11/26/14 – 12/2/14

Immediately after the discussion we had with Professor Belli on 11/26/14, we needed to figure out what we wanted to do with our project and get a consensus. We had two options which were to continue with our project but change the direction again to dissect teacher evaluation surveys and explain why they aren’t effective as they potentially can be, or, to change the topic of our project completely to something along the lines of knowing your computer and assembling one for people that are technologically challenged.

We decided to stick with our original project but change the direction of it yet again. We are very desperate on time so we definitely did not want to create more work for ourselves writing a new proposal, do additional research on the new topic and then create new annotated bibliographies from it.

Our consensus was to embrace the idea that the professor gave us which was to discuss why teacher evaluation surveys aren’t effective and how we can improve it. Eventually, we want to create our version of it after doing enough research.

After the Skype meeting we had on 11/30/14, we started researching on teacher evaluations and listing potential sources to use for our annotated bibliography. We also started brainstorming on how to classify some of the questions on other CUNY student teacher evaluation surveys. From there, it would give us better criteria on how to create a more effective survey based on the research that we have done.

During the meeting we had with Professor Belli on 12/2/14, we learned that we can’t recreate and improve the student teacher evaluation survey that we had originally planned to serve as our main focus for the project due to political reasons. As an alternative, we discussed some new possibilities for our project and brainstormed a few example questions to put on our survey. We also discussed what we need to accomplish by next class and by the end of the week. We also went over some of the deliverables for our project to gain a better perspective of the components that are included in our final project.

The Skype meeting that we held later in the evening went over all that things we discussed during the meeting with Professor Belli and composing a few questions that will hopefully be within the realm of what Professor Belli suggested to us. Our main priority right now is to have a draft of the survey, obtain results from our classmates and have Professor Belli review it to see if were headed in the right direction or not. We all hope that this will be the last time we have to change our project as we are running out of time and our overall morale for the project is dissipating.

From our last meeting in class, we have presented our first draft project to the class.  During the Q&A, we  noticed that our survey was not effective towards our final app; we also learned that for our bulletin feature, rather than create a fully developed term of use, its better to embed it somewhere on the screen where its easy to be seen. Another thing that we have to improve is to include follow up question in survey for analysis purpose.

Over the thanksgiving weekend, Goutam and Samson have came up with a modified survey which will be available in dropbox and openlab. we will also have it ready for in class survey  next week. In addition, Samson was working on  rationale of the survey and have it posted on OpenLab. In terms of app, we have most of our expected features created in the app and Tony have made a demo version that is displayable in ios device. Hopefully when we finish conducting the survey on next wednesday, we could made some modifications to the demo accordingly of what users are looking forward to.

For this week synchronous meeting on skype and wechat, we have take turns writing agenda and minute, etc. Goutam is doing meeting agenda; Samson is writing meeting minute; Tony is writing the progress report for the week and he will also be doing revision and submit all works to both dropbox and openlab. During our meeting,  we have discussed about our first draft presentation, it is  mainly about what we need to improve in the final presentation and prepare all information and materials needed for the final report.  We have gone over our finalized survey and term of use for bulletin. Hopefully next week, we would have everything ready to be submit and ready for final presentation.

Ivan, Iurii, Rene, Enrique
Progress Report#4
Prof. Belli
12/2/2014
Because the previous week our group has worked mostly on the board game itself, the
week of 11/25/2014­12/2/2014 we have dedicated most of our efforts into the planning of
writeups and deliverables, which are two manuals/instructions and rules.
● While meeting on Monday, we have all discussed and shared ideas about the layout of
the manuals and rules, as well as instructions, which are still to come;
● We have as well made some enhancements to the game itself, which improved overall
look and playing experience of the game;
● Ivan has given Rene more interesting materials, such as plastic glass, which Rene is
making fit into the game. In general, we have decided to make the game insides
visible to kids, so that they will have more interest of it, and eventually of electrical
engineering.
● Enrique as well has made research about the field itself, and about some of the best
practices of the electrical engineering, which we are going to use in both game
building and as an information to educate our target audience;
● We have been working with the gathered researches. Iurii has started to work on
questions and more facts to put on flash cards;
● We have decided that for now our questions and answers are going to be about the
field of electrical engineering itself and as well about adjacent disciplines like physics
and science. This will be done to demonstrate the prototype of our board game;
●  We are still going to research some sources about the how to best ask questions and
educate children in this form;
● Ivan actively gathers and brainstorms about the best layouts to use for our manuals
and rules.
Overall, our group this week is mostly working on the deliverables. Because most of
the board game is done, we just have minor design and game layout enhancements to make. Now our efforts are focused on the deliverables and final write ups, as we are approaching to the final stretch. Manuals and the big write up that the professor will tell us more about

Group 1 – Jason Choy, Ray Chen, Vincent Cornelio

Professor Jill Belli

ENG 3773

12/1/2014

Progress Report #4

Over the last week we have made some big strides for our game, most notably the completion of the fourth and final level. What’s left is for Jason to play it through and see if there are any problems or errors that we need to fix. Our manual is also complete in a more broad sense: we have every topic we wanted to include. We consider the manual to be more or less complete as it is.

We began making up survey questions during the Thanksgiving break, and we expect to have our first printed copy for the next class session. This leaves only one major task: the final write-up. We have discussed the final write-up but haven’t began writing the first draft yet. We will probably begin the first draft some time on the week of 12/3.

We have also been taking turns regarding meeting minutes, and we have had two virtual synchronous meetings since the last class session (and many asynchronous meetings). This process hasn’t changed. In addition we talked about our last presentation, and what to add to the final one. We have already established a Works Cited page is necessary, but for now we will keep working on the survey and final write-up primarily.

Calvin, Ogulcan, Rosa

Progress Report #3

11/19/14 – 11/25/14

This week we held one in school meeting on 11/20/14 and one Skype conference on 11/23/14 discussing the new direction of our survey, the to-do-list that we created in class, how to re-structure the survey, who will research what, and the organization/content of our Power Point presentation.

After receiving feedback from Professor Belli, the first obstacle we came across was to think about how to change the direction of our survey where it will help students from graduation rates/transfer rates which would have primarily helped the school. Most of the questions were similar to the questions on AIR which is a survey that CUNYs administer every so often. We definitely did not want to create an inferior survey or re-invent something that already exists.

What we came up with was to restructure our survey and measure 2 areas of the school which are education and faculty. We will assign one page for each of the areas. These questions will be specific, and will be either multiple choices or a 5 point scale rating. If the students were to give a negative rating such as “Strongly Disagree” or “Very Dissatisfied”, there would be a paragraph box that would ask students why, and ask for their suggestions on how to improve. This allows students to give their input and for the school to be more interactive with students on how it can improve on these areas. Although chances are that it might not happen right away or worst case might not happen at all, it will give the school some insight on how to handle these issues from a student’s perspective for current students and maybe for future students.

The second obstacle that we came across was making our survey thorough while being concise. One of the biggest complaints through the feedback we gathered from students was that the survey was too long. The first iteration of our 2^nd draft was to include 2 additional areas such as resources and student services. However, if we did include these, then it would definitely be too lengthy. We also thought about cutting down on the amount of questions but that would compromise the survey’s thoroughness.

What we eventually settled down on were education and faculty. These areas are what matter the most to any educational institution. After deciding on what areas to focus on, we had to research additional questions for these areas and then rephrase it so that they are distinct and students won’t have to second guess on what the question is asking.

In the last meeting we had, we mostly discussed on how to approach the power point. We discussed what the power point will cover, and who will present what. We agreed that it will cover the development process, the two areas of focus and our goals. Calvin will present the introduction, development process, and goals. Ogulcan will present the education section and Rosa will present the faculty section.

The week of 11/18/2014-11/25/2014 has been a very significant, because as we had much more time Following things were done during and between our class on 11/19/2014 and as well our meeting, which was on Friday virtually. Some of the most significant progresses are:

• the research implementation. As a suggestion of Prof. Belli, we have decided to include facts in the game flashcards. Some of the facts may be paraphrased in order to make them more fun for children, for instance:”The word engineer comes from a Latin word meaning ‘cleverness’. ” and more in this manner. So Iurii Has been doing the research part, and has gathered facts, some of which will be presented in presentation;
• We have  as well, as it was planned, started to build a prototype of the game. As it was decided earlier in the class, Enrique has gotten all of the parts and supplies needed in order to assemble the backbone of the game and present it to the class. It will be able to illustrate how the electric part will operate in the game;
• We have as well started on planning of our deliverables, which will have two main components. As we have decided it will be for kids and separate for teachers. We already started on doing it, this week, starting with our research and it’s relation to the game.
• This week, we also have took pictures of the process of assembly, so that we will create a better readable manual for teachers. Pictures were taken by Enrique and Rene, as they have most of the process done.
• As well Ivan, has been doing design of the deliverables and rules. He also had ideas about the presentation, so he has created the file and layout, while Rene, Enrique and Iurii had written in the content each for their own part and Ivan for his.

To wrap it all, most of the work of this week, we have dedicated to the physical parts, assembly and design of the game to start working on the fully functional prototype. As well for the documentation parts gathering all of the necessary info. and components like images and illustration for our audience. Finally, we together have worked on the presentation, through the google documents, which was synchronous.  

Group 1 – Jason Choy, Ray Chen, Vincent Cornelio
Professor Jill Belli
ENG 3773
11/25/2014
Progress Report #3

Over the course of the past week, our group has been working vigorously on the game, the manual, and a Power Point for the upcoming presentation. Jason finalized the third level of the game and showed it to the other group members through videos. The group worked together on making the Power Point presentation: Vincent came up with a layout, which the other group members helped add to and modify, before creating the Power Point itself.

Jason also added onto the manual by creating a “Gameplay” section, which is now six pages long. Afterwards the group revised the manual, fixing errors and making any needed clarifications. The group will bring four copies of the manual to the presentation, and distribute them to the other groups.

Our Power Point presentation was put together as a group, with each member focusing on specific areas. Vincent wrote about researching other game manuals, Ray provided pictures on architectural influences that we used and will discuss them during the presentation. Jason will talk more about the game itself and its purpose.

We thought about the types of survey questions we’ll ask, but we haven’t advanced far enough to actually make a sample survey yet. We will probably get there next week, and begin talking about potential survey questions before making decisions and putting the actual survey together. But as of right now, our progress is moving along as planned.

Our last meeting in class, We discussed the problem we had in regard to the survey from the peer reviews, the powerpoint that we are going to present, and the prototype of the application.  During the discussion we have decided for Samson to write the agenda, Goutam will do the minute, and Tony will be working on the application’s prototype.

This week’s off campus group meeting, Samson created the agenda and Goutam had taken the minutes for our online Skype meeting on Sunday. During our meeting we’ve discussed our result from our peer review’s survey and analyzed it. We created the new survey and discussed how the new survey will benefit our app’s development process. Tony shared the development of the (NYCCT) app he built.

Samson and Goutam will work on the powerpoint. The topic of the slides was determined on Sunday’s meeting. Tony will show the progress of the application for the presentation. Due to the incomplete powerpoint, Sunday’s meeting was extended to Monday night.

On Monday, we continued our meeting. With the completed powerpoint, each group member will prepare on their role for the coming presentation.

For our next class, Our group will be presenting to the class our progress on our final project. We have new survey for the class and a new prototype of the application. Lastly, before Tuesday midnight, our group leader, Tony will review and submit the documents to the blog and dropbox.

Calvin, Ogulcan, Rosa

Progress Report

11/12/14 – 11/18/14

This week we had less synchronous communication due to everyone having a busier work week and school week. However, this did not hinder the progress of our project as it is becoming more refined and streamlined. We are making a good amount of progression with our survey in terms of the types of questions we currently have that relate to what we want to measure.

One obstacle that we ran into while creating questions for the survey was the platform it was being created on. Our original intent was to create it on SurveyMonkey which offers a much more complex and visually appealing survey. However, the problem was that the basic version only allowed us to create up to 10 questions. If we want to create more, we would need to sign up for a “Pro” account which would require us to pay an inordinate subscription fee. Our solution to this problem was to create the survey with Google Forms instead. Although Google Forms does not provide the same amount of customizability as SurveyMonkey, it is sufficient enough to accomplish our task.

One discussion that we currently have is the length of the survey. We know students don’t prefer to spend a lot of time on surveys so what we plan to do is to administer the first iteration of our survey to our classmates and get their feedback. When they complete the survey;  at the bottom, we will prompt them to write in a comment box how long it took to complete, questions that might have been redundant or absent, and any suggestions/feedback they have that will help improve their survey experience.

What we hope to achieve from this is a couple of things. Our current iteration of the survey is not completely finished and it already seems lengthy. We are hoping to find ways to make it more concise through the help of our classmates.

For the division of labor, it was mostly the same since last week. Rosa focused on researching/creating questions that pertain to transfer rates while Ogulcan focused on research/creating questions around graduation rates. Calvin focused on creating the format of the survey and looked at other student engagement survey questions that might be relevant.