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. Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

3. Presentation Contents • Teaching group work and project management in Durham • The peer-mentor approach • Results of pilot study Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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) Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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. Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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 Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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 Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

8. Existing SEG Project Management SEG Coordinator Group customer/ tutor } Group chairman Student roles Phase leader Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

9. New SEG Project Management SEG Coordinator SE customer SE tutor } Group Project Manager Level 3 role } Phase leader Level 2 roles Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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 Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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 Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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 Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

13. Module Risks • Loss of academic tutor for SEG • Only suitable for some students • Students over/under involvement • Complaints from Level 2 Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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 Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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. Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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 Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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% Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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 Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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 Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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 Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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 Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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 Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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% Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

24. Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

25. Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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) Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

27. Minor disagreement issues Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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) Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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 Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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... Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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 Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

32. Potential pitfalls of peer-mentors • Explanation of marking criteria Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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 Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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... Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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 Department of Computer Science, University of Durham

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 Department of Computer Science, University of Durham