skip to main content
10.1145/3555228.3555272acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessbesConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

MO-DM Tool: Improving teams’ engagement with Motivation-Oriented Decision-Making

Published: 05 October 2022 Publication History

Abstract

A significant part of Software Engineering students’ academic and professional life involves working on projects in collaboration with their peers. They will form teams and perform on many software-related projects. Studies based on a systematic literature review and experimental results in a multidisciplinary tech-based innovation course with undergraduate students from Computer Engineering and Computer Science indicate difficulties in two significant activities in collaborative work: decision-making and reaching consensus. These recurrent difficulties negatively affect learners’ motivation and engagement throughout the project’s life cycle, besides other losses. This article aims to present a tool based on a model called MO-DM (Motivation-Oriented Decision-Making) proposed in doctoral research to address these hardships. It enables a new project view of members’ motivation and engagement, considering all the choices made along the project journey. The tool is grounded on EVC (Expectancy-Value-Cost) model, using it in a new way. Decisions like ”What programming language should we use?” are observed from the perspective of ”Which programming language can bring more engagement and motivation to the majority of the team?”. This view makes it possible to identify which students are more susceptible to being demotivated and disengaged in each step, and actions can be performed to mitigate these effects. Teams can make more engaging and motivating choices by picking the ones that will positively affect most of the group, enhancing the chances of successful projects. MO-DM tool is under preliminary tests with satisfactory results. Many decision-making situations where motivation and engagement are concerns can benefit from MO-DM. Tool presentation video link here.

References

[1]
Marshall & Brereton. 2013. Tools to support systematic literature reviews in software engineering: A mapping study, Int. Symp. Empir. Softw. Eng. Meas. (2013).
[2]
Chow & Cao. 2007., A Survey Study of Critical Success Factors in Agile Software Projects., The Journal of Systems and Software, n. 81. (2007).
[3]
Barron et al. 2015. A formula for optimally motivating your students [Handout]. Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2015).
[4]
Barron et al. 2017. Expectancy-value-cost survey of student motivation: User guide. Charlottesville. (2017).
[5]
Bhuwandeep et al. 2022. Management education in pandemic times: Insights, challenges, and opportunities for the future. Journal of Education for Business. (2022).
[6]
Chen et al. 2012. Software Project Team Characteristics and Team Performance: Team Motivation as a Moderator, 19th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference.
[7]
Chao et al. 2021. Large-scale group decision-making with non-cooperative behaviors and heterogeneous preferences: an application in financial inclusion. European Journal of Operational Research. (2021).
[8]
França et al. 2018. Motivation and Satisfaction of Software Engineers, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.(2018).
[9]
Gisev et al. 2013. Interrater agreement and interrater reliability: key concepts, approaches, and applications. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. (2013).
[10]
Grotta et al. 2018. Principles of agile project-based learning to cope with the computer programming education at Brazilian Information System higher education. SBC. (2018).
[11]
Handelsman et al. 2005. A measure of college student course engagement. The Journal of Educational Research 98.3: 184-192.(2005).
[12]
Kosovich et al. 2014. A practical measure of student motivation: Establishing validity evidence for the expectancy-value-cost scale in middle school. Journal of Early Adolescence. (2014).
[13]
Lindell et al. 1999. A revised index of interrater agreement for multi-item ratings of a single target. Appl. Psychol. (1999).
[14]
Liu et al. 2018. Application development with augmented reality technique using Unity 3D and Vuforia. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research 15068-15071.(2018).
[15]
Muchtar et al. 2017. Augmented reality for searching potential assets in medan using GPS based tracking. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. (2017).
[16]
Neves et al. 2020. strateegia: A Framework that Assumes Design as a Strategic Tool. International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. Springer. (2020).
[17]
Porras et al. 2018. Hackathons in software engineering education: lessons learned from a decade of events. Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on software engineering education for Millennials. (2018).
[18]
Stankovic et al. 2013. A survey study of critical success factors in agile software projects in former Yugoslavia IT companies. Journal of Systems and Software.
[19]
Singh et al. 2020. Investigating the impact of data normalization on classification performance. Applied Soft Computing. (2020).
[20]
Silva et al. 2020. Student learning motivations in the field of management with (and without) gamification. Journal of Management and Business Education. (2020).
[21]
Schoeffel et al. 2022. The Expectancy-Value-Cost Light Scale to Measure Motivation of Students in Computing Courses. Informatics in Education. (2022).
[22]
Vallerand et al. 1992. The Academic Motivation Scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education.(1992).
[23]
Oliveira & França. 2019. Agile practices and motivation: A quantitative study with Brazilian software developers. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. (2019).
[24]
Google. 2022. Firebase. Available: https://firebase.google.com. (2022).
[25]
Mann & Irving. 1982. Conflict theory of decision making and the expectancy-value approach. In: Expectations and actions. Routledge. (1982).
[26]
Kakar & Adarsh Kumar. 2017. Investigating the Motivating Potential of Software Development Methods: Insights from a Work Design Perspective, Pacific Asia Journal of the Association for Information Systems. (2017).
[27]
Alia Moser. 2020. The Engagement Concept. Written Corrective Feedback: The Role of Learner Engagement. Springer. (2020).
[28]
Feather & Norman. 2021. Expectations and actions: Expectancy-value models in psychology. Routledge. (2021).
[29]
Parekh. 1970. Bentham’s Theory of Equality. Political Studies 18.4: 478-495.(1970).
[30]
Johnmarshall Reeve. 2012. A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. Handbook of research on student engagement. Springer. (2012).
[31]
Schach. 1990. Software engineering. Aksen associates. (1990).
[32]
Eleftherios Soleas. 2020. Leader strategies for motivating innovation in individuals: a systematic review. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. (2020).
[33]
Sánchez. 2015. A tool for assessing social climate in university classrooms.(2015).
[34]
Thomas. 2010. Putting the kappa statistic to use. The Quality Assurance Journal. (2010).
[35]
O’Neill & Thomas. 2017. An overview of interrater agreement on Likert scales for researchers and practitioners. Frontiers in Psychology. (2017).
[36]
Unity. 2022. Asset Store Terms of Service and EULA. Available: https://unity3d.com/pt/legal/as_terms. (2022).
[37]
Unity. 2022. Unity Asset Store. Available: https://assetstore.unity.com. (2022).
[38]
Tao Wu and Maiga Chang. 2021. From Motivation Components to Academic Achievement Prediction. 13th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers (ICETC 2021). Association for Computing Machinery. (2021).

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
SBES '22: Proceedings of the XXXVI Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering
October 2022
457 pages
ISBN:9781450397353
DOI:10.1145/3555228
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: 05 October 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Collaboration
  2. Decision-Making
  3. EVC
  4. Engagement
  5. Expectancy-Value-Cost
  6. MO-DM
  7. Motivation
  8. Motivation-Oriented Decision-Making
  9. Projects
  10. Teams

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

SBES 2022
SBES 2022: XXXVI Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering
October 5 - 7, 2022
Virtual Event, Brazil

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 147 of 427 submissions, 34%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 100
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)16
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 15 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media