Designing Project-Based Courses with a Focus on Group Formation and Assessment

Abstract

The value and the pitfalls of project and group work are well recognized. The principles and elements which apply to projects in general, apply to project-based courses. Thoughtful and detailed planning, understanding of the stakeholders and their needs, a good design, appropriate testing, monitoring and quality control and continual management can maximize the benefits and minimize the negatives. In this article we draw together the literature to consider key design choices of project-based courses considering: type, length, size, management, participants, and content with a particular focus on the composition of groups and the issues surrounding assessment.

References

1. Barfield, R. L. 2003. Students’ perceptions of and satisfaction with group grades and the group experience in the college classroom. Assess. Eval. Higher Edu. 28, 4, 356--369.
2. Barker, L. J. 2005. When do group projects widen the student experience gap? In Proceedings of the 10th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’05), 276--280.
3. Barker, L. J., Garvin-Doxas, K., and Jackson, M. 2002. Defensive climate in the computer science classroom. SIGCSE Bull. 34, 1, March, 43--47.
4. Bidois, G., Clear, T., Gates, A., and Talbot, A. 2004. An IT support capstone: Just another brick in the wall. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications Conference (NACCQ’04). http://naccq.ac.nz/conference05/proceedings_04/bidois.pdf (Nov. 24, 2008).
5. Biggs, J. and Tang, C. 2007. Teaching for Quality Learning at University 3rd Ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
6. Bourner, J., Hughes, M., and Bourner, T. 2001. First-year undergraduate experiences of group project work. Assess. Eval. Higher Edu. 26, 1, 19--39.
7. Bower, M. and Richards, D. 2006. Collaborative learning: Some possibilities and limitations for students and teachers. In Proceedings of the Conference for the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE’06), 79--89.
8. Breiger, R. L., Boorman, S. A., and Arabie, P. 1975. An algorithm for clustering relational data, with application to social network analysis comparison with multidimensional scaling. J. Math. Psych. 12, 328--383.
9. Brodie, P. and Irving, K. 2007. Assessment in work-based learning: Investigating a pedagogical approach to enhance student learning. Assess. Eval. Higher Edu. 32, 1, 11--19.
10. Brooks, F. J. 1995. The Mythical Man-Month 2nd Ed. Addison-Wesley.
11. Bushell, G. 2006. Moderation of peer assessment in group projects. Assess. Eval. Higher Edu. 31, 1, 91--108.
12. Clear, T. 2007. Computing capstone projects and the role of failure in education. SIGCSE Bull. 39, 4, December, 13--15.
13. Clear, T. 2002. A diagnostic technique for addressing group performance in capstone projects. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’02), 196--196.
14. Clear, T., Goldweber, M., Young, F. H., Leidig, P. M., and Scott, K. 2001. Resources for instructors of capstone courses in computing. In Proceedings of the Working Group Reports From ITiCSE on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’01), 93--113.
15. Combs, W., Hawkins, R., Pore, T., Schechet, A., Wahls, T., and Ziantz, L. 2005. The course scheduling problem as a source of student projects. In Proceedings of the Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’05), 81--85.
16. Costley, C. and Armsby, P. 2007. Work-based learning assessed as a field or a mode of study. Assess. Eval. Higher Edu. 32, 1, 21--33.
17. Engeström, Y. 1987. Learning By Expanding: An Activity Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Orienta-Konsultit Oy, Helsinki, Finland.
18. Fincher, S. A., Petre, M., Clark, M. A. C., Boyle, R. D., Capon, P., Evans, G., Mander K., and Milne, W. 2001. Computer Science Project Work: Principles and Pragmatics. Springer Verlag.
19. Fincher, S., Clear, T. Petrova, K. Hoskyn, K., Birch, R., Claxton, G., and Wieck, M. 2004. Cooperative education in information technology. In International Handbook for Cooperative Education, Richard K. Coll and Chris Eames Eds., 111--123.
20. Fisher, M., Thompson, G. S., and Silverberg, D. A. 2004. Effective group dynamics in e-learning: Case study. J. Educ. Tech. Syst. 33, 3, 205--222.
21. Grant, M. 2002. Getting a grip on project-based learning: Theory, cases and recommendations. Meridian: A Middle School Computer Technologies Journal 5, 1. http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/win2002/514/index.html (Nov. 21, 2008).
22. Grundy, J. 1997. A comparative analysis of design principles for project-based IT courses. In Proceedings of the 2nd Australasian conference on Computer Science Education (ASCILITE’97), 170--177.
23. Hafner, J. C. and Hafner, P. M. 2003. Quantitative analysis of the rubric as an assessment tool: An empirical study of student peer-group rating. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 12, 1509--1528.
24. Harel, I. and Papert, S. eds. 1991. Constructionism. Ablex Publishing Co.
25. Havnes, A. 2004. Examination and learning: An activity-theoretical analysis of the relationship between assessment and educational practice. Assess. Eval. Higher Edu. 29, 2, 160--176.
26. Hauer, A. and Daniels, M. 2008. A learning theory perspective on running open ended group projects (OEGPs). In Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology, Vol. 78, Simon and M. Hamilton Eds. Wollongong, NSW, Australia: ACS, 85--92.
27. Herbert, N. 2007. Quantitative peer assessment: Can students be objective? In Proceedings of the 9th Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE’07), 63--71.
28. Hogan, J. and Thomas, R. 2005. Developing the software engineering team. Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE’05). http://crpit.com/confpapers/CRPITV42Hogan1.pdf (Nov. 21, 2008).
29. Houldsworth, C. and Mathews, B. P. 2000. Group composition, performance and educational attainment. Educ. Train. 42, 1, 40--53.
30. Johnston, L. and Miles, L. 2004. Assessing contributions to group assignments. Assess. Eval. Higher Edu. 29, 6, 751--768.
31. Joyce, D. 2002. Group work at postgraduate level: Some issues. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’02), 220.
32. Kuswara, A. U., Cram, A., and Richards, D. 2008. Web 2.0 supported collaborative learning activities: Towards an affordance perspective. In Proceedings of the 3rd International LAMS & Learning Design Conference (LAMS’’08).
33. Kuutti, K. 1996. Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In Context and Consciousness, B. A. Nardi Ed. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 17--44.
34. Kwan, K.-P. and Leung, R. 1996. Tutor versus peer group assessment of student performance in a simulation training exercise. Assess. Eval. Higher Edu. 21, 3.
35. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 1991. Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
36. Lejk, E. 2008. Management of cultural diversity in group assessment for learning Centre for Excellence in Teaching & Learning Assessment for Learning, CETL AfL, University of Northumbria. http://northumbria.ac.uk/static/5007/cetlpdf/emmaleyk (Nov. 24, 2008).
37. Lejk, M. and Wyvill, M. 1996. A survey of methods of deriving individual grades from group assessments. Assess. Eval. Higher Edu. 21, 3, 267--280.
38. Lejk, M. and Wyvill, M. 2001. Peer assessment of contributions to a group project: A comparison of holistic and category-based approaches. Assess. Eval. Higher Edu. 26, 1, 62--72.
39. Lejk, M., Wyvill, M., and Farrow, S. (eds.) 1997. Group learning and group assessment on undergraduate computing courses in higher education in the UK: Results of a survey. Assess. Eval. Higher Edu. 22, 1, 81--91.
40. Lejk, M., Wyvill, M., and Farrow, S. 1999. Group assessment in systems analysis and design: A comparison of the performance of streamed and mixed-ability groups. Assess. Eval. Higher Edu. 24, 1, 5--14.
41. Li, L. K. Y. 2001. Some refinements on peer assessment of group projects. Assess. Eval. Higher Edu. 26, 1, 5--18.
42. McConnell, J. J. 2006. Active and cooperative learning: further tips and tricks (part 3). SIGCSE Bull 38, 2, 24--28.
43. Moursund, D. 1998. Project-based learning in an information technology environment. Learn. Lead. Technol. 25, 8, 4.
44. Nardi, B. A. 1996. Activity theory in human computer interaction. In Context and Consciousness, B. A. Nardi Ed. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 8--16.
45. Nelson, R. E. and Bass, K. C. 1994. Managed group information: An approach to team formation in policy courses. J. Educ. Bus. 70, 1.
46. Nicolay, J. A. 2002. Group assessment in the online learning environment. New Direct. Teach. Learn. 91, 43--53.
47. Orsmond, P., Merry, S., and Reiling, K. 2000. The use of student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment. Assess. Eval. Higher Edu. 25, 1, 23--38.
48. Redmond, M. A. 2001. A computer program to aid assignment of student project groups. In Proceedings of the 32nd Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’01), 134--138.
49. Richards, D., Braiding, K., and Vaughan, A. 2006. Fun and feedback at the press of a button. In Proceedings of the Conference for the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE’06), 695--705.
50. Roberts, T. S. 2001. Collaborative learning and group assessment: Introducing the capitalist and socialist paradigms. In Proceedings of the IAIM 16th Annual International Conference on Informatics Education and Research (ICIER’01), 327--331.
51. Roy G. and Veraart, V. 1996. Software engineering education: From an engineering perspective. In Proceedings of the 1996 Software Engineering: Education and Practice Conference (SE:EP’96), IEEE CS Press, 256--262.
52. Rutherfoord, R. H. 2001. Using personality inventories to help form teams for software engineering class projects. SIGCSE Bull 33, 3.
53. Salomon, G. 1992. What does the design of effective CSCL require and how do we study its effects. Comput. Uses Educ. Outlook 21, 3, 62--68.
54. Sigwart, C. D. and Van Meer, G. L. 1985. Evaluation of group projects in a software engineering course. SIGCSE Bull. 17, 2, 32--35.
55. Smith, L., Mann, S., and Buissink-Smith, N. 2001. Crashing a bus full of empowered software engineering students. NZ J. Appl. Comput. IT 5, 2, 69--74.
56. Speck, B. W. 2003. Fostering collaboration among students in problem-based learning. New Direct. Teach. Learn. 95, 59--66.
57. Surendran, K. and Young, F. H. 2000. Teaching software engineering in a practical way. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications (NACCQ’00), 345-350.
58. Topping, K. 1998. Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Rev. Edu. Resear. 68, 3, 249--276.
59. Tuckman, B. W. and Jensen, M. A. C. 1977. Stages of small-group development revisited. Group Organiz. Stud. 2, 3, 419--427.
60. Von Konsky, B., Hay, D., and Hart, B. 2008. Skill set visualization for software engineering job positions at varying levels of autonomy and responsibility. In Proceedings of the Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC’08).
61. Von Konsky, B. 2008. Defining the ICT profession: A partnership of stakeholders. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications (NACCQ’08), S. Mann and M. Lopez (eds.), 15--21.
62. Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
63. Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., Chizhik, A. W., and Sugrue, B. 1998. Equity issues in collaborative group assessment: Group composition and performance. Amer. Edu. Resear. J. 35, 4, 607--665.

Index Terms

• Social and professional topics

  • Professional topics

    • Computing education

      • Computing education programs

        • Computer science education

        • Information systems education

      • Computing literacy

      • Model curricula