International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2012), and a workshop Collaborative Teaching of Globally Distributed Software Development. Slides describing some of our experiences in a Distributed Software Development course. For more, check http://www.fer.hr/rasip/dsd/
ICSE 2012 - CGTDSD: Distributed Software Development Course: Students’ and Teachers’ Perspectives
1. Distributed Software Development Course:
Students’ and Teachers’ Perspectives
Ivana Bosnić
Juraj Feljan
Ivica Crnkovid
Marin Orlid
Mario Žagar
University of Zagreb, Croatia
Mälardalen University, Sweden
8. Technical resources
sound quality lots of testing before
• additional backup plans
server infrastructure flexibility!
• more technical support
10. Knowledge level
misbalance problem!
• from poor basic... • cope with
• ..to highly specific heterogenity…
knowledge – of countries
• causes demotivation – and programs
• low English skills
pre-course test enrollment test
warn students • can not reject anyone!
in advance • advising
• additional lectures
12. Project selection & asssignment
more: OK, but harder decision-making
• proposals • balance should be improved
• freedom • better process in last years
• skill balance • self-evaluation
• real customers • yes! (but it’s very complex!)
14. Lectures
diverse comments can’t make everyone happy
• reduce lectures
AND
• have more lectures
• more guest lectures! • ex students working on
industry DSD-projects now
• cultural differences lecture • we shall stick with that
– more or less? – differences not visible –
until problems arise
16. Course organization
face-to-face contact money, please
ice-breaking moments introductory fun
number of 2009. - too many students
• students • 56 students, 10 projects
• presentations • sorry!
presentation time strict time limit!
too many “hidden reason”
• deadlines
• questionnaires
20. Course advising
more support & advising: should be better, but
• in the beginning • real-world needs
• whole team progress decision-makers
• individual advising • don’t “lead by the hand”
having a supervisor
on each site
22. Grading
more thorough detailed grading system
• analysis of process • >20 criteria
• final product testing
greater distinction hard to know about
between students personal contributions
better criteria explanation
have intermediate grading