2008 bray manry brumley asc regionvR the remainder of the course.The project grade included peer grading.The fall 2007 semester warefined in both fall 2006 and fall 2007 to better e as practical to an actual questionnaire to determine their construction experience, understanding of the construction process and their area of interest.Key positions were selected by the instructor.
Students performed the remaining group selections as described below.
A management team of 7 students was led by a student acting as the project manager.ed the same process to select tative to act as the instructors primary contact the project manager selected a foreman for each of the labor crews shown in Figure 2.This includes a concrete/earthwork crew, a formwork/alignment crew, and an ironworker crew.The foremen of the crews divided the remainder of the students among the labor crews by choosing one at a time in a closed meeting.The instructors primary contact on the project was the assistant owners representative.The project was managed as if the project manager and subordinates concrete/earthwork crew, formwork/alignment subcontractors.
Work was performed two class periods each week for 2 hours and 15 minutes
Scale model reinforced concrete building Peer Evaluation Method and Grades The peer grading scheme had four groupings as ic provided.An example rubric is inwas used to assign a grade to the project management team.The dotted line in Figure 2 encloses group 1, the project management team.The instructThe next step was for the members of each group to determine how the group grade would be distributed to members of the group.The peer grading scheme allows group members to assign a lower portion of the group grade to those memberem often present in groups.e group, members of the group completed an evaluation matrix assessing themselves and the other members of the group (Feigenbaum & Holland, 1997).At this stage, the group members (Head of School) Owners Representative Assistant Owners Representatives Project Manager Field Engineer Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Concrete/Earthwork Formwork/Alignment Group Four Ironworkers (15 Students) Group One Inside dashed line Project Management Group Peer evaluation of project management team Criteria Points Leadership-Showed individual leadership in the form of preparation, enthusiasm, commitment, organization, and communication to the degree appropriate to the position within the group by taking initiative.Cooperation-Willingness to work together to accomplish the job of the group.
Communication-Shared information with the group, particularly in written form.Participation-Did the appropriate share of work.
Attendance-Present and on time for work.TOTAL 100 Figure 3 shows the mathematical algorithm fogrades (Berryman, 1999)
.ng factor, is calculated from the points assigned to individuals and the total number of points the calculation of the e percent of grade cont the peer evaluation calculatiAssigned PointsGroup in the IndividualAn
toAssigned Grade of %1% Grade, GroupIER% Grade, GroupStudentsby
Controlled Grade of %% Score, Individuale calculations nnovative method was used to assievaluations.Figure 4 shows the user interface of the spreadsheet.By using Visual Basic for t Excel, the student only need select their name from a pull-down menu.
The data input screen shown in Figure 4 is generated.The VBA code causes the form to be populated with the names of the group members.
The student was prompted to evaluate each member according to the rubric.In Figure 4, each tab corresponds to an item in the rubric.The value of the slider bar is relative to the value of the rubric item.
For example, in percentage scale, so selecting a value of 75 on the slider bar will assign 15 points for this rubric item.The student uses the slider bar controls or the text box to rank each student.The student returns the saved spreadsheet to the instructor.
VBA code facilitates completing the calculations a password.This keeps data confidential even if the file is left on lab computers.The method used to collect the student evaluatioamount of time needed to perform calculations separate peer evaluations.This is a fairly large burden on the instructor.rm for peer evaluations projects.The next cycle will use more but smaller groups with only four to six members.The peer evaluations were performed on 3 separate occasions and accounted for nearly 50% of the course grade.The authors have since learned that a smaller percentage such as 10% is more typically selected.No statistical analysis was performed on thexamination of the data shows that in general, the lower the asthe greater the range of the peer assigned grades.
The notable exception in the concrete In summary, the lessons learned were: Determine the weight desired for the peer gradDevelop a good rubric for assigning group grades.It is desirable to have a rubric that will distinguish between various levels of quality in the work.
Amid all the enthusiasm to improve the efficiency of collecting data for peer evaluation, it is imto appraise the efforts of Take care in developing the rubric group members will use for peer evaluations.
If it is revised peer evaluation rubric for the project management team that will be used for the Limit group size to six students.Appendix D Evaluate algorithms for distr methods such as forced ranking or setting a minimum grade distribution for the evaluators may work.Develop an efficient method for collecting the data and automating the calculations.
References Berryman, C.Unpublished spreadsheet, 1999.Associated Schools of Construction, International Proceedings of the 43Associated Schools of Construction, Proceedings of the 33Engineers Evaluation of Project Management Team The project is on or ahead of the scheduled progress.Project clean up was performed according to the Engineers instructions.Contr