MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973875237 · doi:10.1145/1134285.1134391

Instructional design and assessment strategies for teaching global software development

2006· article· en· W1973875237 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Computer scienceEngineering managementSoftwareInstructional designKnowledge managementSoftware developmentSoftware engineeringEngineeringMultimedia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the context of increasing pressure to adopt global approaches to software development, the importance of teaching skills for geographically distributed software development (GSD) becomes essential. This paper reports the experience of teaching a course to prepare graduates for software engineering (SE) in global customer-developer teams, and which was taught in three-University collaboration (Canada, Australia and Italy). The course emphasized the learning of requirements management activities in frequent synchronous computer-mediated client-developer relationships and created a GSD environment with significant time zone and language differences. We describe our instructional approach and assessment strategies within a GSD instructional design framework which integrates (a) required GSD skills and strategies for aligning classroom projects with contemporary and authentic GSD conditions, (b) strategies for assessment of learning of GSD skills and (c) examples from our GSD course.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it