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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Trac timeline (see Fig. 2, screenshot (a)) contains an item for each changeset (and its comment), wiki update, ticket update, and milestone completion. Each item has a date and time of the update; an identifier linking to the particular version of the project artifact(s) affected; and the name of the user doing the update. In Fig. 2 (a), for example, the comment associated with changeset [86] reflects an update of source code to the SVN server made by Matthew on 13 February. Apart from conveying status updates, comments are sometimes used more directly for coordination, as in “be sure to update before doing any changes” (comment made by Justin on 5 May.). The timeline is thus central to the coordination of SD work in the project, particularly when team members are not collocated. It provides an instant overview of state-ofaffairs as well as an entry point to the project artifacts. Fig. 2: Three screenshots from Trac as Justin examines the timeline and identifies pre-study coding 196
4 Research Method The research reported in this paper is interpretive [48]. The main source of data is a retrospective reflection workshop conducted with the selected SD project team in a usability lab over a period of two and a half days at the end of their project. In addition, a longitudinal study of the team’s work had been conducted throughout the project (one semester), including 45 hours of non-participant observation of meetings and work in the computer lab and frequent examination of project artifacts (including the contents of Trac) as well as the team’s internal and external email communication. The study provided knowledge important to our interpretation of data from the workshop. Selection of the project was based on a combination of the technically complex project task and the team’s decision to use Trac. Table 1. Organization of the reflection workshop Session type Step Explanation Individual 1) Reconstructing The team member was given a sheet of paper with a timeline sessions the containing a few fixed project events (e.g. delivery deadlines) (Days 1-2, project and was asked to add important events. Next, for each of these each trajectory by events, the researcher added it to a similar timeline on the session 1,5- 2 hours) The whiteboard was photographed memory whiteboard and asked the team member to explain the importance of the event. Next, the team member was asked to draw on the paper sheet a curve showing how he had felt about working in the project. Finally he was asked to draw the curve along the whiteboard timeline, explaining its shape. 2) Using The team member was asked to use the laptop and Trac to freely after these collaboration explain the project. When general browsing and explanation sessions tool history to appeared exhaustive, the team member was asked to do a aid further chronological walkthrough of the Trac timeline, exploring links reconstruction at need. As new events deemed important to the project were identified, they were added to the whiteboard timeline by the interviewer, who took care to add events based on what the team member considered important. Common 3) Reconstructuring The project timeline was reconstructed again, the researcher session the writing down events on the whiteboard as the team members (Day 3, half day) project trajectory using collaboration tool at need listed them in a round-robin fashion. A PC with access to Trac was available to the team members, the screen projected onto the wall next to the whiteboard. When no more events were suggested, the team members came to the whiteboard one by one to draw their satisfaction curve and comment on it. 4) Discussion There was a common session addressing questions of project of tasks, roles, tasks and lessons learned, each question answered by all lessons team members in turn. Discussion was allowed and encouraged. learned, roles The workshop steps were based on the timeline and satisfaction curve approach described in the Case section. Compared to the short retrospective workshops conducted with the other teams in the course, the design incorporated an extra step of using historical data in Trac to aid recall. Further, individual timeline construction was done in a sequence of individual sessions (rather than in parallel) to allow the 197
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 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: There are 3-5 students in the teams
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?