1. Eva Sørensen Department of Chemical Engineering University College London Experiences of using peer assessment in a 4th year design module

2. 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

3. 3 © 2013 E Sørensen Aim To improve students’ abilities to produce, and evaluate, technical documentation in a 4 th year design module through the use of self- and peer assessment. CENGM011 CENG3001CENG3006 Year 4 Year 3

4. 4 © 2013 E Sørensen 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

5. 5 © 2013 E Sørensen WHAT the students do: The chemical process Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Stream 4 Stream 5 Stream 7 Stream 6Stream 8Stream 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 3Unit 4Unit 5Unit 6 Unit 7 Unit 8 Unit 9 Edd Close Tobias Neville Raj Mannick Overall Plant Flowsheet

6. 6 © 2013 E Sørensen WHAT the students do: The control system

7. 7 © 2013 E Sørensen WHAT the students do: The simulations

8. 8 © 2013 E Sørensen 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 exam TERM 2: 1. REPORT 0 – Process Description (No mark) Peer assessed 2. REPORT 1 – Control System Design (10% of final mark) Peer assessed 3. REPORT 2 – Model and Assumptions (10% of final mark) Peer assessed 4. PRESENTATION – Open Loop Study (10% of final mark) Peer and self assessed 5. FINAL REPORT (30% of final mark) 6. ORAL EXAMINATION (5% of final mark) 7. PEER ASSESSMENTS (5% of final mark)

9. 9 © 2013 E Sørensen HOW the students do it Term 2 by week: Report 0Report 1Presentation Peer 1Peer 2Self 3 Report 2Final 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

10. 10 © 2013 E Sørensen 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

11. 11 © 2013 E Sørensen 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.

12. 12 © 2013 E Sørensen Student feedback - Focus groups Female 606/1000 Overseas Group 2 Male 585/1000 Overseas Group 4 Female 462/1000 Home Group 7 Male 667/1000 Home Group 1 Female 681/1000 Overseas Group 3

13. 13 © 2013 E Sørensen 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

14. 14 © 2013 E Sørensen 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

15. 15 © 2013 E Sørensen Student survey contd. Commenting on other people’s work Usefulness of preliminary reports Importance of assessment to effort put in BUT

16. 16 © 2013 E Sørensen 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.

17. 17 © 2013 E Sørensen 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

18. Eva Sørensen Department of Chemical Engineering University College London Experiences of using peer assessment in a 4th year design module