Peer assessment in KTH CDBO course

1
Peer assessment in KTH CDBO course February 26,
2003 Stefan Hallström Jakob Kuttenkeuler
2
DB ExperiencesSolar Aircraft Project, 2001-2002
3
DB ExperiencesGrading

• When the KTH DB course was initiated it was
  decided to give grades
• A fairly ambitious model was implemented where
  all subtask work, reports and presentations were
  graded continuously by both students and faculty
• The model became criticized by the students (too
  much work)Student model
• The grades should be the average of 360 peer
  assessment at the end of the course (no faculty!)
• The student model was adopted with some
  modifications
• Grades were given in several sub-categories
• Individual course certificates with sub-category
  grades
• Personal feedback 359

4
DB ExperiencesGrading

• Peer assessment instructions
• Grade N.N. using the following categories (use
  decimals if you like)
• Theoretical effort (analysis, research, design)
• Practical effort (practical work, dexterity)
• Administrative effort (planning, management)
• Social effort (enthusiasm, conflict handling,
  negotiator)
• Final course grade
• Give feedback to N.N. on the form
• I liked that you
• I wish that you

5
DB ExperiencesGrading

• Good
• Sub-categories broaden the picture
• Specific skills can be addressed
• Students can be involved in the choice of
  sub-categories
• Giving and receiving feedback is hopefully a
  stimulating exercise
• Not as good
• Students might have different opinions about what
  is important
• Things to be assessed were defined late in the
  course
• Students had no chance to change their
  performance after the grades are received
• Project success affects individual grading
• Teacher looses control

6
DB ExperiencesGrading

• Second year improvements
• A mid-course poll
• The students get acquainted with the grading
  system
• Both giving and receiving feedback is practiced
• The students have time to reflect and react on
  received grades and feedback
• The feedback from the mid term poll was processed
  and discussed with the students in a workshop led
  by Kristina Khalid
• The sub-categories and their meaning (norms) will
  be defined jointly within the group

7
Waterbike project, 2002-2003

• Loa 6m
• Structural weight 25kg
• Cycling in laid back position
• Air propeller
• Fly-by-wire control system
• Max speed 20 knots
• Two pylons for roll stability
• Two canard stabilizers
• One rear lifting surface
• Variable angle of attack

8
Feedback exercise

• A test run of the procedure which will be used
  for grading in the spring
• Students were asked to give feedback assign
  grades
• Feedback was distributed to all

9
Reflection session

• Reflection on the feedback I received
• Was the feedback I got aligned with my view of
  myself?
• What criteria have we used - how do we value
  contributions
• Giving a clear picture of me / perceiving a clear
  picture of others
• Projection (what does the feedback I give say
  about myself?)
• Leadership issues
• Patterns in the group