eva sørensen department of chemical engineering university college london experiences of using peer...

Eva SørensenDepartment of Chemical Engineering

University College London

Experiences of using peer assessment in

a 4th year design module

2© 2013 E Sørensen

Motivation

A chemical engineer needs to know:

1. How to work in a team understanding and managing the process of:

- Peer challenge

- Planning, prioritising and organising team activity, and

- The discipline of mutual dependency

2. How to communicate externally to:

- Acquire input information; and

- Present and defend chosen design options and decisions taken


Aim

To improve students’ abilities to produce, and evaluate, technical documentation in a 4th year design module through the use of self- and peer assessment.

CENGM011

CENG3001 CENG3006

Year 4

Year 3


Objectives

1. To improve the students’ ability to write technical reports by comparing their work against

i) their performance in the previous module CENG3006

ii) the performance of previous cohorts in CENGM003

3. To improve their confidence in assessing technical work produced by others either as contractors or as collaborators

2. To enhance the students’ understanding of the responsibilities of team members in developing technical documentations; and


WHAT the students do: The chemical process

Stream 1

Stream 2

Stream 3

Stream 4

Stream 5

Stream 7

Stream 6 Stream 8 Stream 9

Stream 10

Stream 11

Stream 12

Stream 13

Stream 14

Stream 15

Stream 16

Stream 17

Stream 18

Stream 19

Stream 20

Stream 21

Unit 1

Unit 2

Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6

Unit 7

Unit 8

Unit 9

Edd Close

Tobias Neville

Raj Mannick

Overall Plant Flowsheet


WHAT the students do: The control system


WHAT the students do: The simulations


HOW the students do it

In groups of 5 or 6 students, submit:

TERM 1 (30% of final mark):Training in how to use modelling software (gPROMS)3 standard course works – 1 classroom examTERM 2:1. REPORT 0 – Process Description (No mark)

Peer assessed2. REPORT 1 – Control System Design (10% of final mark)

Peer assessed3. REPORT 2 – Model and Assumptions (10% of final mark)

Peer assessed4. PRESENTATION – Open Loop Study (10% of final mark)

Peer and self assessed5. FINAL REPORT (30% of final mark)

6. ORAL EXAMINATION (5% of final mark)

7. PEER ASSESSMENTS (5% of final mark)


HOW the students do it

Term 2 by week:

Report 0 Report 1 Presentation

Peer 1 Peer 2 Self 3

Report 2 Final report

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

• Peer 1 and 2: as a group and submitted through Moodle with feedback received through Moodle

• Peer/Self 3: Individually using a paper questionnaire


Main results

1. Peer feedback equivalent to that of course tutors in quality and level of detail

2. Significant effort put into preparation

3. Wording very considerate

4. …but not always a team effort


Peer assessment example

In general, the report is nicely written with a clear structure and indication of the work done…

The structure of the report is good in particular the overall model and assumption table, however, it is difficult having to constantly refer back to the assumption table, it would be better if the assumptions made were mentioned throughout the report.

The density correlations used are questionable as the model is to be designed to represent realistic operation...

The solubility of the acid gases within the unit was considered and the solubility method used was clearly identified but it would be useful if clear justification of why the solubility method was chosen … was done as this would help justify the choice.

However, certain assumptions made in the material balance section should be questioned, in particular the material balance over a tray which in equation 67 has been reduced to not include any vapour flow, especially as vapour is required for a separation to take place.

Overall the mathematical model that was developed is shown to be valid and would provide a good approximation of the behaviour of the unit.

The summary is well written and, although goes into details of the main assumptions used, it is far too general.


Student feedback - Focus groups

Female606/1000OverseasGroup 2

Male585/1000OverseasGroup 4

Female462/1000

HomeGroup 7

Male667/1000

HomeGroup 1

Female681/1000OverseasGroup 3


Student survey - Use of VLE

Submitting preliminary reports through Moodle

Receiving preliminary marks through Moodle

Better communication with tutors through Moodle

compared to traditional

User friendliness of Moodle


Student survey – Peer/Self Assessment

Better able to evaluate and make improvements in

own written work

Better able to evaluate and suggest improvements to

other people’s work

Self assess-

ment

Peer assess-

ment


Student survey contd.

Commenting on other people’s work

Usefulness of preliminary reports

Importance of assessment to effort put in

BUT


Student survey contd.

Student comments:

Since having to give peer-assessments in this course, I now subconciously construct feedback in my head as if I were being marked for my comments. This could possibly be a good thing...

Some of the comments are confusing, and I didn't really know how to deal with them, and sometimes the comments from peers and the lecturers can be conflicting, and that's even more confusing.

Feedback on how to improve peer assessment would be helpful.


Conclusions

1. Peer assessment successful in terms of improving quality of technical writing (although not necessarily an improvement in terms of marks)

2. Use of VLE a success

Added benefits:– Extensive consultation gave students

more ownership of the module

Eva SørensenDepartment of Chemical Engineering

University College London

Experiences of using peer assessment in

a 4th year design module

eva sørensen department of chemical engineering university college london experiences of using peer...

Documents