Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 32586
Project Management at University: Towards an Evaluation Process around Cooperative Learning

Authors: J. L. Andrade-Pineda, J.M. León-Blanco, M. Calle, P. L. González-R


The enrollment in current Master's degree programs usually pursues gaining the expertise required in real-life workplaces. The experience we present here concerns the learning process of "Project Management Methodology (PMM)", around a cooperative/collaborative mechanism aimed at affording students measurable learning goals and providing the teacher with the ability of focusing on the weaknesses detected. We have designed a mixed summative/formative evaluation, which assures curriculum engage while enriches the comprehension of PMM key concepts. In this experience we converted the students into active actors in the evaluation process itself and we endowed ourselves as teachers with a flexible process in which along with qualifications (score), other attitudinal feedback arises. Despite the high level of self-affirmation on their discussion within the interactive assessment sessions, they ultimately have exhibited a great ability to review and correct the wrong reasoning when that was the case.

Keywords: Cooperative-collaborative learning, educational management, formative-summative assessment, leadership training.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI):

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 1256


[1] Project Management Institute “A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) – Fifth Edition, ANSI/PMI 99-001-2013.
[2] Saldaña, O., Rodríguez-Carballeira, Á., Espelt, E., Jiménez, Y., Porrúa-García, C., Escartín, J., Vidal, T. “Development of psychosocial case studies by students to improve their ability to understand and analyze human behavior” in Proceedings of ICERI 2015 Conference2015 Conference, pp. 1097–1102
[3] Stiggins, R. “Student-centered classroom assessment”, New York, Prentice Hall, 1997.
[4] Letina, A. “Application of Traditional and Alternative Assessment in Science and Social Studies Teaching”, Croatian Journal of Education, 17(1), pp.137–152., 2015.
[5] Ciancimino, E., Canella, S. “The Alternative Assessment Experiment”, The International Journal of Learning, 15(2), pp. 295–300, 2008.
[6] González-R, PL, Framiñán, JM, León Blanco, JM, Pérez P., “Experiencias en la aplicación de un nuevo sistema de Evaluación Formativa en el ámbito del EEES” in International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Industrial Management, pp. 205–206, 2009.
[7] Sadler, D.R. “Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems”, Instructional Science, 18, pp. 119–144, 1989.
[8] Cannella, S., Ciancimino, E., Campos, M. L. “Mixed e-assessment: An application of the student-generated question technique” in IEEE Education Engineering Conference, EDUCON 2010, pp. 769–773, 2010.
[9] Papinczak, T., Peterson, R., Babri, A. S., Ward, K., Kippers, V., Wilkinson, D. “Using student-generated questions for student-centred assessment”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(4), pp. 439–452, 2012.
[10] Bergman, B. “Interactive assessment – A new element in the examination process” in 8th QMOD 2005 Proceedings, 2005.
[11] Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L. “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being“, American psychologist, 55(1), pp. 68–78, 2000.
[12] Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., Major, C. H. “Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty”, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 2005.
[13] Yasnitsky, A. “Vygotsky circle as a personal network of scholars: Restoring connections between people and ideas”, Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Sciences, 45, pp. 422–457, 2011.
[14] Jorba, J.; Sanmartí, N. “La función pedagógica de la evaluación. Evaluación como ayuda al aprendizaje”. Madrid, Editorial Grao, 2000.
[15] Kirkpatrick, D. “Revisiting Kirkpatrick’s four-level model”. Training and Development, 50(1), pp.50–54, 1996.
[16] Moldovan, L. “Training Outcome Evaluation Model”, Procedia Technology, 22, pp. 1184–1190, 2016.