Enhancing Accountability in aEnhancing Accountability in aDatabase Design Team ProjectDatabase Design Team Project

Karen C. Davis

Electrical & Computer Engineering and Computer Science Department

University of CincinnatiCincinnati, OH USA

Description of the Course

• senior elective (11 week quarter)• typically about 30 students• projects:

– create conceptual schema using the entity-relationship (ER) model

– translate to a relational database– write and execute queries over the implemented

database

Original Project: ER Design

• students create an ERD from a text-based problem description working as individuals or in pairs

• learning outcome: students should be able to use ERD notation

to represent a conceptual schema for an application

• problems:– learning goal is fairly general– informal, no structured requirements for team-based

learning

Revisions to Learning Outcomes

Bloom’s Taxonomy

McBeath Verbs

knowledge arrange, define, describe, recognise, …

comprehension classify, discuss, generalise, restate, …

application employ, illustrate, manipulate, …

analysis appraise, criticise, differentiate, …

synthesis assemble, create, design, formulate, …

evaluation explain, justify, interpret, summarise, …

Revised Learning Outcome

Outcome Bloom’s Levels

1a. Explain the graphical conventions used in entity relationship modeling.

knowledge, comprehension

1b. Interpret the modeling constructs in a given ERD.

comprehension, application

1c. Construct an ERD from an structured text description of a realistic application. analysis, synthesis

1d. State assumptions/design decisions that arise in the modeling process. evaluation

1e. Use a software tool to render an ERD in an electronic format that facilitates revision. application

Team-based Learning Outcome

A successful team effort exhibits cooperation, communication, and peer-to-peer learning to achieve an ERD that satisfies the problem requirements.

The revised outcomes explicitly identify what students should be able to accomplish by doing the project

Revisions to the Project

Project responsibilities:• individual ERD and question list• teammates assigned• team meetings

– review designs and questions– merge and refine ERD and assumptions

• format merged ERD and check requirements

Project Documentation

• individual first drafts and question/assumption lists,• date, time, duration, location of meetings, and brief

description of activities during meeting,• results of design reviews and who performed what roles

with what responsibilities,• electronically created final version of ERD and

assumptions, and• assessment of team functioning.

Meeting Logs DemonstrateLearning Outcomes

learning outcome example

1b interpret an ERD “reviewed new design”

1c construct an ERD “start the ERD from scratch”

1d state modeling assumptions “verified and expanded assumptions list”

1e use software tools to draw ERD “update ERD”

2 cooperation “bring together all good ideas and assumptions”

communication face-to-face 3 hours meeting time

peer-to-peer learning “decided on mutally acceptable ERD”

Example ERD

Evaluation Using Cooperative Learning Tenets

• Positive interdependence: the team grade depends on individual rough drafts, merged ERD (as well assumption list), and satisfactory scores on team member participation feedback

• Individual accountability: each individual completes an ERD and is accountable for revising and validating the final version of the ERD

• Face-to-face interaction: meetings are required to review proposed solutions, identify modifications and enhancements, and achieve consensus for their final solution

• Appropriate use of teamwork skills: students communicate, resolve conflicts, and make decisions while working toward a refined (merged) solution

• Regular self-assessment of team functioning: assessed at project completion since project duration is short

Student Feedback

• 2004: 37/39 students responded to survey– effectiveness of working with teammate: 4.35/5.00– definitely learned more than working alone: 2.72/3.00

• 2005: 20 students; written comments– having 2 heads working on the project, you pick up

new details that one person doesn’t see; also, more assumptions are made and recorded

– better understanding of the requirements after talking with partner

Impact on Learning

• compare performance on second part of assignment for informal teaming (2003) to structured teaming (2004)

• is the difference in averages meaningful?– two-sample t-test yields t-value of 4.02– yes, statistically significant

year students average stddev

2003 33 70.8 27.3

2004 39 90.7 8.88

Conclusions

• focus on revising learning outcomes and an assignment– Bloom’s taxonomy– team accountability

• evaluation– cooperative learning tenets– student feedback and scores

• future work– tuning assessment instruments