confidence: 72%

“…The main problem faced by professors is detecting and differentiating between those students who have participated most and least in teamwork (Fellenz 2006;Carson and Glaser 2010;Gransberg 2010;Anson and Goodman 2014). The present study demonstrates that peer assessment is useful in reducing this difficulty associated with groupwork.…”

Section: Correlation Analysismentioning

confidence: 73%

“…It is the team members themselves who are best able to assess the dynamics of this work and the degree to which each of the members assimilates the specific competence, as has been previously reported by Gransberg (2010). Consequently, peer assessment can constitute an effective tool in providing information regarding both the participation of each team member in the final outcome and their abilities and shortcomings with regard to teamwork.…”

Section: Peer Assessment In Teamworkmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…In general, such studies conclude that these techniques are effective and that students' perceptions are usually favourable (Sergi 2007;Carson and Glaser 2010;Gransberg 2010;Neus 2011;Weaver and Esposto 2012). Moreover, there are numerous articles describing how different assessment tools and mechanisms are applied to teamwork.…”

Section: Peer Assessment In Teamworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Using peer assessment to evaluate teamwork from a multidisciplinary perspective

Lladó

Feliu

Castro

et al. 2017

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Correlation Analysissupporting

confidence: 53%

Section: Correlation Analysismentioning

confidence: 72%

Section: Correlation Analysismentioning

confidence: 73%

Section: Peer Assessment In Teamworkmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Peer Assessment In Teamworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Using peer assessment to evaluate teamwork from a multidisciplinary perspective

Lladó

Feliu

Castro

et al. 2017

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Team Effectiveness Theory from Industrial and Organizational Psychology Applied to Engineering Student Project Teams: A Research Review

Borrego

Karlin

McNair

et al. 2013

J of Engineering Edu

252

209

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Engineering student team projects are frequently used to meet professional learning outcomes. Industrial and organizational psychologists study teams in the industry settings for which we prepare students, yet this research does not effectively inform engineering education. Purpose This research review sought to demonstrate the relevance of literature on teams literature from industrial and organizational psychology to engineering education and to identify implications for practice and future directions for research. Scope/Method Phase 1 systematically reviewed 104 articles published from 2007 to 2012 describing engineering and computer science student team projects and sought to answer the following questions: What professional learning outcomes have been met by team projects? What negative student team behaviors have faculty sought to minimize? What literature has been used to inform development of teamwork outcomes? Phase 2 reviewed five team effectiveness constructs selected according to the results of Phase 1: social loafing, interdependence, conflict, trust, and shared mental models. Examples from Phase 1 articles and our own work explain how this research informs facilitation and assessment of engineering student teams. Conclusions Engineering faculty sought to achieve a variety of outcomes through team projects, including teamwork, communication, sustainability, and consideration of global/societal design context. They sought to avoid social loafing and conflict while building trust to ensure equal team effort. That few Phase 1 articles engaged the literature about team effectiveness indicates there is great opportunity to apply industrial and organizational psychology research to engineering education.

show abstract