Complete thesis - Murdoch University

Alaina Although each member achieved allocated tasks, we did notspend time to review and convince ourselves what a member didbefore we submitted assignments. We should have had morediscussion about the reason why the person implemented his/hertask in some way. All members would have benefited from it as itrequires more knowledge and understanding to explain what wasdone in a task and why. It would have reduced the amount of theredundant diagrams or features. Furthermore, it should havereduced much mistakes and provided more consistency in ourrequirements specification.This group acknowledged the value of the ‘rework’ component of each group task:Vaughn We have to apply learning’s to a realistic problemwhich means it moves as out in the real world e.g. the lecturer(TerColl) pointed out errors in thinking and this resulted in ushaving to revise what we had completed previously in order tomove to the next step. I found this gave me a greater depth ofknowledge than the usual do an assignment get some of it wrongand move on to the next usually non relatedassignmentThe other group tended to allocate tasks to be completed individually, then integrated.These students chose not to take the opportunity to rework their models – consequently theirmarks tapered down as the semester progressed, and they did not leverage from a deeperunderstanding of the problem (which was demonstrated in class, but not in submitted work).However, members of the group acknowledged this:Roy Inspiration in the team was low. Projects were mostly driven bydeadlines rather than producing a high qualitydocumentMike I believe our team worked fairly well. We are all ratherindependent learners so most of the time we split the project upinto individual sections and then did them on our own. [Roy] hasthe highest work ethic out of us three and therefore took themost work upon himself. [Dermot] and I probably relied on himmore than we should have. This meant that Roy had the greatest355