Using Peer-mentors to aid the Project Management of Group Work

1
Using Peer-mentors to aid the Project Management
of Group Work

• Elizabeth Burd, Sarah Drummond
• 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.

3
Presentation Contents

• Teaching group work and project management in
  Durham
• The peer-mentor approach
• Results of pilot study

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)

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.

6
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

7
Staff Perception of SEG

• Course focus on software engineering
• loose time to group work activities
• less important than technical content
• considerable amount of work

8
Existing SEG Project Management
SEG Coordinator
Group customer/ tutor

Group chairman
Student roles
Phase leader
9
New SEG Project Management
SEG Coordinator
SE customer SE tutor

Group Project Manager
Level 3 role

Phase leader
Level 2 roles
10
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)
• Tired to the Software Engineering / Computer
  Science with Management Programmes

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)
• Presentation

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

13
Module Risks

• Loss of academic tutor for SEG
• Only suitable for some students
• Students over/under involvement
• Complaints from Level 2

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 during end of design until
  completion of implementation
• Both Level 2/3 students were surveyed to identify
  impressions of scheme.
• PMs were asked to provide effort weightings as
  well as Level 2 students

15
The Objectives of the Study

• The use of peer-mentors assist successful product
  delivery (timing and quality)
• Group work students find the assistance of a
  peer-mentor beneficial
• Final year students perceive a benefit for
  peer-mentoring enhances their project management
  skills
• Peer-mentor effort assessment is more accurate
  than that of the tutor.

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

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

18
Group work students find peer-mentor 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

19
Group work students find peer-mentor 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

20
Enhanced project management skills

• Identified most useful activities
• 1. Working towards improving motivation
• 2. Conducting team meetings
• 3. Mentoring
• 4. Task allocation
• 5. Conducting progress reviews

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
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

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

24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
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)

27
Minor disagreement issues
28
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)

29
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

30
Potential pitfalls of peer-mentors

• Student contribution (Level 2 estimate less work
  that Level 3 identified)
• Some Project Managers will over contribute
• Unexpected failures for contribution
• Help with other module...

31
Potential pitfalls of peer-mentors

• Estimation of work put in by peer-mentor (Project
  Manager)
• Estimation by PM 12 1/4 hours
• Estimation by SEG 6 1/2 hours

32
Potential pitfalls of peer-mentors

• Explanation of marking criteria

33
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

34
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...

35
Conclusions

• Group work skills are a valuable and valued part
  of the curriculum Full implementation of approach
  in October
• Project Managers seem to be a good
  learning/support mechanism
• Peer assessment is an extremely useful tool for
  checking assessment and student learning

36
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)
• All CS staff who supervise SEG groups
• LTSN-ICS and Centre for Learning and Teaching in
  HE, for financial support