1. Enhancing Accountability in a Database Design Team Project Enhancing Accountability in a Database Design Team Project Karen C. Davis Electrical & Computer Engineering and Computer Science Department University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, OH USA

2. Description of the Course senior elective (11 week quarter) typically about 30 students projects: –create conceptual schema using the entity- relationship (ER) model –translate to a relational database –write and execute queries over the implemented database

3. Original Project: ER Design students create an ERD from a text-based problem description working as individuals or in pairs learning outcome: students should be able to use ERD notation to represent a conceptual schema for an application problems: –learning goal is fairly general –informal, no structured requirements for team-based learning

4. Revisions to Learning Outcomes Blooms Taxonomy McBeath Verbs knowledgearrange, define, describe, recognise, … comprehensionclassify, discuss, generalise, restate, … applicationemploy, illustrate, manipulate, … analysisappraise, criticise, differentiate, … synthesisassemble, create, design, formulate, … evaluationexplain, justify, interpret, summarise, …

5. Revised Learning Outcome OutcomeBlooms Levels 1a. Explain the graphical conventions used in entity relationship modeling. knowledge, comprehension 1b. Interpret the modeling constructs in a given ERD. comprehension, application 1c. Construct an ERD from an structured text description of a realistic application. analysis, synthesis 1d. State assumptions/design decisions that arise in the modeling process. evaluation 1e. Use a software tool to render an ERD in an electronic format that facilitates revision. application

6. Team-based Learning Outcome A successful team effort exhibits cooperation, communication, and peer-to-peer learning to achieve an ERD that satisfies the problem requirements. The revised outcomes explicitly identify what students should be able to accomplish by doing the project

7. Revisions to the Project Project responsibilities: individual ERD and question list teammates assigned team meetings –review designs and questions –merge and refine ERD and assumptions format merged ERD and check requirements

8. Project Documentation individual first drafts and question/assumption lists, date, time, duration, location of meetings, and brief description of activities during meeting, results of design reviews and who performed what roles with what responsibilities, electronically created final version of ERD and assumptions, and assessment of team functioning.

9. Meeting Logs Demonstrate Learning Outcomes learning outcomeexample 1b interpret an ERDreviewed new design 1c construct an ERDstart the ERD from scratch 1d state modeling assumptionsverified and expanded assumptions list 1e use software tools to draw ERDupdate ERD 2 cooperationbring together all good ideas and assumptions communicationface-to-face 3 hours meeting time peer-to-peer learningdecided on mutally acceptable ERD

10. Example ERD

11. Evaluation Using Cooperative Learning Tenets Positive interdependence: the team grade depends on individual rough drafts, merged ERD (as well assumption list), and satisfactory scores on team member participation feedback Individual accountability: each individual completes an ERD and is accountable for revising and validating the final version of the ERD Face-to-face interaction: meetings are required to review proposed solutions, identify modifications and enhancements, and achieve consensus for their final solution Appropriate use of teamwork skills: students communicate, resolve conflicts, and make decisions while working toward a refined (merged) solution Regular self-assessment of team functioning: assessed at project completion since project duration is short

12. Student Feedback 2004: 37/39 students responded to survey –effectiveness of working with teammate: 4.35/5.00 –definitely learned more than working alone: 2.72/3.00 2005: 20 students; written comments –having 2 heads working on the project, you pick up new details that one person doesnt see; also, more assumptions are made and recorded –better understanding of the requirements after talking with partner

13. Impact on Learning compare performance on second part of assignment for informal teaming (2003) to structured teaming (2004) is the difference in averages meaningful? –two-sample t-test yields t-value of 4.02 –yes, statistically significant yearstudentsaveragestddev 20033370.827.3 20043990.78.88

14. Conclusions focus on revising learning outcomes and an assignment –Blooms taxonomy –team accountability evaluation –cooperative learning tenets –student feedback and scores future work –tuning assessment instruments