Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
research-article
Open access

Taking a Studio Course in Distributed Software Engineering from a Large Local Cohort to a Small Global Cohort

Published: 09 January 2019 Publication History

Abstract

One of the challenges of global software engineering courses is to bring the practices and experience of large geographically distributed teams into the local and time-limited environment of a classroom. Over the last 6 years, an on-campus studio course for software engineering has been developed at the University of Queensland (UQ) that places small teams of students on different features of a common product. This creates two layers of collaboration, as students work within their teams on individual features, and the teams must interoperate with many other teams on the common product. The class uses continuous integration practices and predominantly asynchronous communication channels (Slack and GitHub) to facilitate this collaboration. The original goal of this design was to ensure that students would authentically experience issues associated with realistically sized software projects, and learn to apply appropriate software engineering and collaboration practices to overcome them, in a course without significant extra staffing. Data from the development logs showed that most commits take place outside synchronous class hours, and the project operates as a temporally distributed team even though the students are geographically co-located. Since 2015, a course adapted from this format has also been taught at the University of New England (UNE), an Australian regional university that is also a longstanding provider of distance education. In this course, most students study online, and the class has to be able to work globally, because as well as students taking part from around Australia, there are also typically a small number of students taking part from overseas. Transferring the course to a smaller but predominantly online institution has allowed us to evaluate the distributed nature of the course, by considering what aspects of the course needed to change to support students who are geographically distributed, and comparing how the two cohorts behave. This has produced an overall course design, to teach professional distributed software engineering practices, that is adaptable from large classes to small, and from local to global.

References

[1]
+Acumen. 2018. Introduction to Human-Centered Design. Retrieved January 17, 2018 from https://www.plusacumen.org/courses/introduction-human-centered-design.
[2]
Rakesh Agrawal, Behzad Golshan, and Evimaria Terzi. 2014. Forming beneficial teams of students in massive online classes. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Learning Scale Conference. ACM, 155--156.
[3]
Eric Allen, Robert Cartwright, and Charles Reis. 2003. Production programming in the classroom. SIGCSE Bulletin 35, 1 (Jan. 2003), 89--93.
[4]
William Billingsley, Bing Ngu, Huy Phan, Nicolas Gromik, and Paul Kwan. 2016. Using a video-based critique process to support studio pedagogies in distance education—A tool and pilot study. In Show Me The Learning. Proceedings ASCILITE 2016, S. Barker, S. Dawson, A. Pardo, and C. Colvin (Eds.). 43--48.
[5]
William Billingsley and Jim Steel. 2013. A comparison of two iterations of a software studio course based on continuous integration. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’13). ACM, New York, 213--218.
[6]
William Billingsley and Jim R. H. Steel. 2014. Towards a supercollaborative software engineering MOOC. Companion Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering - ICSE Companion 2014, 283--286.
[7]
Hilary Bradbury and Peter Reason. 2003. Action research -- An opportunity for revitalizing research purpose and practices. Qualitative Social Work 2, 2 (2003), 155--175. arxiv:0710.4428v1
[8]
Ricardo Britto, Claes Wohlin, and Emilia Mendes. 2016. An extended global software engineering taxonomy. Journal of Software Engineering Research and Development 4, 1 (Jun 2016), 3.
[9]
Frederick P. Brooks. 1987. No silver bullet: Essence and accident of software engineering. IEEE Software 20 (1987), 12.
[10]
Evelyn Brown and Chris Glover. 2006. Evaluating written feedback. In Innovative Assessment in Higher Education, Cordelia Bryan and Karen Clegg (Eds.). Routledge, 81--91.
[11]
Christopher N. Bull, Jon Whittle, and Leon Cruickshank. 2013. Studios in software engineering education: Towards an evaluable model. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering. 1063--1072.
[12]
David Carrington and Soon-Kyeong Kim. 2003. Teaching software design with open source software. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Frontiers in Education (FIE’03), Vol. 3. S1C--9--14.
[13]
Dawn Chandler and Bill Torbert. 2003. Transforming inquiry and action: Interweaving 27 flavors of action research. Action Research 1, 2 (2003), 133--152.
[14]
Michelene T. H. Chi. 1996. Constructing self-explanations and scaffolded explanations in tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology 10, July (1996), 1--15.
[15]
Tony Clear, Sarah Beecham, John Barr, Mats Daniels, Roger McDermott, Michael Oudshoorn, Airina Savickaite, and John Noll. 2015. Challenges and recommendations for the design and conduct of global software engineering courses: A systematic review. Proceedings of the 2015 ITiCSE on Working Group Reports, 1--39.
[16]
Ivica Crnković, Ivana Bosnić, and Mario Žagar. 2012. Ten tips to succeed in global software engineering education. In Proceedings of the 2012 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’12). IEEE, 1225--1234.
[17]
Philip Crowther. 2013. Understanding the signature pedagogy of the design studio and the opportunities for its technological enhancement. Journal of Learning Design 6, 3 (2013), 18--28.
[18]
Daniela Damian, Allyson Hadwin, and Ban Al-Ani. 2006. Instructional design and assessment strategies for teaching global software development: A framework. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM, 685--690.
[19]
Michael Docherty, Peter Sutton, Margot Brereton, and Simon Kaplan. 2001. An innovative design and studio-based CS degree. Proceedings of the 32nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’01) 33, 1 (2001), 233--237.
[20]
Thomas A. Dutton. 1987. Design and studio pedagogy. Journal of Architectural Education 41, 1 (1987), 16--25.
[21]
Fredrick Erickson. 2006. Definition and analysis of data from videotape: Some research procedures and their rationales. Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research 3 (2006), 177--192. arxiv:arXiv:1011.1669v3
[22]
Jesús Favela and Feniosky Peña-Mora. 2001. An experience in collaborative software engineering education. IEEE Software 18 (2001), 47--53.
[23]
Oliver Ferschke, Diyi Yang, Gaurav Tomar, and Carolyn Penstein Rosé. 2015. Positive impact of collaborative chat participation in an edX MOOC. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer, 115--124.
[24]
Luiz Leandro Fortaleza, Tayana Conte, Sabrina Marczak, and Rafael Prikladnicki. 2012. Towards a GSE international teaching network: Mapping global software engineering courses. Proceedings of the 2012 2nd International Workshop on Collaborative Teaching of Globally Distributed Software Development (CTGDSD’12), 1--5.
[25]
Armando Fox and David Patterson. 2012. Crossing the software education chasm. Communications of the ACM 55, 5 (2012), 44.
[26]
Armando Fox, David A. Patterson, Richard Ilson, Samuel Joseph, Kristen Walcott-Justice, and Rose Williams. 2014. Software Engineering Curriculum Technology Transfer: Lessons Learned from MOOCs and SPOCs. Technical Report EECS-2014-17. Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California at Berkeley.
[27]
Paul Gestwicki and Brian McNely. 2016. Interdisciplinary projects in the academic studio. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 16, 2 (2016), 1--24.
[28]
Mario Gielen and Bram De Wever. 2012. Peer assessment in a wiki: Product improvement, students’ learning and perception regarding peer feedback. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 69, Iceepsy (2012), 585--594.
[29]
Mario Gielen and Bram De Wever. 2015. Structuring peer assessment: Comparing the impact of the degree of structure on peer feedback content. Computers in Human Behavior 52 (2015), 315--325.
[30]
Olly Gotel, Vidya Kulkarni, Moniphal Say, Christelle Scharff, and Thanwadee Sunetnanta. 2012. Quality indicators on global software development projects: Does ‘getting to know you’ really matter? In Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 24 (2012), 169--184.
[31]
Orit Hazzan. 2002. The reflective practitioner perspective in software engineering education. Journal of Systems and Software 63, 3 (2002), 161--171.
[32]
Dean Hendrix, Lakshman Myneni, Hari Narayanan, and Margaret Ross. 2010. Implementing studio-based learning in CS2. Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 505--509.
[33]
Christopher D. Hundhausen, N. Hari Narayanan, and Martha E. Crosby. 2008. Exploring studio-based instructional models for computing education. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 40, 1 (2008), 392.
[34]
Panayiotis Koutsabasis and Spyros Vosinakis. 2012. Rethinking HCI education for design: Problem-based learning and virtual worlds at an HCI design studio. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 28, 8 (2012), 485--499. arxiv:arXiv:gr-qc/9809069v1
[35]
Thomas Kvan. 2001. The pedagogy of virtual design studios. Automation in Construction 10, 3 (2001), 345--353. {CAADRIA}.
[36]
Patricia Lago, Henry Muccini, and Muhammad Ali Babar. 2008. Developing a course on designing software in globally distributed teams. In Proceedings of the 2008 3rd IEEE International Conference Global Software Engineering (ICGSE’08). 249--253.
[37]
Jerry Laiserin. 2002. From atelier to e-telier: Virtual design studios. Architectural Record 190, 1 (2002), 141.
[38]
Phillip A. Laplante. 2006. An agile, graduate, software studio course. IEEE Transactions on Education 49, 4 (2006), 417--419.
[39]
Jouni Lappalainen, Nirnaya Tripathi, and Jouni Similä. 2016. Teaching a global software development course: Student experiences using onsite exercise simulation. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (ICSE’16). ACM, New York, 440--450.
[40]
Alan Levy. 1980. Total studio. Journal of Architectural Education 34, 2 (1980), 29--32.
[41]
Kurt Lewin. 1946. Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues 2, 4 (1946), 34--46.
[42]
Nan Li, Himanshu Verma, Afroditi Skevi, Guillaume Zufferey, Jan Blom, and Pierre Dillenbourg. 2014. Watching MOOCs together: Investigating co-located MOOC study groups. Distance Education 35, 2 (2014), 217--233.
[43]
Yang Li, Stephan Krusche, Christian Lescher, and Bernd Bruegge. 2016. Teaching global software engineering by simulating a global project in the classroom. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE’16), 187--192.
[44]
Peter Lloyd. 2013. Embedded creativity: Teaching design thinking via distance education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 23, 3 (2013), 749--765.
[45]
Judith Grant Long. 2012. State of the studio: Revisiting the potential of studio pedagogy in U.S.-based planning programs. Journal of Planning Education and Research 32, 4 (2012), 431--448.
[46]
Roger McDermott, Mats Daniels, Åsa Cajander, Mats Cullhed, Tony Clear, and Cary Laxer. 2012. Student reflections on collaborative technology in a globally distributed student project. In 2012 Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings. 1--6.
[47]
Bertrand Meyer and Marco Piccioni. 2008. The allure and risks of a deployable software engineering project: Experiences with both local and distributed development. In Proceedings of the IEEE 21st Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEET’08). IEEE, 3--16.
[48]
Miguel J. Monasor, Aurora Vizcaíno, Mario Piattini, and Ismael Caballero. 2010. Preparing students and engineers for global software development: A systematic review. In Proceedings of the 2010 5th IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE’10).
[49]
Miguel Jiménez Monasor, Aurora Vizcaíno, Mario Piattini, John Noll, and Sarah Beecham. 2014. Assessment process for a simulation-based training environment in global software development. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation 8 Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’14). ACM, New York, 231--236.
[50]
Christian Murphy, Dan Phung, and Gail Kaiser. 2008. A distance learning approach to teaching extreme programming. SIGCSE Bulletin 40, 3 (June 2008), 199--203.
[51]
John Noll, Sarah Beecham, and Ita Richardson. 2011. Global software development and collaboration: Barriers and solutions. ACM Inroads 1, 3 (Sept. 2011), 66--78.
[52]
Tom Nurkkala and Stefan Brandle. 2011. Software studio: Teaching professional software engineering. Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’11), 153--158.
[53]
Daniel F. O. Onah, Jane Sinclair, and Russell Boyatt. 2014. Dropout rates of massive open online courses: Behavioural patterns. EDULEARN14 Proceedings, 5825--5834.
[54]
Maria Paasivaara, Kelly Blincoe, Casper Lassenius, Daniela Damian, Jyoti Sheoran, Francis Harrison, Prashant Chhabra, Aminah Yussuf, and Veikko Isotalo. 2015. Learning global agile software engineering using same-site and cross-site teams. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, Vol. 2. 285--294.
[55]
Şule Taşlı Pektaş. 2015. The virtual design studio on the cloud: A blended and distributed approach for technology-mediated design education. Architectural Science Review 58, 3 (2015), 255--265.
[56]
Feniosky Peña-Mora, Rhonda Struminger, Jesús Favela, and Robin Losey. 2000. Supporting a project-based, collaborative, distance learning lab. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Vol. 279, 170--176.
[57]
Javier Portillo-Rodríguez, Aurora Vizcaíno, Mario Piattini, and Sarah Beecham. 2012. Tools used in global software engineering: A systematic mapping review. Information and Software Technology 54, 7 (2012), 663--685.
[58]
Frans J. Prins, Dominique M. A. Sluijsmans, and Paul A. Kirschner. 2006. Feedback for general practitioners in training: Quality, styles, and preferences. Advances in Health Sciences Education 11, 3 (2006), 289--303.
[59]
Ita Richardson, Allen E. Milewski, Neel Mullick, and Patrick Keil. 2006. Distributed development: An education perspective on the global studio project. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’06). ACM, New York, 679--684.
[60]
Miguel Romero, Aurora Vizcaíno, and Mario Piattini. 2008. Using virtual agents for the teaching of requirements elicitation in GSD. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Vol. 5208 LNAI. 539--540.
[61]
Farnaz Ronaghi, Amin Saberi, and Anne Trumbore. 2015. NovoEd, a social learning environment. In Massive Open Online Courses: The MOOC Revolution, Paul Kim (Ed.). Routledge, New York, Chapter 7, 96--105.
[62]
David Root, Mel Rosso-Llopart, and Gil Taran. 2008. Exporting studio: Critical issues to successfully adopt the software studio concept. In Software Engineering Education Conference, Proceedings. 41--50.
[63]
Marc Aurel Schnabel and Jeremy J. Ham. 2012. Virtual design studio within a social network. Electronic Journal of Information Technology in Construction 17 (2012), 397--415.
[64]
Donald A. Schön. 1984. The architectural studio as an exemplar of education for reflection-in-action. Source Journal of Architectural Education 38, 1 (1984), 2--9.
[65]
Donald A. Schön. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. 355 pages.
[66]
Darja Šmite, Claes Wohlin, Zane Galvina, and Rafael Prikladnicki. 2014. An empirically based terminology and taxonomy for global software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering 19 (2014).
[67]
Jörn Guy Süß and William Billingsley. 2012. Using continuous integration of code and content to teach software engineering with limited resources. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering. 1175--1184.
[68]
James E. Tomayko. 1991. Tomayko: Teaching software development in a studio environment. In Proceedings of the 22nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’91), Vol. 23. 300--303.
[69]
James E. Tomayko. 1996. Carnegie Mellon’s software development studio: A five year retrospective. In Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Software Engineering Education. 119--129.
[70]
Sheng-Chau Tseng and Chin-Chung Tsai. 2007. On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computers 8 Education 49 (2007), 1161--1174.
[71]
Lisa Weltzer-Ward, Beate Baltes, and Laura Knight Lynn. 2009. Assessing quality of critical thought in online discussion. Campus-Wide Information Systems 26 (2009), 168--177.
[72]
Miaomiao Wen, Diyi Yang, and Carolyn Penstein Rosé. 2015. Virtual teams in massive open online courses. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 9112 (2015), 820--824.
[73]
Betsy Anne Williams. 2015. Peers in MOOCs. In Proceedings of the 2nd 2015 ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S’15). 287--292.
[74]
Naomi E. Winstone, Robert A. Nash, Michael Parker, and James Rowntree. 2016. Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist (2016), 1--21.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Diverging assessments: What, Why, and ExperiencesProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3626252.3630832(1161-1167)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2024
  • (2024)Counteracting sociocultural barriers in global software engineering using group activitiesJournal of Software: Evolution and Process10.1002/smr.258736:5Online publication date: 25-Apr-2024
  • (2023)Global Manager: A Serious Game to Raise Awareness of the Challenges of Being a Project Manager in Global Software DevelopmentACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/359262023:2(1-31)Online publication date: 13-Jun-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education
ACM Transactions on Computing Education  Volume 19, Issue 2
Special Issue on Global Software Engineering Education
June 2019
226 pages
EISSN:1946-6226
DOI:10.1145/3303943
Issue’s Table of Contents
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 09 January 2019
Accepted: 01 March 2018
Revised: 01 January 2018
Received: 01 April 2017
Published in TOCE Volume 19, Issue 2

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Global software engineering
  2. studio pedagogies

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed

Funding Sources

  • Australian Government through the Office for Learning and Teaching

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)138
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)11
Reflects downloads up to 26 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Diverging assessments: What, Why, and ExperiencesProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3626252.3630832(1161-1167)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2024
  • (2024)Counteracting sociocultural barriers in global software engineering using group activitiesJournal of Software: Evolution and Process10.1002/smr.258736:5Online publication date: 25-Apr-2024
  • (2023)Global Manager: A Serious Game to Raise Awareness of the Challenges of Being a Project Manager in Global Software DevelopmentACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/359262023:2(1-31)Online publication date: 13-Jun-2023
  • (2023)An Exploratory Study to Assess the Usability of a Groupware with Multi-Agent Systems2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343080(1-9)Online publication date: 18-Oct-2023
  • (2022)Risks in Student ProjectsProceedings of the 24th Australasian Computing Education Conference10.1145/3511861.3511877(143-152)Online publication date: 14-Feb-2022
  • (2022)Generic and digital competences for employability — results of a Croatian national graduates surveyHigher Education10.1007/s10734-022-00940-786:2(407-427)Online publication date: 22-Oct-2022
  • (2021)The application of continuous practices in higher computer science education - A systematic literature review2021 44th International Convention on Information, Communication and Electronic Technology (MIPRO)10.23919/MIPRO52101.2021.9597101(1618-1623)Online publication date: 27-Sep-2021
  • (2021)Employing Authentic Analytics for More Authentic TasksBig Data in Education: Pedagogy and Research10.1007/978-3-030-76841-6_7(141-162)Online publication date: 5-Oct-2021
  • (2021)Cadxela: An educational tool for supporting the global software engineering education at undergraduate levelComputer Applications in Engineering Education10.1002/cae.2248230:3(708-729)Online publication date: 13-Dec-2021
  • (2019)The case of the fragmented classroomProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training10.1109/ICSE-SEET.2019.00016(74-83)Online publication date: 27-May-2019

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Get Access

Login options

Full Access

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media