比较学生对计划驱动和敏捷方法的体验

C. Wellington, T. Briggs, C. Girard
{"title":"比较学生对计划驱动和敏捷方法的体验","authors":"C. Wellington, T. Briggs, C. Girard","doi":"10.1109/FIE.2005.1611951","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Fall of 2004, we offered two software engineering courses: one in plan-driven methodologies and one in agile methodologies. In these courses, the students work on large projects in teams of 14 to 16 students using variants of Team Software Process (TSP) or Extreme Programming (XP). In order to compare the students' experiences with these methodologies, the team in the plan-driven course and one of the agile teams were given the same problem statement. Throughout the semester, we measured team cohesion and individuals' attachment to the project. To measure team cohesion, we modified the Group Environment Questionnaire that has been shown to accurately reflect team cohesion in sports teams. We also developed some of our own cohesion metrics and a measure of attachment to the project. While the GEQ showed no significant difference between the teams, our measures showed higher overall cohesion in XP, but higher sub-team cohesion in TSP. At the end of the semester, we also compared the functionality of the applications the teams developed and a variety of code metrics measuring the quality of their code and its design. While the team's developed approximately the same amount of functionality, in general, the XP team's code had better metrics. The TSP team required much more code to accomplish the same functionality because, although they had a strong design, their implementation did not leverage inheritance as the design expected","PeriodicalId":281157,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings Frontiers in Education 35th Annual Conference","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"43","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of student experiences with plan-driven and agile methodologies\",\"authors\":\"C. Wellington, T. Briggs, C. Girard\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/FIE.2005.1611951\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Fall of 2004, we offered two software engineering courses: one in plan-driven methodologies and one in agile methodologies. In these courses, the students work on large projects in teams of 14 to 16 students using variants of Team Software Process (TSP) or Extreme Programming (XP). In order to compare the students' experiences with these methodologies, the team in the plan-driven course and one of the agile teams were given the same problem statement. Throughout the semester, we measured team cohesion and individuals' attachment to the project. To measure team cohesion, we modified the Group Environment Questionnaire that has been shown to accurately reflect team cohesion in sports teams. We also developed some of our own cohesion metrics and a measure of attachment to the project. While the GEQ showed no significant difference between the teams, our measures showed higher overall cohesion in XP, but higher sub-team cohesion in TSP. At the end of the semester, we also compared the functionality of the applications the teams developed and a variety of code metrics measuring the quality of their code and its design. While the team's developed approximately the same amount of functionality, in general, the XP team's code had better metrics. The TSP team required much more code to accomplish the same functionality because, although they had a strong design, their implementation did not leverage inheritance as the design expected\",\"PeriodicalId\":281157,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings Frontiers in Education 35th Annual Conference\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-10-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"43\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings Frontiers in Education 35th Annual Conference\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2005.1611951\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings Frontiers in Education 35th Annual Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2005.1611951","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 43

摘要

在2004年秋季,我们提供了两门软件工程课程:一门是计划驱动方法,另一门是敏捷方法。在这些课程中,学生们在14到16人的团队中使用团队软件过程(TSP)或极限编程(XP)的变体来完成大型项目。为了比较学生对这些方法的体验,计划驱动课程的团队和其中一个敏捷团队被给出了相同的问题陈述。在整个学期中,我们测量了团队凝聚力和个人对项目的依恋。为了测量团队凝聚力,我们修改了团队环境问卷,该问卷已被证明能准确反映运动队的团队凝聚力。我们还开发了一些我们自己的内聚度量和对项目的依恋度量。虽然GEQ在团队之间没有显着差异,但我们的测量显示XP的整体凝聚力更高,而TSP的子团队凝聚力更高。在学期结束时,我们还比较了团队开发的应用程序的功能,以及衡量代码质量和设计的各种代码度量标准。虽然团队开发了大约相同数量的功能,但一般来说,XP团队的代码具有更好的度量。TSP团队需要更多的代码来完成相同的功能,因为尽管他们有一个强大的设计,但他们的实现并没有像设计所期望的那样利用继承
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of student experiences with plan-driven and agile methodologies
In Fall of 2004, we offered two software engineering courses: one in plan-driven methodologies and one in agile methodologies. In these courses, the students work on large projects in teams of 14 to 16 students using variants of Team Software Process (TSP) or Extreme Programming (XP). In order to compare the students' experiences with these methodologies, the team in the plan-driven course and one of the agile teams were given the same problem statement. Throughout the semester, we measured team cohesion and individuals' attachment to the project. To measure team cohesion, we modified the Group Environment Questionnaire that has been shown to accurately reflect team cohesion in sports teams. We also developed some of our own cohesion metrics and a measure of attachment to the project. While the GEQ showed no significant difference between the teams, our measures showed higher overall cohesion in XP, but higher sub-team cohesion in TSP. At the end of the semester, we also compared the functionality of the applications the teams developed and a variety of code metrics measuring the quality of their code and its design. While the team's developed approximately the same amount of functionality, in general, the XP team's code had better metrics. The TSP team required much more code to accomplish the same functionality because, although they had a strong design, their implementation did not leverage inheritance as the design expected
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Work in progress - spiral curriculum approach to reformulate engineering curriculum Work in Progress - A Statics Skills Inventory Using multimedia to support research, education and outreach in an NSF Engineering Research Center Introducing a constructivist approach to applying programming skills in engineering analysis Use of classroom presenter in engineering courses
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1