Advertisement

Team selection methods for student programming projects

  • Thomas J. Scott
  • James H. CrossII
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 895)

Abstract

This paper focuses on team selection methods and related issues that may have a substantial impact on students' overall experience working on a “large-scale” programming project. Teams can be selected randomly, by the students, by academic performance, by using psychological profiles, or by using a combination of these methods. Advantages and disadvantages are presented for each method. Issues concerning size of teams include number of students in the class, type and size of software to be built, single project per team versus shared project, software tools available, and the programming skills and general academic maturity of the students in the class. From the students perspective, the most discernable effects of team size involve communication, scheduling, and general cooperation. Important grading issues are described with emphasis on peer grading. The paper concludes with a summary of observations and experiences the authors have had including pitfalls to be avoided.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    T. J. Scott, R. Bisland, L. Tichenor, J. Cross: Team Dynamics In Student Team Projects, Proceedings, 25th Annual SigCSE Conf., Phoenix, AZ, March 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. J. Scott, R. Bisland, L. Tichenor, J. Cross: Handling Interpersonal Issues for Student Team Projects, Proceedings, 25th Annual SigCSE Conf., Phoenix, AZ, March 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Myers/Briggs Type Indicator Form G, Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., Palo Alto, Ca., 1990.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. A. Smith, D. A. Kolb: A Users Guide for the Learning Style Inventory: A Manual for Teachers and Trainers, McBer and Co., Boston, MA, 1986.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    W. G. Perry, Jr., Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years, A Scheme, Holt Reinhart, and Winston, Inc., New York, NY 1970.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. A. Provost, S. Anchors: Applications of the Myers-Briggs type indicator in Higher Education, Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., Palo Alto, Ca. 1987.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. J. Scott: Using Learning Theory to Teach Computer Science, Proceedings, 1993 Midwestern Computer Conf., Univ of Wisconsin, Whitewater, 1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. J. Scott, D. D. Langan III: Using Learning Theory in Computer Science Instruction, Proceedings, 31st Annual SE ACM Conf., Auburn, AL, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. Brooks: The Mythical Man-Month, Addison-Wesley, 1975.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. S. Pressman: Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Wiest, F. Levy: A Management Guide to PERT/CPM, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, 1977.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. E. Fairley: Software Engineering, McGraw-Hill, 1985.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Steinbeck: Of Mice and Men, The Modern Library, 1938.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas J. Scott
    • 1
  • James H. CrossII
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceWestern Illinois Univ.Macomb
  2. 2.Computer Science and EngineeringAuburn UniversityAuburn

Personalised recommendations