Experiences of using
peer assessment in
a 4th year design module
Eva Sørensen
Department of Chemical Engineering
University College London
Motivation
A chemical engineer needs to know:
1. How to work in a team understanding and managing the process of:
-
Peer challenge
-
Planning, prioritising and organising team activity, and
-
The discipline of mutual dependency
2. How to communicate externally to:
-
Acquire input information; and
-
Present and defend chosen design options and decisions taken
© 2013 E Sørensen
2
Aim
To improve students’ abilities to produce, and evaluate,
technical documentation in a 4th year design module through
the use of self- and peer assessment.
CENGM011
CENG3001
© 2013 E Sørensen
CENG3006
Year 4
Year 3
3
Objectives
1. To improve the students’ ability to write technical reports
by comparing their work against
i) their performance in the previous module CENG3006
ii) the performance of previous cohorts in CENGM003
2. To enhance the students’ understanding
of the responsibilities of team
members in developing technical
documentations; and
3. To improve their confidence in assessing
technical work produced by others either
as contractors or as collaborators
© 2013 E Sørensen
4
WHAT the students do: The chemical process
Edd Close
Unit 1
Stream 1
Stream 2
Stream 3
Stream 4
Raj Mannick
Unit 3
Stream 5
Stream 13
Unit 7
Unit 2
Stream 6
Unit 4
Stream 8
Stream 12
Unit 5
Stream 9
Unit 6
Stream 15
Stream 14
Stream 16
Stream 11
Unit 8
Tobias Neville
Stream 17
Stream 10
Stream 21
Stream 20
Unit 9
Stream 18
Stream 19
Stream 7
Overall Plant Flowsheet
© 2013 E Sørensen
5
WHAT the students do: The control system
© 2013 E Sørensen
6
WHAT the students do: The simulations
© 2013 E Sørensen
7
HOW the students do it
In groups of 5 or 6 students, submit:
TERM 1 (30% of final mark):
Training in how to use modelling software (gPROMS)
3 standard course works – 1 classroom exam
TERM 2:
1. REPORT 0 – Process Description (No mark)
Peer assessed
2. REPORT 1 – Control System Design (10% of final mark)
Peer assessed
3. REPORT 2 – Model and Assumptions (10% of final mark)
Peer assessed
4. PRESENTATION – Open Loop Study (10% of final mark)
Peer and self assessed
5. FINAL REPORT (30% of final mark)
6. ORAL EXAMINATION (5% of final mark)
7. PEER ASSESSMENTS (5% of final mark)
© 2013 E Sørensen
8
HOW the students do it
Term 2 by week:
Report 0 Report 1
1
2
3
Peer 1
Report 2
4
5
6
Peer 2
Presentation Final report
7
8
9
10
11
Self 3
• Peer 1 and 2: as a group and submitted through Moodle with feedback
received through Moodle
• Peer/Self 3: Individually using a paper questionnaire
© 2013 E Sørensen
9
Main results
1. Peer feedback equivalent to that of course tutors in quality
and level of detail
2. Significant effort put into
preparation
3. Wording very considerate
4. …but not always a team effort
© 2013 E Sørensen
10
Peer assessment example
In general, the report is nicely written with a clear structure and indication of the
work done…
The structure of the report is good in particular the overall model and assumption
table, however, it is difficult having to constantly refer back to the assumption
table, it would be better if the assumptions made were mentioned throughout the
report.
The density correlations used are questionable as the model is to be designed to
represent realistic operation...
The solubility of the acid gases within the unit was considered and the solubility
method used was clearly identified but it would be useful if clear justification of
why the solubility method was chosen … was done as this would help justify the
choice.
However, certain assumptions made in the material balance section should be
questioned, in particular the material balance over a tray which in equation 67
has been reduced to not include any vapour flow, especially as vapour is
required for a separation to take place.
Overall the mathematical model that was developed is shown to be valid and would
provide a good approximation of the behaviour of the unit.
The summary is well written and, although goes into details of the main
assumptions used, it is far too general.
© 2013 E Sørensen
11
Student feedback - Focus groups
Female
606/1000
Overseas
Group 2
Male
585/1000
Overseas
Group 4
Male
667/1000
Home
Group 1
© 2013 E Sørensen
Female
462/1000
Home
Group 7
Female
681/1000
Overseas
Group 3
12
Student survey - Use of VLE
© 2013 E Sørensen
Submitting preliminary
reports through Moodle
Receiving preliminary marks
through Moodle
Better communication with
tutors through Moodle
compared to traditional
User friendliness of
Moodle
13
Student survey – Peer/Self Assessment
Better able to evaluate and
make improvements in
own written work
Better able to evaluate and
suggest improvements to
other people’s work
Peer
assessment
Self
assessment
© 2013 E Sørensen
14
Student survey contd.
Importance of assessment
to effort put in
Usefulness of preliminary
reports
Commenting on other
people’s work
BUT
© 2013 E Sørensen
15
Student survey contd.
Student comments:
Since having to give peer-assessments in this course, I now subconciously
construct feedback in my head as if I were being marked for my comments.
This could possibly be a good thing...
Some of the comments are confusing, and I didn't really know how to deal
with them, and sometimes the comments from peers and the lecturers can
be conflicting, and that's even more confusing.
Feedback on how to improve peer assessment would be helpful.
© 2013 E Sørensen
16
Conclusions
1. Peer assessment successful in terms of improving quality
of technical writing (although not necessarily an
improvement in terms of marks)
2. Use of VLE a success
Added benefits:
– Extensive consultation gave students
more ownership of the module
© 2013 E Sørensen
17
Experiences of using
peer assessment in
a 4th year design module
Eva Sørensen
Department of Chemical Engineering
University College London