Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Combinations of Personal Characteristic Types and Learning Effectiveness of Teams

1,614 views

Published on

Hironori Washizaki, Yusuke Sunaga, Masashi Shuto, Katsuhiko Kakehi, Yoshiaki Fukazawa, Shoso Yamato, Masashi Okubo, Bastian Tenbergen, “Combinations of Personal Characteristic Types and Learning Effectiveness of Teams,” 41st IEEE Computer Society Signature Conference on Computers, Software, and Applications (COMPSAC 2017), J1/C2 – Journal First, Conference Second Scheme, Torino, Turin, Italy, July 4-8, 2017.

Published in: Software
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Combinations of Personal Characteristic Types and Learning Effectiveness of Teams

  1. 1. Hironori Washizaki*, Yusuke Yamada*, Masashi Shuto*, Katsuhiko Kakehi*, Yoshiaki Fukazawa*, Shoso Yamato†, Masashi Okubo‡, Bastian Tenbergen§ *Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan, †Ehime University, Ehime, Japan, ‡NEC Management, Tokyo, Japan §State University of New York at Oswego, USA 1 Combinations of Personal Characteristic Types and Learning Effectiveness of Teams 1 Y. Sunaga, H. Washizaki, K. Kakehi, Y. Fukazawa, S. Yamato, and M. Okubo, ``Relation between Combinations of Personal Characteristic Types and Educational Effectiveness for a Controlled Project-based Learning Course,” IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, Vol.5, No.1, pp.69-76, 2016.
  2. 2. Project-Based Learning (PBL) in Information System/Software Education 2 V V
  3. 3. How to form a “good” team? 3 ExperienceSize Knowledge Skill Personality? Gender Culture
  4. 4. What is (un)known? • A diverse team where members have different personalities reduces risks in business system development [Klein, CACM 2002] • Personal characteristics impact performance and attitude in software engineering [Feldt, IST 2010][Kosti, IST 2014] 4 Any impact on educational effectiveness? Is there an optimal project team formation in PBL?
  5. 5. Our research method • Educational effectiveness: skills and knowledge questionnaire • Personality: Five Factors & Stress (FFS) 5 Team formation Project (5 days) Project ends Educational effectiveness questionnaire Personality measurement 1st 2nd
  6. 6. Skills and knowledge questionnaire • Based on IPA common career skill framework (similar to SFIA) 6 Q1. Planning Q2. Giving a presentation Q3. Presenting Q4. Communicating Q5. Practical speaking Q6. Asking relevant questions Q7. Sharing information with the team Q8. Applying problem-solving methods Q9. Being independent Q10. Involving others ...... Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry & Information-Technology Promotion Agency, Japan (IPA), “Common career/ skill framework,” 2012, http://www.ipa.go.jp/english/humandev/reference.html.
  7. 7. Five Factors & Stress (FFS) theory • Personality theory for optimal organization formation • 30 questions resulting into 4 types 7 Management (M) Good at improving the present situation Management (M) Good at improving the present situation Anchor (A) Good at maintain the present situation Anchor (A) Good at maintain the present situation Tugboat (T) Good at realizing ideas Tugboat (T) Good at realizing ideas Leadership (L) Good at changing Leadership (L) Good at changing 4 T. Furuno, ``Measuring corporate intellectual assets: FFS theory organizational audits,'' OECD Conf. Intell. Assets Based Manage., 2006. Diffusible Preservative CondensableReceptive
  8. 8. Research questions • RQ1: Does personality impact on educational effectiveness at individual level? • RQ2: Does personality combination in teams impact on educational effectiveness at team level? 8 MM AA TT LL MM AA TT LL MM TT MM AA LL
  9. 9. Target of Experiment (5 years) • 5 days PBL • 168 members • 31 teams • Requirements engineering, analysis and design CD: Information systems Development • 5 days PBL • 77 members • 15 teams • IT strategy and innovation CS: IT Strategy 7 Conservative students give team good effect? Innovative students give team good effect
  10. 10. RQ1: Small impact at individual level 10 Leadership Anchor Management Tugboat Individualeducationaleffectiveness 1 2 3 4 020406080100 p value : 0.023 1 2 3 4 -40-20020406080 Leadership Anchor Management Tugboat Individualeducationaleffectiveness p value : 0.438CD CS CS needs the skill to create new idea. Innovative students learned little since they were already good at the beginning.
  11. 11. RQ2. Impact at team level 11 Good team without Management-type students. Conservative students might disturb team activity. Good team with Management and Anchor-type without Leadership-type. Innovative students might disturb team activity. Conservative ones might contribute to team activity. CDCS
  12. 12. Ongoing work: Five Factor Model (FFM) 12 Neuroticis m • Anxiety • Angry Hostility • Depressi on • Self- Consciou sness • Impulsive ness • Vulnerabi lity Extraversi on • Warmth • Gregario usness • Assertive ness • Activity • Exciteme nt- Seeking • Positive Emotions Openness • Fantasy • Aesthetic s • Feelings • Actions • Ideas • Values Agreeable ness • Trust • Straightf orwardne ss • Altruism • Complian ce • Modesty • Tender- Mindedn ess Conscienti ousness • Compete nce • Order • Dutifulne ss • Achieve ment Striving • Self- Discipline • Deliberati on R.R. McCrae, R. R. and O. P. John, “An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and Its Application,” Journal of Personality, 1992. N. Salleh, et al, “An empirical study of the effects of personality in pair programming using the five-factor model,” ESEM 2009. • Many applications in software engineering such as pair programming [Salleh, ESEM 2009]
  13. 13. Ongoing work: Are FFS and FFM related? 13 FFS Neurotici sm Extraver sion Openness to experience Agreeabl eness Conscienti ousness FFS:X-axis 0.011 (-) 0.276 0.737 (-) 0.204 (-) 0.037 FFS:Y-axis 0.026 (-) 0.019 0.192 <0.001 (-) 0.283 Management (M)Management (M) Anchor (A)Anchor (A) Tugboat (T)Tugboat (T) Leadership (L)Leadership (L) Diffusible Preservative Conde nsable Rece ptive less Neuroticism more Extraversion less Agreeableness more Conscien tiousness
  14. 14. Ongoing work: extending targets FFM CS CD CP Neuroticism AVG Neuroticism VAR Lower is better Lower is better Extraversion AVG Extraversion VAR Higher is better Higher is better Lower is better Openness AVG Higher is better Low cor. than VAR Openness VAR Higher is better High cor. than AVG Agreeableness AVG Specific value Higher is better Agreeableness VAR Similar to CP Similar to CS Conscientiousness AVG Specific value Conscientiousness VAR Lower is better 14 PBL course at State University of New York at Oswego CDCS CP CP
  15. 15. Conclusion and future work • Empirical study on personality and learning – Personality: Five Factors & Stress (FFS) – Educational effectiveness: skills and knowledge questionnaire • We confirmed: – Small impact at individual level – IT strategy (CS): good team without management-type students – Info. Sys. development (CD): good team with management and anchor-type without leadership-type. • Ongoing work – FFS and other personality models such as FFM – Extending targets and collecting more data – Clarify what is specific to software/systems development education 15

×