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 The following four research questions were formulated (Table 1): Table 1: Research questions for the PhD thesis RQ1: What characterizes software engineering student projects? RQ2: What is the current usage of lightweight collaboration tools to support work in software engineering student projects? RQ3: How can retrospective reflection be supported in software engineering student projects? RQ4: How can collaboration tools that are used in daily project work be utilized as tools for project based learning? 1.3 Research design Case studies of SE projects with a focus on the as-is situation were appropriate for unveiling current challenges in the projects in line with RQ1 and RQ2 and guide the selection of issues to be explored more deeply in the thesis. Particularly in the case of two longitudinal studies, the research was guided by the principles of interpretive field studies (Klein and Myers 1999). To explore the selected issue of retrospective reflection in accordance with RQ3 and RQ4, the research was designed to include interventions to current practice, exploring and evaluating approaches to retrospective reflection. This can be considered part of a design research (Kelly et al. 2008b) process with the goal of improving the SE project course in question as well as contributing with theoretical insights and practical approaches in the area of project based learning more generally. A SE project course at NTNU was a good candidate for the empirical research needed to explore RQ1-4. The course is a capstone project course of an undergraduate IT study program, and while the students in the projects are relative novices in the field of Software Engineering, they have relatively advanced SE knowledge and skills. Further adding to the realism of the projects as compared to professional SE work, the projects have external customers for whom working software products are to be developed. Being a researcher and some of the time course staff in various roles in the project course, I had opportunities to get insights about the course organization and about specific projects of interest. I had access to various project documentation and opportunities for data collection across the teams in the course as well as the 4
Introduction opportunity to do longitudinal studies of single teams. This permitted the collection of a large amount of data over several years to gain an in-depth understanding of the case. Also, I had the opportunity to make interventions with the course itself. The dual role of researcher and staff and its possible impacts on the research were systematically addressed in the research. While most of the case material for the thesis was drawn from the SE project course at NTNU, some of the empirical data for research paper P1 was collected in a similar project course at NITH, the university college that was my former workplace. In my PhD research I take a constructionist perspective on work and learning, deliberately seeking to focus on their social and cognitive aspects. I have chosen to be relatively restrictive in applying theoretical concepts in the initial phases of the research, including theory as seen useful for the different research activities to support data collection and analysis in a way coherent with a constructionist view. 1.4 Results and contributions The research questions RQ1-RQ4 are answered in the following research papers: P1 P2 P3 Krogstie, B. and B. Bygstad. Cross-Community Collaboration and Learning in Customer-Driven Software Engineering Student Projects. Twentieth Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T) 2007, Dublin. IEEE Computer Society. (Krogstie and Bygstad 2007) Krogstie, B. Power through brokering. OSS participation in SE projects. ICSE 2008, Leipzig. IEEE Computer Society. (Krogstie 2008a) Krogstie, B.R. Do‟s and Don‟ts of Instant Messaging in Students‟ Project Work. NOKOBIT 2009, Trondheim. Tapir. (Krogstie 2009a) P4 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. (Krogstie 2008b) P5 P6 Krogstie, B.R. Using Project Wiki History to Reflect on the Project Process. 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS‟42) 2009. Big Island, Hawaii: IEEE Computer Society. (Krogstie 2009c) Krogstie, B.R. and M. Divitini. Shared timeline and individual experience: Supporting retrospective reflection in student software engineering teams. CSEE&T 2009, Hyderabad. IEEE Computer Society. (Krogstie and Divitini 2009) 5
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 37 and 38: 3 Software Engineering student proj
Page 39 and 40: Software Engineering student projec
Page 45: Software Engineering student projec
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 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:
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 ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?