Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presentation made on october 31th 2013 at 1st International Conference of the Portuguese Society for Engineering Education (CISPEE).
Citation preview
Caroline DominguezCIDTFF - University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro
Vila Real, [email protected]
Ana Maia, Daniela PedrosaCIDTFF/UTAD - University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro
Vila Real, Portugal{margaridam, dpedrosa}@utad.pt
Gonçalo CruzINESC TEC/UTAD - University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro
Vila Real, [email protected]
Maria NascimentoCIDTFF - University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro
Vila Real, [email protected]
Insights on web-based peer review: a case study with
energy engineering students
I - Research Goal/Purpose
What influences the development of communication skills trough web-based peer review activities?
Cruz, G., Dominguez, C., Maia, A., Pedrosa, D., & Grams, G. (2013). Web-based Peer Assessment: A Case Study with Civil Engineering Students. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (IJEP), 3(S1), 64-70.
As reviewers, are the perceptions of the students on the activity different from those as feedback “receivers”?
Written communication skills (type of feedback)
Intermediate grades vs. Final gradesPeer grades vs. Teacher grades
II - Learning Activity
1. Select an article
2. Create a Google Document
3. Summarize the article (synthesis)
4. Analyse the article (analysis)
5. Issue a personal opinion (argue)
III - Research Method
IV - Evaluation
Was Google Drive a barrier?
Did students found the activity useful (in terms of learning)?
Are students self-confidents about their own work?
Was there any difference between the grades?
Average grades Peer Reviewer Teacher
1st Cycle 0,75 0,77
2nd Cycle 0,84 0,88
3rd Cycle 0,87 0,83
4th Cycle 0,89 0,82
Nelson & Schunn model Peer Reviewer Teacher
Summarizations 19 0
Problems Global 5 8
Local 67 88
Solutions Global 0 2
Local 44 18
Explanations 10 3
Praises 39 21
Mitigations 27 9
Counter-Argumentation 1 0
Feedback Implementation 8 2
n = 54
V - Discussion, Conclusion and Future Work
Technology acceptance
Activity appreciation
Basic communication skills
Need to continuous support
Low critical thinking skills
Low self-confidence for grading peers
Few improvements Neutral grades effect
Blind vs. non-blind
Skills vs. approach
Grades scale
Activity value
Overcome research limitations
FRISCO Approach & Cornell Test (Ennis,
1996)
Similar conditions Coaching
webPACT group
