Using Peer and Team Performance Assessments as Learning Tools on Collaborative Student Projects

Abstract

Leaving the team experience unevaluated during collaborative student projects leaves the educational banefit of student peer feedback unrealized. Performance feedback between student teams and among individual team members adds a valuable educational component during applied learning projects. Faculty in the Aviation Technology program at Purdue University piloted the w e of team and individual student peer evaluation tools as performance feedback and learning mechanisms in two maintenance technology courses engaged in collaborative team projects. Use of peer performance reviews among the students during team-based projects resulted in willmgness to engage in proactive problem solving and communication among students while individual scores ia these mas increased. IntMduCtionMany technolog and engineering instructors u t i l i i hands-on student team design projects for at least a portion of the classroom or laboratory exprisnce. A targeted outcome for these immersive learning projects is student exposure to the dynamics of achieving technical deliverables within the COPtW Of a realistic team environment. In addition to practicing baselie technical skill sets, students integrate key communication, negotiation, problem solving and planning skills, which are as important as technical skills for praducmg a delivmble in industry. Although the use of team-centered learning projects is quite common, students can miss an important dimension of learning if such projects are natdebriefed and evaluated. In addition to the actual project experience, significant educational value and insight can be gained through detailed review and peer feedback among student teams involved. This feedback can be facilitated by a structured team and peer review process. Method In the Spring and Fall semesters of 2007, students in two Purdue University aviation maintenance technology courses were inbnduced to the concept of being evaluated by their peers. The two courses each have specific technical content designed to build aircrafl maintenance skills and knowledge. The students in these courses engaged not only in a team-based immemive learning approach on specific technical design projects, but were introduced to performance feedback tools requiring them to provide and receive constructive peer review of their participation and pwfmance during team-based projects. l h k g Spring,

Lean Six Sigma Principles In Capstone Aeronautical Engineering Technology Courses

“…Initial steps to create and use a common team evaluation form took place in spring 2008. A common team evaluation form was developed and used in upper-level courses 14 . The instructors are also working together to establish common guidelines for writing a proposal, creating presentations, and reporting content.…”

“…A significant portion of a student's grade depends on peer evaluation which is conducted two to four times a semester. There is a consensus among faculty members teaching the senior level courses that the best way to handle those peer reviews is to have a single form for this purpose across most, if not all, senior level courses 14 .…”

“…In fall 2007, all six projects proposed by the students concerned redesigning processes within the laboratories in the aviation technology (AT) department. For example, "perform 100-hour power plant inspection," "control magneto testing equipment inventory," and "stage and de-stage turbine engine," were three of the six processes identified for redesign by student teams 14 . In fall 2008, the seven projects proposed by students were divided between DMAIC and DMEDI projects.…”