Software Project Management as Team Building Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The courses of software project management (SPM) and Software engineering (SE) are regularly taught at undergraduate degree program in computer science. Students of these programs also have to undertake projects as part of various courses during their degree program. The purpose of this research is to assess whether the software engineering or the software project management course had enhanced the cohesion among team members while undertaking a six month or a year-long project. The teaching of these two courses is considered as a team building intervention in this research. A total of 167 students returned a modified version of Group Environment Questionnaire distributed to 200 students. Off these, 81 were those who had taken the SE course and subsequently did a project before they had taken SPM course. The rest of the students (85) consisted of those who had taken SPM and had undertaken final project. The results of this paper indicates that the SPM as compared to SE as a team building intervention had a better effect on team cohesion. The paper has successfully identified a single course that can enhance the performance of students as a team in contrast to proposing all the courses taught at the undergraduate computer science degree program as intervention for better team building and team work as proposed by Hogan & Thomas, 2005.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".