Assessment Report – Teamwork
( Outcome d)
February 16, 2011
1.
Student Learning
Outcome: Be
able to function effectively on teams to accomplish a common goal. (Outcome d)
2.
Method(s) of
Assessment: : The Teamwork Assessment Group ( R. Lingard, G. Wang, D. Schwartz) selected four key performance
indicators that would indicate the extent to which a student functions
effectively on a team. The key performance indicators are
a. The team member
generally completes individual assignments on time and with acceptable quality.
(KPI 1)
b. The team member
provided help to others on the team. (KPI 2)
c. The team member
communicated clearly with other team members. (KPI 3)
d. The team member was
committed to team goals. (KPI 4)
A Computer Science Team Project Survey was
then created for a peer assessment of how well our students perform on teams in
their software engineering courses. Using
the survey, students would assess each other on how well they meet the KPIs. The
benchmark for each KPI was set to be a 4 (Agree) or a 5(Strongly Agree), that
is, a student will meet the KPI if their peers agree or strongly agree with the
KPI statement on the survey. See attached survey.
The Computer Science Team Project Survey was given
to all students in Comp 380 and Comp 490 in Fall 2010.
The survey asked each student to assess
their own and their teammates’ effectiveness as a team member. The
surveys were administered in each class by D. Schwartz.
In Fall 2010 there
were 33 computer science majors in Comp 380 and 8 computer science majors in
Comp 490. [Note; There were an
additional 16 non-computer science majors in Comp 380. The analysis reported here only contains the
analysis of the computer science majors however the analysis with all of the
majors included gives similar results. ]
3.
Results of the
Assessment:
Using the criteria that a 4 or a 5 is a
satisfactory KPI score, overall the students generally satisfied all the key
performance indicators. The mean score
for each the KPI questions fell between 4.2 and 4.56 on a scale of 1 to 5, with 4 being "
agree" and 5 being "strongly agree" with positive statements
about a teammate's effectiveness. However,
if we look at the spread or variation of the results for each item on the
survey, we can see that, for each KPI, somewhere between 10 – 30 percent of the
students do not perform satisfactorily.
·
Item
1 of the survey asks if a student "generally completes their individual
assignments on time and with acceptable quality". Five of 41 computer science majors scored
less than satisfactory on item 1.
·
Item
2 of the survey asks if a student "provided help to others on the
team". Ten of 33 computer science
majors scored less than satisfactory on item 2. This was the weakest of the key
performance indicators.
·
Item
3 of the survey asks if a student "communicated clearly with other team
members". Eight of 41 computer
science majors scored less than satisfactory on item 3.
·
Item
4 of the survey asks if a student "was committed to team goals". Six of 41 computer science majors scored less
than satisfactory on item 5.
A detailed summary of the assessment results
is attached.
4.
Recommendations for
Actions/Changes:
a. If this was an informal assessment, is there a need to
perform formal assessment(s) with respect to this SLO? This was a formal
assessment.
b. If this was a formal assessment, should it be
repeated? If so, when? This formal assessment should be repeated
annually. The next formal assessment should be in Fall
2011.
c. Should changes be made in the way this assessment was
done? If so, describe the changes. If so,
describe the changes. Add two components to
the survey: (1) ask students to give examples of how they met the KPI 2 and KPI
3: (2) ask students for suggestions on how to improve their teamwork
experience. Review key performance
indicators to determine if they need revision. Investigate alternative ways of
assessing teamwork in order to validate our results.
d. Should there be any changes in curriculum based on the
results of this assessment? If so,
describe recommended changes. Add a component at
the beginning of Comp 380 and Comp 490, which explores how to be an effective
team member and specifically reviews the key performance indicators that we use
to measure such effectiveness. Use an
informal middle of the semester peer review to determine how effective the team
members are.
e. Should any other changes be made? None recommended at this time.
Computer Science Team Project Survey
Fall 2010
An important Student Learning Outcome for the computer science program is for each student to demonstrate the ability to function effectively on teams to accomplish a common goal. This survey asks you to evaluate the members of your project team in this course on how well they performed on particular aspects of the teamwork process. The survey results are confidential and will not be shared with your instructor except in summary form where the individual evaluations or scores cannot be identified.
COURSE: _________________________
TEAM NAME: ______________________
Please list the names all members of your team ( including yourself) in the following table and for each put a 1,2,3,4, or 5 in the columns to indicate how strongly you agree with the column statements. Use the scale ( 5:Strongly agree 4: Agree 3: Not sure 2: Disagree 1: Strongly Disagree )
|
Team Member (Print names) |
Generally completed individual assignments on time and with acceptable quality |
Provided help to others on the team |
Communicated clearly with other team members |
Was committed to team goals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
