1
1
TITLE Proceedings of the PAEE/ALE 2016, 8th International Symposium on Project Approaches in Engineering Education (PAEE) and 14th Active Learning in Engineering Education Workshop (ALE) Guimarães, Portugal 06 08 July 2016 EDITORS Rui M. Lima, Erik de Graaff, Anabela Alves, Andromeda Menezes, Diana Mesquita, José Dinis Carvalho, Lamjed Bettaieb, Natascha van Hattum Janssen, Nelson Costa, Rui M. Sousa, Sandra Fernandes, Valquíria Villas Boas PUBLISHER PAEE Project Approaches in Engineering Education Association Department of Production and Systems, School of Engineering of University of Minho, Campus de Azurém, 4800 058 Guimarães, Portugal GRAPHIC DESIGN Gen Comunicação Visual ISBN 978 989 20 6829 9 ISSN 2183 1378 PAEE/ALE 2016, 8th International Symposium on Project Approaches in Engineering Education (PAEE) and 14th Active Learning in Engineering Education Workshop (ALE) was organized by PAEE Project Approaches in Engineering Education Association, in collaboration with Active Learning in Engineering Education Network (ALE). http://paee.dps.uminho.pt/ http://www.ale net.org/ This is a digital edition. iii
WELCOME TO PAEE/ALE 2016 Dear Participants, Welcome to PAEE/ALE 2016, the 8th International Symposium on Project Approaches in Engineering Education (PAEE) and 14th Active Learning in Engineering Education Workshop (ALE). Educating engineers that will shape our future is an important task. But to be frank, in many places engineering education has a bad reputation: it is boring. The study to become an engineer is difficult and requires a lot of hard work. Engineering education is no fun. But it does not have to be that way. Engineering education can be stimulating and motivating, challenging students to solve problems from engineering practice like real professionals. The past years PAEE and ALE have been organized in different parts of the world, aiming to enhance Active Learning, Problem and Project Based Learning in Engineering Education through active involvement of participants in a variety of sessions, hands on, workshops, debate sessions, industry panel, interactive poster session, paper sessions, keynote sessions and student project awards. This year is a special edition of the symposium as we continue to join forces with Project Approaches in Engineering Education (PAEE) and ALE (Active Learning in Engineering Education Network) to create opportunities for learning and networking of Engineering Education professionals who are dedicated to active learning. The PAEE symposium is organised by the PAEE association (http://paee.dps.uminho.pt/) and the Department of Production and Systems of the University of Minho, Portugal, since 2009, and aims to join teachers, researchers and professionals concerned with Engineering Education. ALE (http://www.ale net.org/) is an international network of engineering educators, initiated in 2000, dedicated to improving engineering education through active learning. The theme of this year's conference Sustainability in Engineering Education is aligned with the location of the hosting event. The city of Guimarães is candidate for the 2020 European Green Capital Award, an excellent opportunity to discuss research and current practice under this challenging theme. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the participants that makes this event possible and for all the support that we had during this last year from different persons and organizations. We hope you will enjoy the conference, the social program and your stay in Guimarães, Rui M. Lima Erik de Graaff (Chairs of the PAEE/ALE 2016) iv
PAEE/ALE 2016 Organization PAEE/ALE 2016 CHAIRS Rui M. Lima Department of Production and Systems Engineering School, University of Minho Erik de Graaff Department of Development and Planning Aalborg University, Denmark PAEE/ALE 2016 ORGANISING COMMITTEE Rui M. Lima Department of Production and Systems Engineering School, University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal Erik de Graaff Department of Development and Planning Aalborg University, Denmark Anabela Alves Department of Production and Systems Engineering School, University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal Andromeda Menezes Department of Production and Systems Engineering School, University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal Diana Mesquita Institute of Education / Dep. Production Systems University of Minho, Braga, Portugal Dinis Carvalho Department of Production and Systems Engineering School, University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal Lamjed Bettaieb Directeur ESPIRIT Ingénieur, Tunisia Natascha van Hattum Janssen School of Creative Technology Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Enschede, the Netherlands Nélson Costa Department of Production and Systems Engineering School, University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal Rui M. Sousa Department of Production and Systems Engineering School, University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal Sandra Fernandes Department of Psychology and Education, Portucalense University, Porto, Portugal Valquíria Villas Boas Centro de Ciências Exatas e Tecnologia Universidade de Caxias do Sul, Brasil v
PAEE/ALE 2016 SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Scientific Committee Adriana Fischer Aida Guerra Ana Lúcia Manrique Ana Margarida Veiga Simão Anabela Alves André Fernando Uébe Mansur André Luiz Aquere Andromeda Menezes Bernd M. Zunk Bill Williams Celina Leão Ciliana Regina Colombo Claisy Marinho Araújo Diana Mesquita Diana Pereira Dianne M. Viana Donald D. Carpenter Elisabeth Saalman Ely A. T. Dirani Erik de Graaff Filomena Soares Francisco Gomes Francisco Moreira Guilherme Pereira Isabel Loureiro Jaime Salazar João Mello da Silva José Carlos Reston José Couto Marques José de Souza Rodrigues José Dinis Carvalho José Manuel Oliveira Lamjed Bettaieb Leidy Johanna Rendón Castrillón Luiz Carlos de Campos Marco Antonio Pereira Margarita Enid Ramírez Carmona Maria Assunção Flores Mauricio Duque Michael Christie Miren Zubizarreta Mladen Radisic Montse Farreras Natascha van Hattum Janssen Nelson Costa Nestor Arana Nival Nunes de Almeida Octavio Mattasoglio Neto Otilia L. Heinig Patricio Poblete Rui M. Lima Rui M. Sousa Sandra Fernandes Simone Borges Simão Monteiro Sonia Gomez Puente Stevan Stankovski Teresa Restivo Valquiria Villas Boas Yesid Vélez Salazar Affiliation Post graduate Programme in Languages, Universidade Regional de Blumenau (FURB), Brazil UNESCO Chair in PBL in Engineering Education, Department of Development & Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark Faculty of Science and Technology, PUC São Paulo, Brazil Faculty of Educational Science, University of Lisbon, Portugal Instituto Federal Fluminense e Universidade Federal Fluminense Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Technology, University of Brasília, Brazil Institute of Business Economics and Industrial Sociology, Graz University of Technology, Austria Escola Superior de Tecnologia do Barreiro, Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal, Portugal Departamento de Engenharia de Produção, Centro de Tecnologia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brasil Institute of Psychology, University of Brasília (UnB), Brasília, Brazil Institute of Education / Dep. Production Systems, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal Institute of Education, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Technology, University of Brasília, Brazil Great Lakes Stormwater Management Institute, Department of Civil Engineering, Lawrence Technological University, USA Engineering Education Research, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden Faculty of Science and Technology, PUC São Paulo, Brazil Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Denmark Department of Industrial Electronics, Engineering School, University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Technology, University of Juiz de Fora, Brazil Department of Production and Systems, Engineering School of the University of Minho Executive Secretary of ASIBEI, Departamento de Ingeniería Civil y Agrícola, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia Production Engineering, Faculty of Technology, University of Brasília, Brazil Academic Director, IDAAM Higher Education Institution, Manaus, Brazil Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty og Engineering, University of Porto, Portugal Faculdade de Engenharia de Bauru, Universidade Estadual de São Paulo (UNESP) Higher Education Polytechnic School of Águeda, University of Aveiro, Portugal Directeur ESPIRIT Ingénieur, Tunisia Centro de Estudios y de Investigación en Biotecnología (CIBIOT), Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana Faculty of Science and Technology, PUC São Paulo, Brazil Escola de Engenharia de Lorena (EEL), Universidade de São Paulo (USP) Facultad de Ingeniería Química, Escuela de Ingeniería, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín, Colombia Institute of Education, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal Departamento de Ingeniería Eléctrica, Universidad de los Andes, Colombia School of Science, Education & Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia Engineering School, Mondragon University Industrial Engineering and Management Department, Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Serbia Departament d'arquitectura de Computadors, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya/Barcelona Tech, SPAIN School of Creative Technology, Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Enschede, the Netherlands Engineering School, Mondragon University, San Sebastian, Spain Chair of ABENGE Associação Brasileira de Educação em Engenharia, Brazil Instituto Mauá de Tecnologia, Escola de Engenharia Mauá São Caetano do Sul SP Brazil Universidade Regional de Blumenau (FURB), Blumenau, Brazil Escuela de Ingeniería y Ciencias, Universidad de Chile, Chile Department of Psychology and Education, Portucalense University, Porto, Portugal Department of Production Engineering, Faculty of Technology, University of Brasilia (UnB), Brasília, Brazil Technical University of Eindhoven, The Netherlands Industrial Engineering and Management Department, Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Serbia LAETA INEGI, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Portugal Centro de Ciências Exatas e Tecnologia, Universidade de Caxias do Sul, Brazil Facultad de Ingeniería Química, Escuela de Ingeniería, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín, Colombia vi
Results Analysis from Peer Assessment for Entrepreneurship's PBL class in a Business Management Undergraduate Course Andre F. Uebe Mansur 1,2, Brian Joyce 3, Maria Cristina V. Biazus 4, Elizabeth L. G. Siqueira 2 1 Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia Fluminense, Campos dos Goytacazes, Brazil 2 Institutos Superiores de Ensino do CENSA, Campos dos Goytacazes, Brazil 3 HAMK University of Applied Science, Hämeenlinna, Finland 4 Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil Email: andreuebe@gmail.com, brian.joyce@hamk.fi, cbiazus@ufrgs.br, bethlandim99@gmail.com Abstract The innovative assessment method for an entrepreneurship class under Project-based Learning (PBL) approach has been functioning since 2015 s second semester at a Business Administration undergraduate course of a private university in the municipality of Campos dos Goytacazes in Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil. This PBL methodology was implemented in the Brazilian college as an experimental adaptation of a learning model usually adopted in Finland. The process required substantial changes in the teaching/learning methods and methodologies and had a significant impact on students learning and motivation. In this first edition of an entrepreneurial class under the PBL methodology as an innovative experience, it was aimed to verify the results about the student's PBL experience. The final student's assessment method from this learning experience was made in two ways: firstly, in the traditional way using a business plan quality analysis and secondly, through an peer assessment learning perception. The paper presents the overview concepts of PBL applied to entrepreneurship in managerial undergraduate classes. In addition, the adopted assessment methodology is presented. Finally, the merits of the new assessment method learned in Finland are discussed from surveys results and workshops organised as part of class assessment. The results indicated that the PBL approach applied to college entrepreneurship classes were profitable, as well as the effectiveness of the peer assessment method. Keywords: Assessment Method; PBL; Business Management Learning; Learning Model. 1 Introduction The recent growing interest about formative assessment approach indicates the changes that began at the end of the 20th century. Traditional approaches focussing on summative assessment did not necessarily promote learning. In the best cases, summative assessment is used as a unique approach for student feedback for teachers, educational institutions and students themselves concentrating on how much information students have memorised from subject package as a whole. From a 2014 entrepreneurship class on business management private college in Brazil, students had the opportunity to experience how to develop a business plan under a Project Based Learning (PBL) approach. PBL is a learning approach where students can develop new personal and professional skills from a real-life situation. The PBL approach adopted in the entrepreneurship classroom at the college has been unusual since traditionally a brick-and-mortar/expositive classroom has been adopted. Traditionally the students had memorised the business plan's parts and had been assessed in a summative approach only. A great motivation to change the learning approach was to blend an unedited learning approach to entrepreneurship subject while maintaining the same traditional assessment approach. From this, an adoption of this peer assessment approach was considered. The challenge of changing the learning process and assessment in an entrepreneurship classroom has required the development of a specific methodology described in this paper. 244
The structure of this paper is as follows. First, we discuss Project Based Learning (PBL) concepts followed by discussions about assessments approach. Next the methodological development and implementation of Peer Assessment (PA) in the PBL classroom are explained. Finally, the results and its analysis as well as conclusions are laid out. 2 Project Based Learning (PBL) The Project Based Learning (PBL) approach comes from the idea that learning is most effective when students have the opportunity to experience the theory into practice. PBL can be identified as a student-centred approach that promotes engagement among students in an investigative, collaborative and experiential learning way. (Morgan, 1983; Krajcik et al., 1999). Learning in PBL becomes more significant since the internal learning ambiance of academia connects with the external ambiance of social, political and environmental processes by a real-world and motivating learning tasks (Harmer and Stokes, 2014; Bell, 2010). These concepts come from the Constructivism proposed by John Dewey focused on a learning-by-doing approach, since teaching is not a knowledge transfer from teacher to students but students self-knowledge construction guided by the teacher (Biggs and Tang, 2007, Hickman et al., 2009). From these concepts, collaboration and group work are the core of PBL students learning activities (Harmer and Stokes, 2014; Von Kotze and Cooper, 2000), so teamwork is the most challenging element of a student s project work (Stauffacher et al., 2006; Frank and Barzilai, 2004). Additionally, PBL s advantage to students learning are deep learning, using the application of theoretical concepts and principles to solve real-problems, developing critical and proactive thinking since students need to formulate plans and assess solutions (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). Further advantages are improvement of socialisation, communication, collaborative skills among students (Hadim and Esche, 2002) and active learning promotion among students since they need to create realistic products or presentations from prior knowledge has retained (Felder et al., 2000, Jones et al., 1997; Thomas et al., 1999). Thomas (2000) has identified a set of five criteria to capture the uniqueness of Project-Based Learning. The criteria are: (a) Centrality - This criterion has two corollaries. The first one is the idea that PBL is not a part of student curricula but it is the curricula as the central teaching strategy. Second is the idea that projects where students acquire knowledge outside their curricula cannot be considered as PBL. (b) Driving question - That means PBL has been thought around thematic units or the intersection of topics / disciplines, but also aims at driven questions that make the student's learning process from PBL really useful for an intellectual purpose; (c) Constructive investigations - Despite the goal-directed process involving inquiring (decision-making, problem finding) PBL must promote new understandings and skill in students. In other words if PBL activities represent no difficulty to students or there is no development of new skills it is not PBL but only tasks to be accomplished; (d) Autonomy - PBL is not a teacher-centred learning approach or a packaged learning process. In the context of Learning Complex Environment (Uebe Mansur, 2013), PBL has some complex aspects like retroactivity and recursivity that are important elements to promote of student's autonomy. (e) Realism - PBL promotes real-life challenges in comparison other learning approaches that are more close of academic-scenario or scenariochallenges and because it PBL increase the student's feeling of authenticity (Thomas, 2000) 3 Assessment Approaches According to Boud (1995) in education assessment methods there are more bad practices and ignorance than significant issues. The effects of these bad practices are one of most potential aspects of learning process since they increase the students problems for those who want to graduate and cannot avoid bad assessments effects as they avoid bad teaching effects. Some bad effects on students are loss of confidence and self-esteem when they dislike a subject. 245
Michael Scriven s (1967) has proposed a distinctive concept between formative assessment and summative assessment. For him the first one is feedback support for students' learning endeavours such as teacher teaching, and the second is a summative judgment for accreditation or certification. In a different way from Scriven s dichotomic point of view, Boud (1995) reinforces that both assessment concepts are inseparable. Assessment is a feedback message about students that should be about learning. Consequently, students will adopt different approaches in different studying circumstances. So good assessment is not only an issue of finding an appropriate method but it is about the tutor and students engagement in a relational process as learning in its whole (Boud, 1995; Ramdsen, 1987) Usually assessment methods are focused on the scope of how much content a student can memorise as if it would be the most important issue in the learning process. According to Boud (1995, p2) The perceptions and interactions of a student are more important to learning than what staff take for granted as the reality of the assessment. These perceptions cannot be assumed: they are only available from the students themselves. Aslo, Andrade and Du (2007, p.160) state that self-assessment is a (...) process of formative assessment during which students reflect on and evaluate the quality of their work and their learning, judge the degree to which they reflect explicitly stated goals or criteria, identify strengths and weaknesses in their work, and revise accordingly. Self-assessment differs from peer assessment once the first one does not mandatorily require students to provide either feedback to their pairs. Meanwhile Falchikov (2007, p.132) writes, Peer assessment requires students to provide either feedback or grades (or both) to their peers on a product or a performance, based on the criteria of excellence for that product or event which students may have been involved in determining Spiller (2012, p.2) reports that the growing interest in peer assessment (...) is partly driven by changing concepts of teaching and learning. The author considers that these changing concepts come from needs to drive the education process towards a more constructivist approach using dialogical, collaborative and coconstruction student behaviour. In this way, designing student-centred assessment opportunities is as important as designing classroom learning opportunities despite design and implementation of assessment tasks are usually neglected. This negligence promotes a teacher-centred approach in assessment design resulting in nonsense tending of teacher's ownership assessment despite a student-centred classroom learning design (Spiller, 2012). 4 Applying PA in PBL In 2014 s second half, the author has taken learning and teaching expertise from an immersive training in Finland s universities of applied science. The Brazilian CNPq has sponsored this training to Brazilian teachers. In 2015, from this Finland s training the author developed some pedagogical experiments in his entrepreneurship classrooms seeking alternative paths to traditional brick-and-mortar approach. In the traditional learning approach, the students passively listen and memorise about how to make a business plan. Further, the assessment method is focused in a summative and content-centred approach. Selfconduction of his/her own knowledge construction as soon as peer or self-assessment is usually almost unthinkable. In a trying of changing this pedagogical scenario, the experiment took place among 27 students from different ages in 2015 s second semester in an entrepreneurship classroom. Students from different undergraduate courses have been involved in the experiment: Business Administration and Production Engineering. Project Based Learning (PBL) has been chosen as the student-centred learning approach. As initial step, the students were invited to freely self-organise in seven teams without a predetermined number of members. The number of seven teams was mandatory since it is the same numbers of parts of a business plan. After this initial step, the students had the opportunity to decide among themselves about strategies for the business plan development. The team members decided that each team would be responsible for a different part of the business plan and its oral presentation. As the students were free to decide about assessment steps, 246
they also decided that a peer and self-assessment would happen only after delivering the business plan document and after oral presentation. Since the formative assessment occurred by peer and self-assessment approach, the summative assessment occurred by a content analysis from the business plan. The developing of a questionnaire to formative assessment was not an easy task since it was not possible to find a model that well fit to demands of the research. Because this challenge the final model presented below comes from expertise gathered from different universities. Contributions from a pilot experiment made by Fernando Santana Pacheco researcher from Instituto Federal de Santa Catarina (Brazil), as theoretical knowledges shared by Brian Joyce and Essi Ryymin, researchers from HAMK University of Applied Science in Finland were essential to the final model questionnaire. Table 1 - Peer Assessment Model Questionnaire Related to questionnaire, the first column refers to the criteria related to the students tasks. In the second column, the team as whole would assess how its involvement on the tasks in a scale happens, from zero to 10. This score would be the same for all team members despite students having their own questionnaire. In third column each team member would self-assess in accordance his/her involvement. To this column, the percentage could differ among team members. In the fourth column, each student should highlight meaningful aspects in him/her learning in accordance with the first column s item. From these description in column fourth the students could self-reflecting about the learning process at same time that could avoid a random selfevaluation in column third. The peer assessment process in column second deal with psychological aspects since the teams should made a self-assessment of each activity presented in the first column of questionnaire. This step had deal not only with group ethics but also with morality, since the team presented his part of a business plan to cohorts, in oral presentation. Since in column third where the student had to self-assess, the same ethical and moral aspects were deal by student but now in an individual point of view. From peer and self-assessment the result analysis has present some important feedback. The analysis process had two corollaries: a quantitative approach where the numerical results had been percentage analysed as well as a qualitative analysis where the results were analysed in convergence of peer assessment aspects. 247
5 Results For peer-assessment step the students was grouped in each team of business plan. Although dialogue and exchanging ideas was encouraged, the questionnaire was filled individually. From students that had participated on assessment, nine of them were from Marketing team, two students were from Strategic Planning team, five of them were from Finances & Accountability and ten students were from Operations team. One student who was responsible for executive summary did not participate in the peer assessment. From a range from 0 to 10, students assessed themselves. The score 6.0 is the minimum break point: Table 2 - Student self-assessment In the Operations team, only nine students have been scored although there were 10 students. It had happened since one of them had not assessed herself/himself in the global score. It is possible to notice that even though students were free to assess themselves, the score concentration has occurred between 8.0 and 8.5. Team members like Marketing and Finance & Accountability even came to assign values 9.5 or 10. In the figure below, it is possible to analyse some aspects that highlight the student commitment for the peer assessment. Despite the satisfactory team performance indicated in the second column, the student selfassessed on a poor engagement in items from first column. In the second item Teamwork for final report, the student has given a 10% engagement in this task even though the team as a whole had self-assessed at the maximum score. The student has declared in the fourth column I was not well participated from this teamwork task. Concerning the third item about public presentation the student has informed a 30% engagement declaring in fourth column I had participated addressing several people showing a little about the project. In the fourth item, self-attributing 20% of engagement the student has declared: I have participated a little in the general development of business plan. Finally, the student self-assessed as 7.0 in the global score and 10% of engagement in 5th item, declaring I was not very participatory, but I knew what was going on and watching. Setting the operational concepts I have well understood the operational concept as its development's steps Written report from teamwork I did not well participated of writing step Oral presentation from teamwork Participation in development activities... I participated addressing several people. Introducing them a little about the project I attended some of the plan's development. Participation in class meetings Grade 7 I was not very participatory. However, I knew what was going on. I paid close attention Figure 1 - Evidence of students commitment for peer assessment In the last sentence where student has declared that However, I knew what was going on. I paid close attention the adoption of however conjunction highlight that student got conscious by self-assessment together with her/his team about her/his lack of behaviour/engagement. Somehow, she/he needed to confront the conclusions of this reflection that caused her/him discomfort feelings since the justification. Continuing analysis, is possible to identify that some students has concluded that her/his engagement could point to high scores. The main arguments from students to asking for high scores were engagement in the 248
tasks and time dedicated to the project. In accordance to the first argument, one student has declared: I do not consider myself 100%, but I had tried. Since I made myself present in all project steps. For oral presentation I have developed a short animation and I have cooperated in other parts too. The other one has declared: From my engagement in the project and all teamwork as time available addressed to the project I believe that I deserve 10. Participation in development activities How it seems to be a odd learning method I got interested in participate in trying to acquire a special knowledge. Participation in class meetings... My participation was quite good. Since I have tried to be always present and participative. I do not consider myself 100% but I have tried to be. I have been present in all process steps. For (oral) presentation, I have prepared a short animation. Moreover, I have aided in other steps too. I believe my grade deserves to be from 9.5 to 10. Written report from teamwork I managed to overcome the challenges and even (physically) away from another colleague, we got time to discuss and write together. Oral presentation from teamwork Participation in development activities... It was a unique opportunity when I have introduced the project to whole university in a clearly way and objective. I have learned that the development is more than important. It is fundamental. I have learned to develop the food truck project. Participation in class meetings From my participating on classes I could discuss about the project and clear up doubts about it together class mates. Since my participation and everything have lived by the team as well as my time dedicated to the project I believe I deserve (a grade) 10. Figure 2 - Students asking for high scores in self-assessment The global score requested by the students were not decreased at any time. However, in two different cases the global scores were increased once the student commitment was perceptibly higher than requested by her/him in her/his global score. Written report from teamwork The teamwork were well done. Because we steered the project's parts made by each one joining them together at the end. Oral presentation from teamwork... Very good. We invited people to know more about our business plan. Participation in development activities It was very interesting. I could to learn how to develop a business plan. Participation in class meetings My grade: 8.0 The whole class was a new learning and productive. Participation in development activities Participation in class meetings My grade: 9.0... Having focus and motivation is the key to any project developing. How it is important. Figure 3 - Students self-assessed less than their real engagement The reasons for global scores' shifting came from the perception that since students were knowing that global score was going to be his/her final score from formative assessment it was clear that students was committed with self-assessment step, not wanting to take advantage. 249
About the global score is interesting to highlight that in a first moment some students had self-assessed in a global score that was changed by her / himself later. Examples comes from a member of marketing team that had self-assessed in an upper score of 8.5 decreased later. Other example comes from another student that increased her/his global score from 6.0 to 7.0. Oral presentation from teamwork Participation in development activities... Participation in class meetings Grade: 7.0 (adjusted from 6.0) group: Marketing Figure 4 - Student's reflection evidence on self-assessment 6 Conclusions Despites some studies as reported by Kaufman and Schunn (2010) where negative perceptions from students to peer assessment were evident; we could not primarily identify any issue related with this negative aspects since the students had comfortably declared comfort feelings from peer assessment experiment. We could identify as was shown in figure 1 (and its analysis), that students had self-recognised their commitment with the project and in some way maybe ashamed to attribute themselves a score far from the engagement perceived by their team. The results indicate that the PBL approach applied to college entrepreneurship classes were profitable, as well as the effectiveness of the peer assessment method. Some improvements are demanded in PBL and assessment processes, once despite good results from formative assessment, a methodology is still demanded. Since formative assessment has a subjective approach and a quantitative final score is demanded as student score, this procedure of change a qualitative assessment to a quantitative score need to be incremented. We can conclude that this first peer assessment experiment applied to an entrepreneurship class at a business management private undergraduate course was satisfactory and motivating to other experiments like the questionnaire improvements and procedures as applied to other classes from business management and other courses. 7 References Andrade, H. & Du, Y. (2007). Student responses to criteria-referenced self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32 (2), p. 159-181 Bell, S. (2010) Project-Based Learning for the 21st Century: Skills for the Future in The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83 (2). p 39-43. Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2007), Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does, 3rd ed, Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, Maidenhead. Blumenfeld, P.C., Soloway, E., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S., Guzdial, M. and Palincsar, A. (1991), Motivating project-based learning: sustaining the doing, supporting the learning., Educational Psychologist, vol. 26, no. 3 & 4, p. 369-398. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M. & Palincsar, A. (1991) 'Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning'. Educational psychologist, 26 (3-4). pp 369-398. Boud, D. (1995) Assessment and learning: contradictory or complementary? in Assessment for Learning in Higher Education. 35-48. London: Kogan Falchikov, N. (2007). The place of peers in learning and assessment. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term. London: Routledge. p. 128-143 250
Frank, M.; Barzilai, A. (2004) Integrating alternative assessment in a project-based learning course for pre-service science and technology teachers. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29 (1). p 41-61. Felder, R.M., Woods, D.R., Stice, J.E. and Rugarcia, A. (2000), The future of engineering education II: teaching methods that work, Chem. Engr. Education, vol. 34, no. 1, p. 26-39. Hadim, H.A., Esche, S.K. (2002), Enhancing the engineering curriculum through project-based learning in Proceedings of the 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Boston. Hickman, L. A.; Neubert, S.; Reich, K. (2009) John Dewey between pragmatism and construtivism. New York: Fordham University Press. Jones, B. F., Rasmussen, C. M., and Moffitt, M. C. (1997). Real-life problem solving: A collaborative approach to interdisciplinary learning. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kaufman, J.H., Schunn, C.D. (2010) Students perceptions about peer assessment for writing: their origin and impact on revision work. Pittsburg: University of Pittysburg. http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/schunn/research/papers/kaufmanschunn-studentperceptions-.pdf Krajcik, J.S., Czerniak, C.M. and Berger, C.F. (1999), Teaching science: a project-based approach, New York: McGraw-Hill College. Harmer, N., Stokes, A. (2014) The benefits and challenges of project-based learning: A review of the literature. Plymouth: PedRIO Morgan, A. (1983) Theoretical Aspects of Project-Based Learning in Higher Education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 14 (1). p 66-78. Ramsden, P. (1987). Improving teaching and learning in higher education: the case for a relational perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 12, p. 275-286. Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. R.W. Tyler, R M. Gagne, M. Scriven (eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation, pp.39-83. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Spiller, D. (2012). Assessment Matters: Self-Assessment and Peer Assessment. New Zealand: University of Waikato. Retrieved: http://www.waikato.ac.nz/tdu/pdf/booklets/9_selfpeerassessment.pdf Stauffacher, M., Walter, A.I. Lang, D.J., Wiek A. and Scholz, R.W. (2006). Learning to research environmental problems from a functional socio-cultural constructivism perspective: the transdisciplinary case study approach. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 7(3): p. 252-275. Thomas, J. W. (2000) A review of research on project-based-learning. California: Autodesk Foundation. http://www.bobpearlman.org/bestpractices/pbl_research.pdf Thomas, J. W., Mergendoller, J. R., and Michaelson, A. (1999). Project-based learning: A handbook for middle and high school teachers. Novato, CA: The Buck Institute for Education. Uebe Mansur, A.F. (2013) Use of Social Networks and Complexity for Enhancement of Academic Learning in Supervised Internships: An Internalization by Doing. Nuevas Ideas en Informática Educativa. Von Kotze, A. & Cooper, L. (2000) Exploring the transformative potential of project-based learning in university adult education. Studies in the Education of Adults, 32 (2). p 212-228 251