Gransberg, D D (2010) Quantifying the impact of peer evaluations on student team project grading. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 6(1), pp. 3-17. ISSN 1557-8771
Abstract
This paper describes a 14.5-year-study of the impact of peer evaluations in construction management and construction engineering team projects on student grades. The study population encompassed over 1,200 graduate and undergraduate students that worked on 325 teams at two universities. It also covered degree programs accredited by two different bodies: the American Council for Construction Education (ACCE) and American Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). The study found that peer evaluations promoted equity in the assignment of individual grades for team projects. It also found that no substantial difference existed in the grading impact between degree level or degree type. It confirmed the results of previously published short-term studies that a simple summative method for calculating individual grades from the group grade and the peer evaluation furnished consistent results across all sample populations.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction education; peer evaluation; teamwork |
| Index terms: | undergraduate, teamwork, population, program, construction education, construction engineering |
| Subjects: | curriculum development, management, demography, professional education, software systems, engineering methods |
| Topics: | Education, Digital Applications, Urban Studies, Organizational Design, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here