This document summarizes a presentation on cooperative learning and student performance management (SPM) pedagogy. It discusses how cooperative learning was implemented in groups for assignments, labs, and projects. Peer reviews and teacher evaluations were used to assess individual and group work. A website provided course resources and was used to collect student feedback. Assessment included tests, attendance, assignments, and exams. Most students found cooperative learning, peer reviews, the teacher's site, and case studies useful in their learning based on a questionnaire. The conclusion is that cooperative learning and peer assessment helped build teamwork and evaluate peers with the teacher.

1. Sharbani Bhattacharya
Associate Professor( Department of Information Technology)
IEC- College of Engineering & Technology, Greater Noida
Mahamaya Technical University, Noida, India
ICL-IGIP2013
25th September2013
At
Kazan, Russia

2. Topics
• Cooperative Learning & SPM Pedagogy
• Cooperative Learning
• Website & SPM Pedagogy
• Assessment
• Conclusion
• Acknowledgement
• References

3. Cooperative Learning & SPM Pedagogy
1.Positive Interdependence
2. Face-To-Face Interaction
3. Individual Accountability
4. Social Skills
5. Group Processing

4. Cooperative Learning & SPM Pedagogy
• For Assignments
• In Lab
• Project- based-Learning
• Case Studies

5. Cooperative Learning
In Cooperative Learning groups work face-to-face
and learn to work as a team.
There are rules for
A. Team Formation
• Appointing in group
• Quitting from group
B. Team Evaluation
• Peer Reviews
• Teacher’s Evaluation

6. Team Formation
The group formation is done by teacher and
there are rules for quitting and firing from the
group.

7. Appointing
Team members were assigned roles that rotated
from assignment to assignment. The
coordinator organized working sessions and
made sure that all team members understood
their responsibilities. The recorder prepared
the final solution set. A checker proofread the
final solution set. A reporter who makes final
report with consent of all.

8. Quitting
Both the student who gets fired and the one
who quits have the responsibility of finding a
team of three willing to take them on as a
fourth member. The one who quits won’t have
any trouble—in fact, she’s probably got her
new team lined up before the second memo
goes out.

9. Team Evaluation
• Assessment is done in group as well as
individually.
• It needs to be accepted by both student and
teacher.
• Peer reviews and teacher’s view are taken
together for final grading.
• Individual efforts are required to be
appreciated keeping team spirit.

10. Peer Reviews
• Peers have to give their views for each group
member.
• This is included in their final grading
• Thus, in order get good reviews they have to
be manipulative and diplomatic.
• Things have to run with good relation with
peers.

11. Website in SPM Pedagogy
Website is maintained for the benefit of
students for syllabus, lecture notes,
assignments, question bank, case study,
standards, attendance and marks.

12. Role of Website in SPM Pedagogy
Students are given the facility to give feedback
in the website. They were also having
assignments for home work individually and
case studies at class work to submit in group.

13. Roles & Responsibility
Each role is well defined i.e.
• Coordinator
• Recorder
• Reporter
• Checker
Responsibilities needed to fulfilled.

14. S

18. Assessment
• A. Assessment In Theory
• Assessment is done in four Parts in Theory
(Maximum out of 150)
• 1)Class Tests(Out of 60 slashed down to 30)
• 2) Attendance(10)
• 3) Assignments ,Quizzes, & Case Studies(out of 30
slashed down to 10)
• 4)Close Book Examination at University(out of
100)

19. Assessment
• B. Assessment In Laboratory
• Assessment is done in four part for Lab
(Maximum Marks 50)
• 1)Peer Review(out of 25)
• 2)File Work(out of 15)
• 3)Team Evaluation(out of 10)
• 4)Lab work and Viva- By External Examiner(out of
25)
• Total marks accumulated is out of 75 which is
slash down to 50.

20. Over all Lab Work Grading of 47 Students
Remark No. of Students
Excellent 2
Very Good 35
Good 6
Satisfactory 2
Ordinary 2
No show 0

21. Overall Students Performance
Student Grades
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Satisfactory
Ordinary
No show

22. Questionaire
1. How much you need to use internet for SPM ?
• 1 2 3 4 5
2. How much Cooperative Learning is useful for SPM?
• 1 2 3 4 5
3. How much Peer Review is useful for SPM assignments?
• 1 2 3 4 5
4. How much teacher’s site is important for SPM activities?
• 1 2 3 4 5
5. How much Case Studies are important for concepts of
SPM?
• 1 2 3 4 5

23. Grading
------> 5 4 3 2 1
Internet
Usage 18% 77.2% 13.6% 0 0
Coopera
tive
learning 45.5% 31.8% 27.2% 0 0
Peer
Review 63.6% 27.2% 4.5% 0 0
Teacher'
s site 31.8% 45.5% 18.1% 0 0
Case
study 59% 9% 31.8% 0 0

24. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Internet Usage Cooperative
learning
Peer Review Teacher's site Case study
5
4
3
2
1

25. Conclusion
This method of cooperative learning, teacher’s
website and comparison of class room
teaching evolved some interesting results like
peer review shows that students try to give
good grades to other in lieu of getting good
remark from others. This initiated team
building, looking forward for friendship as well
assessing the peer with teacher.

26. Acknowledgement
• Stephanie Farrel , Director, Rowan University,
USA ,Workshop “Essentials of Learner-
Centered Teaching”
• Wipro Mission 10X
• IEEE Education Society

27. References
• Stephanie Farrel , Director, Rowan University, USA ,Workshop Handbook of “Essentials of Learner-
Centered Teaching” by on 26th September 2012 at Villach, Austria.
• Bin-Shyan Jong , Lai, yen-The Hsia, Tsong-Wuu Lin and Cheng-Yu Lu, “Using Game-Based Cooperative
learning to improve Learning Motivation: A Study of Online Game Use in an Operating Systems Course”,
IEEE Transactions on Education, Vol.56, No.2,May 2013 page 183
• Richard M. Felder, Rebecca Brent, North Carolina State University ,”Effective Strategies for Cooperative
Learning”, J. Cooperation & Collaboration in College Teaching, 10(2), 69–75 (2001).
• Cynthia R. Haller, Department of English Victoria J. Gallagher, Department of Communication Tracey L.
Weldon, Department of English Richard M. Felder, Department of Chemical Engineering, North Carolina
State University,“ Dynamics of Peer Education in Cooperative Learning Workgroups”, J. Engr. Education,
89(3), 285–293 (2000)
• Richard M. Felder1, and Rebecca Brent, Department of Chemical Engineering N.C. State University,
Raleigh, NC 27695-79052Education Designs, Inc., Cary, NC 27518, “Cooperative Learning”.
• Deborah B. Kaufman and Richard M. Felder, “Accounting for Individual Effort In cooperative Learning
Teams”, Department of Chemical Engineering, Hugh Fuller, College of Engineering, North Carolina State
University, J. Engr. Education, 89(2), 133–140 (2000)
• Richard M. Felder, and Rebecca Brent, Department of Chemical Engineering, N.C. State University,
“Designing and Teaching Courses to Satisfy the ABET Engineering Criteria”, Journal of Engineering
Education January 2003, Page No 8

28. Thank you