The work-reflection-learning cycle - Department of Computer and ...
The work-reflection-learning cycle - Department of Computer and ... The work-reflection-learning cycle - Department of Computer and ...
The work-reflection-learning cycle in SE student projects: Use of collaboration tools 5.6 P6: Shared timeline and individual experience: Supporting retrospective reflection in student software engineering teams Authors: Krogstie, Birgit and Divitini, Monica I was the first author of this paper and main responsible for setting up the study and collecting and analyzing the data. The second author has provided feedback and comments throughout the process. Published in: Proceedings of the 22 nd Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T) 2009 To help SE student teams learn from their project process, we propose the use of facilitated postmortem workshops in which each team reconstructs its project timeline. Individual team members’ experience of the project is included by team members drawing individual ‘experience curves’ along the timeline. The approach is based on current industry practice and adapted in accordance with theory on reflection and learning. We present the detailed design of the workshops as they were implemented in an undergraduate SE project course as well as some recommendations for future workshops. The workshops are effective for promoting active participation, constructing a shared representation of the project process, and revisiting project issues from multiple perspectives. Evaluation showed that students were satisfied with the workshop and motivated to use the approach in later projects. The background of the paper was the assumption that existing post-mortem analysis approaches from SE industry may be successfully taken into use in SE student projects, with some adaptation. This would give the students experience with a particular aspect of SE practice and help them learn from their project experience. The feasibility of the approach in terms of time (for students and staff) was a key constraint in the adaptation to the educational setting. The paper presents a concrete method for supporting retrospective reflection in student SE teams. The method is adapted from state-of-the-art SE industry practice and is based on the individual and collective construction of a timeline of project events and the drawing of individual experience curves along the timeline, indicating how positive or negative the experience was at different points in time. The timeline and curves serve as a resource for the team‟s discussion of lessons learned. In the student projects, the approach was used in a short 60 minute workshop at the end of the project. There was no formal deliverable from the workshop, but the students were recommended to draw on what they had learned when writing their reflection notes (one for each team) to be handed in a few days later. The timetable of the workshop is shown in Table 3. 44
Results Analysis of the results showed that the workshop helped students share their individual perspectives (see Figure 12) and develop new, shared insights, i.e. knowledge, about their projects. The techniques applied in the workshop were chosen from existing approaches in SE industry. Thus, the novelty of the design primarily lies in the integration of the technique into an educational setting, requiring only minor adaptation of the workshop design itself (e.g. aiming for a short duration and integrating questions relevant for the reflection notes). Task name Intro (5 min) Individual timelines (5 min) Shared timeline (15 min) Individual experience curves (5 min) Present curves (10 min) Questions about roles & lessons learned (5 min) Present answers (10 min) Wrap-up (5 min) Description Explain the purpose and agenda of the workshop. Clarify issues of confidentiality and research Each participant gets an A3 sheet of paper with a timeline reporting common events in the course (mainly the deliverables). The participants are asked to individually add events that they perceived had an impact on their project. Participants take turn in explaining the events they have listed The facilitator marks the events on the whiteboard on a timeline similar to the one on the individual sheets. The team members each draw their experience curve (or „satisfaction curve‟) on the A3 sheet. The smiley face on top of the sheet indicates a level of great satisfaction. Down at the bottom is great dissatisfaction, and the timeline itself marks a neutral position in the middle. Each member in turn goes to the whiteboard, which holds the shared timeline. The team member first draws her curve with her whiteboard marker, next explains its shape. At the end of the session, all team members‟ experience curves can be found on the whiteboard. A sheet of incomplete statements addressing the project are uncovered, and the students are asked to turn their A3 sheet and write their answers on the blank page. 1) “In the project, my role was…” 2) “Through the project, I got better at…” 3) “In a similar project, I would like to become more skilled at…” 4) “The most important thing I have learnt about software engineering in this project is…” The answers to the questions are presented around the table The students may add further comments about their project on their sheet. If formal evaluation of the workshop is not done on another occasion, this is an opportunity to have feedback, oral or written. The A3 sheets are left for the facilitator/course staff. Table 3: Timetable of the retrospective reflection workshop conducted with each of the teams in a SE project course. From P6. 45
- 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: The work-reflection-learning cycle
- Page 24 and 25: The work-reflection-learning cycle
- Page 26 and 27: The work-reflection-learning cycle
- Page 28 and 29: The work-reflection-learning cycle
- Page 30 and 31: The work-reflection-learning cycle
- Page 32 and 33: The work-reflection-learning cycle
- Page 34 and 35: The work-reflection-learning cycle
- Page 37 and 38: 3 Software Engineering student proj
- Page 39 and 40: Software Engineering student projec
- Page 41 and 42: Software Engineering student projec
- Page 43 and 44: Software Engineering student projec
- Page 45: Software Engineering student projec
- Page 48 and 49: The work-reflection-learning cycle
- Page 50 and 51: The work-reflection-learning cycle
- Page 52 and 53: The work-reflection-learning cycle
- 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: Results proposed in P5 was to allow
- 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: The work-reflection-learning cycle
- Page 76 and 77: The work-reflection-learning cycle
- Page 78 and 79: The work-reflection-learning cycle
- 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
<strong>The</strong> <strong>work</strong>-<strong>reflection</strong>-<strong>learning</strong> <strong>cycle</strong> in SE student projects: Use <strong>of</strong> collaboration tools<br />
5.6 P6: Shared timeline <strong>and</strong> individual experience: Supporting<br />
retrospective <strong>reflection</strong> in student s<strong>of</strong>tware engineering<br />
teams<br />
Authors: Krogstie, Birgit <strong>and</strong> Divitini, Monica<br />
I was the first author <strong>of</strong> this paper <strong>and</strong> main responsible for setting up the study <strong>and</strong><br />
collecting <strong>and</strong> analyzing the data. <strong>The</strong> second author has provided feedback <strong>and</strong><br />
comments throughout the process.<br />
Published in: Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the 22 nd Conference on S<strong>of</strong>tware Engineering Education<br />
<strong>and</strong> Training (CSEE&T) 2009<br />
To help SE student teams learn from their project process, we propose the use <strong>of</strong> facilitated postmortem<br />
<strong>work</strong>shops in which each team reconstructs its project timeline. Individual team members’ experience <strong>of</strong><br />
the project is included by team members drawing individual ‘experience curves’ along the timeline. <strong>The</strong><br />
approach is based on current industry practice <strong>and</strong> adapted in accordance with theory on <strong>reflection</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>learning</strong>. We present the detailed design <strong>of</strong> the <strong>work</strong>shops as they were implemented in an<br />
undergraduate SE project course as well as some recommendations for future <strong>work</strong>shops. <strong>The</strong><br />
<strong>work</strong>shops are effective for promoting active participation, constructing a shared representation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
project process, <strong>and</strong> revisiting project issues from multiple perspectives. Evaluation showed that students<br />
were satisfied with the <strong>work</strong>shop <strong>and</strong> motivated to use the approach in later projects.<br />
<strong>The</strong> background <strong>of</strong> the paper was the assumption that existing post-mortem analysis<br />
approaches from SE industry may be successfully taken into use in SE student projects,<br />
with some adaptation. This would give the students experience with a particular aspect<br />
<strong>of</strong> SE practice <strong>and</strong> help them learn from their project experience. <strong>The</strong> feasibility <strong>of</strong> the<br />
approach in terms <strong>of</strong> time (for students <strong>and</strong> staff) was a key constraint in the adaptation<br />
to the educational setting.<br />
<strong>The</strong> paper presents a concrete method for supporting retrospective <strong>reflection</strong> in student<br />
SE teams. <strong>The</strong> method is adapted from state-<strong>of</strong>-the-art SE industry practice <strong>and</strong> is based<br />
on the individual <strong>and</strong> collective construction <strong>of</strong> a timeline <strong>of</strong> project events <strong>and</strong> the<br />
drawing <strong>of</strong> individual experience curves along the timeline, indicating how positive or<br />
negative the experience was at different points in time. <strong>The</strong> timeline <strong>and</strong> curves serve as<br />
a resource for the team‟s discussion <strong>of</strong> lessons learned. In the student projects, the<br />
approach was used in a short 60 minute <strong>work</strong>shop at the end <strong>of</strong> the project. <strong>The</strong>re was<br />
no formal deliverable from the <strong>work</strong>shop, but the students were recommended to draw<br />
on what they had learned when writing their <strong>reflection</strong> notes (one for each team) to be<br />
h<strong>and</strong>ed in a few days later. <strong>The</strong> timetable <strong>of</strong> the <strong>work</strong>shop is shown in Table 3.<br />
44