12-8-08
jtirrell — Mon, 12/08/2008 - 13:39
The team evaluation form and individual evaluation form are now posted.
We will do the team evaluation in our teams during class on Friday. To complete the form, all teams will first need to post their team contribution documents as .doc or .pdf attachments to this post. Then, in class on Friday, teams will use the contribution documents to score all of the teams (including themselves) based on their contributions to the overall project. Each team will turn in only one form.
The individual evaluations will be completed independently on Saturday or Sunday and emailed to me as attachments. All students will read through their teammates' project work blogs and score all team members (including themselves) based on their contributions to the team.
Both the team evaluation form and individual evaluation form are private and will only be seen by me.
Design Team
cechambe — Wed, 12/10/2008 - 10:59Cody Chambers, Chris Cookley, Pat Dunne, Angela Cooper, Tyler Penrod
Frontend Coders
Doomsday Forte — Thu, 12/11/2008 - 22:00Team Members: Danny Merritt, Gary Scamehorn, Ryan Sizemore
Your entire life has been a mathematical error. A mathematical error I'm ABOUT TO CORRECT.
-GLADoS
Documents and Testing
sdr2010 — Fri, 12/12/2008 - 10:37Scott Renick, Neely Misner, Alex Lewis, Rachel Magdos
Organization & Coordination: Team Contribution Document
RhythmRunneR — Fri, 12/12/2008 - 10:36Designing a website for a client is typically no easy task. Given the extensive list of features requested from our client, this certainly remained true in our class’ experience. Since the heavy workload was far too great to produce quality work in smaller groups, it became much more logical to tackle the problem as a single large classroom force. By combining the skills and efforts of the entire class, our enormous and practically impossible endeavor became entirely reasonable. Still, with larger numbers comes a larger amount of managerial problems, and the need for someone to handle those responsibilities arises. Thus, the organization and coordination team was formed, consisting of Kevin Parkerson, Patrick Odarczenko, Stephanie Lewis, and Adria Geis.
While the work done by the organization and coordination team (henceforth referred to as the OCT) is not readily as apparent as what can be seen from other groups, there was indeed a great amount of contribution to the project from its members. Most of this work was done in the background, often foreshadowed by the more obvious achievements but still an essential part of project development. To begin, the OCT was responsible for getting the project initiated. Along with others, the gantt chart, client communications document, and peer-to-peer help document were all designed and maintained by the OCT, and were used consistently throughout the entire development process. While it can be said these things might have appeared naturally on their own due to necessity, the structure would have been far less organized. Having our team designate the location and procedure for conveying such information allowed for a respected standard format that helped to reduce confusion and increase class efficiency. Particularly, the gantt chart was a handy guideline for most students and was updated when needed to ensure deadlines were neither too demanding nor too lenient. This ultimately served to gage classroom progress as a whole and reveal progress needed amongst individual groups, keeping the project headed in a steady direction towards completion by its final submission date.
Besides maintaining online organizational documents, the OCT had a tremendous amount of influence on the directions taken by the individual groups themselves. While most team objectives were self-designated and achieved uninterrupted, all were closely overseen and approved by the OCT, several of which were altered. Since we were the only group that knew what was happening amongst all groups at all times, our input was extremely helpful in preventing the tasks of individual teams from becoming counterproductive. Should something be needed from another group, we would determine the priority of that need and designate a new objective if necessary. All of this has much to do with team-to-team communication, for which we were greatly responsible. On many occasions our efforts revealed some problem that could be solved only through communication, which we handled accordingly. When someone was not available in the classroom to help solve these issues, we would e-mail any questions aimed towards that person. Also, the morning updates (while not too overly in-depth) were a quick heads up to the classroom on current progress and impending problems, all of which we led.
Essentially, leadership was the staple of our team and the purpose for which it was formed. When at one point it seemed a team was behind schedule, we arranged a classroom effort geared solely towards their objectives for the entire hour. Since there was much to do, we even did some of the tasks ourselves to help speed up the process. This greatly helped the project get back on track as we approached our final deadline. On another occasion, our team changed the due date for a project draft in order to allow another team to commence planned operations. Decisions such as these were essential to project completion, and having a group such as ours make them ensured the authoritative position needed to make others actually respect them. Also, since the lead overseer was instructor Jeremy Tirrell, it was essentially our group that reported to him our class’ progress. While there wasn’t a tremendous amount of work done by the OCT outside the classroom, the work done in-class was both legitimate and necessary and we firmly believe our contributions compare to those of the students in other teams.
Here's our part.
turtle power! — Fri, 12/12/2008 - 11:09Here's our part.