Topics for Runestone Meeting

June 1 1999 - Uppsala, Sweden

  1. Results of Winter 1999 Project
    1. Technical issues
      1. Brio equipment set -up and configuration
      2. Programming language differences
      3. Final presentation problems
    2. Social Issues
      1. Some interaction with remote team members
      2. Problems if one person represented local team on IRC
      3. Use of individual and team web pages with pictures was helpful to team members
    3. Communication Issues
      1. Responses to email
        1. faculty
        2. students
      2. Class web page
        1. http://www.csis.gvsu.edu/class/brio/
      3. Technology
    4. Team Issues
      1. Advantage of having an even playing field
        1. lack of knowledge of UML by all participants was a unifying force
      2. Difference in programming languages
        1. Swedish students fluent in Java while US students knew C. US students perceived that Swedish students had an advantage over them. Swedish students (and some US) believed that work was unfairly divided because of programming language differences with Swedish students being assigned more difficult and a greater volume of work.
      3. Team leaders were instrumental in keeping team on task
      4. Work was divided by skill, that is, Swedish students were assigned (or volunteered for) parts that required Java; US students were assigned (or volunteered for) parts that required C programming.
      5. People worked individually or with their local teammates on various pieces and then put everything together. Appeared to be very little real international collaboration on the pieces until integration of pieces.
      6. Appeared to be minimal conflict among group members
  2. Data Collection for Winter 1999 (initials indicated who has data)
    1. IRC (Internet Relay Chat)
      1. archived on student web pages or sent to MZL
    2. Time Logs
      1. web-based (MZL)
      2. http://www4.gvsu.edu/lastm/runestone_time_logs.htm
    3. Background Questionnaire
      1. web-based (MZL)
      2. http://www4.gvsu.edu/lastm/runestone.htm
    4. Journals
      1. e-mail (MZL)
      2. http://www.csis.gvsu.edu/class/brio/journal/Entry1.html
      3. http://www.csis.gvsu.edu/class/brio/journal/Entry2.html
      4. http://www.csis.gvsu.edu/class/brio/journal/Entry3.html
    5. Email
      1. archived (MP)
    6. Interviews with instructors
      1. notes (SF)
  3. Data Analysis
    1. How do we coordinate data analysis?
    2. What tools will we use? Some suggestions...
      1. Spreadsheet tools like Excel
      2. Word for producing document
      3. SPSS for sophisticated statistical analysis
      4. Content Analysis software (any ideas?)
      5. Other ????????
    3. Central data repository for security and ease of access
      1. Located in Uppsala
      2. Coordinated by Vicki
      3. Technical person (student) in Uppsala who can set this up?
      4. Define procedures for doing this
      5. Web-based access with protective password?
    4. Basic goals of each member (that is, what are we using the data for?)
      1. Mary: focus on students; develop a model and set of evaluation tools for virtual teams
      2. Marian: student learning; PhD advisor for Martha
      3. Sally: focus on effects of differently mediated communication on faculty/staff
      4. Mats: peer learning; how do students spend their time
      5. Carl: expose undergraduate students to different culture
      6. Lars: ** not yet known **
      7. Martha: communication issues
      8. Bruce: introduce international experience into team work
      9. Vicki: no direct plans
    5. What do we want to do with it?
      1. Doctoral work underway: Mary, Martha
      2. Publications
      3. Presentations: SIGSCE, ITiCSE, FIE...
      4. Follow-on studies
      5. Grant proposals
      6. Swe-LL
  4. Planning for Winter 2000
    1. Project issues
      1. Criteria for choice of project
        1. gender neutral
        2. how hardware intensive? (advantages/disadvantages)
    2. Technical Issues
      1. Hardware-dependent projects must be ready for testing at the beginning of the semester.
      2. Configuration differences
        1. should be enumerated clearly as early as possible
        2. keep a web page that is updated as differences are discovered; send e-mail also
      3. Demo any hardware used at the beginning of the project (How does a Brio board work? What is the point of the game?)
    3. Course Issues and Suggestions
      1. Grading criteria
        1. must be established at the beginning of semester and stated clearly
        2. no changes to grading requirements during the semester
      2. Instructor responses to student email
        1. vital that responses come in a timely fashion
        2. good responsiveness can reduce student frustration and project inertia
      3. More input and feedback on design issues from instructors
        1. Most students seemed to have some problems understanding design issues and how everything was supposed to fit together. Seemed to jump into coding without looking at the "big picture." Many of mistakes made later in project were because of incorrect design documents.
      4. More frequent intermediate checkpoints
      5. Requirement specifications
        1. clearly stated at beginning
        2. need procedure for updating students if there are any changes (e-mail notification as well as web document; provide reason for change)
      6. Introduce Bruce's boot camp idea to get the teams working together quickly, that is, provide students with something that must be completed in a relatively short space of time (<= 2 weeks) to force them to start working together quickly.
      7. Notify students via e-mail when course deliverables or other important information are posted to web
      8. Journals for both data collection and self-evaluation (Consider personal acknowledgement to encourage students.)
        1. ask about their own accomplishments
        2. from whom did they obtain help
        3. to whom did they give help
    4. Student Expectation Issues
      1. Send all students a letter during previous semester. Identify what skills will be required for the course. Emphasize the importance of acquiring those skills (for example, software, operating system) before the project starts.
      2. Provide some background reading on teamwork
    5. Peer Evaluation Issues
      1. Need to implement concept of peer evaluation early in course
      2. Provide feedback on individual performance early in the semester (after boot camp if this idea is adopted)
      3. Students evaluate themselves and each other when there is a major deliverable do and at the end of the project.
      4. Vicki has materials and procedures that can be used as a model for peer evaluations.
    6. Team Issues
      1. Students should have input in the team leader decision process. Some suggestions:
        1. delay decision until after "boot camp" idea if adopted to let students and faculty get a better feel for members& strengths and weaknesses.
        2. Have students nominate team leaders with instructors making final decision (instructor needs to determine issues such as gender, even distribution of leaders at both locations, student preferences)
      2. Team leader should be allowed to code if the team so wishes
    7. Communication/Social Issues
      1. Students must be encouraged to communicate as individuals
      2. More use of video technology
    8. Data Collection
      1. Types of instruments
        1. questionnaires
        2. time logs
        3. email
        4. journals
        5. IRC
        6. structured interviews
        7. other ???????
      2. Location of instruments
        1. web
        2. central repository
      3. Responsibility for instrument
      4. Specific issues to be addressed
      5. Procedure and time frame for archival of data