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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

a good start to consider what aspects and challenges of their project work they would like to shed light on, and next consider what are the candidate tools to contain relevant data. Finally, it should be stressed that when considering the potential of using a certain tool to aid retrospective reflection in a specific case, a general framework is only a useful starting point. The functionality of the specific tool will have to be considered along with the usage of the tool in the specific project, which heavily impacts on what historical data is being stored through everyday use of the tool. 8 Conclusion By investigating a case of retrospective reflection in a software development project aided by historical data in an issue tracker (Trac), we have shown in detail how a collaboration tool in daily use in a project can be used to help participants learn from the project experience. We have demonstrated how certain types of data and certain features for retrieving them proved particularly valuable to aid participants’ recall and reflection, aiding the reconstruction of the project trajectory. Based on the findings we identified a set of questions that may be asked by a project team or a collaboration tool designer when considering the potential to use specific collaboration tools in retrospective reflection. The questions can serve as a starting point for the development of a more general framework outlining issues that should be addressed. To gain insight on the potential of different types of collaboration tools to aid retrospective reflection, more empirical studies are however needed. By unveiling project teams’ use of specific tools in retrospective reflection we may identify ways of utilizing the tools that significantly differ from the way Trac was used in our study. This is an area of further research. Another issue to be addressed in further research is how a project team’s knowledge of the future use of a collaboration tool in retrospective reflection affects their daily use of the tool. Finally, we will examine how the retrospective use of Trac can be integrated into retrospective reflection workshops within a time schedule feasible for real SD projects. We will do this by trying out the approach in SD projects on a larger scale. References 1. Carstensen, P.H. and K. Schmidt, Computer Supported Cooperative Work: New Challenges to Systems Design, in Handbook of Human Factors/Ergonomics, K. Itoh, Editor. 2002 (1999), Asakura Publishing: Tokyo. 2. Grinter, R. Doing Software Development: Occasions for Automation and Formalisation. in ECSCW'97. 1997. Lancaster, United Kingdom: Springer. 3. Herbsleb, J.D., et al. Distance, dependencies, and delay in a global collaboration. in CSCW'00. 2000. Philadelphia, PA: ACM 4. Keil, M., J. Mann, and A. Rai, Why Software Projects Escalate: An Empirical Analysis and Test of Four Theoretical Models. MIS Quarterly, 2000. 24(4). 208
5. Lyytinen, K. and D. Robey, Learning failure in information systems development. Information Systems Journal, 1999. 9: p. 17. 6. Basili, V.R. and G. Caldiera, Improving Software Quality by Reusing Knowledge and Experience. Sloan Management Review, 1995. Fall 1995. 7. Dybå, T. and T. Dingsøyr, Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 2008. 2008(50): p. 833-859. 8. Derby, E., D. Larsen, and K. Schwaber, Agile Retrospectives. 2006: Pragmatic Bookshelf. 9. Kerth, N., Project Retrospectives: A Handbook for Team Reviews 2001: Dorset House. 10. Schindler, M. and M.J. Eppler, Harvesting project knowledge: a review of project learning methods and success factors. International Journal of Project Management, 2003. 21: p. 10. 11. Bjørnson, F.O., A.I. Wang, and E. Arisholm, Improving the effectiveness of root cause analysis in post mortem analysis: A controlled experiment. Information and Software Technology, 2009. 51: p. 150-161. 12. Schön, D., The Reflective Practitioner. 1983: Basic Books, Inc. 13. Kasi, V., et al., The post mortem paradox: a Delphi study of IT specialist perceptions. European Journal of Information Systems, 2008. 17: p. 62-78. 14. Churchill, E.F. and S. Bly. It's all in the words: Supporting work activities with lightweight tools. in GROUP '99. 1999. Phoenix, Arizona, USA: ACM. 15. Gutwin, C., R. Penner, and K. Schneider. Knowledge sharing in software engineering: Group awareness in distributed software development in CSCW'04. 2004. Chicago, Illinois, USA.: ACM Press. 16. Handel, M. and J.D. Herbsleb. What is Chat Doing in the Workplace? in CSCW'02. 2002. New Orleans, Louisiana, USA: ACM. 17. Krogstie, B.R. The wiki as an integrative tool in project work. in COOP. 2008. Carry-le- Rouet, Provence, France: Institut d’Etudes Politiques d’Aix-en-Provence. 18. Krogstie, B.R. A model of retrospective reflection in project based learning utilizing historical data in collaborative tools. in EC-TEL 2009. 2009. Nice, France: Springer. 19. Hutchins, E., Cognition in the Wild. 1995, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. 20. Rogers, Y. and J. Ellis, Distributed Cognition: an alternative framework for analyzing and explaining collaborative working. Journal of Information Technology, 1994. 9: p. 119-128. 21. Daradoumis, T. and M. Marques, Distributed Cognition in the Context of Virtual Collaborative Learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 2002. 13(1/2): p. 135- 148. 22. Flor, N.V. and E.L. Hutchins. Analyzing Distributed Cognition in Software Teams: A Case Study of Team Programming during Perfective Software Maintenance. in Empirical Studies of Programmers: Fourth Workshop. 1991: Ablex Publishing. 23. Sharp, H. and H. Robinson, Collaboration and co-ordination in mature eXtreme programming teams. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2008. 66(7): p. 506-518. 24. Ackerman, M.S. and C. Halverson, Organizational Memory as Objects, Process, and Trajectories: An Examination of Organizational Memory in Use. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2004. 13(2): p. 155-189. 25. Salomon, G., No distribution without individuals' cognition, in Distributed Cognitions. Psychological and educational considerations, G. Salomon, Editor. 1993, Cambridge University Press. 26. Strauss, A., Continual permutations of action. 1993, New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 27. Grudin, J. and T. Lovejoy. Messaging and Formality: Will IM Follow in the Footsteps of Email. in INTERACT 2003. 2003. Zurich: IOS Press. 28. Isaacs, E., et al. The Character, Functions, and Styles of Instant Messaging in the Workplace. in CSCW'02. 2002. New Orleans, Louisiana, USA: ACM. 29. Dourish, P. and V. Bellotti. Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. in ACM CSCW. 1992. Toronto, Ontario, Canada ACM Press. 209
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 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176: Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii Inte
Page 177 and 178: 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 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: unfolded may shed light on the proc
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?