A Case Study on Peer Review and Lecturer Evaluations in an Academic Setting

Students can enhance their soft skills and learning experience through the use of group projects. However, evaluating group project performance has become very challenging. This paper presents the concept of group management in measuring individual performance in group projects in an academic setting. Individual performances in similar courses were also compared based on two consecutive semesters (Semesters 1 and 2). The respondents for this study were first year students who attended similar courses for both semesters. Performance measurement was based on peer review and lecturer evaluations. The criteria for these evaluations were similar for both semesters. The current study aims to determine the weaknesses and strengths of an individual in a group, and relate them with group performance based on the individual presentation marks. The study also analyzes the relationship between these two performance tools. Findings indicate that peer review and lecturer evaluations can be used to determine the performance of students in a group project, and that these two evaluation tools are not significantly correlated.


Introduction
Previous research suggests that involvement in extracurricular activities and group projects is a good exercise to prepare students for the real world (Ballantine & Larres, 2007;Mahenthiran & Rouse, 2000;Clary, 1997).According to past surveys, most employers are interested in employees who have personal values, a good working attitude, intellectual and communication skills, and knowledge that leads to success (Muhamad et al., 2008;Warn & Tranter, 2001;Coopers & Lybrand, 1998;Cappelli, 1992).These skills can be developed through activities that emphasize teamwork, which can be conducted during study periods.Strategy and well-defined tasks are necessary to drive effective teamwork, an important criterion in the success of projects (Hoegl & Gemuenden 2001).Pfeffer (1983) believes that teamwork affects the decision-making process, which, in turn, influences outcomes (Liao & Tsai, 2001;Ingram, 1996;Keck & Tushman, 1993;Jackson, 1992).
In recent years, group projects have become an important element of higher education.However, managing group projects is quite problematic due to the different personalities of team members (GSN, 2012;Buchanan, 1998).Integrating teamwork in the classroom is also often challenging due to the uneven efforts, contributions, and involvement of individual team members (Friedman et. al, 2008;Gueldenzoph & May, 2002).For example, a number of students are reluctant to convey their ideas in a group meeting, whereas other students tend to be the leader-types in a group.Therefore, these problems need to be carefully considered to ensure positive results in any group performance.Teamwork requires the different individuals in a group to collaborate in sharing ideas and information to attain a similar goal (Buchanan, 1998).In an academic setting, a study by Tarricone and Luca (2002) determined a framework that educators can apply to encourage effective teamwork in their classes.The framework includes the following: (1) commitment to team success; (2) interdependence; (3) interpersonal skills; (4) open communication and positive feedback; (5) appropriate team composition; (6) commitment to team processes; (7) leadership; and (8) accountability.
Measurement of an individual performance is another problem in a group project.Individual accountability is essential to ensure successful group work (Davis, 1999).Previous studies developed a peer assessment method to assess the performance of students in a group project (Muhammad et al., 2008;Mahenthiran & Rouse, 2000).Peers work closely together and have a greater number of truthful behavioral observations (Friedman, 2008;Greguras et. al, 2001).Peer assessment has been widely used in many applications, such as oral presentations, writing, group projects, and tests (Fachikov & Goldfinch, 2000;Topping, 1998).Massingham et al. (2011) stated that this system collects information from diverse sources, which is known as the 360-degree feedback.This assessment can engage students in active learning (Ballantyne et. al, 2002;Topping, 1998;Healey, 1997).As Clary (1997) mentioned, the two main components of a successful peer review process are (1) feedback from team members based on noticeable behavior and (2) a supportive team environment.Teams with peer assessments perceived higher levels of workload sharing, participation, performance, and team member satisfaction (Friedman et. al, 2008;Davis, 1999).Tarricone and Luca (2002) determined that findings from the first peer assessment session significantly help in identifying any of team members that do not contribute.Therefore, this method can help indicate if a group requires division or if they could continue with the current members.However, the information gathered from a peer review may not be absolutely accurate (Friedman et al., 2008).A good peer review entails the capability and enthusiasm of students to rate their teammates (Friedman et. al, 2008).As Friedman et al. (2008) mentioned, instructors often use peer ratings to ascertain grades without providing feedback to students.Hence, students may have little motivation to deliver meaningful assessments.Similar scores and bias toward group members or individuals are other examples of the issues that Dyrud (2001) highlighted.Lecturer evaluation may help solve this problem, as the participation of more parties in the assessment process can influence the accuracy of individual performance marks (Massingham et al., 2011).
This study describes two types of sources to evaluate individual performance in a group project, namely, (1) peer review and (2) lecturer evaluation.Peer review is a tool that uses members in a group to rate each other based on several characteristics.Lecturer evaluation is another measurement tool that uses two or more lecturers to provide ratings to particular students based on oral presentations and group reports.Both tools are fair regarding grades distribution among active students and passive students.This study also explores the relationship between the two methods in determining individual performance.

Method
This study was conducted among a total of 66 first year students for two consecutive semesters.The respondents were divided into 13 groups, with each group having five or six members of various races and genders.In the group project, all students were required to be involved to ensure that project goals are achieved.The main objectives of both courses are (1) to ensure that students understand the importance of teamwork and (2) to develop their critical-thinking skills as future engineers.
Regarding the peer review method, each student needs to evaluate the characteristics of his or her group members after the presentation.For this method, the Likert Scale rating of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly) was used.The criteria for the peer review are presented in Table 1, and included an assessment of individuals working together as a group.The criteria were developed based on past experiences in the department.For the lecturer assessment, scores were given during the presentation of a team member for the group project and the group report.The criteria for oral evaluation are based on communication skill.Five ratings were used for this assessment: 5 for "excellent," 4 for "good," 3 for "satisfactory," 2 for "not adequate," and 1 for "not enough."Each rating has an explanation per criterion, which the lecturers used to evaluate each student directly when they presented their projects.This assessment has six criteria, as presented in Table 2.

Comparison on Individual Performance Based on Lecturer Evaluation and Peer Review
Using Microsoft Excel, the performance of students was compared based on the scores for two consecutive semesters.In the current project, the allocations were 50% for the group report based on lecturer evaluation, 40% for the presentation based on lecturer evaluation, and 10% for the peer review based on scores from team members.The percentages correspond to the maximum marks used for the three tools.
Figure 1 presents the performance based on the group report mark.Student no.6 indicates a significant improvement on the group report mark, whereas Student no. 31 demonstrates a significant decrease from Semester 1 (43%) to Semester 2 (37%).However, this group report does not fully represent individual performance because the task was performed in a group.Figure 3 presents the performance based on the peer review mark.Majority of the students demonstrate an improvement on peer review scores from Semester 1 to Semester 2. However, Student no.62 scored a one-mark drop from Semester 1(10%) to Semester 2 (9%) in the peer evaluation, and Student no.48 gained a similar mark for both semesters (9%).These results may be due to the different group members in two consecutive semesters.With regards to Figures 4 and 5, the peer review and lecturer evaluation methods may help recognize the pattern of individual scores.Based on Figure 5, approximately 40 students obtained marks above 30% (for lecturer evaluation) and above 9% (for peer review) for both assessments; whereas less than 5 students obtained marks below 29.9% (for lecturer evaluation) and below 8.9% (for peer review).However, these results still do not explain the actual relationship between both assessments in determining student performance.The next section explores the relationship between these two variables.

Correlation
A Statistical SPSS software program was used to study the correlation between peer review and lecturer evaluations for both semesters using four items.This study is an extension of the results from a previous research by Khamis and Sulong (2011), which states that the correlation between peer review and overall presentation score is not significant.However, the present study further explores another evaluation for both semesters.

Relationship between the Peer Review and the Overall Presentation Score
The Pearson correlation coefficient between the peer review and the presentation scores for Semester 1 is +0.04, whereas that for Semester 2 is +0.22.Although the coefficients are positive, the values are less than +0.30, indicating an insignificant correlation between the two variables.

Relationship between the Peer Review and Group Report Marks
The Pearson correlation coefficient between the peer review and the presentation scores for Semester 1 is +0.238, whereas that for Semester 2 is +0.257.Although the coefficients are positive, the values are less than +0.30, indicating an insignificant correlation between the two variables.

Relationship between the Lecturer Evaluation (Presentation and Group Report) and Peer Review
The Pearson correlation coefficient between the peer review and the presentation scores for Semester 1 is +0.2, whereas that for Semester 2 is +0.32.Although the coefficients are positive, the values are between 0.2 and 0.32, indicating a small and large correlation between the two variables, respectively.Thus, peer review may help evaluate student performance from the perspective of a team member.

Conclusion
Effective group performance depends on organizational, group, and individual factors.The strengths and weaknesses of group members can be determined through the peer review and lecturer evaluations of presentation sessions and group reports.These evaluations also assist in identifying passive students in a group project.In this paper, the relationship between both variables (peer review and lecturer evaluations) was identified.Results indicate that peer review and lecturer evaluations may help evaluate student performance from the perspective of both a team member and lecturer.Peer review is designed to be fair in grading students when working in a group with friends with similar age, whereas lecturer evaluation only views the performance of students as a group during oral sessions and in writing skills.However, findings vary due to the different perspectives and opinions of the different evaluators.In general, grading the overall group achievement should be based on the success of the final product and the group self-evaluation of its operations.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Group report score for semester 1 and semester 2 session 2010/2011 Figure 2 presents the performance based on the presentation mark.In relation to Figure 1, Student no.62 demonstrates a significant improvement during Semester 2 (39%), whereas Student no.48 demonstrates a significant decrease from Semester 1 (31%) to Semester 2 (21%).

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Peer review score for semester 1 and semester 2 session 2010/2011 3.2 Performance based on the Individual Measurement Figures 4 and 5 present the score levels for the students based on the two types of individual assessments (oral evaluation and peer review) for both semesters are almost the same.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Presentation score and peer assessment score for semester 1 session 2010/2011

Table 1 .
Criteria for peer review method

Table 2 .
Criteria for oral evaluation