Linda Marshall
Vreda Pieterse
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Employers require software engineers to work in teams when developing software systems. It is therefore important for graduates to have experienced teamwork before they enter the job market.
We describe an experiential learning exercise that we designed to teach the software engineering process in conjunction with teamwork skills. The underlying teaching strategy applied in the exercise maximises risks in order to provide maximal experiential learning opportunities. The students are expected to work in fairly large, yet short-lived, instructor-assigned teams to complete software engineering tasks. After undergoing the exercise our students form self-selected teams for their capstone projects. In this article, we determine and report on the influence the teaching exercise had on the formation of teams for the capstone project. By analysing data provided by the students through regular peer reviews we gain insight into the team dynamics as well as to what extent the members contributed to the team effort.
We develop and present a graphical model of a capstone project team which highlights participation of individuals during the teaching exercise. The participatory history of the members is visualised using segmented concentric rings. We consider how this visualisation can aid the identification of capstone project teams that are at risk. In our experience the composition of the team and the behaviour of other members in the team may have a marked impact on the behaviour of each individual in the team. We established a team classification in order to model information about teams. We use a statistical clustering method to classify teams. For this we use team profiles that are based on the participatory levels of its members. The team types that emerge from the clustering are used to derive migration models. When we consider migration, we build spring models to visualise the teams through which individuals migrate. We colour code the teams to characterise them according to the team types that were identified during the cluster classification of the teams. Owing to the complexity of the resulting model, only migrations for capstone team members who have worked together during the exercise or for solitary capstone team members are modelled. These models support the identification of areas of interest that warrant further investigation.
To conclude, we present our observations from the analysis of team compositions, team types, and team migrations and provide directions for future work and collaborations.
- ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula. 2013. Computer Science Curricula 2013. Technical Report. ACM Press and IEEE Computer Society Press, New York, NY. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2534860Google Scholar
- Silvia T. Acuña and Natalia Juristo. 2004. Assigning people to roles in software projects. Software Pract. Exper. 34, 7 (2004), 675--696. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/spe.586 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tom Addison. 2005. Striving for IS III project excellence: The views of graduates. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Southern African Computer Lecturers’ Association (SACLA).Google Scholar
- Luis Alban. 2009. Implementation of Belbin’s model for the creation of teams in project based courses. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference for the Australasian Association for Engineering Education. 429--434.Google Scholar
- Robert Anson and James A. Goodman. 2014. A peer assessment system to improve student team experiences. J. Educ. Bus. 89, 1 (2014), 27--34. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2012.754735Google ScholarCross Ref
- Aitor Aritzeta, Stephen Swailes, and Barbara Senior. 2007. Belbin’s team role model: Development, validity and applications for team building*. J. Manag. Stud. 44, 1 (2007), 96--118. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00666.xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- AT&T Labs Research and Contributors. 2015. Graphviz——Graph Visualization Software. (2015). http://www.graphviz.org (accessed on 15 May 2015).Google Scholar
- José M. Balmaceda, Silvia Schiaffino, and J. Andrés Díaz-Pace1. 2014. Using constraint satisfaction to aid group formation in CSCL. Intel. Artific. 17, 53 (2014), 35--45. http://journal.iberamia.org/.Google Scholar
- Ronald Batenburg, Wouter van Walbeek, and Wesley in der Maur. 2013. Belbin role diversity and team performance: Is there a relationship? J. Manag. Dev. 32, 8 (2013), 901--913. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMD-08-2011-0098Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. M. Belbin. 1981. Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
- R. M. Belbin. 2010. Team Roles at Work (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
- R. Meredith Belbin. 1993. Team Roles at Work. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
- R. Meredith Belbin. 1997. Changing the Way We Work. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford UK.Google Scholar
- Maura Borrego, Jennifer Karlin, Lisa D. McNair, and Kacey Beddoes. 2013. Team effectiveness theory from industrial and organizational psychology applied to engineering student project teams: A research review. J. Eng. Educ. 102, 4 (2013), 472--512. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jee.20023Google ScholarCross Ref
- John H. Bradley and Frederic J. Hebert. 1997. The effect of personality type on team performance. J. Manag. Dev. 16, 5 (1997), 337--353. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621719710174525Google ScholarCross Ref
- O. P. Brereton, S. Lees, R. Bedson, C. Boldyreff, S. Drummond, P. J. Layzell, L. A. Macaulay, and R. Young. 2000. Student group working across universities: A case study in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Educ. 43, 4 (Nov 2000), 394--399. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/13.883348 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Willard G. Broucek and Gerry Randell. 1996. An assessment of the construct validity of the Belbin self-perception inventory and observer’s assessment from the perspective of the five-factor model. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 69, 4 (1996), 389--405. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1996.tb00625.xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- L. F. Capretz and F. Ahmed. 2010. Making sense of software development and personality types. IT Profession. 12, 1 (Jan 2010), 6--13. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2010.33 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chung-Yang Chen and Kao-Chiuan Teng. 2011. The design and development of a computerized tool support for conducting senior projects in software engineering education. Comput. Educ. 56, 3 (2011), 802--817. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jan Chong and T. Hurlbutt. 2007. The social dynamics of pair programming. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’07). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 354--363. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2007.87 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Carol L. Colbeck, Susan E. Campbell, and Stefani A. Bjorklund. 2000. Grouping in the dark: What college students learn from group projects. J. Higher Educ. 71, 1 (2000), 60--83.Google Scholar
- Mihály Csíkszentmihályi. 2008. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. HarperCollins, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- Jill Denner, Linda Werner, Shannon Campe, and Eloy Ortiz. 2014. Pair programming: Under what conditions is it advantageous for middle school students? J. Res. Technol. Educ. 46, 3 (2014), 277--296. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2014.888272Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andrea L. Dixon, Jule B. Gassenheimer, and Terri Feldman Barr. 2003. Identifying the lone wolf: A team perspective. J. Selling Sales Manag. 23, 3 (2003), 205--219. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2003.10748999Google Scholar
- Ernst Fehr and Simon Gächter. 2000. Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. J. Econ. Perspect. 14, 3 (2000), 159--181. http://0-www.jstor.org.innopac.up.ac.za/stable/2646924.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Terri Feldman Barr, Andrea L. Dixon, and Jule B. Gassenheimer, Gassenheimer. 2005. Exploring the “lone wolf” phenomenon in student teams. J. Market. Educ. 27 (April 2005), 80--91.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Natasha N. Vito Ferreira and Josef J. Langerman. 2014. The correlation between personality type and individual performance on an ICT project. In Computer Science & Education (ICCSE), 2014 9th International Conference on. IEEE, IEEE, Vancouver, BC, 425--430.Google Scholar
- Sally Fincher, Marian Petre, and Martyn Clark. 2001. Computer Science Project Work: Principles and Pragmatics. Springer, Berlin. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mark Freeman, Phil Hancock, Lyn Simpson, and Chris Sykes. 2008. Business as usual: A collaborative investigation of existing resources, strengths, gaps and challenges to be addressed for sustainability in teaching and learning in Australian university business faculties. Carrick Institute (now ALTC) on behalf of the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) (March 2008), 1--54.Google Scholar
- Narasimhaiah Gorla and Yan Wah Lam. 2004. Who should work with whom? Building effective software project teams. Commun. ACM 47, 6 (June 2004), 79--82. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/990680.990684 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Alan G. Ingham, George Levinger, James Graves, and Vaughn Peckham. 1974. The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 10, 4 (1974), 371--384. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(74)90033-XGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Avan Jassawalla, Hemant Sashittal, and Avinash Sashittal. 2009. Students’ perceptions of social loafing: Its antecedents and consequences in undergraduate business classroom teams. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 8, 1 (2009), 42--54. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2009.37012178Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. Kavanagh and C. Crosthwaite. 2007. Triple-objective team mentoring: Achieving learning objectives with chemical engineering students. Educ. Chem. Eng. 2, 1 (2007), 68--79. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1205/ece06027Google ScholarCross Ref
- Norbert L. Kerr. 1983. Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis. J. Personal. Social Psychol. 45, 4 (Oct. 1983), 819--828. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.819Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gary D. Koppenhaver and Charles B. Shrader. 2003. Structuring the classroom for performance: Cooperative learning with instructor-assigned teams. Decision Sci. J. Innovat. Educ. 1, 1 (2003), 1--21. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-5915.00002Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bibb Latane, Kipling Williams, and Stephen Harkins. 1979. Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. J. Personal. Social Psychol. 37, 6 (1979), 822.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Robert C. Liden, Sandy J. Wayne, Renata A. Jaworski, and Nathan Bennett. 2004. Social loafing: A field investigation. J. Manag. 30, 2 (2004), 285--304. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2003.02.002Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. S. Michalski and R. E. Stepp. 1986. Clustering. In Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence, Stuart C. Shapiro, David Eckroth, and George A. Vallasi (Eds.). Vol. 1. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 103--111.Google Scholar
- S. Michie and S. Williams. 2003. Reducing work related psychological ill health and sickness absence: A systematic literature review. Occupat. Environ. Med. 60, 1 (2003), 3--9. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oem.60.1.3Google ScholarCross Ref
- Riccardo Natoli, Beverley Jackling, and Lalith Seelanatha. 2014. The impact of instructor’s group management strategies on students’ attitudes to group work and generic skill development. Pedagogies: Int. J. 9, 2 (2014), 116--132. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2014.912519Google Scholar
- Elizabeth Pfaff and Patricia Huddleston. 2003. Does it matter if I hate teamwork? What impacts student attitudes toward teamwork. J. Market. Educ. 25, 1 (2003), 37--45. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0273475302250571Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marie Pieterse. 2013. Participatory levels—Humans. Electronic document in png format. (June 2013). Received from artist via e-mail on 2013-06-07.Google Scholar
- Vreda Pieterse and Lisa Thompson. 2010. Academic alignment to reduce the presence of ‘social loafers’ and ‘diligent isolates’ in student teams. Teach. Higher Educ. 15, 4 (2010), 355--367.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Vreda Pieterse, Lisa Thompson, and Linda Marshall. 2011. Rocking the boat: An approach to facilitate formation of effective student teams. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference of the Southern African Computer Lecturers’ Association (SACLA). SACLA Organising committee, SIST, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa, 115--123.Google Scholar
- Vreda Pieterse, Lisa Thompson, Linda Marshall, and Dina M. Venter. 2012a. An intensive software engineering learning experience. In Proceedings of Second Computer Science Education Research Conference (CSERC’12). ACM, New York, NY, 47--54. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2421277.2421283 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Vreda Pieterse, Lisa Thompson, Linda Marshall, and Dina M. Venter. 2012b. Participation patterns in student teams. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’12). ACM, New York, NY, 265--270. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jane S. Prichard and Neville A. Stanton. 1999. Testing Belbin’s team role theory of effective groups. J. Manag. Dev. 18, 8 (1999), 652--665.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Patricia D. Rafferty. 2013. Group work in the MBA classroom: Improving pedagogical practice and maximizing positive outcomes with part-time MBA students. J. Manag. Educ. 37, 5 (2013), 623--650. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1052562912458644Google ScholarCross Ref
- Debbie Richards. 2009. Designing project-based courses with a focus on group formation and assessment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 9, 1, Article 2 (March 2009), 40 pages. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1513593.1513595 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Norsaremah Salleh, Emilia Mendes, and John Grundy. 2014. Investigating the effects of personality traits on pair programming in a higher education setting through a family of experiments. Empirical Software Eng. 19, 3 (2014), 714--752. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10664-012-9238-4 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Panagiotis Sfetsos, Ioannis Stamelos, Lefteris Angelis, and Ignatios Deligiannis. 2009. An experimental investigation of personality types impact on pair effectiveness in pair programming. Empirical Software Eng. 14, 2 (2009), 187--226. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10664-008-9093-5 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ashley Simms and Tommy Nichols. 2014. Social loafing: A review of the literature. J. Manag. 15, 1 (2014), 58--67.Google Scholar
- D. Smarkusky, R. Dempsey, J. Ludka, and F. de Quillettes. 2005. Enhancing team knowledge: Instruction vs. experience. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’05). ACM, New York, NY, 460--464. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1047344.1047493 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Eric M. Stark, Jason D. Shaw, and Michelle K. Duffy. 2007. Preference for group work, winning orientation, and social loafing behavior in groups. Group Organ. Manag. 32, 6 (2007), 699--723. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601106291130Google ScholarCross Ref
- Greg L. Stewart, Ingrid S. Fulmer, and Murray R. Barrick. 2005. An exploration of member roles as a multilevel linking mechanism for individual traits and team outcomes. Personnel Psychol. 58, 2 (2005), 343--365. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00480.x.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Josh Tenenberg. 2008. An institutional analysis of software teams. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 66, 7 (July 2008), 484--494. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.08.002 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dirk van Dierendonck and Rob Groen. 2008. Belbin Revisited: The Construct Validity of the Interplace II Team Role Instrument. Technical Report ERS-2008-017-ORG. E. http://hdl.handle.net/1765/12123.Google Scholar
- Dirk van Dierendonck and Rob Groen. 2011. Belbin revisited: A multitraitmultimethod investigation of a team role instrument. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 20, 3 (2011), 345--366. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594321003590580Google ScholarCross Ref
- Noreen M. Webb, Kariane M. Nemer, Alexander W. Chizhik, and Brenda Sugrue. 1998. Equity issues in collaborative group assessment: Group composition and performance. Am. Educ. Res. J. 35, 4 (1998), 607--651. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312035004607Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. Wikstrand and J. Borstler. 2006. Success factors for team project courses. In Proceedings. 19th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training 2006 (CSEET’06). IEEE, Turtle Bay, HI, USA, 95--102. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CSEET.2006.34 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kipling D. Williams and Steven J. Karau. 1991. Social loafing and social compensation: The effects of expectations of co-worker performance. J. Personal. Social Psychol. 61, 4 (1991), 570--581.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jing Zhou and Jennifer M. George. 2003. Awakening employee creativity: The role of leader emotional intelligence. Leadership Quart. 14, 4 & 5 (2003), 545--568. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00051-1 Leading for Innovation.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Exploration of Participation in Student Software Engineering Teams
Recommendations
Participation patterns in student teams
SIGCSE '12: Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science EducationWe describe a process that we applied for teaching teamwork in a Software Engineering module. Our objective with this process was to create opportunities for our students to experience some of the problems of working in a group before they formed teams ...
Automatic code generation within student's software engineering projects
WCCCE '12: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Western Canadian Conference on Computing EducationIn this paper, we describe the integration of research and new teaching strategies into computer science and engineering departments at universities and colleges related to the automatic code generation, automatic development tools and integrated ...
Integrating hard and soft skills: software engineers serving middle school teachers
SIGCSE '12: Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science EducationWe have developed and implemented, over four semesters, a model for engaging computer science majors in service learning for teachers of grades 6-8 at a K-8 school in an underserved community. This paper describes the design of a course focused on ...
Comments