Learning Global Agile Software Engineering Using Same-Site and Cross-Site Teams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract—We describe an experience in teaching global soft-ware engineering (GSE) using distributed Scrum augmented with industrial best practices. Our unique instructional technique had students work in both same-site and cross-site teams to contrast the two modes of working. The course was a collaboration between Aalto University, Finland and University of Victoria, Canada. Fifteen Canadian and eight Finnish students worked on a single large project, divided into four teams, working on interdependent user stories as negotiated with the industrial product owner located in Finland. Half way through the course, we changed the teams so each student worked in both a local and a distributed team. We studied student learning using a mixed-method approach including 14 post-course interviews, pre-course and Sprint questionnaires, observations, meeting recordings, and repository data from git and Flowdock, the primary communi-cation tool. Our results show no significant differences between working in distributed vs. non-distributed teams, suggesting that Scrum helps alleviate many GSE problems. Our post-course interviews and survey data allows us to explain this effect; we found that students over time learned to better self-select tasks with less inter-team dependencies, to communicate more, and to work better in teams. I.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".