Outcome (f) Conclusion Spring 2013

 

C

C+

B-

B

B+

A-

A

1

0

2

8

16

5

28

Table 1: Grade distribution for Poster Presentation*

 

C

C+

B-

B

B+

A-

A

1

2

2

10

5

21

19

Table 2: Grade distribution for Literature Review**

 

C

C+

B-

B

B+

A-

A

1

2

7

11

11

18

10

Table 3: Grade distribution for Cover Letter***

Outcome f conclusions

Table 1 and 2 demonstrate that students attain the higher end of the GPA scale (as opposed to Table 3) when working: 1. toward a common goal within a group (collaborating as a team, along with the instructor and external client); 2. the document/presentation will be seen in real-time (communicated/demonstrated to an audience of their peers and professionals within the industry);  and 3. they have several opportunities to rework the document/presentation before final analysis (final grading).  Additionally, assignments (deliverables for Table 1 and 2) were directly related to their applied project and were meant for the client to: 1. understand the technology/project; 2. determine what they wanted/needed from the team and, ultimately, what the team delivered; and 3. create clear and concise project-completion documentation and recommendations for further work that an incoming student team (following semester), along with the client, can follow, maintain, and deliver.

 


*Grade distribution for Poster Presentation (group collaboration required); 2 drafts minimum required before final poster is printed for Poster Expo.

**Grade distribution for Literature Review (group work collaboration required); 2 drafts minimum required (first draft submitted for grade and second draft submitted for increasing initial grade).

***Grade distribution for Cover Letter (accompanies résumé for targeted employer); 4 drafts submitted during semester (2 for critique, third draft submitted for grade, and fourth draft for increasing initial grade).