The work-reflection-learning cycle - Department of Computer and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The work-reflection-learning cycle in SE student projects: Use of collaboration tools L Lightweight collaboration tools – Collaboration tools that can be acquired and taken into use at low cost (e.g. money, time to learn) for individuals and their organization. A lightweight collaboration tool typically provides a limited set of features to support one aspect of collaborative work and may thus be relatively easily integrated into existing work processes (rather than imposing a certain process on the user). Many of the lightweight collaboration tools are associated with Web 2.0. O Open source software (OSS) – computer software for which the source code and certain other rights are provided under a software license that permits users to study, change, and improve the software. The Open Source Initiative outlines a set of criteria for an open source licence (OpenSourceInitiative 2010) P Post-mortem – In the context of project work, post-mortem refers to something undertaken after project completion or after the completion of a project phase. Problem based learning – see Section 3.1 Project based learning (PBL) – see Section 3.1 Project retrospective – an activity conducted after the completion of an entire project or a major project phase to reflect on and learn from the project process in order to improve it (Dingsøyr 2005) (or identify lessons learned to draw on in other projects). Post-mortem review, post-mortem analysis, post-mortem evaluation, and also, for short, post-mortem largely refer to the same type of activity, project retrospective typically being used about post-mortem evaluation in the context of agile software development (Derby et al. 2006; Kerth 2001). S Social software – a range of software systems used for interacting and sharing data, comprising lightweight collaboration tools like instant messaging as well as web sites like Facebook, LinkedIn, Flickr, YouTube, amazon and eBay allowing the users to interact through the system and build and maintain a social profile. See Web 2.0. Software development (SD) – the domain of work concerned with the development of software. Can be considered a subset of software engineering. Software engineering (SE) – A) An engineering discipline which is concerned with all aspects of software production from early stages of system specification through to 92
Glossary maintaining the system after it has been put into use (Sommerville 2001) – B) (1) The application of a systematic, disciplined, quantifiable approach to the development, operation, and maintenance of software; that is, the application of engineering to software. (2) The study of approaches as in (1) (IEEE 1990). T Technology enhanced learning (TEL) – the support of any learning activity through technology. Whereas CSCL (see above) can be considered a distinct research community, it is also possible to consider it part of TEL. This has been done for simplicity in the thesis, in which CSCL is referred to in cases where it is relevant to point to that particular research community or body of literature. Timeline – 1) In the reflection workshops described in the thesis, a T. is a line drawn on paper or whiteboard along which are marked events perceived by project participants to be of some importance to the project. 2) A collaboration tool (e.g. Trac) may include functionality for chronologically displaying (often fine grained) actions/events related to the work supported by the tool (e.g. all source code updates). In Trac, the display of this chronology is named the Timeline. Trajectory - “(1) the course of any experienced phenomenon as it evolves over time” and “(2) the actions and interactions contributing to its evolution” (Strauss 1993, pp.53-54). U Use – the act or practice of employing something (Webster Online). Usage – firmly established and generally accepted practice or procedure (Webster Online). W Web 2.0 – This is a concept for which many different definitions and explanations exist. Dohn describes Web 2.0 as practice rather than a set of technologies, arguing that a particular technology may be used in a way that is more or less Web 2.0. Web 2.0, according to Dohn, denotes activities that have most or all of the following characteristics (the last one being necessary): • “Collaboration and/or distributed authorship • Active, open-access, “bottom-up” participation and interactive multi-way communication 93
Page 1 and 2:
Birgit Rognebakke Krogstie The work
Page 3 and 4:
Figure 1: Most used terms in the th
Page 5 and 6:
Abstract In project based learning,
Page 7 and 8:
Preface This thesis is submitted to
Page 9 and 10:
Acknowledgements I would like to th
Page 11 and 12:
Contents 1 Introduction ...........
Page 13 and 14:
Research paper P4 135 Research pape
Page 15 and 16:
Figure 17: Support for learning in
Page 17:
Abbreviations CSCL CSCW IS NITH NTN
Page 20 and 21:
The work-reflection-learning cycle
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 37 and 38:
3 Software Engineering student proj
Page 39 and 40:
Software Engineering student projec
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 55 and 56:
5 Results This chapter presents an
Page 57 and 58:
Results The background of P2 is a l
Page 59 and 60: Results project management and coll
Page 61 and 62: Results proposed in P5 was to allow
Page 63 and 64: Results Analysis of the results sho
Page 65 and 66: Results archives are found to conta
Page 67 and 68: Results (SVN). Trac provides lightw
Page 69: Results Figure 15: A model outlinin
Page 72 and 73: The work-reflection-learning cycle
Page 81 and 82: 7 Evaluation In this chapter, I eva
Page 83 and 84: Evaluation adds to the CSCW literat
Page 85 and 86: Evaluation 7.3 Evaluation of the re
Page 87 and 88: Evaluation In the longitudinal stud
Page 89 and 90: Evaluation According to the princip
Page 91 and 92: Evaluation However, only some of th
Page 93 and 94: Evaluation to design is problematic
Page 95 and 96: 8 Conclusion and further work This
Page 97 and 98: Conclusion and recommendations for
Page 99 and 100: 9 References Abran, A., Moore, J. W
Page 101 and 102: References Cobb, P. (1994). "Where
Page 103 and 104: References Herbsleb, J. D., Mockus,
Page 105 and 106: References Leont'ev, A. N. (1981).
Page 107 and 108: References Stahl, G. (2002). "Build
Page 109: Glossary B Boundary object - artifa
Page 113 and 114: Appendix A: Research papers P1 P2 P
Page 115 and 116: Research paper P1 Title: Cross-Comm
Page 117 and 118: Cross-Community Collaboration and L
Page 119 and 120: the course staff may improve the co
Page 121 and 122: 4: Case findings: students’ view
Page 123 and 124: own account of why each artifact is
Page 125 and 126: Research paper P2 Title: Power Thro
Page 127 and 128: Power Through Brokering: Open Sourc
Page 129 and 130: Due to the openness of OSS communit
Page 131 and 132: 5.1.2 Second phase (February-May):
Page 133 and 134: Getting from the second to the thir
Page 135 and 136: 6.2.1 Benefits for SE student proje
Page 137 and 138: Research paper P3 Title: Do’s and
Page 139 and 140: DO‟S AND DON‟TS OF INSTANT MESS
Page 141 and 142: a chat window is opened. As soon as
Page 143 and 144: three examples in the form of excer
Page 145 and 146: Example 2. Excerpt from an IM log s
Page 147 and 148: Example 3. Excerpt from an IM log s
Page 149 and 150: immediate feedback in the heated di
Page 151 and 152: Acknowledgements Thanks to Monica D
Page 153 and 154: Research paper P4 Title: The wiki a
Page 155 and 156: The wiki as an integrative tool in
Page 157 and 158: type of use can be seen as an examp
Page 159 and 160: ecome integration, and we identifie
Page 161 and 162:
project. Typically, a clean-up was
Page 163 and 164:
5.1 The wiki as a knowledge reposit
Page 165 and 166:
6. Conclusion We have shown how pro
Page 167 and 168:
Research paper P5 Title: Using Proj
Page 169 and 170:
Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii Inte
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Research paper P6 Title: Shared tim
Page 181 and 182:
Shared timeline and individual expe
Page 183 and 184:
presentation. In 2008, there were 1
Page 185 and 186:
congruent’ to sets that seem to o
Page 187 and 188:
team members and the co-constructiv
Page 189 and 190:
Research paper P7 Title: A Model of
Page 191 and 192:
A Model of Retrospective Reflection
Page 193 and 194:
420 B.R. Krogstie Fig. 1. Shared ti
Page 195 and 196:
422 B.R. Krogstie information about
Page 197 and 198:
424 B.R. Krogstie and to express ho
Page 199 and 200:
426 B.R. Krogstie 4.2 The Temporal
Page 201 and 202:
428 B.R. Krogstie in combining them
Page 203 and 204:
430 B.R. Krogstie Fig. 3. A model o
Page 205 and 206:
432 B.R. Krogstie 20. Hutchins, E.:
Page 207 and 208:
Research paper P8 Title: Supporting
Page 209 and 210:
Supporting Reflection in Software D
Page 211 and 212:
2 Background In this section we bri
Page 213 and 214:
There are 3-5 students in the teams
Page 215 and 216:
4 Research Method The research repo
Page 217 and 218:
5 Findings In this section we draw
Page 219 and 220:
As a consequence, ‘startup coding
Page 221 and 222:
The type of data involved included
Page 223 and 224:
potentially negative effects is if
Page 225 and 226:
unfolded may shed light on the proc
Page 227 and 228:
5. Lyytinen, K. and D. Robey, Learn
Page 229 and 230:
Appendix B: Other research publicat
show all

The work-reflection-learning cycle - Department of Computer and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?