Peer reviewed groupwork in opportunity and risk management
The students are asked to work in groups to produce a risk register for a real life development. There are two roles for each student: a member of a group for risk register production and an independent peer reviewer. There are three designated stages for the production of risk register:
Draft risk register (produced in groups),
Peer review (produced individually) and
In the first stage, each group produces a draft risk register. The draft risk register does not contribute any marks but is subject to review by a number of assigned independent peer reviewers in the second stage.
The peer assessment criteria are released well in advance to the students. In the second stage, the reviewers need to complete an evaluation form that contains a number of questions in relation to the criteria. They need to rate how well the draft meets the criteria, justify their ratings in words and explain how the draft can be improved to meet each criterion fully. This gives them the chance to see how other students approach the question and deepen their understanding of the task.
The peer review produced by each independent reviewer is then marked by the module leader. The marking is based on how well a reviewer appreciates the work produced by others, how relevant and significant the reviewer’s comments are, and how well the reviewer pinpoints the weaknesses of the draft. Again, these marking criteria for the reviews are released to the students in advance.
In the third stage, each group needs to revise their draft to produce a final risk register. They also need to explain how the comments and criticism are taken on board in the final submission. Thus, it gives students the opportunity to review what they have prepared and reflect on their mistakes or weaknesses as presented in the draft report. The final report is marked according to a marking matrix with one criterion on how well the report addresses the comments given by their peers.
Notes for new peer review users
Criteria for assessment need to be distributed in advance. Students generally do not appreciate their work to be marked by other students. In our opinion, it is important to mark the students according to their ability to review other's work. Thus, the peer review exercise should be independently marked instead of being used as a means to offloading the marking burden to students.
Franco Cheung, Department of Real Estate and Construction
Esra Kurul, Department of Real Estate and Construction
