This section includes several artifacts from my teaching experiences, including a grading rubric for a homework assignment, a description of a group project for software engineering, and faculty evaluations of my teaching. The artifacts are accompanied by reflections on whether these artifacts met my teaching goals in the course. While the project and teaching evaluations are, I believe, positive steps toward attaining my teaching goals, the grading rubric serves an example that certainly needs improvement.
Context: The grading rubric is for a homework assignment in the undergraduate software engineering course. The assignment was done in pairs over the course of three weeks, and was the second homework assignment completed by the students. The students were to create the user interface (UI) and logic layers for a web application where a user could create different types of accounts for a knowledge managements system. The purpose of the assignment was to give students hands-on experience with software design and software design patterns - topics that had been covered in both lecture and lab. The assignment had two deadlines. The first was to deliver a UML class diagram of their proposed solution as well as a test plan. The second involved delivery of the program code and passing test cases. The correct implementation of the assignment required students to use the Factory pattern.
Aritifact: Link to grading rubric document
Reflection: Grading rubric reflection paper
Context: The Hoffman Forest Project was the final group project in the undergraduate software engineering course in Spring 2006. The students were grouped into teams of 4-5 and had six weeks to complete the project. The project was the final deliverable at the end of the semester. Students worked on the project during the two-hour lab sessions each week and met outside of class. Deliverable for the project were broken up into four iterations, during which the students had to demonstrate their progress to the TA during lab sessions and received a grade based on their progress. The total project grade was a combination of the individual iteration scores and the functionality of the final deliverable. Additionally, each of the homework assignments compelted earlier in the semester was directly integrated into the final project, thus, the students had some prior experience with the domain and the application itself before undertaking the group project.
The project itself was a web application to assist in managing data collected from the Hoffman Forest, a state forest overseen by the Department of Forestry at NCSU. The project was sponsored by the Department of Forestry and the requirements (the desired functionality for the project) came directly from department faculty. The purpose of the application was to enable forestry staff to record scientific data from samples taken in the Hoffman forest through a web interface, and then allow visitors to the website (students, faculty, staff from other institutions) to search through this data. The best project from among the the student projects was then used by the Department of Forestry for collecting and dispersing the data. Our primary goal in selecting this project was to increase student interest in the project and in the discipline as a whole by concretely demonstrating that software could be used for socially-responsible purpsoes, and to give the students a chance to participate in this type of project firsthand. Additionally, this project exposed students to salient challenges common in the software industry, such as web application development, security and changing customer requirements.
Reflection: Project reflection paper
Context: The following are summaries of the teaching evaluations submitted by students at the end of the Fall 2004, Spring 2005, and Spring 2006 semesters where I was a teaching assistant for the undergraduate software engineering course at NCSU. An example of the evaluation form is also provided. Much of my reflection on these evaluations is based on the comments left by students in the optional free-form response questions. The evaluations were returned anonymously by the students.
Reflection: Teaching evaluations reflection paper
Last modified Tuesday, 24th January, 2012 @ 02:57pm