SCRUM-based group work and assessment: a case study

Report
SCRUM-based group work and
assessment: a case study (m.cubric)
Marija Cubric, Business School/LTI, 05-05-11
SCRUM (rugby) – the act or method of restarting play after an infringement when the two
opposing packs of forwards group together with heads down and arms interlocked and push to
gain ground while the scrum half throws the ball in and the hookers attempt to scoop it out to
their own team (dictionnary.com)
Agenda
SCRUM =>
Product Development =>
Learning and Teaching
“The relay race approach to product
development may conflict with the goals of
maximum speed and flexibility. Instead a
holistic or rugby approach where a team
tries to go the distance as a unit, passing
the ball back and forth may better serve
today¹s competitive requirements.”
Takeuchi and Nonaka (1986)
+
Case-study (groupwork assessment design &
Students’ views)
Takeuchi H. and Nonaka I. (1986) "The New New Product Development Game”, Harvard Business Review
SCRUM – a Project Management
Framework
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
&
Iteration
review
Iteration
retrospective
Iteration
planning
Roles
&
Activities
Product Owner
Team
Image adapted from: mountaingoatsoftware.com
SCRUM Principles
Cooperation amongst students
Evidence of active Learning
Student-staff contact
Prompt feedback & responding
to feedback
Chickering &
Gamson (1987)
Chickering A., Gamson Z.F. (1987)
Seven Principles For Good Practice In
Undergraduate Education
The American Association For Higher
Education Bulletin
Mapping SCRUM to L&T Context
PM Roles, Artifacts and Activities
Product Owner
Team
Scrum Master
Product Backlog
Sprint
Potentially shippable product
increment
Daily SCRUM meetings
Sprint Planning
Sprint Review
Sprint Retrospective
SCRUM of SCRUMs
Software release platform
L&T Roles, Artifacts and Activities
Mapping SCRUM to L&T Context
PM Roles, Artifacts and Activities
L&T Roles, Artifacts and Activities
Product Owner
Module Leader/Teacher
Team
Students’ group
Scrum Master
[Alternate role between team members]
Product Backlog
Coursework
Sprint
1 or 2-weeks long coursework iteration
Potentially shippable product
increment
Coursework in progress submitted for feedback
Daily SCRUM meetings
[10 minutes long group meeting]
Sprint Planning
Iteration planning meeting
Sprint Review
Iteration review meeting
Sprint Retrospective
Iteration reflection
SCRUM of SCRUMs
[Meeting between representatives of all groups]
Software release platform
Wiki
SCRUM - a L&T Framework
Weekly group
meeting
Coursework
specification
Final
complete
coursework
submission
Weekly
assignments
Weekly
planning
Teacher
Weekly
review &
reflection
Group
Image adapted from: mountaingoatsoftware.com
Case-study*
Module: PG module on Agile Project Management** (“immersive learning”)
Programs:
MSc Project Management (Business School) ,
MSc in Business Computing (Computer Science)
Number of students: 24 (split into 6 groups of 4)
Sprint: 5*2 weeks long sprints
Feedback: Studynet online form (after each sprint)
Development platform: Wikispaces
_________
* Method tailored through three consecutive academic years (started in 2007-8)
** Method is generic
Project Specification
Project Specification (group work)
Sprint Planning
Marking Rubric
Group work (50%)
Quality of articles
owned by the group
Quality of group
process
Individual reflective
report** (50%)
Factual knowledge
Understanding
Application
Analysis
Synthesis
Factual knowledge
Understanding
Analysis
Evidence of reading
Presentation
Use of internal links
First group report*
Second group report
Third group report
Fourth group report
Fifth group report
<0-5>
Evaluation
<0-5>
Evidence of reading
<0-5>
Discussion
<0-5>
Presentation
<0-5>
Reflection
<0-5>
<0-5>
<0-5>
<0-5>
<0-5>
<0-5>
<0-5>
<0-5>
<0-5>
<0-5>
<0-5>
<0-5>
<0-5>
<0-5>
<0-5>
<0-5>
Group Report (example)
GROUP: School Of Thought
NOTE: Input values are highlighted - everyting else are formulae that should not be changed
TOTAL
R11 table
1st iter.
a. Number of new articles added to the “Agiloepedia”
2
85
b. Number of discussion posts
c. Number of edits
f. Agile principles and practices applied in the previous iteration
g. Any problems preventing the group from delivering the work in the next iteration
4468
Min, max, mean and standard deviation (σ) values of group contribution of individual edits
j.
Number of internal links included (total/since the last iteration)
5th iter.
1
9
0
28
563
1027
886
1015
977
4%
8% and 5%
10% CAS;
Cohesion 4%
4
23
6
See below
See below
None
h. Turnitin similarity index for the articles owned by the group and attached turnitin report for
all updated articles (new and existing) or as a minimum the URL of the turnitin report
i.
4th iter.
2
16
See table below
d. Sum of word counts of all articles owned by group
e. (Numbered) list of recommendations from the feedback implemented in the iteration
PER
ITERATION
2nd iter.
3rd iter.
1
2
5
27
4% Pernding
See table below
Calculations for R11
member
Member 1
Member 2
Member 3
Member 4
min
max
mean
stdev
stedv%
52
total number of edits
1st iter.
2nd iter.
176
158
127
83
50
33
7
26
83
176
136
35.26
6.48%
7
50
29
15.41
13.29%
6
13
EDITS PER ITERATION
3rd iter.
4th iter.
5th iter.
47
27
8
39
11
29
21
2
54
14
4
14
14
47
30.25
13.29
10.99%
2
27
11
9.82
22.33%
8
54
26.25
17.75
16.91%
44
46
43
25
25
46
39.5
8.44
5.34%
Links to Theory …
Learning by writing …
Writing uniquely corresponds to some very powerful learning strategies such as:
multi-representational and integrative re-enforcement, immediate self-provided
feedback, establishment of systematic connections and relationships, analysis and
Emig, J. (1977) Writing as a mode of learning. College
synthesis (Emig, 1977)
Learning by making …
Composition and Communication, 28, 122-127. National Council
of Teachers of English
Effective learning happens in the context where “the learner is consciously
engaged in constructing a public entity, whether it's a sand castle on the beach or a
theory of the universe” (Pappert, 1991)
Papert, S. (Ed.). (1991). Situating Constructionism. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishing Corporation
Students engage in creating knowledge that can benefit others (students and
teachers) (Holmes et al., 2001)
Holmes, B.et al (2001). Communal constructivism: Students
Learning by connecting …
constructing learning for as well as with others. Technology And
Teacher Education Annual, 3, 3114-3119
Learning occurs through pattern-recognition and connecting specialized
Siemens G (2005) Connectivism: A Learning Theory For The
information sets (Siemens, 2005)
Digital Age. Elearnspace [Online] http://bit.ly/hiPhtk
How students describe the method …
Students value … tutor’s regular and prompt feedback … tutor’s interest and enthusiasm for the
subject … links with practice and employability
I started working the other day for Motorola and they are working using agile environments,
agile methodologies. I don’t know anything about agile before I took the course but right now I
am realising that we are using exactly the same things as Motorola. So it was really practical, …
We got feedback after three …. A lecturer interested in a subject would have some current
or four days from the time
connection with it, it’s an energy that you can feel
we submitted work and in
I found that I had to
other modules we submitted
deliver something every
coursework and its like three
Sunday … And like you
or four weeks or even more
said the first couple of
before we get feedback. And
weeks it’s fairly intense
sometimes when you get
in terms of energy
feedback, it’s not worth it
levels, but you just
because you don’t need it
learn to get something
anymore.
out on the Sunday.
student views
Students’ learning was enhanced with constant review of the subject … early engagement with
the module … tutor’s detailed feedback
So in this way you have to
perform some kind of work each
week, you end up reviewing
what you just learned.
I think it’s the speed at which we had to engage … maybe in
contrast to other modules where there wasn’t as participatory
or as involved, with Agile, after a very short amount of time
you are actually involved with doing things…..
What are the main factors influencing group
cohesion?
Increased visibility of individual contributions?
Explicit measurements of group cohesions (min,
max, avg, stdev)?
Cultural background (e.g. Hofstede, 2001) ?
Feedback NOT ALWAYS used
-feedback on iteration X used in
iteration X+1, but improvements
of iteration X sometimes delayed
till the end
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences:
comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across nations (2nd ed.).
Are findings from the business
field applicable to L&T ?
E.g. Whitworth&Biddle (2007)motivation and mohesion in agile
teams influenced by:
-Clear objectives, ease of interaction,
frequent iterative delivery
-“Agile planning was noted as
especially valuable as a means of
generating group agreement, and
was seen to greatly reduce the
tension and conflict”
Whitworth E. and Biddle R. (2007) motivation
and Cohesion in agile teams; Proceeding
XP'07; Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg
my
observations
How useful are group reports as evidence of
group cohesion?
-useful for managing expectations (e.g.
TurnitIn similarity index useful)
-Statistical measures could be tweaked, and
too much time spent on making them look
good – perhaps measurements
should be
done by the tutor?
Evaluation
25
20
15
10
5
0
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree

similar documents