Search for: All records

The retrospective is a crucial component of the agile software development process. In previous studies of retrospectives in undergraduate team software development projects, students exhibited limited and shallow reflection. We speculate that this is due to students' limited experience with reflection and the absence of clear guidance for engaging in deep reflection during agile retrospectives. To explore the potential for a pedagogical intervention to foster deeper reflection in retrospectives, we present an empirical comparison of a standard retrospective model against an enhanced retrospective model that scaffolds deeper levels of reflection by prompting students to justify and critique their practices and weigh alternative approaches. Through a systematic classification of the reflection level of statements made during individual brainstorming and team discussion phases of retrospectives, our study found that the enhanced model led to individuals and teams engaging in significantly higher levels of reflection. Our findings contribute to improving software engineering education by demonstrating the efficacy of an enhanced pedagogical model for team retrospectives. 

Assessing team software development projects is notoriously difficult and typically based on subjective metrics. To help make assessments more rigorous, we conducted an empirical study to explore relationships between subjective metrics based on peer and instructor assessments, and objective metrics based on GitHub and chat data. We studied 23 undergraduate software teams (n= 117 students) from two undergraduate computing courses at two North American research universities. We collected data on teams’ (a) commits and issues from their GitHub code repositories, (b) chat messages from their Slack and Microsoft Teams channels, (c) peer evaluation ratings from the CATME peer evaluation system, and (d) individual assignment grades from the courses. We derived metrics from (a) and (b) to measure both individual team members’contributionsto the team, and theequalityof team members’ contributions. We then performed Pearson analyses to identify correlations among the metrics, peer evaluation ratings, and individual grades. We found significant positive correlations between team members’ GitHub contributions, chat contributions, and peer evaluation ratings. In addition, the equality of teams’ GitHub contributions was positively correlated with teams’ average peer evaluation ratings and negatively correlated with the variance in those ratings. However, no such positive correlations were detected between the equality of teams’ chat contributions and their peer evaluation ratings. Our study extends previous research results by providing evidence that (a) team members’ chat contributions, like their GitHub contributions, are positively correlated with their peer evaluation ratings; (b) team members’ chat contributions are positively correlated with their GitHub contributions; and (c) the equality of team’ GitHub contributions is positively correlated with their peer evaluation ratings. These results lend further support to the idea that combining objective and subjective metrics can make the assessment of team software projects more comprehensive and rigorous. 

Metacognition is widely acknowledged as a key soft skill in collaborative software development. The ability to plan, monitor, and reflect on cognitive and team processes is crucial to the efficient and effective functioning of a software team. To explore students' use of reflection--one aspect of metacognition--in undergraduate team software projects, we analyzed the online chat channels of teams participating in agile software development projects in two undergraduate courses that took place exclusively online (n = 23 teams, 117 students, and 4,915 chat messages). Teams' online chats were dominated by discussions of work completed and to be done; just two percent of all chat messages showed evidence of reflection. A follow-up analysis of chat vignettes centered around reflection messages (n = 63) indicates that three-fourths of the those messages were prompted by a course requirement; just 14\% arose organically within the context of teams' ongoing project work. Based on our findings, we identify opportunities for computing educators to increase, through pedagogical and technological interventions, teams' use of reflection in team software projects. 

Over the past year we continued, under support from the NSF Division of Undergraduate Education, to emphasize implementation of Low-Cost Desktop Learning Modules LCDLMs for fluid mechanics, heat transfer and biomedical applications. Here we present implementation data from concept tests and surveys, details on new designs and insights gained. Through these activities our team progressed beyond original expectations that were outlined in our original set of NSF-sponsored objectives. We analyzed data from several institutions added from the south central and mid-eastern portions of the US through a combined University of ***-L** and -P** training hub conducted in a virtual mode held in September 2020 with regional communications spearheaded by respective faculty from these institutions. Much of the data analyzed results from support through a 2020 NSF supplement where we engaged in a study to compare direct hands-on implementations of LCDLMs to virtual synchronous and asynchronous implementations augmented with short conceptual videos, a tact necessary because of COVID-19 in-person restrictions. Surprisingly, both in-person and virtual modes show similar conceptual gains. A publication is being developed with intent for submission to the International Journal of Engineering Education where we compare the virtual and in-person modes of instruction. We added a few more institutions through a northeastern training hub held in August 2021 with faculty from the University of *** managing regional communications; again, this hub was held virtually given uncertainty about the lifting of COVID-19 related restrictions. Regarding new LCDLMs we added a shell and tube heat exchanger and fabricated a large number for distribution and implementation and began analyzing conceptual gains and survey results. We prototyped a new evaporative cooler and continue to develop new broader impact units to demonstrate stenosis in an artery and blood cell separations and began implementing them in the classroom. Regarding LCDLM publications a paper was published in Chemical Engineering Education on a study where we compare heat transfer data for the miniature double pipe heat exchanger to predictions based on correlations for industrial scale heat exchangers and included classroom assessment data. 

Although there is extensive literature documenting hands-on learning experiences in engineering classrooms, there is a lack of consensus regarding how student learning during these activities compares to learning during online video demonstrations. Further, little work has been done to directly compare student learning for similarly-designed hands-on learning experiences focused on different engineering subjects. As the use of hands-on activities in engineering continues to grow, understanding how to optimize student learning during these activities is critical. To address this, we collected conceptual assessment data from 763 students at 15 four-year institutions. Students completed activities with one of two highly visual low-cost desktop learning modules (LCDLMs), one focused on fluid mechanics and the other on heat transfer principles, using two different implementation formats: either hands-on or video demonstration. Conceptual assessment results showed that assessment scores significantly increased after all LCDLM activities and that gains were statistically similar for hands-on and video demonstrations, suggesting both implementation formats support an impactful student learning experience. However, a significant difference was observed in effectiveness based on the type of LCDLM used. Score increases of 31.2% and 24% were recorded on our post-activity assessment for hands-on and virtual implementations of the fluid mechanics LCDLM compared to pre-activity assessment scores, respectively, while significantly smaller 8.2% and 9.2% increases were observed for hands-on and virtual implementations of the heat transfer LCDLM. In this paper, we consider existing literature to ascertain the reasons for similar effectiveness of hands-on and video demonstrations and for the differing effectiveness of the fluid mechanics and heat transfer LCDLMs. We discuss the practical implications of our findings with respect to designing hands-on or video demonstration activities.