Computer Science Project Work: Principles and Pragmatics

272 Pages·2001·6.461 MB·English

by  Sally Fincher BA, MA, LHG, Marian Petre BA, Dip. Advanced Studies Computing, PhD (auth.), Sally Fincher BA, MA, LHG, Marian Petre BA, Dip. Advanced Studies Computing, PhD, Martyn Clark BA, MA, MSc (eds.)

Computer Science Project Work
Springer-Verlag London Ltd.
Sally Fincher, Marian Petre and Martyn Clark (Eds)
Computer Science
Project Work
Principles and Pragmatics
Springer
Sally Fincher, BA, MA, LHG
Computing Laboratory, University of Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury,
Kent, CT2 7NF
Marian Petre, BA, Dip. Advanced Studies Computing, PhD
The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA
Martyn Clark, BA, MA, MSc
School of Computer Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT
ISBN 978-1-84996-865-2
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Computer science project work : principles and pragmatics
1. Computer science - Study and teaching (Higher) - Activity
programs - Great Britain 2. Project method in teaching
I. Fincher, Sally II. Petre, Marian III. Clark, Martyn
004'.0711'41
ISBN 978-1-84996-865-2 ISBN 978-1-4471-3700-9 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-3700-9
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Computer science project work : principles and pragmatics/Sally Fincher,
Marian Petre, and Martyn Clark (eds.)
p. em
ISBN 978-1-84996-865-2
1. Computer science. 2. Industrial project management. !.Fincher, Sally, 1959-
II.Petre, Marian, 1959- III. Clark, Martyn, 1961-
QA76.C57325 2001
004'.068'8-dc21 00-063511
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as
permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be repro
duced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of
the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms of licences
issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms
should be sent to the publishers.
© Springer-Verlag London 2001
Originally published by Springer-Verlag London Berlin Heidelberg in 2001
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2001
The use of registered names, trademarks etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence
of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant laws and regulations and there
fore free for general use.
The publisher makes no representation, express or implied, with regard to the accuracy of the infor
mation contained in this book and cannot accept any legal responsibility or liability for any errors or
omissions that may be made.
Typeset by Florence Production Ltd, Stoodleigh, Devon
34/3830-543210 Printed on acid-free paper SPIN 10776394
Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Why Computing (as an Academic Discipline)
Does Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 x.
Why Computing Departments Do Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x1
Ways To Use This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xm
The Parts of This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .x .v .i i . . .
PART ONE
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
What Is a Composite Case Study? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
What Are Mechanisms? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
What Are Specific Case Studies? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Project Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Project Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1 Composite Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.1 Final-year Individual Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.2 Second-year Group Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 8. . .
1.3 Taught M.Sc. Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.4 Project with Handover (a.k.a. 'Software Hut') . . . . . . 29
1.5 Research-type Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1.6 Design-and-Build Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
1.7 Project with Industrial Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
1.8 Project with a Client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
1.9 Process-based Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
1.10 Integrative or "Capstone" Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
1.11 The Professional Bodies' View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
2 Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
2.1 Allocation of Topics to Students
(or Teams of Students) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.2 Allocation of Students (or Teams) to Supervisors . . . 74
2.3 Allocation of Students to Teams for Group Projects . . 79
2.4 Supervisor's Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
v
vi Contents
2.5 Meeting Composition: Attendance and Focus ..... . 88
2.6 Time for Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
2.7 Roles in Groups .......................... . 94
2.8 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. 6. . .
2.9(i) Nature of Assessment ..................... . 100
2.9{ii) Group Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
2.9(iii) Basis of Assessment: Deliverables . . . . . . . . . ... . . 104
2.9{iv) Assessment: Who Marks? ................... . 107
2.10 Marking Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .1 1. 2. .
2.11 Overseeing, Moderation and Quality Assurance ( QA) 118
2.12 Staff Deployment ......................... . 121
3 Specific Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.6 . . . . . . .
3.1 Large-scale Group Project
(University of York, UK) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 27
3.2 Project Managed by Negotiation
(University of Teesside, UK) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
3.3 Creating a Real Company
(University of Sheffield, UK) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
3.4 Third Year Students Supervising First Year Groups
(University of Leeds, UK) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
3.5 Emphasis on Personal Transferable Skills
(University of Exeter, UK) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
3.6 International Group Project
(Uppsala University, Sweden and Grand Valley
State University, US) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
3.7 Computing History Projects
(Metropolitan State College of Denver, US) . . . . . . . 160
PART TWO
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 171
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 .7 5
4 Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
4.1 Me and My Shadow... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 8. 4. .
4.2 "I'd Like To Do That" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 . . .
4.3 Project Sabbaticals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
4.4 Dynamic Matchmaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 . .
4.5 Musical Chairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 . . . .
Contents vii
4.6 Horses for CO'Urses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 9.2 . .
4.7 Job Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 .9 3. . . .
5 Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.5 . . . . . . . .
5.1 Characterising Supervisor Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200. .
5.2 Loosely Coordinated Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20. 2. .
5.3 The Help They've Had along the Way . . . . . . . . . . 20.4
5.4 The Supervisor's Eyes and Ears . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 0.6 .
5.5 Looking for the Early Wobble . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 .0 7 .
6 Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 . . . . . . .
6.1 Use Peer Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 13. . . .
6.2 Assessment Walkthrough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214. . .
6.3 Increase the Granularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 1..5 . . .
6.4 "Authentic" Assessment Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 1. 6.
6.5 What Is a "Report" Anyway? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 1.7 . .
6.6 Assess the Fact that They Did It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 .
6. 7 Three Wise Monkeys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 1. 9 . . .
6.8 Assessing Something Is Not the Same as
Measuring Something . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 20. . . .
6.9 Never Make a Choice Without a Reason . . . . . . . . 2. 22
6.10 Phased Assessment (End-of-level Guardian) . . . . . . 223
7 Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •. .. . •. . . . . .• . . .. .• . . . 225
7.1 Throw the Driver Under the Bus . . . . . . . . . . . .2 2. 8 .
7.2 Mid-project Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 2. 9. . . .
7.3 Coordinated Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 0. . .
7.4 Project Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23. 1 . . . . . .
7.5 Sooner Rather than Later . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232. . .
7.6 "Follow That Plan" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23. 3 . . . .
7.7 Cherish It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 3.4 . . . . . .
7.8 "I Thought that ..." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 5. . . .
7.9 Last Year's Punters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.6 . . . .
7.10 "If I Had My Time Again" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 .7 . .
8 Team/Group Projects . . . . . . . .• .. . . . .• • . . .• . . • . . .• . . 239
8.1 Managing Staff Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 4. . . .
8.2 Fair Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24. 5 . . . . .
8.3 Maximal Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 4. 6. . . .
8.4 Battle-scarred Veteran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 4. 7. . .
8.5 Red Card/Yellow Card . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 48. . . .
8.6 Moderation Using Student Input . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 .4 9 .
8.7 Quick Off the Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.2 . . . .
viii Contents
9 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
9.1 Going Solo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
9.2 Well, They Managed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 .5 8. . . .
9.3 You've Done It Before . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 59. . . .
9.4 This Is for Real . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 60 . . . .
9.5 Get to Know Them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 61 . . . .
9.6 Here's One I Prepared Earlier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 .
Coda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 . . .
How To Write This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 .6 3 . . . .
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
Preface
Why Computing {as an Academic Discipline) Does
Projects
Computing is concerned with the understanding, design and exploitation of com
putation and computer technology. It is a discipline that blends elegant theories
(derived from a range of other disciplines that includes mathematics, engineering,
psychology, graphical design and well-founded experimental insight) with the
solution of immediate practical problems; it combines the ethos of the scholar
with that of the professional; it underpins the development of both small-scale
and large-scale systems that support organizational goals; it helps individuals in
their everyday lives; it is ubiquitous and diversely applied to a range of applica
tions, and yet important components are invisible to the naked eye (2000a).
The computer is without doubt the most significant technological development
of the twentieth century. The consequences of its development and its use in
conjunction with the technology of telecommunications have pervaded every
aspect of life in the late twentieth century, and will continue to do so for the fore
seeable future. These consequences have been felt particularly in education, where
large numbers of programs are available to the large numbers of students who
seek places on them; even so, the supply cannot keep pace with employers' demands
for students with computing knowledge.
The perception of computing as a practical discipline carries with it the notion
that there are other disciplines that are of a less practical (or more theoretical)
nature. The casual observer perceives that "practical work" or "projects" are more
naturally associated with practical disciplines than with more theoretical ones, but
this represents too superficial an observation. From a teaching perspective, it is
possible to characterize different disciplines as having a more practical or more
theoretical perspective, but effective learning is based in activity, not in disciplin
ary orientation.
Historically, regardless of the subject to be learnt (that is including what we would
today class as subjects having a less practical bias) learning has been closely related
to the real work of professionals, tradesmen, artisans, independent scholars and
clerics, situated in the context of a community of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991;
Wenger, 1998). When a young person was found able to make an independent con
tribution to this field of knowledge, they would prepare a master "piece" and, with
the consent of the masters, graduate to become a member of a trade, order, profes
sion or guild; thus their professional community legitimized their learning. In the
modern university, there is work which can be seen in this apprenticeship tradition;
not only, obviously, in subjects which relate to professional practice (the use of the
atelier system in architecture and the laboratory-based practices of the biological
and physical sciences, for example) but also in teaching and learning activities within
the social sciences and the humanities (debates and moots in law and the craft of
constructing a syllogism or other form of argument in philosophy, for example).
ix
X Preface
For the discipline of computing, the particular "pull" of industrial practice is
very real, widely recognized and commonly addressed within the curriculum.
Because computing is an integrated discipline, it is essential for undergraduate
programs to emphasize the practical aspects of the discipline along with the theor
etical ones. Today, much of the practical knowledge associated with computing
exists in the form of professional practices that exist in industry. To work success
fully in those environments, students must be exposed to those practices as part of
their education. These practices, moreover, extend beyond computing-specific skills
to encompass a wide range of activities including management, ethics and values,
written and oral communication, and the ability to work as part of a team. (2000b)
Project work in computing therefore arises in two ways: in common with almost
all disciplines, it is used as a vehicle for effective learning, and in common with all
disciplines with a practical application, it is used to demonstrate the mastery of
skills appropriate to professional practice.
There is a broad range of styles of project work within computing curricula,
but three main types are worthy of special mention:
• for the reinforcement of learning, the small piece of project work closely
associated with a specific aspect of the curriculum (for example, the writing
of a program, the design of a database, the construction of a piece of hard
ware) is often undertaken, typically over a relatively small timescale; a
single-subject degree program in computing may contain many such
projects
• to demonstrate mastery of skills, a larger project is often undertaken; this type
of project is often used to demonstrate that the student can integrate knowl
edge acquired from different parts of their program towards some defined
end, rather in the nature of the "master piece" produced by the apprentice
• finally, there are projects which are undertaken by teams of students
working together, more closely modeling modern professional practice.
Incorporating these different types of project into the computing curriculum
brings with it a variety of problems, the exploration of which form the subject
matter for this book.
The role of project work in demonstrating mastery of skills appropriate to
professional practice is given added force within the computing curriculum
through the influence of professional bodies - within the UK, the British Computer
Society (BCS) and the Institution of Electrical Engineers (lEE); in the USA, the
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) performs a similar
accrediting (although not chartering) role. The role of professional bodies typi
cally includes a responsibility, enshrined in the UK through Royal Charter, to
establish and maintain appropriate standards of education and experience for
those engaged in a profession, and to encourage education and training in matters
associated with the advancement of subjects relevant to the profession. In further
ance of this responsibility, educational establishments and professional bodies can
collaborate in the accreditation of degree programs under guidelines laid out in
the Standards And Routes To Registration (SARTOR) of the Engineering Council
(1997), which requires all courses leading to Chartered Engineer status to "embody
and integrate theoretical, practical and project work".
Such accreditation typically includes the requirement that degree programs
contain a practical, problem-solving project designed to demonstrate professional
competence in the development of a suitable application. An engineering approach,