Status indicators in software engineering group projects

被引:0
作者
Isomottonen, Ville [1 ]
Taipalus, Toni [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Jyvaskyla, Fac Informat Technol, Jyvaskyla, Finland
关键词
Group work; Status concept; Higher education; TEAM EFFECTIVENESS; WORK; PERSONALITY; SATISFACTION; PERCEPTIONS; PERFORMANCE; LEADERSHIP;
D O I
10.1016/j.jss.2023.111612
中图分类号
TP31 [计算机软件];
学科分类号
081202 ; 0835 ;
摘要
A segment of studies on group structure and performance in software engineering (SE) project-based learning (PjBL) have focused on roles, including studies that use Belbin team roles and studies that address problematic roles such as social loafing. The present study focuses on the status, which is basically missing in SE PjBL studies, although relating to roles. The study investigates the aspects that students identified as indicators of rising or declining status in their project groups. The status theory was utilized as the framework that motivated the research and on which the results were reflected. An inductive qualitative content analysis was applied to learning reports in which students reflected on their statuses. The indicators of rising status included technical know-how, commitment, management responsibility, and idea ownership, while also group-level attributes such as a caring atmosphere and joint responsibility. The indicators of a declining status included aspects that appear as counterparts of rising status indicators, while also more refined aspects such as no one willing to be a leader or study background. The results are concluded to provide material for educating students about intra-group relations and promoting self-regulation for fruitful collaboration in groups. The authors believe that the results also initiate further PjBL research in which status theory can be utilized. (c) 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
引用
收藏
页数:21
相关论文
共 55 条
[21]  
Fincher S., 2001, Computer Science ProjectWork: Principles and Pragmatics
[22]   The big five versus the big four: The relationship between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and NEO-PI five factor model of personality [J].
Furnham, A .
PERSONALITY AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, 1996, 21 (02) :303-307
[23]  
Gast D.L., 2014, Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences, P1, DOI DOI 10.4324/9780203521892-1
[24]  
Glaser B. G., 1978, [No title captured]
[25]   Who should work with whom? Building effective software project teams [J].
Gorla, N ;
Lam, YW .
COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, 2004, 47 (06) :79-82
[26]  
GUBA EG, 1981, ECTJ-EDUC COMMUN TEC, V29, P75
[27]   Comparative Study of Personality Models in Software Engineering [J].
Gulati, Jayati ;
Bhardwaj, Priya ;
Suri, Bharti .
PROCEEDING OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON WOMEN IN COMPUTING AND INFORMATICS (WCI-2015), 2015, :209-216
[28]   Using the Belbin method and models for predicting the academic performance of engineering students [J].
Gutierrez, Luis ;
Flores, Victor ;
Keith, Brian ;
Quelopana, Aldo .
COMPUTER APPLICATIONS IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION, 2019, 27 (02) :500-509
[29]   Using Belbin's leadership role to improve team effectiveness: An empirical investigation [J].
Henry, SM ;
Stevens, KT .
JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE, 1999, 44 (03) :241-250
[30]   Graduates' skills and higher education: The employers' perspective [J].
Hernandez-March J. ;
Martin Del Peso M. ;
Leguey S. .
Tertiary Education and Management, 2009, 15 (1) :1-16