research-article

Open access

An Empirical Study of Students’ Perceptions on the Setup and Grading of Group Programming Assignments

Authors:

Efthimia Aivaloglou,

Anna van der MeulenAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), Volume 21, Issue 3

Article No.: 17, Pages 1 - 22

https://doi.org/10.1145/3440994

Published: 02 March 2021 Publication History

All formats PDF

Abstract

Courses in computer science curricula often involve group programming assignments. Instructors are required to take several decisions on assignment setup and monitoring, team formation policies, and grading systems. Group programming projects provide unique monitoring opportunities due to the availability of both product and process data, as well as challenges in team composition, with students of varying levels of prior programming experience. To gain insights into the experiences and perceptions of students about the assignment setup and grading policies in group programming projects, we interviewed 20 computer science students from four universities. The thematic analysis highlighted factors in group composition that are considered important, as well as advantages and disadvantages of the self-selection of the teams. It also indicated three grading strategies experienced by the students, namely, being assigned the same group grade, individual grades distributed by the instructor, and grade distribution determined by the team, with perceptions about them varying greatly. Several practices for monitoring team contributions were identified. Checking the source code repositories was considered useful in recognizing slacking members, but automated metrics are not always representative of the work distribution. The analysis also uncovered student perceptions on the grading factors for programming assignments, including coding efficiency and skill.

References

[1]

Christine Alvarado, Gustavo Umbelino, and Mia Minnes. 2018. The persistent effect of pre-college computing experience on college CS course grades. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’18). ACM, New York, NY, 876–881.

Digital Library

[2]

Omar Badreddin, Wahab Hamou-Lhadj, Vahdat Abdelzad, Rahad Khandoker, and Maged Elassar. 2018. Collaborative software design and modeling in open source systems. In System Analysis and Modeling. Languages, Methods, and Tools for Systems Engineering, Ferhat Khendek and Reinhard Gotzhein (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 219–228.

[3]

Yongmei Bentley and Shamim Warwick. 2013. Students’ experience and perceptions of group assignments. J. Pedag. Dev. 3, 3 (2013), 11–19.

[4]

Erik Blair. 2015. A reflexive exploration of two qualitative data coding techniques. J. Meth. Meas. Soc. Sci. 6, 1 (2015), 14–29.

[5]

Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualit. Res. Psychol. 3, 2 (2006), 77–101.

[6]

Kevin Buffardi. 2020. Assessing individual contributions to software engineering projects with git logs and user stories. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 650–656.

Digital Library

[7]

Rachel Cardell-Oliver. 2011. How can software metrics help novice programmers? In Proceedings of the 13th Australasian Computing Education Conference - Volume 114 (ACE’11). Australian Computer Society, Inc., 55–62.

Digital Library

[8]

Kenneth J. Chapman and Stuart van Auken. 2001. Creating positive group project experiences: An examination of the role of the instructor on students’ perceptions of group projects. J. Market. Educ. 23, 2 (2001), 117–127.

[9]

Jian Chen, Guoyong Qiu, Liu Yuan, Li Zhang, and Gang Lu. 2011. Assessing teamwork performance in software engineering education: A case in a software engineering undergraduate course. In Proceedings of the 18th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference. 17–24.

Digital Library

[10]

Nicole Clark, Pamela Davies, and Rebecca Skeers. 2005. Self and peer assessment in software engineering projects. In Proceedings of the 7th Australasian Conference on Computing Education - Volume 42 (ACE’05). Australian Computer Society, Inc., 91–100.

Digital Library

[11]

Carol L. Colbeck, Susan E. Campbell, and Stefani A. Bjorklund. 2000. Grouping in the dark. J. High. Educ. 71, 1 (2000), 60–83.

[12]

Michelle Craig, Phill Conrad, Dylan Lynch, Natasha Lee, and Laura Anthony. 2018. Listening to early career software developers. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 33, 4 (Apr. 2018), 138–149.

Digital Library

[13]

Susan Brown Feichtner and Elaine Actis Davis. 1984. Why some groups fail: A survey of students’ experiences with learning groups. Organiz. Behav. Teach. Rev. 9, 4 (1984), 58–73.

[14]

Graham Gibbs. 2009. The assessment of group work: Lessons from the literature. Assessment Standards Knowledge Exchange. Brooks University. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.422.8600.

[15]

Georgios Gousios, Eirini Kalliamvakou, and Diomidis Spinellis. 2008. Measuring developer contribution from software repository data. In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 129–132.

Digital Library

[16]

Greg Guest, Arwen Bunce, and Laura Johnson. 2006. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Meth. 18, 1 (2006), 59–82.

[17]

J. H. Hayes, T. C. Lethbridge, and D. Port. 2003. Evaluating individual contribution toward group software engineering projects. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering.622–627.

Digital Library

[18]

Nicole Herbert. 2007. Quantitative peer assessment: Can students be objective? In Proceedings of the 9th Australasian Conference on Computing Education - Volume 66 (ACE’07). Australian Computer Society, Inc., 63–71.

Digital Library

[19]

Michael Hewner and Mark Guzdial. 2010. What game developers look for in a new graduate: Interviews and surveys at one game company. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 275–279.

Digital Library

[20]

D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson. 1999. Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning. Allyn and Bacon.

[21]

Lucy Johnston and Lynden Miles. 2004. Assessing contributions to group assignments. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 29, 6 (2004), 751–768.

[22]

Jihie Kim, Erin Shaw, Hao Xu, and Adarsh G. V. 2012. Assisting instructional assessment of undergraduate collaborative wiki and SVN activities. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM'12). 10--16.

[23]

Michael S. Kirkpatrick. 2017. Student perspectives of team-based learning in a CS course: Summary of qualitative findings. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 327–332.

Digital Library

[24]

Femke Kirschner, Fred Paas, and Paul A. Kirschner. 2009. Individual and group-based learning from complex cognitive tasks: Effects on retention and transfer efficiency. Comput. Hum. Behav. 25, 2 (2009), 306–314.

Digital Library

[25]

Paul A. Kirschner, John Sweller, Femke Kirschner, and Jimmy Zambrano. 2018. From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. Int. J. Comput.-supp. Collab. Learn. 13, 2 (2018), 213–233.

[26]

Amy Ko. 2019. Why We Should Not Measure Productivity. Apress, Berkeley, CA, 21–26.

[27]

Joanne P. LaBeouf, John C. Griffith, and Donna L. Roberts. 2016. Faculty and student issues with group work: What is problematic with college group assignments and why? J. Educ. Hum. Dev. 5, 1 (2016), 13.

[28]

Joanne P. LaBeouf, John C. Griffith, and Marian C. Schultz. 2014. The value of academic group work: An examination of faculty and student perceptions. Bus. Rev., Cambr. 22, 1 (2014), 32–39.

[29]

Richard Layton and Matthew Ohland. 2001. Peer ratings revisited: Focus on teamwork, not ability. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Conference.

[30]

P. L. Li, A. J. Ko, and J. Zhu. 2015. What makes a great software engineer? In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, Vol. 1. 700–710.

Digital Library

[31]

J. Lima, C. Treude, F. F. Filho, and U. Kulesza. 2015. Assessing developer contribution with repository mining-based metrics. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME’15). 536–540.

Digital Library

[32]

Yao Lu, Xinjun Mao, Tao Wang, Gang Yin, and Zude Li. 2019. Improving students’ programming quality with the continuous inspection process: A social coding perspective. Front. Comput. Sci. 14 (10 2019).

[33]

Larry K. Michaelsen and Michael Sweet. 2008. The essential elements of team-based learning. New Dir. Teach. Learn. 2008, 116 (2008), 7–27.

[34]

Reza M. Parizi, Paola Spoletini, and Amritraj Singh. 2018. Measuring team members’ contributions in software engineering projects using git-driven technology. In Proceedings of the IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE’18). 1–5.

Digital Library

[35]

Arnold L. Patton and Monica McGill. 2006. Student portfolios and software quality metrics in computer science education. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 21, 4 (Apr. 2006), 42–48.

Digital Library

[36]

Elizabeth Pfaff and Patricia Huddleston. 2003. Does it matter if I hate teamwork? What impacts student attitudes toward teamwork. J. Market. Educ. 25, 1 (2003), 37–45.

[37]

Alex Radermacher and Gursimran Walia. 2013. Gaps between industry expectations and the abilities of graduates. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 525–530.

Digital Library

[38]

Christopher Scaffidi. 2018. Employers’ needs for computer science, information technology and software engineering skills among new graduates. Int. J. Comput. Sci., Eng. Inf. Technol. 8 (2 2018), 01–12.

[39]

Joseph Seering, Ray Mayol, Erik Harpstead, Tianying Chen, Amy Cook, and Jessica Hammer. 2019. Peer feedback processes in the game industry. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 427–438.

Digital Library

[40]

Robert E. Slavin. 1983. When does cooperative learning increase student achievement?Psychol. Bull. 94, 3 (1983), 429.

[41]

Anya Tafliovich, Andrew Petersen, and Jennifer Campbell. 2016. Evaluating student teams: Do educators know what students think? In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 181–186.

Digital Library

[42]

Hamid Tarmazdi, Rebecca Vivian, Claudia Szabo, Katrina Falkner, and Nickolas Falkner. 2015. Using learning analytics to visualise computer science teamwork. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 165–170.

Digital Library

[43]

Stephanie D. Teasley and Jeremy Roschelle. 1993. Constructing a joint problem space: The computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. In Computers as Cognitive Tools, S. P. Lajoie and S. J. Derry (Eds.). 229–258, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

[44]

Ville Tirronen and Ville Isomöttönen. 2011. Making teaching of programming learning-oriented and learner-directed. In Proceedings of the 11th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 60–65.

Digital Library

[45]

Sander Valstar, Caroline Sih, Sophia Krause-Levy, Leo Porter, and William G. Griswold. 2020. A quantitative study of faculty views on the goals of an undergraduate CS program and preparing students for industry. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 113–123.

Digital Library

[46]

Natascha van Hattum-Janssen. 2013. Student perceptions of group work. Univ. Minho, Res. Centre Educ. 4710 57 (2013).

[47]

Chris Wilcox and Albert Lionelle. 2018. Quantifying the benefits of prior programming experience in an introductory computer science course. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’18). ACM, New York, NY, 80–85.

Digital Library

[48]

Alexey Zagalsky, Joseph Feliciano, Margaret-Anne Storey, Yiyun Zhao, and Weiliang Wang. 2015. The emergence of github as a collaborative platform for education. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 1906–1917.

Digital Library

Cited By

Ampofo IAmpofo IAmpofo BBadzongoly EBoateng FAsiedu W(2024)Theory of Programming AdoptionIntelligent Computing10.1007/978-3-031-62269-4_39(602-617)Online publication date: 21-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-62269-4_39
Rahimi EPassier HStuurman S(2023)Exploring Factors Influencing the Satisfaction of Adult Software Engineering Students with Teamwork in Distance EducationProceedings of the 23rd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research10.1145/3631802.3631823(1-11)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3631802.3631823
Hundhausen CConrad PAdesope OTariq A(2023)Combining GitHub, Chat, and Peer Evaluation Data to Assess Individual Contributions to Team Software Development ProjectsACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/359359223:3(1-23)Online publication date: 22-Jul-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3593592
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

An Empirical Study of Students’ Perceptions on the Setup and Grading of Group Programming Assignments
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education

Recommendations

Rubricking Like a Boss: Writing and Using Rubrics For Faster, Fairer Grading of Student Assignments (Abstract Only)
SIGCSE '16: Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education

Educators responsible for coordinating a staff to grade a large volume of exams or projects have learned, sometimes the hard way, the importance of writing good rubrics: they keep the graders on track, grading equitably, consistently, and quickly. But ...
A study of college students' attitudes toward computers
Improving pedagogical feedback and objective grading
SIGCSE 08

It is important for learning that students receive enough of educational feedback of their work. To get the students to be seriously disposed to the feedback it has to be personal, objective and consistent. In large classes ensuring such feedback can be ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education

ACM Transactions on Computing Education Volume 21, Issue 3

September 2021

188 pages

EISSN:1946-6226

DOI:10.1145/3452111

Editor:
Chris Hundhausen
Washington State University, USA

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2021 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 02 March 2021

Accepted: 01 December 2020

Revised: 01 December 2020

Received: 01 July 2020

Published in TOCE Volume 21, Issue 3

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Refereed

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

8
Total Citations
View Citations
894
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)320
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)36

Reflects downloads up to 17 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Ampofo IAmpofo IAmpofo BBadzongoly EBoateng FAsiedu W(2024)Theory of Programming AdoptionIntelligent Computing10.1007/978-3-031-62269-4_39(602-617)Online publication date: 21-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-62269-4_39
Rahimi EPassier HStuurman S(2023)Exploring Factors Influencing the Satisfaction of Adult Software Engineering Students with Teamwork in Distance EducationProceedings of the 23rd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research10.1145/3631802.3631823(1-11)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3631802.3631823
Hundhausen CConrad PAdesope OTariq A(2023)Combining GitHub, Chat, and Peer Evaluation Data to Assess Individual Contributions to Team Software Development ProjectsACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/359359223:3(1-23)Online publication date: 22-Jul-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3593592
Scott MAlshaigy BSiegel AZarb MLaakso MMonga MSimon Sheard J(2023)Managing Group Projects in Undergraduate ComputingProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 210.1145/3587103.3594163(597-598)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3587103.3594163
Sanders KVahrenhold JMcCartney R(2023)How Do Computing Education Researchers Talk About Threats and Limitations?Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3568813.3600114(381-396)Online publication date: 7-Aug-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3568813.3600114
Bui GSibia NZavaleta Bernuy ALiut MPetersen ADoyle MStephenson BDorn BSoh LBattestilli L(2023)Prior Programming Experience: A Persistent Performance Gap in CS1 and CS2Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3545945.3569752(889-895)Online publication date: 2-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3545945.3569752
Chi VKadandale P(2022)All Groups Are Not Created Equal: Class-Based Learning Communities Enhance Exam Performance and Reduce GapsCBE—Life Sciences Education10.1187/cbe.21-09-024021:3Online publication date: Sep-2022
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-09-0240
Mitchell AScott MWalton-Rivers JWatkins MNew WBrown D(2022)An Exploratory Analysis of Student Experiences with Peer Evaluation in Group Game Development ProjectsProceedings of the 2022 Conference on United Kingdom & Ireland Computing Education Research10.1145/3555009.3555021(1-7)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3555009.3555021

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents