Implementing peer-reviews in Civil Engineering laboratories

Abstract

ABET 2009-10 criterion 3 requires that all engineering graduates demonstrate an ability to communicate effectively at the time of graduation (criterion g of a-k outcomes). Technical communication is a critical skill for Civil Engineering students to achieve. However, incorporating technical writing in many engineering courses is difficult. At Seattle University, laboratory reports are used to teach technical writing skills. Unfortunately, students often prepare their reports at the last minute, rather than devoting the time necessary to compose and edit their writing. When the graded report is returned, their focus has likely shifted to the next assignment and they may not even reflect on the feedback received. Peer-reviews were implemented in two Civil Engineering laboratory classes: Mechanics of Materials and Soil Mechanics. The primary purpose of these reviews was two-fold: (1) students were required to think more holistically about their own writing and the writing process and (2) students were exposed to the technical writing process, which includes rough drafts, reviews and revisions. Students prepared preliminary drafts of their reports and then exchanged reports with classmates for review. The review feedback from their classmate was then used in the preparation of the final report. Final reports were submitted to the faculty for grading. Pre- and post- surveys were administered to assess the usefulness of the peer review process. This approach is unique since quantitative data assessing student perceptions of the peer review process is rarely reported and provides a unique (and often unexamined) perspective on the usefulness of the process. Overall, the peer reviews were effective when they were well coordinated by the faculty and a grade was associated with the peer review process. Student responses were mixed with some appreciating the process and how it improved their technical writing skills, while others believing it was too time consuming or not helpful due to poor reviews. Weak students whose work was peer reviewed by strong writers benefitted the most from peer reviews. Student feedback also showed that the rigorous work load in the engineering curriculum posed time constraints that would affect the likelihood of them using peer reviews if they were not required to do so. © 2011 American Society for Engineering Education.