UKCME logo
UK Centre for Materials Education
Working with you to enhance the student experience
People working at tables, water molecule magnified, groups of people working, split over three small windows.
Home | Important Themes | Resources | Events and Workshops | About the Centre | Search
 You are in: Higher Education Academy > UK Centre for Materials Education > guides

by James Busfield and Ton Peijs

Appendix 1: Example PBL Case

Study: 'The Court Case'
The Crown vs Dr Ton Peijs:

Dr Ton Peijs was charged that on the first day of May 2001 he did wilfully, while taking part in an anti-capitalist demonstration in the city of London, damage a restaurant belonging to the CJD-burger chain in Oxford Street. The prosecution provided forensic evidence linking Dr Peijs to the scene of the crime. The defence team, concerned by the overwhelming force of evidence held by the prosecution, decided to hire several independent consultants (the PBL groups) to advise them and to give evidence in court. Several different pieces of evidence were provided against Dr Peijs. One for each group to examine.

For example team E were given a sample E2 of fibre from the wall of the CJD-burger restaurant which they alleged to have come from Dr Peijs' pullover. A sample of the same black fibre E1 taken from his pullover when he was arrested was also provided for comparison.

The Court met with Lord Justice Reece presiding.Prosecuting counsel was Julian Evans, and defence was conducted by James Busfield. After a brief review of theevidence from the prosecution the defence counsel called upon expert witnesses from each team and invited them to present their evidence. Each PBL group was cross-examined on their evidence by counsel for the prosecution. Exhibit E1 was identified as being a man made polymeric fibre and exhibit E2 was identified as being natural fibre. As none of the evidence presented by the prosecution was conclusive then the case against Dr Peijs was dismissed.

Fibre sample from suspect's clothing

Exhibit E1:Fibre sample from suspect's clothing

Fibre sample collected from a splinter

Exhibit E2:Fibre sample collected from a splinter on the broken door-post of the CJD burger restaurant

Appendix 2: Meetings Review Form

Meetings Review: Tutor Assessment of Group's Activity

Case Study Number:  
Title:  
Group Number:  
Group Tutor:  
Meeting 1  
Date:  
Student absent poor average good excellent Chair Secretary Scribe
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 

Comments:

 
Meeting 2  
Date:  
Student absent poor average good excellent Chair Secretary Scribe
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 

Comments:

 

Appendix 3: Assessment of Presentations Form

Assessment of Formal Presentations (completed by tutor)

Case Study Number:    

Title

Date

  
     
Group number: Mark:    /10
Presenters:    

Comments:

 
Group number: Mark:    /10
Presenters:    

Comments:

 
Group number: Mark:    /10
Presenters:    

Comments:

 
Group number: Mark:    /10
Presenters:    

Comments:

 
Group number: Mark:    /10
Presenters:    

Comments:

 
  • Return to case study champion

Appendix 4: Peer Assessment Form

Peer Assessment (Completed by the students in the group)

Case Study Number:
Group Number:
Title:
Group Tutor:
Name:
Individual performance marks:
Student: Performance mark:
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  • Return to case group tutor

Notes on individual performance scaling factor

The group will submit one or a number of the following at the completion of a project: a poster, a report, an oral presentation or an html web page. Each part of the submission will be assessed to generate a group mark out of 10. This is scaled by the case tutor to reflect each individual performance with consideration to the feedback from the peer assessment forms completed by all the students at the conclusion of each project.

The individual performance marks should not alter the average mark obtained by the group. Therefore the average of the multipliers must be 1.00. Suitable suggested scaling multipliers are:

  • Non-participation 0.0 (not included in the average for the group)
  • Poor 0.75
  • Average 1.0
  • Good 1.1
  • Excellent 1.25

Total individual mark = [(report + presentation)/2] x individual scale factor.

Appendix 5: Case Group Assessment Form

Overall Group Assessment (completed by tutors)

Case Study Number: Date:  
Title:
Group Number: Group Tutor:  
Presentation     /10 Report     /10  
Average mark     /10    
Individual marks:    
Student Name
(tutor to complete)		 Individual Scale Factor (0-1.25)
(tutor to complete)		 Total Individual Mark    /10
(champion to complete)
     
     
     
     
     
     
Average value Average value of this column must be 1.0 The same as above average
  • Return to case study champion

Notes on individual performance scaling factor

The group will submit one or a number of the following at the completion of a project: a poster, a report, an oral presentation or an html web page. Each part of the submission will be assessed to generate a group mark out of 10. This is scaled by the case tutor to reflect each individual performance with consideration to the
feedback from the peer assessment forms completed by all the students at the conclusion of each project.

The individual performance marks should not alter the average mark obtained by the group. Therefore the average of the multipliers must be 1.00. Suitable
suggested scaling multipliers are:

  • Non-participation 0.0 (not included in the average for the group)
  • Poor 0.75
  • Average 1.0
  • Good 1.1
  • Excellent 1.25

Total individual mark = [(report + presentation)/2] x individual scale factor.