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 In 2006, empirical studies were conducted at NITH and at NTNU. A longitudinal study of a NITH team involving some days of recorded observation over a semester was useful because it informed the focus of further research, but the study itself did not produce results that were published. The study reported in P1 addressed crosscommunity collaboration in capstone SE projects with external customers, drawing on data from semi-structured interviews with project students and customers in the undergraduate SE project course PJ501 at NITH, and interviews with customers from the NTNU project course IT2901 which was found to be similar enough to allow a combination of data across the courses. The study was conducted in collaboration with Bendik Bygstad at NITH. Team V at NTNU was identified as a particularly interesting case of instant messaging (IM) use, experiencing highly problematic team-customer collaboration over this medium. Based on the IM log and follow-up interviews with the project manager and the customer, the findings were reported in P3. Data from the 2006 studies also informed a theoretical reflection paper (Krogstie and Divitini 2007) on how the projects can be seen as a case of mobile learning, the scaffolding of which should focus on boundary objects between interacting communities (see Appendix B). From 2007 on, all data were collected from the project course IT2901 at NTNU. A longitudinal field study was conducted with Team A (Figure 7). It was made clear to the team that I would have no role in the evaluation of their work and provide no supervision. The study involved 75 hours of naturalistic observation of work sessions and meetings with project stakeholders. Data collection included field notes, photos and audio recordings from the observed work sessions, the team‟s email communication, artifacts involved in the project work, project documentation at various stages of development, follow-up interviews with the customer and the team right after the project, and two team members reading through a draft version of P2. Brokering towards an OSS development community was identified as a topic for P2, and as part of the analysis the field notes were used to create a chronology of project events. 32
Research approach and research process Figure 7: Team A having a meeting at the customer's site. The customer (second from the right) has ordered pizza. Data on the use of collaboration tools were collected across all teams in the 2007 cohort of the project course through mid-semester interviews and through inspection of project deliverables, particularly the reflection notes (for which a template had been made to make sure that the use of collaboration technology was addressed). These data were later used in P3 and P7. Four 2007 teams were using project wikis, and three used them actively throughout their project. Data on wiki usage was collected by examining the wikis and interviewing students from the three active teams after project completion. Results on the use of wikis in daily work were published in P4. Two of the retrospective interviews were aided by the examination of wiki contents, a form of mediation turning out to be so useful for project participants‟ recall and reflection that it was made a research topic informing the analysis of the interviews. The results were presented in P5. Pursuing the potential of wikis to aid retrospective reflection and the possibility to improve existing wiki functionality in this respect, I took the role of customer for a project team (Team W) in the spring semester of 2008. Team W developed the Wiki Walkthrough Tool (WWT), a prototype tool implemented as an add-on to an existing wiki tool (see Section 5.5) and presented in P4. The tool was tested in Team W‟s own project wiki in the last phase of their project. Additionally, use scenarios for the tool were evaluated by two expert teams, one of former project customers and one of project supervisors. In 2008, data on the use of collaboration tools in the teams were again collected through mid-semester interviews with all teams as well as examination of the teams‟ reflection notes. The results were used in P3 and P7. Continuing the work on ways to support students‟ reflection on the project process, I introduced retrospective reflection 33
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 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?