350 likes | 475 Views
A Decade Review of a Masters-Level Real-World-Projects Capstone Course Charles Tappert and Allen Stix Pace University, New York . Real-World Student Projects. Conducted in capstone courses for 10 years Student teams build real-world computer information systems for actual customers
E N D
A Decade Review of a Masters-Level Real-World-Projects Capstone Course Charles Tappert and Allen Stix Pace University, New York ISECON 2011
Real-World Student Projects • Conducted in capstone courses for 10 years • Student teams build real-world computer information systems for actual customers • Project systems serve the community • internal university community at Pace • greater university community • external non-profit local community ISECON 2011
Real-World Student Projects (cont) • Real-world projects are a stellar learning experience for students • Win-win situation for all • Students • Customers • Instructors and other involved faculty • School of CSIS • University ISECON 2011
Migrate to Online Format • Migrated from traditional face-to-face format to online format in Fall 2006 • To be progressive • Technology for online courses adequate • Online preferred by employed students – no scheduling conflicts & no commuting • To expand the population of students beyond the greater NYC area ISECON 2011
Challenges of Online Format • Uncertainties of how traditional course methods port to the online environment and what new methods might be required • Teams lacking co-presence require higher level of organizational and process skills • No weekly classroom meetings as safety net for teams’ interaction and functioning ISECON 2011
Team Projects – Categories ISECON 2011
Team Projects – Sources ISECON 2011
Team Projects – Publication Types ISECON 2011
Team Projects – Examples Course website “Projects” page Spring 2011 ISECON 2011
Team Website • Project title and description • Project members and customers • All deliverables posted • Weekly status reports • Midterm & final presentation slides • User manual • Technical paper ISECON 2011
Team Project – Example Website ISECON 2011
Team Projects – Example Systems • Handwriting Forgery Quiz System • Rare Coin Grading System • Keystroke Biometric Experimental System
Biometric Authentication A robot identifies a suspect,from the movie “Minority Report.”
Iris Authentication: Data Left Right Train Man Test Train Wo man Test
Face Recognition Each person has a unique face?
Face Recognition: System ? Query Face DB
Speaker Individuality “My name is” from Two Different Speakers
Speaker Individuality “My name is” divided into seven sound units.
Multi-modality Biometric Authentication System that requires user verification Embeded & Hybrid User Verification system biomouse Fingerprint scanner LCD Pen tablet Digital Camera Microphone
Issues/Solutions Stemmingfrom Scattered Teams • Project stakeholder communication • Issue – communication gets difficult • For example, scattered team members more likely to feel isolated and want to communicate directly with instructor or customer • Solution • Communication between team and instructor/customer must be through team leader • Email distribution lists for whole class and for each team • Project team leaders must be local to facilitate communication/meetings with instructor and customers • Course website provides central source of course information • Blackboard discussion forum for each project (see below) ISECON 2011
Issues/Solutions Stemmingfrom Scattered Teams (cont) • How to handle quizzes, deliverables, etc. • Issue – classroom meetings not available • Solution – use Blackboard educational software • Quizzes • Collecting digital deliverables • Discussion forums • Forum for archiving instructor email • Forum for student introductions • Forum for textbook and other course material • Forum for each team project ISECON 2011
Issues/Solutions Stemmingfrom Scattered Teams (cont) • Provide some face-to-face interaction • Issue – no weekly classroom meetings • Solution – three classroom meetings for local students/customers • Near beginning of course • Face-to-face introductions, nature of course, specifics of course, student team project meetings • Midterm • Project status presentations • End of semester • Final project presentations ISECON 2011
Current Assessment of Online Students • Individual quizzes (20%) • Blackboard educational software system • Team initial assignment (10%) • Students learn to function as a team • Team project midterm checkpoint (20%) • Team project final checkpoint (20%) • Team technical paper (30%) • Strong emphasis on projects • No midterm/final exams (used in two-semester course) ISECON 2011
Team Member Self and Peer Evaluations • Issue – lack of classroom meetings makes it difficult to determine individual team members’ contribution to the project work • Peer evaluations critical for distributed teams • Some minimal team member/customer contact • Some minimal team member/instructor contact • Literature indicates • Various granularity levels in peer evaluations • Some automated systems reported ISECON 2011
Team Member Self and Peer Evaluations • Three times during the semester • After initial assignment to learn the process • At the midterm checkpoint • At the final end-of-semester checkpoint • Process for a graded team event • First assign a team grade • Adjust individual grades up/down based on self/peer, customer, and instructor evaluations ISECON 2011
Example Team Peer Evaluationand Grade Chart (4 member team) +/- 2% for each summary +/- sign, showing only peer evaluations. ISECON 2011
Pedagogical Course Evaluations • Issue – lack of classroom meetings makes it difficult for instructor to determine relative value of the course methodologies • Solution – semester-end survey (Survey Monkey) • Procedures/methods that worked well, or did not work well, and why ISECON 2011
Pedagogical Customer Evaluations • Issue – instructor is often not aware of the quality of team-customers interactions • Solution – semester-end survey • Obtain student feedback on customer interaction • Were customer requirements clear? • Was amount of contact/interaction adequate? • Was help on the project work appropriate? ISECON 2011
Case Study - Agile Methodology Extreme Programming (XP) • First rigorous test of XP method • Instructor posted deliverables on that project’s page on the course website • Deliverables intended as ~2-week duration • Results • Instructor overestimated ability of team • Often had to provide pseudo code • However, first deliverable caused team frustration • Re-running experiment of previous team • Not possible because not documented properly ISECON 2011
Conclusions • Over five year’s experience in face-to-face mode • Over five year’s experience in online mode • Techniques for managing and assessing distributed teams have been successful and they continue to evolve ISECON 2011