Teamwork Distribution: Local vs. Global Software Engineering Project Development Teamwork

被引:1
作者
Al-Taharwa, Ismail [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Jordan, Comp Informat Syst Dept, Aqaba Campus, Aqaba, Jordan
关键词
E-learning; Software engineering; Project development; Machine learning; Project failure; Teamwork distribution; QUALITY; SUCCESS;
D O I
10.3991/ijet.v15i18.15489
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Deliverable and course project become the preferred mean to measure learner competency and attainment of intended learning outcomes in IT-fields. Proper setup and evaluation of teamwork projects remains a crucial challenge for e-learning systems. This study investigates the possibility to improve the early prediction of academic software engineering project failure by treating teamwork differently according to the distribution of teamwork participants. Two configurations of teamwork distribution are considered. In the first configuration, a teamwork may include international participants, but all team participants are affiliated to the same institution, namely local teamwork. In the second configuration, a teamwork may include participants from different institutions, namely global teamwork. Software engineering projects are approached from two distinct perspectives. First, obeying the best practices during the system development life cycle (SDLC), namely, process perspective. Second, characteristics of the final deliverable deployed at each milestone of the SDLC, namely, product perspective. A publicly released dataset collected by a designated e-learning environment is leveraged to validate the proposed approach. Results indicate a noticeable variance among local and global distributions. These results put evidence that the reasons behind software engineering teamwork project failure may vary depending on the distribution of the teamwork, local vs. global. Consequently, it advises to customize e-learning systems according to the teamwork distribution differently.
引用
收藏
页码:183 / 201
页数:19
相关论文
共 53 条
[1]  
Adriano Christian, 2019, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, V44, DOI 10.1145/3310013.3310016
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2017, Library Philosophy and Practice
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2009, A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives
[4]  
Axinte S.-D., 2017, 2017 9 INT C EL COMP, DOI [10.1109/ecai.2017.8166435, DOI 10.1109/ECAI.2017.8166435]
[5]   "Failures" to be celebrated: an analysis of major pivots of software startups [J].
Bajwa, Sohaib Shahid ;
Wang, Xiaofeng ;
Anh Nguyen Duc ;
Abrahamsson, Pekka .
EMPIRICAL SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, 2017, 22 (05) :2373-2408
[6]   Adaptive e-Assessment System: A General Approach [J].
Baneres, D. ;
Baro, X. ;
Guerrero-Roldan, A-E. ;
Rodriguez, M. E. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES IN LEARNING, 2016, 11 (07) :16-23
[7]  
Blake Catherine L, 1998, Uci repository of machine learning databases, V1998
[8]   A survey on educational process mining [J].
Bogarin, Alejandro ;
Cerezo, Rebeca ;
Romero, Cristobal .
WILEY INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEWS-DATA MINING AND KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY, 2018, 8 (01)
[9]   The MOSAICS Model of Educational Approaches for Teaching the Practice of Software Project Management [J].
Boiangiu, Costin-Anton ;
Stanica, Iulia-Cristina .
EDUCATION SCIENCES, 2019, 9 (01)
[10]   SMOTE: Synthetic minority over-sampling technique [J].
Chawla, Nitesh V. ;
Bowyer, Kevin W. ;
Hall, Lawrence O. ;
Kegelmeyer, W. Philip .
2002, American Association for Artificial Intelligence (16)