July 2006 Volume 9 Number 3 - CiteSeerX

assessment proceeded until round 3 (the conceptual, logistical, physical database design and the implementation)
was completed.
Figure 5. The student interface in defining fuzzy constraints
Pearson’s correlation analysis is adopted to compare the correlations between peer and instructor marks. Student
assessments are significantly and positively correlated with the instructors’ assessments for each evaluation
concept utilized in the 3 rounds of assessment (Table 2).
Table 2. Correlation analysis between instructor and student marks
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Evaluation Concepts Correlation Correlation Correlation
Completeness 0.457* 0.619* 0.752**
Correctness 0.534* 0.745** 0.623*
Originality 0.413* 0.712** 0.676*
*: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01
Paired t-test analysis for performance during the three rounds indicates that the improvement in learning for the
13 teams was significant (Table 3). Students improved their performance from round 1 to round 2, and especially
from round 1 to round 3.
Table 3. Performance analysis over the 3 rounds
Round 1 and 2 Round 2 and 3 Round 1 and 3
Evaluation Concepts t-value p-value t-value p-value t-value p-value
Completeness 5.84 2.89E-05 0.60 0.278 5.04 1.13E-04
Correctness 5.66 3.88E-05 1.25 0.116 5.25 7.82E-05
Originality 4.32 4.18E-04 0.39 0.348 4.66 2.22E-04
Level of significanceα =0.05
Furthermore, as the difference cannot be perceived in round 1, the instructor’s assessment is utilized in round 2
and round 3 to evaluate the performance of the two groups. By t-test analysis, the difference between the two
groups was significant (Table 4).
Table 4. Performance analysis for the two groups
Round 2 Round 3
Evaluation Concepts t-value p-value t-value p-value
Completeness 2.02 0.029 2.24 0.019
Correctness 2.47 0.012 2.38 0.014
Originality 1.46 0.082 3.09 0.003
Level of significanceα =0.05
23