Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

Involving External Stakeholders in Project Courses

Published: 11 July 2018 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    Problem: The involvement of external stakeholders in capstone projects and project courses is desirable due to its potential positive effects on the students. Capstone projects particularly profit from the inclusion of an industrial partner to make the project relevant and help students acquire professional skills. In addition, an increasing push towards education that is aligned with industry and incorporates industrial partners can be observed. However, the involvement of external stakeholders in teaching moments can create friction and could, in the worst case, lead to frustration of all involved parties.
    Contribution: We developed a model that allows analysing the involvement of external stakeholders in university courses both in a retrospective fashion, to gain insights from past course instances, and in a constructive fashion, to plan the involvement of external stakeholders.
    Key Concepts: The conceptual model and the accompanying guideline guide the teachers in their analysis of stakeholder involvement. The model is comprised of several activities (define, execute, and evaluate the collaboration). The guideline provides questions that the teachers should answer for each of these activities. In the constructive use, the model allows teachers to define an action plan based on an analysis of potential stakeholders and the pedagogical objectives. In the retrospective use, the model allows teachers to identify issues that appeared during the project and their underlying causes. Drawing from ideas of the reflective practitioner, the model contains an emphasis on reflection and interpretation of the observations made by the teacher and other groups involved in the courses.
    Key Lessons: Applying the model retrospectively to a total of eight courses shows that it is possible to reveal hitherto implicit risks and assumptions and to gain a better insight into the interaction between external stakeholders and students. Our empirical data reveals seven recurring risk themes that categorise the different risks appearing in the analysed courses. These themes can also be used to categorise mitigation strategies to address these risks proactively. Additionally, aspects not related to external stakeholders, e.g., about the interaction of the project with other courses in the study programme, have been revealed. The constructive use of the model for one course has proved helpful in identifying action alternatives and finally deciding to not include external stakeholders in the project due to the perceived cost-benefit-ratio.
    Implications to Practice: Our evaluation shows that the model is a viable and useful tool that allows teachers to reason about and plan the involvement of external stakeholders in a variety of course settings, and in particular in capstone projects.

    Supplementary Material

    a8-steghofer-apndx.pdf (steghofer.zip)
    Supplemental movie, appendix, image and software files for, Involving External Stakeholders in Project Courses

    References

    [1]
    Tony Bates. 2015. Teaching in a Digital Age. Tony Bates Associates Ltd. Available online: https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/.
    [2]
    Jennifer Bertram. 2013. Agile Learning Design for Beginners. Technical Report.
    [3]
    John Biggs. 1996. Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education 32, 3 (1996), 347--364.
    [4]
    Barry Boehm, Alexander Egyed, Dan Port, Archita Shah, Julie Kwan, and Ray Madachy. 1998. A stakeholder win--win approach to software engineering education. Annals of Software Engineering 6, 1 (1998), 295--321.
    [5]
    Stephen Brookfield. 1995. Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
    [6]
    Bernd Bruegge, Stephan Krusche, and Lukas Alperowitz. 2015. Software engineering project courses with industrial clients. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE’15) 15, 4 (2015), 17.
    [7]
    Bernd Bruegge, Harald Stangl, and Maximilian Reiss. 2008. An experiment in teaching innovation in software engineering: Video presentation. In Companion to the 23rd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications. ACM, 807--810.
    [8]
    Aldo Dagnino. 2014. Increasing the effectiveness of teaching software engineering: A university and industry partnership. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 27th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T’’’14). IEEE, 49--54.
    [9]
    Marian Daun, Andrea Salmon, Bastian Tenbergen, Thorsten Weyer, and Klaus Pohl. 2014. Industrial case studies in graduate requirements engineering courses: The impact on student motivation. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 27th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T’’’14). IEEE, 3--12.
    [10]
    Marian Daun, Andrea Salmon, Thorsten Weyer, Klaus Pohl, and Bastian Tenbergen. 2016. Project-based learning with examples from industry in university courses: An experience report from an undergraduate requirements engineering course. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 29th International Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEET’16). IEEE, 184--193.
    [11]
    Walter Dick, Lou Carey, and James O Carey. 2014. The Systematic Design of Instruction. Pearson Education. 8th Revised Edition.
    [12]
    Armando Fox, David A. Patterson, Richard Ilson, Samuel Joseph, Kristen Walcott-Justice, and Rose Williams. 2014. Software engineering curriculum technology transfer: Lessons learned from MOOCs and SPOCs. Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences University of California at Berkeley, Technical Report. Retrieved July 2016 from http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/techreports/ucb/text/EECS-2014-17.pdf.
    [13]
    Gregor Gabrysiak, Markus Guentert, Regina Hebig, and Holger Giese. 2012. Teaching requirements engineering with authentic stakeholders: Towards a scalable course setting. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Software Engineering Education Based on Real-World Experiences. IEEE Press, 1--4.
    [14]
    G. Gabrysiak, R. Hebig, L. Pirl, and H. Giese. 2013. Cooperating with a non-governmental organization to teach gathering and implementation of requirements. In 2013 26th International Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T’’’13). 11--20.
    [15]
    Steven M. Hadfield and Nathan A. Jensen. 2007. Crafting a software engineering capstone project course. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 23, 1 (2007), 190--197.
    [16]
    John V. Harrison. 1997. Enhancing software development project courses via industry participation. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Software Engineering Education 8 Training. IEEE, 192--203.
    [17]
    Martin Höst, Robert Feldt, and Frank Lüders. 2010. Support for different roles in software engineering master’s thesis projects. IEEE Transactions on Education 53, 2 (2010), 288--296.
    [18]
    Mirka Kans. 2016. What should we teach?: A study of stakeholders preceptions on curriculum content. In Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Enhancing Innovation Competencies through Advances in Engineering Education, Turku, Finland, June 12--16, 2016. Turku University of Applied Sciences, 266--278.
    [19]
    David Kember and Lyn Gow. 1992. Action research as a form of staff development in higher education. Higher Education 23, 3 (1992), 297--310.
    [20]
    David A. Kolb. 2014. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. FT Press.
    [21]
    Andrew J. Kornecki, Iraj Hirmanpour, Massood Towhidnajad, Roger Boyd, Theresa Ghiorzi, and Linda Margolis. 1997. Strengthening software engineering education through academic industry collaboration. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Software Engineering Education 8 Training. IEEE, 204--211.
    [22]
    Domenico Lembo and Mario Vacca. 2012. Project Based Learning + Agile Instructional Design = EXtreme Programming based Instructional Design Methodology for Collaborative Teaching. Technical Report 8. Sapienza Universita di Roma.
    [23]
    Kurt Lewin. 1946. Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues 2, 4 (1946), 34--46.
    [24]
    Michael J. Lutz, J. Fernando Naveda, and James R. Vallino. 2014. Undergraduate software engineering. Commun. ACM 57, 8 (2014), 52--58.
    [25]
    Mary McAleese, Agneta Bladh, Vincent Berger, Christian Bode, Jan Muehlfeit, Tea Petrin, Alessandro Schiesaro, and Loukas Tsoukalis. 2013. Improving the Quality of Teaching and Learning in Europes Higher Education Institutions. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/library/reports/modernisation_en.pdf.
    [26]
    Gary R. Morrison, Steven M. Ross, Jerrold E. Kemp, and Howard Kalman. 2010. Designing Effective Instruction. John Wiley 8 Sons.
    [27]
    Kazimierz Musiał. 2010. Redefining external stakeholders in Nordic higher education. Tertiary Education and Management 16, 1 (2010), 45--60.
    [28]
    Birgit Penzenstadler, Martin Mahaux, and Patrick Heymans. 2013. University meets industry: Calling in real stakeholders. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 26th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE8T’13). IEEE, 1--10.
    [29]
    Birgit Penzenstadler, Debra J. Richardson, Beth Karlin, Allison Cook, David Callele, and Krzysztof Wnuk. 2014. Using non-profit partners to engage students in RE. In REET. 1--10.
    [30]
    Peter Rawsthorne and David Lloyd. 2005. Agile Methods of Software Engineering Should Continue to have an Influence Over Instructional Design Methodologies. Technical Report. Cape Breton University 8 Memorial University of Newfoundland. Retrieved June 12, 2018 from http://www.rawsthorne.org/bit/docs/RawsthorneAIDFinal.pdf.
    [31]
    Carolyn Pe Rosiene and Joel A. Rosiene. 2006. Experiences with a real software engineering client. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. IEEE, 12--14.
    [32]
    Donald A. Schön. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.
    [33]
    Todd Sedano, Arthi Rengasamy, and Cécile Péraire. 2016. Green-lighting proposals for software engineering team-based project courses. In 2016 IEEE 29th International Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEET’16). IEEE, 175--183.
    [34]
    Andrew K. Shenton. 2004. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information 22, 2 (2004), 63--75.
    [35]
    Göran Smith, Håkan Burden, and Anders Hjalmarsson. 2016a. Electricity innovation challenge: Experiences. In EVS29 Electric Vehicle Symposium 8 Exhibition. Montreal, Quebec, CA.
    [36]
    Göran Smith, Anders Hjalmarsson, and Håkan Burden. 2016b. Catalyzing knowledge transfer in innovation ecosystems through contests. In 22nd Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2016, San Diego, CA, August 11--14, 2016. Association for Information Systems.
    [37]
    Ronald A. Smith. 2001. Formative evaluation and the scholarship of teaching and learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2001, 88 (2001), 51--62.
    [38]
    R. E. Stake. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. SAGE Publications.
    [39]
    Jan-Philipp Steghöfer, Eric Knauss, Emil Alégroth, Imed Hammouda, Håkan Burden, and Morgan Ericsson. 2016. Teaching agile: Addressing the conflict between project delivery and application of agile methods. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion. ACM, 303--312.
    [40]
    John C. Stewart, Carolyn Sher DeCusatis, Kevin Kidder, Joseph R. Massi, and Kirk M. Anne. 2009. Evaluating Agile Principles in Active and Cooperative Learning. Technical Report. Pace University, White Plains, NY.
    [41]
    Dave Tahmoush, Sandro Fouché, Scott McMaster, Jeff Stuckman, and James Purtilo. 2009. Enhancing software project management courses with industry participation. In FECS. 135--140.
    [42]
    Keith Trigwell, Elaine Martin, Joan Benjamin, and Michael Prosser. 2000. Scholarship of teaching: A model. Higher Education Research and Development 2, 19 (2000), 155--168.
    [43]
    Kaylene C. Williams and Caroline C. Williams. 2011. Five key ingredients for improving student motivation. Research in Higher Education Journal 12 (2011), 1.
    [44]
    Claes Wohlin and Björn Regnell. 1999. Achieving industrial relevance in software engineering education. In Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training, 1999. IEEE, 16--25.

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)External Projects and Partners: Addressing Challenges and Minimizing Risks from the OutsetProceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3649217.3653593(555-561)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2024
    • (2024)A CURE for Microplastics: Introducing First-Year Honors Students to Environmental Chemistry through Undergraduate ResearchJournal of Chemical Education10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00730101:2(420-428)Online publication date: 2-Feb-2024
    • (2023)Domain-Specific Theories of Teaching Computing: Do they Inform Practice?Proceedings of the 23rd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research10.1145/3631802.3631810(1-15)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2023
    • Show More Cited By

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education
    ACM Transactions on Computing Education  Volume 18, Issue 2
    Special Issue on Capstone Projects
    June 2018
    116 pages
    EISSN:1946-6226
    DOI:10.1145/3239167
    Issue’s Table of Contents
    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 the author(s) 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: 11 July 2018
    Accepted: 01 August 2017
    Received: 01 April 2017
    Published in TOCE Volume 18, Issue 2

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Capstone projects
    2. external stakeholders

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)83
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7
    Reflects downloads up to 26 Jul 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)External Projects and Partners: Addressing Challenges and Minimizing Risks from the OutsetProceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3649217.3653593(555-561)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2024
    • (2024)A CURE for Microplastics: Introducing First-Year Honors Students to Environmental Chemistry through Undergraduate ResearchJournal of Chemical Education10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00730101:2(420-428)Online publication date: 2-Feb-2024
    • (2023)Domain-Specific Theories of Teaching Computing: Do they Inform Practice?Proceedings of the 23rd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research10.1145/3631802.3631810(1-15)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2023
    • (2023)Enhancing engineering education by means of the promotion of entrepreneurial mindsets and attitudes for societal challenges2023 5th International Conference of the Portuguese Society for Engineering Education (CISPEE)10.1109/CISPEE58593.2023.10227655(1-6)Online publication date: 5-Jul-2023
    • (2023)A systematic literature review of capstone courses in software engineeringInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107191159:COnline publication date: 1-Jul-2023
    • (2023)Improving a Model-Based Software Engineering Capstone CourseTowards a Collaborative Society Through Creative Learning10.1007/978-3-031-43393-1_51(567-578)Online publication date: 28-Sep-2023
    • (2022)Development and Use of Domain-specific Learning Theories, Models, and Instruments in Computing EducationACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/353022123:1(1-48)Online publication date: 29-Dec-2022
    • (2022)Managing Scope in Service Learning ProjectsProceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 210.1145/3502717.3532138(620-620)Online publication date: 7-Jul-2022
    • (2022)An Eco-System Approach to Project-Based Learning in Software Engineering EducationIEEE Transactions on Education10.1109/TE.2021.313734465:4(514-523)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2022
    • (2022)First Year Engineering Design: Course Design, Projects, Challenges, and Outcomes2022 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)10.1109/FIE56618.2022.9962456(1-9)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2022
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Get Access

    Login options

    Full Access

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media