skip to main content
research-article

A Method to Analyze Computer Science Students’ Teamwork in Online Collaborative Learning Environments

Authors Info & Claims
Published:17 February 2016Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Although teamwork has been identified as an essential skill for Computer Science (CS) graduates, these skills are identified as lacking by industry employers, which suggests a need for more proactive measures to teach and assess teamwork. In one CS course, students worked in teams to create a wiki solution to problem-based questions. Through a case-study approach, we test a developed teamwork framework, using manual content analysis and sentiment analysis, to determine if the framework can provide insight into students’ teamwork behavior and to determine if the wiki task encouraged students to collaborate, share knowledge, and self-adopt teamwork roles. Analysis revealed the identification of both active and cohesive teams, disengaged students, and particular roles and behaviors that were lacking. Furthermore, sentiment analysis revealed that teams moved through positive and negative emotions over the course of developing their solution, toward satisfaction. The findings demonstrate the value of the detailed analysis of online teamwork. However, we propose the need for automated measures that provide real-time feedback to assist educators in the fair and efficient assessment of teamwork. We present a prototype system and recommendations, based on our analysis, for automated teamwork analysis tools.

References

  1. W. Archer and J. Davison. 2008. Graduate employability: What do employers think and want? In Graduate Employability: The Views of Employers, R. Brown and K. Herrmann (Eds.). The Council for Industry and Higher Education, London, 1--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. K. Beck, M. Beedle, A. van Bennekum, A. Cockburn, W. Cunningham, M. Fowler, and D. Thomas. 2001. Manifesto for Agile Software Development. Retrieved from http://agilemanifesto.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. H. Beetham and R. Sharpe. 2007. Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing and Delivering e-Learning. Routledge, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. A. Begel and B. Simon. 2008a. Novice software developers, all over again. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Computing Education Research. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. A. Begel and B. Simon. 2008b. Struggles of new college graduates in their first software development job. In Proceedings of the SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. L. Bender, G. Walia, K. Kambhampaty, K. Nygard, and T. Nygard. 2012. Social sensitivity correlations with the effectiveness of team process performance: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the International Computing Education Research Conference. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. S. Bull and J. Kay. 2010. Open learner models. In Advances in Intelligent Tutoring Systems, R. Nkambou, J. Bourdeau, and R. Mizoguchi (Eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 301--322.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. L.-J. ChanLin and K.-C. Chan. 2010. Group learning strategies for online course. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 22, 397--401. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.033Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Z. Chen, B. Liu, M. Hsu, M. Castellanos, and R. Ghosh. 2013. Identifying intention posts in discussion forums. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. J. Creswell. 2008. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, 3rd ed. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. J. Creswell. 2013. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches 3rd ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. S. Crowe, K. Cresswell, A. Robertson, G. Huby, A. Avery, and A. Sheikh. 2011. The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology 111, 100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. S. Dawson, A. Bakharia, and E. Heathcote. 2010. SNAPP: Realising the affordances of real-time SNA within networked learning environments. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. A. De Liddo, S. Buckingham Shum, I. Quinto, M. Bachler, and L. Cannavacciuolo. 2011. Discourse-centric learning analytics. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. T. Dickinson and R. McIntyre. 2009. A conceptual framework for teamwork measurement. In Team Performance Assessment and Measurement: Theory, Methods, and Applications, M. Bannick, E. Salas, and C. Prince (Eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum, Mawah, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. T. Dingsoyr and T. Dyba. 2012. Team effectiveness in software development: Human and cooperative aspects in team effectiveness models and priorities for future studies. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. A. El-Abbassy, R. Muawad, and A. Gaber. 2010. Evaluating agile principles in CS Education. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security 10, 10, 19--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. K. Falkner and N. Falkner. 2012. Supporting and structuring “contributing student pedagogy” in computer science curricula. Computer Science Education 224, 413--443. DOI: 10.1080/08993408.2012.727713Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. K. Falkner, N. Falkner, and R. Vivian. 2013. Collaborative learning and anxiety: A phenomenographic study of collaborative learning activities. In Proceedings of the Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. A. Forte and A. Bruckman. 2007. Constructing Text: Wiki as a Toolkit for Collaborative Learning? Paper presented at the WikiSym. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. H. Fournier, R. Kop, and H. Sitlia. 2011. The value of learning analytics to networked learning on a Personal Learning Environment. In Proceedings of the Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. S. Govaerts, K. Verbert, J. Klerkx, and E. Duval. 2010. Visualizing activities for self-reflection and awareness. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Web-based Learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. G. Gweon, S. Jun, J. Lee, S. Finger, and C. Penstein Rosé. 2011. A framework for assessment of student project groups on-line and off-line. In Analyzing Interactions in CSCL, S. Puntambekar, G. Erkens, and C. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.),Vol. 12. Springer, New York, 293--317.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. A. Hadwin, S. Järvelä, and M. Miller. 2011. Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially shared regulation. In Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance, B. Zimmerman and D. Schunk (Eds.). Taylor & Francis, New York, 65--63.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. T. Heafner and A. Friedman. 2008. Wikis and constructivism in secondary social studies: Fostering a deeper understanding. Computers in the Schools 253--254, 288--302.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. C. Hmelo-Silver. 2003. Analyzing collaborative knowledge construction: Multiple methods for integrated understanding. Computers & Education 414, 397--420. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2003.07.001 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. C. Hmelo-Silver and E. Chemobilsky. 2004. Understanding collaborative activity systems: The relation of tools and discourse in mediating learning. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Sciences. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. C. Hmelo-Silver, E. Chernobilsky, and R. Jordan. 2008. Understanding collaborative learning processes in new learning environments. Instructional Science 365, 409--430. DOI: 10.1007/s11251-008-9063-8Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. C. Hmelo-Silver and C. Eberbach. 2012. Learning Theories and Problem-Based Learning: Problem-Based Learning in Clinical Education. In S. Bridges, C. McGrath, and T. Whitehill (Eds.), Vol. 8. Springer, 3--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. H.-F. Hsieh and S. Shannon. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 159, 1277--1288. DOI: 10.1177/1049732305276687Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. R. Hughes and S. Jones. 2011. Developing and assessing college student teamwork skills. New Directions for Institutional Research 149, 53--64. DOI: 10.1002/ir.380Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. K. Krippendorff. 2004. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology 2nd ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. N. Law, J. Yuen, W. Wong, and J. Leng. 2011. Understanding learners’ knowledge building trajectory through visualizations of multiple automated analyses. In Analyzing Interactions in CSCL, S. Puntambekar, G. Erkens, and C. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.),Vol. 12. New York: Springer, New York, 47--82.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. R. Lingard and S. Barkataki. 2011. Teaching teamwork in engineering and computer science. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. C. Loftus, L. Thomas, and C. Zander. 2011. Can graduating students design: Revisited. In Proceedings of the Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. R. Mazza and V. Dimitrova. 2004. Visualising student tracking data to support instructors. In Proceedings of the 13th International World Wide Web Conference. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. S. Minocha and P. Thomas. 2007. Collaborative learning in a wiki environment: experiences from a software engineering course. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 132, 187--209. DOI: 10.1080/13614560701712667 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. M. Munezero, C. Calkin Suero Montero, M. Mozgovoy, and E. Sutinen. 2013. Exploiting sentiment analysis to track emotions in students’ learning diaries. In Proceedings of the 13th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. B. Oakley, D. Hanna, Z. Kuzmyn, and R. Felder. 2007. Best practices involving teamwork in the classroom: Results from a survey of 6435 Engineering student respondents. IEEE Transactions on Education 503, 266--272. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. B. Pang and L. Lee. 2008. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval 21--22, 1--135. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. L. Polanya and A. Zaenen. 2004. Contextual valence shifters Working Notes -- Exploring Attitude and Affect in Text. AAAI Spring Symposium Series.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. H. Prakken, C. Reed, and D. Walton. 2003. Argumentation schemes and generalisations in reasoning about evidence. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAL). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. A. Radermacher and G. Walia. 2013. Gaps between industry expectations and the abilities of graduates. In Proceedings of the Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. M. Robles. 2012. Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills needed in today's workplace. Business Communication Quarterly. DOI: 10.1177/1080569912460400Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. S. Ruff and M. Carter. 2009. Communication learning outcomes from software engineering professionals: A basis for teaching communication in the engineering curriculum. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. M. Sandelowski. 1995. Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health 182, 179--183.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. J. Santos, K. Verbert, S. Govaerts, and E. Duval. 2011. Visualizing PLE usage. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Exploring the Fitness and Evolvability of Personal Learning Environments.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. H. Schmidt, J. Rotgans, and E. Yew. 2011. The process of problem-based learning: What works and why. Medical Education 458, 792--806. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04035.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. H. Schmitz, M. Scheffel, M. Friedrich, M. Jahn, K. Niemann, and M. Wolpers. 2009. Learning in the synergy of multiple disciplines. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, U. Cress, V. Dimitrova, and M. Specht (Eds.). Springer. 507--520Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. D. Schunk. 2008. Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective 5th ed. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. J.-W. Strijbos, M. De Laat, R. Martens, and W. Jochems. 2005. Functional versus spontaneous roles during CSCL. In Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning Conference. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. G. Trentin. 2009. Using a wiki to evaluate individual contribution to a collaborative learning project. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 251, 43--55. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00276.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. R. Vatrapu, C. Teplovs, N. Fujita, and S. Bull. 2011. Towards visual analytics for teachers’ dynamic diagnostic pedagogical decision-making. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. R. Vivian, K. Falkner, and K. Falkner. 2013a. Analysing computer science students’ teamwork role adoption in an online self-organised teamwork activity. In Proceedings of the Koli Calling Conference. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. R. Vivian, K. Falkner, and N. Falkner. 2013b. Building consensus: students’ cognitive and metacognitive behaviours during wiki construction. In Proceedings of the Learning and Teaching in Computer Engineering (LaTiCE) Conference. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. R. Weber. 1990. Basic Content Analysis. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. A. Weinberger and F. Fischer. 2006. A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education 46, 1, 71--95. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. M. Wells and R. Clougherty. 2008. Use of wikis in chemistry instruction for problem-based learning assignments: an example in instrumental analysis. Journal of Chemical Education 85, 10, 1446. DOI: 10.1021/ed085p1446Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. R. Wilson Lundin. 2008. Teaching with wikis: Toward a networked pedagogy. Computers and Composition 254, 432--448. DOI: 10.1016/j.compcom.2008.06.001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. T. Wilson, J. Wiebe, and P. Hoffmann. 2005. Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase-level sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing Conference. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. T. Yasseri, R. Sumi, A. Rung, A. Kornai, and J. Kertész. 2012. Dynamics of conflicts in wikipedia. PLoS ONE 76, e38869. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038869Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. Z. Zanial. 2007. Case study as a research method. Jurnal Kemanusiaan 9, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. B. Zimmerman. 1986. Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key subprocesses? Contemporary Educational Psychology 114, 307--313.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. B. Zimmerman and M. Pons. 1986. Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal 234, 614--628.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. A Method to Analyze Computer Science Students’ Teamwork in Online Collaborative Learning Environments

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education
          ACM Transactions on Computing Education  Volume 16, Issue 2
          March 2016
          121 pages
          EISSN:1946-6226
          DOI:10.1145/2894200
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2016 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 17 February 2016
          • Accepted: 1 April 2015
          • Revised: 1 December 2014
          • Received: 1 March 2014
          Published in toce Volume 16, Issue 2

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader