Subject: Software Engineering Assignment

Self- and Peer- Assessment System for Student Group-Projects

Problem Description

Students in Computer Information Systems (CIS) department at a local university are required to do some group-projects in their classes because their instructors believe the skills and competence to work as an effective team are important to assure a successful IT project. Group project helps IT students apply system design knowledge, solve real world business problems, enhance learning effective team skills, improve students’ business communication skills, and serve back to the community.

In order to ensure an effective and functional group, each group has 3-4 members and a team leader is elected. The team makes a project plan based on the project activities. The team communication format is also decided. During the semester, students are asked to do multiple self- and peer- assessment based on the provided rubrics. The rubrics for the self- and peer assessment were developed based on previous studies and department faculty brain-storming. The primary focus of self- and peer- assessment is on the learning process of team skills. It should be used to enhancing team skill development. It can also be used as a reference or supplementary documents when faculty evaluates the final project.

Nevertheless, due to the current paper-based instrument and manual process of administering the assessment, collecting the forms, data re-entry, calculation, and analysis, it is tedious and time-consuming for faculty members to implement the assessment, and it is difficulty for students to get an instant feedback from previous stage to improve their group performance. To address this issue, Dr. Larry Henson, a software engineering professor, decides to ask his students to design an online tool that can collect group peer evaluation data, do analysis, and generate reports.

To have a better understanding of the functions and requirements of the peer-evaluation system, the faculty in the department had a meeting. Following is a summary of the meeting minutes.

FacA: The system should allow Faculty assign students to different project teams. The same student in different class may participate in different project teams.

FacB: The system should allow users to login with different roles such as faculty, students, and administrator.

FacC: The system should allow a Faculty manages project teams for each class the faculty is teaching.

FacD: The system may also be adopted by faculty in other departments as well as CIS faculty because some program core courses are offered by other departments. It is good to specify a system administrator. The administrator can manage faculty, classes, students, and rubric information.

FacE: Students can do both self- and team-based peer assessments based on the specified rubrics.

FacF: Students are allowed to view the assessment done by the team members so that they get instant feedback to improve their performance.

FacG: The assessment should include both close-ended and open-ended questions. For instance, students are allowed to make comments upon assessing other team members

FacH: The system should automatically generate different reports such as the average at the level of individual, team, and class.

FacI: Students are also allowed to make comments upon assessments were done by other members.

FacJ: All students comments should be reviewed and approved before exposed to other members.

In addition to the meeting minutes, Dr. Larry encourages his students to interview other CIS faculty and students who had group-projects experience for more detailed expectation and requirements.

Appendix I Sample Student Group Project Peer Evaluation Criteria

Criteria for Evaluation	Possible Scores
	1	2	3	4 (Average)	5
Quality of Work: Consider the degree to which the team member provides work that is accurate and complete.	Produces unacceptable work, fails to meet minimum group or project requirements.	Occasionally produces work that meets minimum group or project requirements.	Meets minimum group or project requirements.	Regularly produces work that meets minimum requirements and exceeds project or group requirements sometimes.	Produces work that consistently exceeds established group or project requirements.
Timeliness of Work: Consider the team member's timeliness of work.	Fails to meet deadlines set by group.	Occasionally misses deadlines set by group.	Regularly meets deadlines set by group.	Consistently meets deadlines set by group and completes work ahead of schedule sometimes.	Consistently completes work ahead of schedule.
Collaboration: Consider the amount of task support the team member gives to other team members.	Gives no task support to other members.	Sometimes gives task support to other members.	Occasionally provides task support to other group members.	Consistently provides task support to other group members.	Consistently gives more task support than expected.
Interaction: Consider how the team member relates and communicates to other team members.	Behavior is detrimental to group.	Behavior is inconsistent and occasionally distracts group meetings.	Regularly projects appropriate team behavior including: listening to others, and allowing his/her ideas to be criticized.	Consistently demonstrates appropriate team behavior.	Consistently demonstrates exemplary team behavior.
Attendance: Consider the team member's attendance at the group meetings (including in class meetings).	Failed to attend the group meetings.	Attended less than 1/3 of the group meetings.	Attended less than half of the group meetings.	Attended almost all of the group meetings.	Attended all of the group meetings.
Responsibility: Consider the ability of the team member to carry out a chosen or assigned task, the degree to which the student can be relied upon to complete a task.	Unwilling to carry out assigned tasks.	Sometimes carries out assigned tasks but never volunteers to do a task.	Carries out assigned tasks but never volunteers to do a task.	Consistently carries out assigned tasks and occasionally volunteers for other tasks.	Consistently carries out assigned tasks and always volunteers for other tasks.
Involvement: Consider the extent to which the team member participates in the exchange of information (does outside research, brings outside knowledge to group).	Fails to participate in group discussions and fails to share relevant material.	Sometimes participates in group discussions and rarely contributes relevant material for the project.	Takes part in group discussions and shares relevant information.	Demonstrates initiatives, regularly participates in group discussion and sometimes exceeds expectations.	Consistently demonstrates initiative, exceeds group expectations for participation and consistently contributes relevant material to project.
Contribution	On a zero to 100 scale, rate the member’s overall contribution to the group’s work, both inside and outside of class. The total contribution of the team is 100. DO NOT simply add the seven scores above.

Appendix II Student Group Project Peer Evaluation FORM

Semester: _______________ Course: _____________________ Section: ______________

Your name:_________________ Group/Project name: ____________________________

Guidelines:

· Disregard your general impressions and concentrate on one factor at a time.

· Study carefully the definition given for each factor and the specifications for each category.

· Call to mind instances that are typical of the student's work and behavior. Do not be influenced by unusual cases that are not typical.

· Determine the category that best describes the student's accomplishments in that area.

· Fill out the evaluation form listed below by entering a score (1 to 5 or NA) for all of your group members. Make sure to include yourself.

· Complete comments on back to support your ratings.

Member’s Name (Alphabetic order; Include yourself)	Quality of work (average 4/5)	Timeliness (average 4/5)	Collaboration (average 4/5)	Interaction (average 4/5)	Attendance (average 4/5)	Responsibility (average 4/5)	Involvement (average 4/5)	Contribution (Total should be 100)
Mary	4	5	5	4	5	4	5	23
John	2	3	3	3	4	3	4	20
Smith	4	3	5	4	4	5	4	21
Jack	3	3	4	3	2	4	3	16

Comment upon the contribution made by each of the other group members: