Understanding DevOps education with Grounded theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DevOps stands for Development-Operations. It arises from the IT industry as a movement aligning development and operations teams. DevOps is broadly recognized as an IT standard, and there is high demand for DevOps practitioners in industry. Therefore, we studied whether undergraduates acquired adequate DevOps skills to fulfill the demand for DevOps practitioners in industry. We employed Grounded Theory (GT), a social science qualitative research methodology, to study DevOps education from academic and industrial perspectives. In academia, academics were not motivated to learn or adopt DevOps, and we did not find strong evidence of academics teaching DevOps. Academics need incentives to adopt DevOps, in order to stimulate interest in teaching DevOps. In industry, DevOps practitioners lack clearly defined roles and responsibilities, for the DevOps topic is diverse and growing too fast. Therefore, practitioners can only learn DevOps through hands-on working experience. As a result, academic institutions should provide fundamental DevOps education (in culture, procedure, and technology) to prepare students for their future DevOps advancement in industry. Based on our findings, we proposed five groups of future studies to advance DevOps education in academia.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".