WILLMOT, P. and CRAWFORD, A., 2007. Peer review of team marks using a web-based tool: an evaluation. Engineering Education: Journal of the Higher Education Academy Engineering Subject Centre, 2 (1), pp. 59-66.
Of all the problems associated with student
learning in a team situation, the difficulty
of fair assessment of the individual team
members is supreme. Academics who
feel comfortable setting examinations and
single-person assignments are deterred
from setting team assessments because
they fear that idle students may benefit
from the efforts of their team-mates
or that weaker team members might
dilute the efforts of the more diligent.
This paper discusses how accurately
academics can recreate the rewards for
good or bad performance in industry
through undergraduate team projects.
The arguments for allocating equal team
marks are examined but the authors
conclude this is not the correct approach.
A web-based system for applying peer
moderation to team marks is described and
accumulated data from it allows peer marks
to be compared with anonymous selfassessments.
Validation is completed by
comparing the peer assessment outcomes
with control data supplied by independent
mentors that were attached to each student
team. The results generate a high level of
confidence in the approach. Peer review
results for teams were further used to
estimate the degree of harmony amongst
team members: a high standard deviation in
peer marks might indicate conflict, whereas
a low standard deviation could be a sign of
a harmonious team that one might expect
to out-perform the individual potential of its
members. Previous academic track record
was used as the benchmark for potential
success but was found to be a poor
predicator of actual achievement in team
This journal article is also available in the open access journal, Engineering Education: Journal of the Higher Education Academy Engineering Subject Centre, at: http://www.engsc.ac.uk/journal/index.php/ee/index