SHIFTING RESPONSIBILITIES: USING PEER ASSESSMENT IN SENIOR, ENGINEERING DESIGN TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE SUPPORT AND MEANINGFUL FEEDBACK DESPITE LARGE CLASS SIZE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract – Urban Water Systems Design is a required, senior engineering design course for undergraduate students in the Water Resources and Environmental Engineering programs at the University of Guelph. A central component to this course has been a challenging, stormwater management design and simulation project. Recently, enrollment has increased from approximately 50 to 90 students. With these increased numbers, it is no longer feasible for the instructor to provide individualized, rich and robust feedback on the project. Rather than eliminating or simplifying the project, which is a highly valuable learning activity, peer assessment was investigated as an option.
 In Fall 2016, peer assessment was implemented for two term tests and a design project. In addition to addressing resource constraints, this shift in responsibilities takes advantage of the active, collaborative, learning opportunities provided by grading tests in class and giving feedback to and receiving feedback from others on design work and report writing. To achieve the largest benefit possible, best practices suggested in the literature were followed, such as training peer assessors, including developing a rubric with the class to enhance understanding of expectations; using multiple assessors to address student concerns about fairness; and incorporating reflection on the peer assessment activities.
 Data were collected through two surveys administered before and after the course’s peer evaluation activities and through graded reflections on peer evaluation activities. Most students thought they learned as much or more than they would have without the incorporation of peer evaluation. Based on predominantly positive student comments and fair grading, peer grading of tests will be used in future with a few minor modifications. Most students also found the peer assessment of design reports to be fair, with a reasonable time commitment. Some students were troubled by the variability of grades given by peers. Enhanced training was suggested to help students grade more consistently and provide more effective feedback.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».