research-article

Evaluating Student Teams: Do Educators Know What Students Think?

Authors:

Anya Tafliovich,

Andrew Petersen,

Jennifer CampbellAuthors Info & Claims

SIGCSE '16: Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education

Pages 181 - 186

https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844647

Published: 17 February 2016 Publication History

Abstract

The subject of this work is evaluation methods of student software development team projects. Over a two year period in three courses, we study student preferences for team evaluation methods, the reasons behind their preferences, the changes in preference that occur within a single course and across courses, and misconceptions that educators hold about student preferences.

Data was collected from peer evaluations and surveys. We find evidence that students' preferences for evaluation method are influenced by their year of study, familiarity with teammates, and overall happiness with the team experience. Other factors we explored, including gender and perceived ability, did not appear to influence evaluation preferences in our courses.

References

[1]

N. Clark, P. Davies, and R. Skeers. Self and peer assessment in software engineering projects. In Proceedings of the 7th Australasian Conference on Computing Education, volume 42, pages 91--100, 2005.

Digital Library

[2]

Y. Dubinsky and O. Hazzan. Using a role scheme to derive software project metrics. Journal of Systems Architecture, 52(11):693--699, 2006.

Digital Library

[3]

H. E. Dunsmore, D. P. Moffet, and S. T. Ward. Software engineering team project group member evaluations: Some empirical results. SIGCSE Bull., 21(2):40--45, 1989.

Digital Library

[4]

S. Faraj and L. Sproull. Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management Science, 46(12):1554--1568, 2000.

Digital Library

[5]

A. Gates, N. Delgado, and O. Mondragon. A structured approach for managing a practical software engineering course. In 30th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, 2000.

Digital Library

[6]

N. Gorla and Y. W. Lam. Who should work with whom?: Building effective software project teams. Commun. ACM, 47(6):79--82, 2004.

Digital Library

[7]

J. H. Hayes, T. C. Lethbridge, and D. Port. Evaluating individual contribution toward group software engineering projects. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 622--627, 2003.

Digital Library

[8]

O. Hazzan. Computer science students' conception of the relationship between reward (grade) and cooperation. SIGCSE Bull., 35(3):178--182, 2003.

Digital Library

[9]

O. Hazzan and Y. Dubinsky. Students' cooperation in teamwork: binding the individual and the team interests. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications, pages 151--152, 2010.

Digital Library

[10]

N. Herbert. Quantitative peer assessment: Can students be objective? In Proceedings of the Ninth Australasian Conference on Computing Education, volume 66, pages 63--71, 2007.

Digital Library

[11]

J. R. Hoffman and S. G. Rogelberg. A guide to team incentive system. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 4(1):23--32, 1998.

[12]

J. M. Hogan and R. Thomas. Developing the software engineering team. In Proceedings of the 7th Australasian Conference on Computing Education, volume 42, pages 203--210, 2005.

Digital Library

[13]

D. Ian Brown. Team-based reward plans. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 1(1):23--31, 1995.

[14]

M. Ikonen and J. Kurhila. Discovering high-impact success factors in capstone software projects. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on SIG-information Technology Education, pages 235--244, 2009.

Digital Library

[15]

J. Karn and T. Cowling. A follow up study of the effect of personality on the performance of software engineering teams. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, pages 232--241, 2006.

Digital Library

[16]

D. Kaufmann, R. Felder, and H. Fuller. Accounting for individual effort in cooperative learning teams. Journal of Engineering Education, 89:133--140, 2000.

[17]

R. Layton and M. Ohland. Peer ratings revisited: Focus on teamwork, not ability. In Proceedings of American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, 2001.

[18]

R. A. Layton, M. L. Loughry, M. W. Ohland, and G. D. Ricco. Design and validation of a web-based system for assigning members to teams using instructor-specified criteria. Advances in Engineering Education, 2(1):1--28, 2010.

[19]

R. Lingard and E. Berd. Teaching teamwork skills in software engineering based on an understanding of factors affecting group performance. Frontiers in Education, 3, 2002.

[20]

V. Pieterse, D. G. Kourie, and I. P. Sonnekus. Softwareengineering team diversity and performance. In Proceedings of the 2006 Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT Research in Developing Countries, pages 180--186, 2006.

Digital Library

[21]

A. Radermacher, G. Walia, and D. Knudson. Investigating the skill gap between graduating students and industry expectations. In Companion Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 291--300, 2014.

Digital Library

[22]

S.-T. Shen, S. Prior, A. White, and M. Karamanoglu. Using personality type differences to form engineering design teams. Engineering Education, 2:54--66, 2007.

[23]

H. H. Smith, III and D. L. Smarkusky. Competency matrices for peer assessment of individuals in team projects. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Information Technology Education, pages 155--162, 2005.

Digital Library

[24]

A. Taiovich, A. Petersen, and J. Campbell. On the evaluation of student team software development projects. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 494--499, 2015.

Digital Library

[25]

H. Tarmazdi, R. Vivian, C. Szabo, K. Falkner, and N. Falkner. Using learning analytics to visualise computer science teamwork. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, pages 165--170, 2015.

Digital Library

[26]

L. E. Willcoxson. "it's not fair!": Assessing the dynamics and resourcing of teamwork. Journal of Management Education, 30(6):798--808, 2006.

Cited By

Moster MKokinda ERodeghero PMcNeese N(2023)Both Sides of the Story: Changing the "Pre-existing Culture of Dread" Surrounding Student Teamwork in Breakout RoomsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/35794637:CSCW1(1-33)Online publication date: 16-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3579463
Kacsmar B(2022)Improving Interactive Instruction: Faculty Engagement Requires Starting Small and Telling AllProceedings of the 22nd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research10.1145/3564721.3564739(1-6)Online publication date: 17-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3564721.3564739
Heyl NBaniassad EOla OHenz MLerner B(2022)Team Harmony before, during, and after COVID-19Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on SPLASH-E10.1145/3563767.3568133(52-61)Online publication date: 29-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3563767.3568133
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Evaluating Student Teams: Do Educators Know What Students Think?

Recommendations

On the Evaluation of Student Team Software Development Projects
SIGCSE '15: Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

Project experience and teamwork have been identified as two of the most important deficiencies of recent graduates, so experiences with team projects are a critical component of computer science and software engineering education. However, evaluating ...
The blue waters student internship program: promoting competence and confidence for next generation researchers in high-performance computing
EduHPC '14: Proceedings of the Workshop on Education for High-Performance Computing

The Blue Waters Student Internship Program (BWSIP), a year-long program funded for three years by the National Science Foundation, motivates and trains the next generation of supercomputing researchers. A community engagement partnership of the Blue ...
Evaluating College English Teachers' Teaching by Artificial Neural Network
ICCECT '12: Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Control Engineering and Communication Technology

Evaluating college English teachers' teaching quality impartially scientifically is very important for improving English teaching quality and promoting teaching innovation. At present, the evaluating methods of college teaching quality have lots of ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

SIGCSE '16: Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education

February 2016

768 pages

ISBN:9781450336857

DOI:10.1145/2839509

General Chairs:
Carl Alphonce
University at Buffalo
,
Jodi Tims
Baldwin Wallace University
,
Program Chairs:
Michael Caspersen
Aarhus University
,
Stephen Edwards
Virginia Tech University

Copyright © 2016 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

SIGCSE: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 17 February 2016

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

SIGCSE '16

Sponsor:

SIGCSE

SIGCSE '16: The 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education

March 2 - 5, 2016

Tennessee, Memphis, USA

Acceptance Rates

SIGCSE '16 Paper Acceptance Rate 105 of 297 submissions, 35%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,595 of 4,542 submissions, 35%

Upcoming Conference

SIGCSE Virtual 2024

Sponsor:
sigcse

1st ACM Virtual Global Computing Education Conference

December 5 - 8, 2024

Virtual Event , NC , USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

13
Total Citations
View Citations
433
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)23
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2

Reflects downloads up to 19 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Moster MKokinda ERodeghero PMcNeese N(2023)Both Sides of the Story: Changing the "Pre-existing Culture of Dread" Surrounding Student Teamwork in Breakout RoomsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/35794637:CSCW1(1-33)Online publication date: 16-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3579463
Kacsmar B(2022)Improving Interactive Instruction: Faculty Engagement Requires Starting Small and Telling AllProceedings of the 22nd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research10.1145/3564721.3564739(1-6)Online publication date: 17-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3564721.3564739
Heyl NBaniassad EOla OHenz MLerner B(2022)Team Harmony before, during, and after COVID-19Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on SPLASH-E10.1145/3563767.3568133(52-61)Online publication date: 29-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3563767.3568133
Presler-Marshall KHeckman SStolee K(2022)What Makes Team[s] Work? A Study of Team Characteristics in Software Engineering ProjectsProceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3501385.3543980(177-188)Online publication date: 3-Aug-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3501385.3543980
Presler-Marshall KHeckman SStolee KMerkle LDoyle MSheard JSoh LDorn B(2022)Identifying Struggling Teams in Software Engineering Courses Through Weekly SurveysProceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - Volume 110.1145/3478431.3499367(126-132)Online publication date: 22-Feb-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3478431.3499367
Garcia RLiao CPearce ATreude CMerkle LDoyle MSheard JSoh LDorn B(2022)Gender Influence on Communication Initiated within Student TeamsProceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - Volume 110.1145/3478431.3499279(432-438)Online publication date: 22-Feb-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3478431.3499279
Aivaloglou EMeulen A(2021)An Empirical Study of Students’ Perceptions on the Setup and Grading of Group Programming AssignmentsACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/344099421:3(1-22)Online publication date: 2-Mar-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3440994
Phillips HIvins WPrickett TWalters JStrachan R(2021)Using contributing student pedagogy to enhance support for teamworking in computer science projectsProceedings of the 5th Conference on Computing Education Practice10.1145/3437914.3437976(29-32)Online publication date: 7-Jan-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3437914.3437976
Løvold HLindsjørn YStray V(2020)Forming and Assessing Student Teams in Software Engineering CoursesAgile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming – Workshops10.1007/978-3-030-58858-8_31(298-306)Online publication date: 24-Sep-2020
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58858-8_31
Hazzan ORagonis NLapidot THazzan ORagonis NLapidot T(2020)Computer Science Soft Concepts and Soft SkillsGuide to Teaching Computer Science10.1007/978-3-030-39360-1_5(75-93)Online publication date: 6-Aug-2020
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39360-1_5
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents