1 / 41

The Role of Project Management: an approach adopting cross-year tutoring

The Role of Project Management: an approach adopting cross-year tutoring. Elizabeth Burd Department of Computer Science University of Durham. Data Confidentiality.

genesis
Download Presentation

The Role of Project Management: an approach adopting cross-year tutoring

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Role of Project Management:an approach adopting cross-year tutoring Elizabeth Burd Department of Computer Science University of Durham

  2. Data Confidentiality • The data presented within this representation has been modified to preserve confidentiality. Changes have been made in a way, however, to ensure that the essence of the data findings are maintained. Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  3. Presentation Contents • Teaching Group Work and Project Management in Durham • The cross-year tutoring approach • Results of pilot study 2001/2 and for full module (academic year 2002/3) Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  4. Software Engineering in Durham • Level 2/3, 40 CAT points module • Just under 100 students • Students take 55 lectures and 88 hours supported practicals • Group project supports theory of lectures • Assessment by individual work, group work and unseen examination paper. • Module called SE (incorporates SEG) Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  5. Problems with Group Work • Assessment – not all students put in an equal contribution • Management –when faced with tight deadlines theoretical principles are inevitably abandoned • Chairpersons – there is often strong competition for the role of chair but students do not know each other well when appointments • Group dynamics – some groups fail to gel. Often these members fail to explain the seriousness of the problem to supervisors for fear of being down-marked. Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  6. Existing SEG Project Management SEG Coordinator Group customer/ tutor } Group chairman Student roles Phase leader Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  7. Students’ Perception of SEG • Enjoy the practical work • Put in more effort that other modules • See relevance of module to industry • (Mostly) enjoy the opportunity to work as a group • Opportunity to demonstrate programming skills Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  8. Staff Perception of SEG • Course focus on software engineering • Loose their module’s time to group work activities • Less important than degree programme technical content • Considerable amount of work Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  9. Level 3 Project Management Module • 1 technical lecture per week including industrial experts • 2 hours practical work (1 hour individual work, 1 hour work with group) • Tied to the Software Engineering / Computer Science with Management Programmes Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  10. New SEG Project Management SEG Coordinator SE customer SE tutor } Group Project Manager Level 3 role } Phase leader Level 2 roles Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  11. Project Management Module • Indicative content • risk, cost, effort assessment • team software process • forecasting and judgement technologies • new implementation approaches • measuring the software process • Assessment • Learning log (tutor set and student identified topics) • Oral Presentation Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  12. Benefits of Approach • Scaleable • Practical involvement (realistic?) • More personal contact for SEG students • Consistency of SEG direction • Students participate in more honest discussions of problems Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  13. Module Risks • Loss of academic tutor for SEG • Suitability for some students • Students over/under involvement • Complaints from Level 2 Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  14. The Pilot Study • 16 out of the 17 groups agreed to assist in project • Students applied for PM positions work with a SEG group (open to all SE students) • All abilities of students (based on staff concerns) • Students worked from end of design until completion of implementation • Both Level 2/3 students were surveyed to reported impressions of scheme. • PMs were asked to provide effort weightings as well as Level 2 students (self and cross-year tutor assessment) Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  15. The Objectives of the Pilot Study • The use of cross-year tutors assist successful product delivery (timing and quality); • Group work students find the assistance of a cross-year tutor approach beneficial; • Final year students perceive a benefit for cross-year tutoring enhances their project management skills; • cross-year tutors’ effort assessment are more accurate than that of the tutor. Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  16. General Results • Popular with Level 3 students for CV • Most level 2 groups wished to be involved • No significant problems • Some good unexpected benefits Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  17. Successful Product Delivery • Timeliness • Design delivered later that usual • Implementation all completed on time, each included some testing • Quality • Design marks up 5% • Implementation marks 6% Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  18. Group work students find PM system beneficial • Identified most useful activities: 1. Support through previous experience 2. Advice on testing 3. Assistance with team meetings 4. Advice on programming 5. Explanation of marks Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  19. Group work students find PM system beneficial • When asked to rate benefits of PM on scale of 1 - 10 (10 being most useful) average score was 7.3. • 3 students expressed dissatisfaction (score of 5 or less), 2 of these were students that staff had placed on progress warning Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  20. Enhanced PM skills • Identified most useful activities: 1. Working towards improving motivation 2. Conducting team meetings 3. Mentoring 4. Task allocation 5. Conducting progress reviews Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  21. PM effort assessment is more accurate than that of the tutor Do tutors have sufficient knowledge of their group members progress? Over 57% of the tutors felt unable to provide accurate individual effort adjustments for all the students within their group Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  22. Product Assessment Comparing staff to student marking identified the following ranks: • Staff: 9,2,6,10,3,16,11,17,5,7,8,4,1 • Student: 9,2,16,3,11,10,17,7,6,4,5,1,8 Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  23. Product Assessment Comparing staff to student marking identified the following ranks: • Staff: 9,2,6,10,3,16,11,17,5,7,8,4,1 • Student: 9,2,16,3,11,10,17,7,6,4,5,1,8 difference between ranks of group 6 equals 3% Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  24. Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  25. PM effort assessment is more accurate than that of the tutor? • All sets agreed (7) • Staff fail to spot contribution issues (1) • PM fail to spot contribution issues (1) • Staff highlight possible false contribution issue (2) • PM highlight possible false contribution issue (2) • Minor disagreements (3) Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  26. Minor disagreement issues Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  27. Anomalies in effort reviews • Anomalies were identified when comparing effort reviews using self, peer, PM, and staff assessment • Problems were mainly related to self assessment, but were relatively few in number, (less than 10%): • ranking self higher than others (4 students) • ranking self lower than others (2 students) Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  28. Can non-supervisors identify contribution issues? • All students who failed to attain an appropriate level of contribution were identified • Some additional students identified as potential contribution problems Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  29. Potential pitfalls of peer-mentors • Student contribution (Level 2 estimate less work than Level 3 identified) • Some Project Managers will over contribute - replicate issues of Level 2 • (Un)expected failures for contribution • Difficulties in coping with module change • Helping students with other modules... Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  30. Potential pitfalls of peer-mentors • Estimation of work put in by cross-year tutors (Project Manager) • Estimation by PM: 12 1/4 hours • Estimation by SEG: 6 1/2 hours Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  31. Potential pitfalls of peer-mentors • Explanation of marking criteria Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  32. Results for full module • Implemented this year as full module • Results of 1st and 2nd terms are very promising • No significant logistical problems or complaints Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  33. Increased motivation and participation • 83% of survey respondents expressed a positive attitude to their active involvement within the module. • All students said that they had been involved within reflective practices of the Software Engineering process. • 64% saw a direct benefit of their work to their future careers. Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  34. Increased responsibility for their own learning • All students identified through the survey that they had been in a position to practice the application of taught skills • 83% identified that they had also had opportunities to practice skills learned in previous years. • Further of those who expressed an opinion 78% of the students stated, unprompted, that the best part of the module was the opportunities to practice these learned skills. Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  35. Increased depth of understanding and accuracy • 60% of Project Management students obtained a mark higher than the year average. • 22% of the Software Engineering degree students showed an improvement on previous year’s grades Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  36. Resources • Support for Pilot study LTSN-ICS - £2,500 • Grant from University of £10,000 (equipment) • Support from CLTR of £4,250 - Centre for Learning and Teaching Research – Education Department (result analysis and publication) • Support from Department – allocation of room, running of module, payment of 2 demonstrators (1 technical, 1 group relations) Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  37. Benefits • Some students shine • All students seemed to enjoy experience • Experience in areas otherwise hard to provide • Opportunities for more applied PM studies, i.e. metrics, maintenance • Reduction in staffing time Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  38. Benefits (somewhat less academic!) • Sorting general university problems • Socialising • Bribing • Feeding us (Bangers and Mash) • Buying us pints, making us cups of tea • loving us... Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  39. Student Comments • ‘The scheme provides facilities for developing leadership which is unique within modules’. • ‘All the job interviews I have been to, the interviewers seem interested and focused on the project management module and what I have learnt. I think that they can relate to the problems and experiences’. • ‘I think that it gives students real insight into what project management would be like in the work place. It seems easy until you have tried it!’ Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  40. Conclusions • Group work skills are a valuable and valued part of the curriculum resourcing it can be difficult • Project Manager scheme seem to be a good learning/support mechanism • Peer assessment is an extremely useful tool for checking assessment and student learning Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

  41. Acknowledgements • Thanks to the following for the assistance with this work • Malcolm Munro (HoD, Alternate lecture on SE module) • Sarah Drummond (SEG Administrator) • Brendan Hodgson (Director of UG Studies) • LTSN-ICS and Centre for Learning and Teaching in HE, for financial support Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

More Related