Team Grading in Capstone – What the Students Think When They Grade One Another

As part of the transportation Capstone track at Northeastern University, students work in small teams, ranging in size from 4-6 members. Over the course of the 14-week semester, each student has various responsibilities, typically assigned by another student who functions as the leader or project manager. Most of the work is performed on an independent basis – the student works on their component and then submits it to the team. The material is then integrated into the final product. Throughout the semester, the faculty advisor meets with the team on close to a weekly basis. Based on the interactions in the weekly meetings, the advisor has an appreciation for what students the students are working on – those that are doing the work and those that are not contributing. As a result, the advisor was often required to grade the student on the work that was submitted by the team and participation at weekly meetings. Although this approach was objective, it was not the most comprehensive – it lacked peer input for team members. The students may experience something on a daily basis that may not be observed in a meeting – missed deadlines, lack of contributions – all elements that should be included when grades are issued. In order to address this challenge, the capstone advisor implemented a self-grading requirement. Twice a semester, at the mid-point and end, students have to grade their work as well as their peers. During this self-evaluation, no rubrics are provided; the student is responsible for not only detailing their contribution, but also supporting their grade selection with prose and examples of their work. In order to quantify the team-grading structure and determine its efficacy, as well as identify whether or not “grade” boosting is occurring in capstone, a survey was conducted of the three most recent graduating classes. This paper presents the findings from that survey.