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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

A Model of Retrospective Reflection in Project Based Learning 429 The model in Fig. 3 illustrates retrospective reflection incorporating the main elements elaborated in Section 4, and serves as a generic description of retrospective reflection utilizing individual and shared timeline representations as well as historical data in various collaborative tools used in the project. The rectangles in the diagram are representations (internal or external), the ovals are processes in which the representations are transformed. These processes can be seen as learning processes in the sense that new knowledge is constructed. A representation having an outgoing arrow pointing to a process is a cognitive tool in that process. Where arrows point in both directions between a representation and a learning process, the representation used in the process is itself changed through the process. The finer, dashed arrows show the use of historical data to identify events and sub-trajectories. In more detail, process (1) is the daily project work. Collaborative tools are used as cognitive tools, resulting in data remaining in the tools as historical data. The tools in daily work can be seen as continuously updated ‘representations’ of the project by containing data reflecting aspects of the project work. Internal representations of the project in participants’ heads also impact on, and result from, the work. Turning to the retrospective reflection, there is an individual step (2) in which individuals make an external representation of the project process in the form of a timeline. We have indicated the possibility to represent sub-trajectories (e.g. a satisfaction curve). In this, the collaborative tools with their historical data potentially serve as cognitive tools, as illustrated in Fig.2. In making sense of the historical data, the learner recognizes them as associated with project events and sub-trajectories. Participants’ individual timelines are cognitive tools for collaborative reflection (3) in which a shared timeline is created (Fig. 1), mediated also by the individual, internal representations. Elements from the individual timelines are included and may be transformed (see Fig.1, the emphasized event). Again, the collaborative tools with their historical data may be used as cognitive tools. In addition to the shared timeline, the team may create other representations (e.g. textual reflection notes). Some of the resulting representations may serve as cognitive tools in further project work, closing the cycle of project based learning. The model is a simplification with respect to the number of representations and transformations. For instance, the step of orally presenting the contents of individual timelines to the team and the transformation of historical data that happens through retrospective use of the tool has been only indirectly assumed. The model outlines main elements in the distributed cognition of retrospective reflection and the dynamics among these elements. It can be used to guide the organization of retrospective reflection in project-based learning. While our analysis addressed the benefit of various representations and transformative processes, retrospective reflection may be arranged without the inclusion of all the elements. Depending on constraints and objectives, a specific organization of the process may leave out the individual or the collective step of creating external timeline representations. Also, the use of collaborative tool history can be omitted. To decide whether a specific collaborative tool should be used in retrospective reflection, a team should take into account the tool features for data navigation and retrieval, tool usage in daily work, and issues seen as important to the team and thus worth reflecting on. 184
430 B.R. Krogstie Fig. 3. A model of retrospective reflection in project based learning 6 Conclusion We have used empirical data from SD student projects to analyse retrospective reflection in the context of project based learning and develop a model outlining its elements and dynamics. On basis of distributed cognition, the model describes retrospective reflection as a set of transformations of representations of the project process, internal and external. A timeline of events is used as a cognitive tool. It fits the idea of process trajectories, is good for situating historical data in context, and is good for being shared and combined into a collaboratively constructed representation. The scope of our analysis and model is project based learning in which lightweight collaborative tools are used to support various aspects of work. While the domain of our empirical studies is software development, the model may be used to aid the organization of retrospective reflection in project based learning within any domain. Taking a constructivist view of knowledge, there is no single, ‘real’ story of a project that can be revealed through the use of timelines and collaborative tool history. Our approach can help participants unveil issues of importance to them and aid individual and collective sense making of various aspects of the project. We believe that the systematic approach, the explicit incorporation of individual contributions into collective, co-constructive learning activity, and the utilization of available resources in the form of historical data together result in reflection outcomes that are likely to be useful with respect to the learning objectives and valid in the sense that more stones have been turned. 185
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:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
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 and 110:
Glossary B Boundary object - artifa
Page 111 and 112:
Glossary maintaining the system aft
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 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: 428 B.R. Krogstie in combining them
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?