skip to main content
10.1145/3368308.3415387acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiteConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Successful Undergraduate-level Experiential Learning Projects: A Stakeholder Perspective

Published:07 October 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Experiential learning posits that learning occurs on the basis of practice; in technology courses this is often practiced as real or near to real life projects. Successful student-led project implementation has multiple definitions in the undergraduate learning context. In the best of cases, all stakeholders including students, instructors, community partners, and clients assess the course as having concluded successfully. This experience report blends these perspectives about the methods of and barriers to success in real-life student project scenarios. Based on the results of semester-long, enterprise level software implementation projects, we deliver generalizable lessons and implementation principles for instructors who wish to implement experiential learning in technology courses as a function of classroom learning and assessment.

References

  1. Babb, J., Hoda, R. and Nørbjerg, J. 2014. Embedding reflection and learning into agile software development. IEEE Software. 31, 4 (2014), 51--57. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2014.54.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Beck, K. et al. 2001. The Agile Manifesto.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Boehm, B., Port, D. and Brown, A.W. 2002. Balancing Plan-Driven and Agile Methods in Software Engineering Project Courses. Computer Science Education. 12, 3 (2002), 187--195.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Celio, C.I., Durlak, J. and Dymnicki, A. 2011. A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Service-Learning on Students. Journal of Experiential Education. 34, 2 (2011), 164--181. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/105382591103400205.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Gamble, R.F. and Hale, M.L. 2013. Assessing individual performance in Agile undergraduate software engineering teams. Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE (2013), 1678--1684.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Hall, D. and Buzwell, S. 2013. The problem of free-riding in group projects: Looking beyond social loafing as reason for non-contribution. Active Learning in Higher Education. 14, 1 (2013), 37--49. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412467123.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Hall, M. 2018. Service Learning in Information Systems Education?: Pedagogical Approaches to Support Experiential Learning and Higher- level Thinking. Thirty ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018. (2018), 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Hanks, B. 2007. Becoming agile using service learning in the software engineering course. Proceedings - AGILE 2007 (2007), 121--126.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Hoxmeier, J. and Lenk, M.M. 1999. Service-Learning in Information Systems Courses: Community Projects that Make a Difference. Journal of Information Systems Education. 14, 1 (1999), 91--100.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Kangning, W., Siow, J. and Burley, D.L. 2007. Implementing Service-learning to the Information Systems and Technology Management Program: A study of an Undergraduate Capstone Course. Journal of Information Systems Education. 18, 1 (2007), 125.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Kropp, M. and Meier, A. 2013. Teaching agile software development at university level: Values, management, and craftsmanship. Software Engineering Education Conference, Proceedings. November 2014 (2013), 179--188. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/CSEET.2013.6595249.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Michelle Schwartz 2012. Best Practices in Experiential Learning Experiential Learning: An Expanded Definition.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Mishra, D. and Mishra, A. 2011. Complex software project development: agile methods adoption. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice. 23, 8 (2011), 549--564. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.528.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Novak, J.M., Markey, V. and Allen, M. 2007. Evaluating Cognitive Outcomes of Service Learning in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis. Communication Research Reports. 24, 2 (2007), 149--157. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090701304881.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Patchan, M.M. and Schunn, C.D. 2015. Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: how students respond to peers? texts of varying quality. Instructional Science. 43, 5 (Sep. 2015), 591--614. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9353-x.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Read, A., Derrick, D.C. and Ligon, G.S. 2014. Developing entrepreneurial skills in IT courses: The role of agile software development practices in producing successful student initiated products. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. (2014), 201--209. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Rico, D.F. and Sayani, H.H. 2009. Use of agile methods in software engineering education. AGILE 2009. (2009), 174--179. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/AGILE.2009.13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Robinson, S. and Hall, M. 2018. Combining agile software development and service-learning: A case study in experiential IS education. SIGCSE 2018 - Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (2018), 491--496.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Schunk, D.H. 1991. Self efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist. 26, (1991), 207--231. DOI:https://doi.org/DOI 10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Da Silva, T.S., Martin, A., Maurer, F. and Silveira, M. 2011. User-centered design and agile methods: A systematic review. Agile 2011 (2011), 77--86.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Smith, P.G. and Pichler, R. 2005. Agile Risks/Agile Rewards. Software Development; San Francisco. 13, 4 (2005), 50--53.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Talja, S., Tuominen, K. and Savolainen, R. 2005. 'Isms' in information science: constructivism, collectivism and constructionism. Journal of Documentation. 61, 1 (2005), 79--101. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510578023.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Thoms, B. and Eryilmaz, E. 2018. Social Software Design To Facilitate Service-learning In Interdisciplinary Computer Science Courses. Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - SIGCSE '18. February (2018), 497--502. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3159572.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Umphress, D.A., Hendrix, T.D. and Cross, J.H. 2002. Software process in the classroom: The capstone project experience. IEEE Software. 19, 5 (2002), 78--85. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2002.1032858.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. World Economic Forum, T. 2016. The Future of Jobs.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. World Economic Forum, T. 2018. The Future of Jobs Report 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Successful Undergraduate-level Experiential Learning Projects: A Stakeholder Perspective

      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
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        SIGITE '20: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference on Information Technology Education
        October 2020
        446 pages
        ISBN:9781450370455
        DOI:10.1145/3368308

        Copyright © 2020 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: 7 October 2020

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate176of429submissions,41%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader