Content uploaded by Aharon Yadin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Aharon Yadin on Sep 29, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Yadin, A. Implementation of Bloom’s Taxonomy
IMPLEMENTATION OF BLOOM’S TAXONOMY ON
SYSTEMS ANALYSIS WORKSHOPS
Aharon Yadin
Computer Science and Information Systems Department
The Max Stern Academic College of Emek Yezreel
aharony@yvc.ac.il
ABSTRACT
This paper presents a case study in which Bloom's taxonomy was used to enhance
critical thinking learning in a Systems Analysis and Design workshop. It touches on
the importance of information systems, problems in teaching especially "non
technical" aspects of Systems Analysis and Design and suggests a workshop
structure that has been working for the past five years. The paper briefly describes
Bloom's taxonomy and the workshop structure. It describes how the taxonomy levels
were implemented in the workshop and the model used for assessing critical thinking
learning patterns. The conclusion section provides the findings obtained over time. In
this case study, combining Bloom's taxonomy, with an electronic submission system
demonstrated clear critical thinking patterns of learning and improved education
quality.
Keywords: Systems Analysis and Design workshop, critical thinking, Bloom's
Taxonomy
, electronic submission system
I. INTRODUCTION
Information Technology plays a major role in modern society. Software based
systems manage and control many aspects of our daily activities. On the
organizational side and spanning the last two decades, Management Information
Systems have matured from an operational supporting tool to a business
development boosting infrastructure (Laudon and Laudon, 2005; Bocij et al., 2005).
IS2002 even defines Information Systems as a "Technology Enabled Business
Development" (Gorgone et al., 2002). In spite the fact that mastering systems
development processes, tools and technologies is an important component of MIS
curricula, still (too) many systems fail to deliver the expected outcome. These failures
and deficiencies of software projects are often rooted in early activities (Minor and
Armarego, 2004). Teaching these early activities, especially Systems Analysis and
Design, is sometimes difficult due to the large amounts of technical and procedural
knowledge to be acquired by students (Tuya and Garcia-Fanjul, 1999). In addition to
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2007 Conference 1
Yadin, A. Implementation of Bloom’s Taxonomy
the technical and procedural knowledge, MIS graduates will have to demonstrate
their proficiency in using technology for developing new organizational processes for
achieving organizational goals. (Schatzberg, 2002). For that purpose, IS2002
identifies the required, non-technical knowledge areas such, as critical thinking,
interpersonal skills, team skills and business understanding. Mary Boone regards the
IS specialist as a "Boundary person" (Boone, 1991). Such a person provides a bridge
between technology and the organization and helps defining the "Technology
Enabled Business Development".
The Systems Analysis and Design workshop augments the necessary
knowledge areas and provides a good exercise for the real world. By addressing
various management issues, the practical, team based, workshop holds the potential
to strengthen students' project management and conflict resolution abilities. The
workshop structure is based on a LEGO like assembly, in which the incremental
assignments follow the software development life-cycle. These incremental
assignments gradually advance the students' abilities and understanding. The
workshop approach is based on Bloom's taxonomy (Bloom, 1956), which is still
widely used (Machanick, 2000; Buckley, and Exton, 2003; Lister, 2006; Steinke and
Fitch, 2007).
The following sections of this paper describe:
a. The Systems Analysis and Design workshop structure, including the
assignments, grading scheme and the workshop timeline;
b. Bloom's taxonomy (very briefly);
c. The adaptation of the workshop structure to Bloom's taxonomy levels;
d. The workshop various versions;
e. Critical thinking learning process evaluation methodology;
f. Conclusions and future work.
II. THE SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN WORKSHOP
STRUCTURE
The Systems Analysis and Design workshop was delivered during the past
five years. The workshop's general objectives are to prepare the students for their
Final Project
1
and the real world challenges they will face. At that stage of their
1
The Final Project is a yearly project that simulates a real user situation. The students have
to collect all necessary information, study and analyze the business case, gather the
requirements, analyze and design the system, develop the system, document and present it.
This Final Project is considered the highlight of their studies. For many students and in many
cases, successful Final Projects served as an entry pass to a new job.
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2007 Conference 2
Yadin, A. Implementation of Bloom’s Taxonomy
studies (third year), the students have already a good understanding of the technical
knowledge areas required for the workshop (software engineering, software
modeling, UML usage, etc.), however, most of them still lack the non-technical
knowledge areas (like critical thinking and abilities to provide meaningful and helpful
feedback). For that reason, the workshop that augments knowledge and
understanding gained in current and previous courses is a practical, "hands-on",
team based workshop. Each team consists of 3-4 students, who remain on the team
for the whole duration of the workshop. The team approach is used to enhance the
non-technical knowledge areas, such as critical thinking, interpersonal skills and
team skills, addressed in IS2002. Each team gets and works on its own "story". A
story is a generalized description of a virtual customer and a business case. The
students have to study their story, address the problems presented in the business
case and suggest ways (and a software based system) to solve the problems and
achieve the customer goals (which in many cases are not defined). The workshop is
structured in a LEGO like approach, in which the students follow the software
development life-cycle. The workshop requirements include two types of deliverables
(assignments):
1. Team assignments;
2. Personal assignments.
TEAM ASSIGNMENTS
The team assignments consist of preparing four documents, reviewing four
documents (which were prepared by different teams) and a class presentation. A
template for each document is provided in advance and posted on the workshop web
site. See appendix I for an example of the template used (in this case the template is
for the first document to be submitted). During preparation of the documents, the
students are required to thoroughly think about the various issues, debate among
themselves, and present (in the document) the agreed solution. The four assignment
documents are:
1. Project Initiation and Planning;
2. System Analysis;
3. System Design;
4. System Implementation.
The presentation is a summary of all the team work performed. It starts with a
brief description of the virtual customer, the business case and the problems that
exist, and includes a description of the information system proposed as a solution. In
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2007 Conference 3
Yadin, A. Implementation of Bloom’s Taxonomy
addition, the presentation relates to risks associated with the project, the expected
benefits, the timeframe and cost.
Each submitted document is reviewed and graded twice: by the instructor and
by another team. The evaluation and grading is performed based on grading
guidelines that are available on the workshop web site. These guidelines are
consistent with the documents' templates and provide the relative grade of each
paragraph in the document. See appendix II for an example of the grading guidelines
used (in this case the grading template is for the second document to be submitted).
The assignment grade is calculated using a weighted average, in which the
instructor's grade weight is 80%, while the team's grade weight is 20%. This average
is calculated only if the difference between the two grades is less than 16 points. If
the difference is above 15 points, the students’ evaluation grade is not taken into
account in determining the submitting team grade. All course requirements, including
the grading scheme, are outlined in the syllabus and are known to the students in
advance. The main purpose for the relative small difference in the grades is to
enforce habits of precise and through analysis of documents (critical thinking) and in
order to eliminate cases in which a team is trying to improve the grades of a different
(fellow) team.
In addition to the assignment (document) grade, each team is also graded for
their review and evaluation of the other document. This grade is calculated based on
difference between the instructor grade and the team grade, as well as the quality of
the judgment processes expressed by the students and the feedback they provided
in their review.
PERSONAL ASSIGNMENTS
The personal assignments consist of evaluating the presentations given by all
other teams. Each student evaluates all the presentations (except his/her own). This
evaluation is based on an evaluation form that is available on the workshop web site.
Each student also prepares a personal report and provides feedback on the
proportional contribution of each other team member. This feedback is used to asses
the distribution of work among the team members, taking into account the team
members' point of view. This feedback also provides socio-metric data, which is
interesting by itself, but it is beyond the scope of this paper.
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2007 Conference 4
Yadin, A. Implementation of Bloom’s Taxonomy
WORKSHOP GRADING SCHEME
The grade for the workshop is calculated by summing up all the assignments'
grades. The team grade is a weighted average of the four team assignments (the
four submitted documents), the four evaluation and grading documents (grading of
other assignments), and the team presentation. Since the main objective of the
workshop is to prepare the students for their professional careers, the emphasis in
grading in on the documents and not on the evaluation. (Each document represents
15% of the total course grade, while each evaluation is only 3% of the total grade).
All team members share this common grade. In addition, the personal grade is based
on the student evaluations of other teams' presentations, and the personal reports.
WORKSHOP TIMELINE
The workshop structure is quite complicated and the amount of work required
is significant. For that reason and for enhancing critical thinking, debating and team
skills, most of the work is carried out in teams. This section is included to provide a
better understanding of the workshop structure by addressing the students' weekly
activities along the semester timeline (a standard 13 weeks), as seen on Table 1.
III. BLOOM'S TAXONOMY
This section is included in this paper for reason of completeness and it contains a
brief description of Bloom's taxonomy. A group of researchers headed by Benjamin
Bloom defined in the early fifties a cognitive taxonomy, which is based on six
hierarchical levels:
1. Knowledge – the ability to memorize and recall relevant information (facts,
procedures and concepts).
2. Comprehension – the ability to understand the meaning of information and to
translate the knowledge into a new context.
3. Application – the ability to use the knowledge (facts, methods, concepts) in
different and new situations.
4. Analysis – the ability to identify various components and find hidden
information (meaning or logic) embedded in them.
5. Synthesis - the ability to combine several components and to build a new
product or idea. Draw conclusions or predict based on different areas.
6. Evaluation – the ability to compare and subjectively assess the value of
different approaches.
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2007 Conference 5
Yadin, A. Implementation of Bloom’s Taxonomy
The taxonomy is built in a meaningful hierarchical structure. Each level is based on
and enhances the lower level. Without understanding a lower level, the student will
not be able to proceed to higher one.
Table 1. Workshop activities timeline
Week Class Activity Students Activities
1 Lecture (Business
Environment, Project Initiation
& Management)
Form team; Define team leader; Get story
2 Lecture (Projects identification
and selection, requirements
engineering)
Work on Project Initiation and planning
document (1
st
assignment).
3 Lecture (Software modeling –
part 1)
Start requirements analysis; Finalize 1
st
assignment.
4 Lecture (Software modeling –
part 2)
"User" requirements gathering simulation (part
1); Submit 1
st
assignment and get a document
for review and grading.
5 "User" requirements gathering
simulation (part 2)
Submit review and grade for evaluated
document; Work on the Analysis document
(2
nd
assignment).
6 System modeling class (hands-
on laboratory)
Finalize 2
nd
assignment by addressing review
comments and suggestions.
7 System modeling class
Submit 2
nd
assignment and get a document for
review and grading.
8 User meetings simulation
(Design requirements)
Submit review and grade for evaluated
document; work on the Design document (3
rd
assignment).
9 Lecture (Project
implementation)
Finalize 3
rd
assignment (address review
comments and suggestions); Start working on
customer presentation.
10 Presentations Submit 3
rd
assignment; Start working on
Implementation Document (4
th
assignment);
evaluate presentations and get a document for
review and grading;
11 Presentations Finalize 4
th
assignment by addressing review
comments and suggestions; Evaluate
presentations
12 Presentations submit 4
th
assignment and get a document for
review and grading; Evaluate presentations
13 Presentations Evaluate presentations; Submit review and
grade for document evaluated, and prepare
personal report.
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2007 Conference 6
Yadin, A. Implementation of Bloom’s Taxonomy
IV. ADAPTING THE WORKSHOP TO THE TAXONOMY
The various workshop stages were defined and adapted to Bloom's taxonomy.
Each taxonomy level is being addressed in one or more of the workshop related
activities:
1. Knowledge is addressed during the theoretical lectures of the workshop. At
this stage in their study, the students are already familiar with many of the
concepts, tools and methodologies needed for the workshop successful
completion. Even so, the aim of the first lectures is to bring everybody to a
common base and provide all necessary knowledge required for the next
workshop stages. The taxonomy knowledge level is further addressed in the
"story". Since each team gets a different story, students have to understand
their "customer" and his/her business environment, before being able to
proceed and suggest a solution.
2. Comprehension is addressed in the various documents. Preparing a
document implies repeating some of the theoretical concepts learned at class
in a different business case. Comprehension is also demonstrated during the
simulation lectures. The students use these meetings to gather system
requirements. Each meeting is conducted like real-life meeting. The students
have to prepare all questions (open/close, questionnaires, etc). These
simulation meetings provide accurate indication of the team's comprehension
regarding the story and the possible solutions.
3. Application is addressed in every document produced by the teams. The
concepts of identifying and selecting projects are reflected in the Initiation and
planning document. This means using a theoretical concept in a new
situation. The students apply the learned methods to this new business case.
4. Analysis is addressed during the analysis life-cycle phase, in which
information gathered from the customer has to be analyzed. The stories are
very general and some of the answers during the simulation sessions are
vague. This was done on purpose, to drive the students into thinking about
the situation. A common answer to a technological question, during the
simulation phase, might be:
"Well, I don't know. I am just the user. You are the experts, why don't
you suggest something…"
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2007 Conference 7
Yadin, A. Implementation of Bloom’s Taxonomy
This type of answer sends the students back to prepare their homework. In
analyzing a business case, students often seek the answers instead of
thinking and inventing them. The vague answers in this sense are part of the
education process. The taxonomy Analysis level is also addressed in the
evaluation and grading process. During the workshop, each team evaluated
and grades four different documents. Evaluating and grading a document
means first reading the specific story and only then reading and analyzing the
document. In addition to grading, students are required to produce a written
report of the evaluation. The students are graded for their report as well.
5. Synthesis is addressed in the system analysis, system design and system
implementation documents. For each document, the students have to put
together the theoretical ideas and concepts from the lectures, adapt them to
the story and take into account the user requirements and the feedback they
got on previous documents they submitted.
6. Evaluation is addressed in the evaluation and grading process. The students
have to judge the documents they receive. Each team has to criticize the
document and compare the approach taken to the approach they used (or
any other relevant approach). In many cases, the team is required to defend
their approach.
V. SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN WORKSHOP
VERSIONS
The Systems Analysis and Design workshop has been used for the past five
years. During this time it evolved and matured. Three slightly different versions were
developed. These versions correlate to stages in our web based learning support
systems and include additional features introduced by these systems, as well as
additional changes for enhancing learning patterns. It should be noted, that in parallel
to the different versions of the workshop, there was also a sharp decrease in the
number of students who attended the workshop.
SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN WORKSHOP VERSION 1
The first version has been used during 2003-2004. The structure was similar
to the structure described; however, it used a manual submitting system. Students
submitted only paper based documents. Each team submitted two copies. One was
evaluated by the instructor and the other by a different team. The evaluating team
provided only a grade and a short explanation for reason behind this grade. The
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2007 Conference 8
Yadin, A. Implementation of Bloom’s Taxonomy
evaluating team did not provide any feedback to the team who prepared the
document. The feedback to the submitting teams, for each one of the documents,
was based only on the instructor's evaluation.
SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN WORKSHOP VERSION 2
The second version has been used during 2005-2006. This version was
similar to the first version with very minor modifications. The students used electronic
documents and the submission was based on e-mails. During their evaluation and
grading the documents, the students were also required to provide feedback and not
just to grade the work. Due to this new feedback requirement, the students had to go
into an elaborated analysis and evaluation process. For providing meaningful
feedback, the students cannot only read the document. They first have to familiarize
themselves with the story and the business case presented.
SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN WORKSHOP VERSION 3
The third version has been used during 2007. The main advantage in this
version is the utilization of an electronic submission system. There is no change in all
other workshop procedures. The electronic submission system provides a common
repository, which is open for all. Students can share the documents and the views
expressed in them.
VI. LEARNING PROCESS EVALUATION METHODOLGY
The workshop web site contains templates (see an example in Appendix I)
and grading guidelines (see Appendix II) for every type of document to be prepared
and evaluated by the teams. These templates were provided in all versions of the
workshop. Students were required to use the templates "as is" unless some of the
template paragraphs are irrelevant (or missing). The templates and the guidelines
provide a simple and unique mechanism for evaluating the learning process. Each
document is graded by the instructor and by an additional team, using the same
baselines (the templates and the grading guidelines). Under ideal conditions, the
instructor grade and the team grade should be the identical or very close. The
difference in the grades, between the instructor and the evaluating team was used to
measure the learning process. If learning occurs, the difference between the
instructor grades and the team grades should decrease throughout the duration of
the workshop. It should be noted that this observed learning process relates only to
the critical thinking capabilities and not to the whole workshop processes.
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2007 Conference 9
Yadin, A. Implementation of Bloom’s Taxonomy
The conclusions presented here are based on class average. The Excel files
used for the calculations track the learning process patterns of each team. However,
one should take into account that (unfortunately) not all teams posses Bloom's
taxonomy's higher cognitive levels. This means that for such a team the learning
process is somewhat limited. For that reason the class average was used. An
average which is very general but it provides the true picture.
VII. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
The three workshop versions were used for the past five years. As can be
expected, the results obtained demonstrate a different behavior in the three
workshop versions. See Figure 1 for the various assignments' grade difference over
the years. Underneath the year appears the number of teams that participated in the
workshop.
In the first version no learning patterns were observed. The students did not
provide any feedback, so their involvement with the document under evaluation was
minimal. This led to poor document analysis, which later affected the students' ability
to synthesize the components into a viable solution. This can be seen in the graph by
the large grade difference especially on the last assignment. Furthermore, learning is
achieved if the grades difference decreases however in this case it did not happen.
The large increase in the average grade of the fourth assignment can be explained
by the lack of students' feedback. In this version, during document evaluation, the
students were not required to provide feedback, so they only briefly reviewed the
documents. This hampered their ability to introduce additional new ideas into their
own future documents.
The second version demonstrated overall better understanding (the grade
difference was smaller), but no real evidence of learning was observed. The grade
difference did not decrease over time. The students understand better the
requirements and their evaluation is closer to the instructor evaluation. This is
explained by the fact that in this version students were required to provide
meaningful feedback. This feedback required a higher degree of investigation (critical
thinking), which later was also applied to their own documents. Due to the
submission mechanism limitations in this version (submission by email only),
students were exposed only to the document at hand. This limitation affected the
students' understanding of the documents' hierarchy and prevented the learning
process (the grade difference did not decrease).
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2007 Conference 10
Yadin, A. Implementation of Bloom’s Taxonomy
The third version demonstrated real learning. The grade difference was
originally small and it decreased during the course of the workshop. In this workshop
version, the students can view all submitted documents, so they can relate not only
to the document they evaluate, but to the history of documents submitted. During this
version, several teams asked if they are allowed to introduce changes to their
submitted documents. The reason was that during their evaluation of other
documents, they realized that they can improve their solution. This type of behavior
was not observed in previous versions of the workshop.
Figure 1. Average Grade Difference
Figure 1 presents a summary of the findings. These results relate to the
average grade difference. In the first workshop version (2003-2004), the average
difference in grades is quite high (13 points in 2003 and 10 points in 2004), however
the important issue here is the fact that the difference is not decreasing. This implies
that the critical thinking learning skills did not improve during the workshop. In the
second version (2005-2006), the average difference is very small (5 points in 2005
and 6 points in 2006), but once again there is no critical thinking learning pattern. In
general, the difference in grades over the four assignments is increasing. In the third
version the difference in grades is small (7 points) and it is decreasing, which
demonstrates the critical thinking learning process. However, it should be noted that
the learning pattern was observed on a small group of teams (only 8) and the
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2007 Conference 11
Yadin, A. Implementation of Bloom’s Taxonomy
decrease was minimal. The observed process trend (the fact that the difference
decreased) is the main contributor to the conclusion of improving the critical thinking
learning.
The results achieved demonstrated that Bloom’s taxonomy, when combined
with a proper workshop structure and supported by an electronic submission system,
provided a clear and improved way of teaching the critical thinking aspects of the
Systems Analysis and Design workshop. These critical thinking aspects were
demonstrated by the evaluation process carried out by the students.
Future work related to this case study includes running the Systems Analysis
and Design workshop for an additional year and measuring the effectiveness of the
critical thinking learning processes once again.
VIII. REFERENCES
Laudon, K.C. and J.P. Laudon (2005) Essentials of Management Information
Systems: Managing the Digital Firm and Student Multimedia Edition Package,
6
th
edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bocij, P. et al. (2005) Business Information Systems: Technology, Development and
Management for the E-business, 3
rd
edition, Financial Times/ Prentice Hall.
Gorgone, J.T. et al. (2002) "Model Curriculum and Guidelines for Undergraduate
Degree Program in Information System", www.acm.org/education /is2002.pdf
,
pp. 13-14.
Minor, O. and J. Armarego (2004) "Requirements Engineering: a Close Look at
Industry Needs and Model Curricula", http://awre2004.cis.unisa.edu.au/9 pdf
paper awre.pdf
Tuya, J. and J. Garcias-Fajul (1999) "Teaching Requirements Analysis by Means of
Student Collaboration", 29
th
ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.
Schatzberg, L. (2002) "Applying Bloom's and Kolb's Theories To Teaching Systems
Analysis & Design," The Proceedings of ISECON 2002, (19) (San Antonio),
http://isedj.org/isecon/2002/342b/ISECON.2002.Schatzberg.pdf
Boone, M. (1991) Leadership and the Computer, Roseville, CA: Prima Publishing.
Bloom, B.S. (1956
)Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive
Domain, New York: David McKay Co. Inc.
Machanick, P. (2000) Experience of Applying Bloom’s Taxonomy in Three Courses,
ftp://ftp.cs.wits.ac.za/pub/research/reports/TR-Wits-CS-2000-7.pdf
Buckley, J. and C. Exton (2003) "Blooms’ Taxonomy: A Framework for Assessing
Programmers’ Knowledge of Software Systems," iwpc, pp. 165-174 11th
IEEE International Workshop on Program Comprehension (IWPC'03).
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2007 Conference 12
Yadin, A. Implementation of Bloom’s Taxonomy
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2007 Conference 13
Lister, R. (2006) “Driving Learning Via Criterion-Referenced Assessment Using
Bloom's Taxonomy,” UniServe Science Assessment Symposium
Proceedings, http://science.uniserve.edu.au/pubs/procs/2006/lister.pdf
Steinke, P. and P. Fitch (2007) Assessing Service Learning,
http://www.virginiaassessment.org/rpa/2/Steinke Fitch.pdf
Yadin, A. Implementation of Bloom’s Taxonomy
APPENDIX I. TEMPLATE EXAMPLE (INITIATION AND
PLANNING DOCUMENT)
This appendix contains an example of one of the template documents used in
class. In this is example the template for the first document is presented.
The workshop consists of four documents, so four different templates are
provided on the workshop web site. The templates are simple Word files with a
list of paragraphs to be addressed by the students.
The templates serve only as general guidelines. The students have to consider
each paragraph for its relevance to their particular story. It is expected that
students will include in their document additional needed paragraphs, if such
paragraphs are missing in the template.
The Max Stern Academic College of Emek Yezreel
Computer Science and Information Systems Department
--- TEMPLATE ---
Initiation and Planning Document
1. Executive Summary
2. Current System Description
3. Problems with the existing system
4. Preliminary requirements
a. New system objectives
b. New system potential benefits
5. Feasibility Study
a. Technical feasibility
b. Economic feasibility
c. Organizational feasibility
6. Preliminary project plan and staffing
7. Project borders
8. Required standards
9. Preliminary Risk Analysis
10. Recommendations
Figure 2. Initiation and Planning Document Template
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2007 Conference 14
Yadin, A. Implementation of Bloom’s Taxonomy
APPENDIX II. GUIDELINES EXAMPLE
This appendix contains an example of the guidelines documents used in class.
The workshop consists of four documents, so four different guideline documents
are provided on the workshop web site. These guidelines are consistent with the
documents' templates and provide the relative grade of each of the paragraphs
in the document. The guidelines documents are based on Excel worksheets. The
students fill in the worksheet and submit it electronically. The worksheet is locked
and only relevant fields are available for the students (the marked fields). The
total grade is calculated automatically.
The template presented in this example is for the second document.
Emek Yezreel College
Computer Science and Information Systems Department
0
0
YVC
Guidelines for evaluating and grading analysis documents
Course:
Evaluating Team:
Owner Team:
Team Members:
Please grade all paragraphs.
Only the designated cells can be modified
Part A
Max
Paragraph Grade Grade Reason for the grade
1 Changes to Previous doc.
4
2 Executive Summary
8
3 Requirements Strategy
4
4.1 Req. Plan Review
3
4.2 Interviews Description
2
4.3 Relevant Questions
2
4.4 Interview Transcription
1
4.5 Questionnaire
2
4.6 Special Diagnosis
1
4.7 Other
1
5.1 Current System Review
3
5.2.1 Current UC Review
2
5.2.2 Current UC Description
2
5.2.3 Current UC Diagrams
2
5.3 Current Process Model
4
5.4 Current Data Model
4
6.1 New System Review
4
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2007 Conference 15
Yadin, A. Implementation of Bloom’s Taxonomy
Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2007 Conference 16
6.2.1 New UC Review
5
6.2.2 New UC Description
5
6.2.3 New UC Diagrams
5
6.3 New Process Model
8
6.4 New Data Model
8
Part B
1 Clear Readable Wording
12
2 Layout and Design
8
Total 0 100
Figure 3. Analysis Document Grading Guidelines
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Aharon Yadin is a Senior Lecturer at the Max Stern Academic College of Emek
Yezreel, Computer Science and Information Systems Department. Aharon's
primary teaching areas are computer architectures and business/management
information systems. Prior to entering the academic world, Aharon worked in the
computing industry. He has over 30 years of IT experience including:
management, system performance analysis and enhancement, computer center
and IS management, communication technologies, wireless networks, document
management, research, development, consulting and lecturing on innovative and
new technologies.
Aharon has published and presented papers at several conferences, he is the
author of 4 books and consults the European Commission on software related
projects and technologies.
