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
Top Related