Student Assessment on Team-based Design Project in Engineering

1. Student Assessment on Team-based Design Project in Engineering 2010 ASEE Brown Bag Luncheon on Project Assessment Dr. Stephen Canfield Department of Mechanical Engineering Tennessee Technological University March 23, 2010

2. About The project • All students in ME3610 engage in/join the EIME project • EIME is a team-based, multi-disciplinary design experience created around developing assistive technology for children • Student teams are matched with children/families with needs • Student teams are provided resources associated with such a project • Student teams are responsible to deliver a solution (Design, product*) • Project represents ~20% of course grade

3. How EIME Works Begin Community Curriculum Collect assistive technology needs Form Student Design teams (Engineering, Education) Match Child needs with Student teams Family Within context of a course conduct background research, design, development, testing, evaluation and final preparation Service coord. Form Final project team Therapists / Medical prof. Deliver Final product to child/family Disseminate Results

4. Selecting The team • Students self-select team • Team selects project • Students self-select project • Team formed around project

5. Initial Organization of the Team • Team Constitution • Team forms a constitution • Constitution defines: • Responsibility of team members • Attend meetings, • perform assigned work, • contribute to reporting functions • How team will make decisions • Vote or concensus • How team decisions will be enforced • Disciplinary action • Removal from the team • Written and signed by all team members

6. Team does its thing • Work Work Work

7. Project Assessment: Instructor driven • Instructor assess’s the project, based on: • Constitution, meet family, prelim design, final design, order materials, testing and delivery of design • Some outside input: • Project review board • Design presentation • Final project presentation • Supply input • Collectively results in a project grade: G • Aside: Poll students for their estimate on grade.

8. Team Assessment: Three-part process • Part I: Students Assess themselves • Identify areas on contribution, • record of time • Record of accomplishments • Record of lead areas • Part II: Students assess teammates • Identify primary areas of contribution • Apply a weighting • Part III: Instructor assesses team members • Student time • Student contributions • Quality of project relative to contributions • Collectively results in a weighting for each student: Wi

9. Final grade = PA * TA • Student i’s grade: • = Wi G • A few notes: • Wi can be greater than 1 • Wi should be normally distributed about 1? • In my practice, it is not • Projects grades tend to reflect best of contributions • A weaker student is benefited by a stronger team • (better G) • A weaker student rates lower on teammate assessment relative to stronger team • (lower Wi )

10. When things go well, satisfied students +

11. Final comments • Method is not perfect, but it is a process • Inform students of the evaluation process ahead of time • Process has been evolutionary • Students tend to be reasonably objective when performing self assessment / group assessment