17. 0
1
2
3
4
5
基礎専門
事前
事後
知識の向上確認
• 共通キャリアスキルFWに基づく自己評価 約40項目
– 0: 知らない ~ 3: 実行できる ~ 5: 評価できる
– 基礎系(意思疎通など)、専門系(ITガバナンスなど)
– 学習効果 (Kdif) = 事後の合計 (Kaft) – 事前の合計 (Kbef)
• 概ね3程度に到達、ただしばらつきあり
17
‘11
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
A B C D E F
基本
専門
18. 演習の観察と発言状況
• 活発さのメトリクスとして3分あたり発言回数を測定
• 日ごとに打ち解けて議論が活発化、最後にまとめ
• チームのばらつき大きい。知識増分とも関係?
18
0
50
100
150
200
A B C D E F
チームあたり発言数
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
10分30分60分10分30分60分10分30分60分90分
1日目2日目3日目4日目
A
B
C
D
E
F
‘11
22. プロセス
修正グランディッドセオリー(M-GTA)[2]
•質的分析手法
•記録やデータから概念への変換
学習 ジャーナ ル1
……………
活動1
活動2
活動3
………
活動4
活動5
学習プロセス
学習 ジャーナ ル2
学習 ジャーナ ルN
13
[2] Y. Nagayama, M. Hasegawa, “Nursing care process for releasing psychiatric inpatients from long-term seclusion in Japan: Modified grounded theory approach”, Nursing and Health Sciences, Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd, Yamaguchi, 2012.
23. 学生の学習プロセスの認知
Have learning motivation
Introduction of the tasks
Teamwork
Accomplishment of given tasks
Introspection
Before the course
During the course
Acquire skill and knowledge
・discussion ・role sharing ・helping each other ・information sharing
Determine learning goals
Find weakness and how to overcome it
20
•学習ジャーナルの質的分析結果
24. 学習効果の高いチームの学習プロセス
21
•あくまで一部の分析結果: 学習効果の高いチームほど、 限られた数の活動を学習ジャーナルで指摘
•改善案: 振り替えるべきポイントの絞込み
ある学習効果の高かったチーム
ある学習効果の低かったチーム
Have learning motivation
Introduction of the tasks
Teamwork
Accomplishment of given tasks
Introspection
Acquire skill and knowledge
Determine learning goals
Find weakness and how to overcome it
Have learning motivation
Introduction of the tasks
Teamwork
Accomplishment of given tasks
Introspection
Acquire skill and knowledge
Determine learning goals
Find weakness and how to overcome it
30. 関連研究
•FFS理論に基づき同質型ではなく補完型チームは高生 産 [小林01]
•Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) による学生の個人 特性のばらつきと、システム開発チームの問題・成果 の関係分析 [Peslak06]
–個人特性の16の分類
–MBTI型のばらつきの調査。組み合わせは未調査。
•Five Factor Model (FFM)による個人特性識別とペアプ ログラミングの関係分析 [Salleh09]
•プロジェクト上のリスクと個人特性の偏りの関係の指 摘、指向性がブレンドされたチームほど低リスク [Klein02]
Alan R. Peslak, “The Impact of Personality on Information Technology Team Projects”, Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGMIS CPR: Forty four years of computer personnel research: achievements, challenges & the future, ACM New York, pp. 273 – 279 N. Salleh, E. Mendes, and J. Grundy. 2009. An Empirical Study of Effects of Personality in Pair Programming using the Five-Factor Model. Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM 2009. pp. 214-225. Gary Klein, et al., “Wanted: Project teams with a blend of IS professionals orientation,” Communications of the ACM, Vol.45, No.6, 2002.
At First, I explain Project based learning.
PBL is a one of class styles. In PBL class, Students challenge themselves autonomously to identify and solve real problems which teacher gives. Then, teacher does not teach but only support.
And students have to perform as part of a team in PBL class.
We research them in a PBL class of Waseda university. the class name is Fundamentals of Information Systems Development.
This research was started from 2011, so we have the data for three years.
I explain research method.
Before PBL class start, we randomly compose team. Then, we make students take a questionnaire based on FFS theory. From this questionnaire, we get Individual characteristic of students.
During PBL class and after the class, we make students write learning journal. From learning journal, we get learning process by using Qualitative analysis.
Also, students take a questionnaire before and after class. we get educational effectiveness of students.
Next, I explain educational effectiveness, individual characteristic, and Learning process.
Next, I explain learning process. The learning process is how students learn new knowledge in PBL class.
To get the learning process, During class and after the class, twice, we make students write Learning journal.
学習ジャーナルis alike with diary. The items of the journal are their learning goals, what they learned, noticed, reviewed, thought was important, and did not know for each session of the course.
The picture is a sample part of learning journal.
We get the learning process from this journal by using Modified Grounded Theory Approach.
M-GTA is one of Qualitative analysis methods. This method was developed by Yasuhito Kinosita based on grounded theory approach.
By using M-GTA, We can get the target process from qualitative data, for example words of diary and interview.
This picture is the whole learning process in the class.
Before the class start, students have learning motivation. For example, want to learn knowledge of software engineer. And, students determine learning goals.
After the class start, at first the teacher give some task to each team. To accomplish the tasks, the students act teamwork. Though teamwork, they find team and individual weakness and determine how to overcome weakness. To repeat the cycle, students acquire some skill and knowledge. Then, each team accomplishes given tasks. At end of each session, the students introspect to improve their learning experience for the next session.
This is the learning process of the class.
We research manually how many activities of the learning process match the learning journal. Then, we find tendency that the team members of low educational effectiveness write many activities of the process at learning journal, and the team members of high educational effectiveness write a few activities at learning journal.
For sample, we pick up a high educational effectiveness team and a low educational effectiveness team. Activities of High effectiveness are 3, Activities of low effective are 5. Other teams have this tendency. From the result, we think that because students concentrate to work one by one, they get many skill and knowledge.
Two years ago. In my 3rd year of University, I took a PBL class.
In the PBL class, students made a web application with three or four men.
But, although my team spent many hour, I didn’t get new knowledge very much. My team had motivation. But, my team had gone wrong. Why?
I think Maybe my team members have one-sided Personality. My team members personality is Leadership. There was no management type.
Or our study way is bad.
By analyzing the PBL causes, we want to improve PBL class.
We think various personality is good for team and there is good learning process in students thought.
These are Research questions.
RQ1) What are the common characteristics of teams in which a high educational effectiveness is achieved?
RQ2) What is the learning process during the course, and how is the process perceived by the students?
RQ3) What is the learning process for teams in which a high educational effectiveness is achieved?
We expected that if the team members in same team have various personality, they have high educational effectiveness.
Because we think different personality make helping each other.
Therefore, we use standard deviation of Personal Characteristic in team, as parameter of how different teams personality.
In this picture, one dot is one team. We map team data of three years.
In this picture, X-axis indicate how different team personality. and Y-axis indicate average educational effectiveness of team.
We divided teams into two group. One-sided Personality teams are A group and various personality teams are B group.
And, we made Boxplot of group A and B. To look at this picture, we find one tendency. The tendency is that the more different personality teams members have, the higher educational effectiveness the teams have. Namely, the big different personality between team members make good educational effectiveness.
(The p-value obtained from the F-test was 0.27, so we conducted the t-test for equal means and the p-value became 0.03 (<0.05).)
We think that the reason is that if team members have difference personality, students are complementary each other.
We expected that if the team members in same team have various personality, they have high educational effectiveness.
Because we think different personality make helping each other.
Therefore, we use standard deviation of Personal Characteristic in team, as parameter of how different teams personality.
In this picture, one dot is one team. We map team data of three years.
In this picture, X-axis indicate how different team personality. and Y-axis indicate average educational effectiveness of team.
We divided teams into two group. One-sided Personality teams are A group and various personality teams are B group.
And, we made Boxplot of group A and B. To look at this picture, we find one tendency. The tendency is that the more different personality teams members have, the higher educational effectiveness the teams have. Namely, the big different personality between team members make good educational effectiveness.
(The p-value obtained from the F-test was 0.27, so we conducted the t-test for equal means and the p-value became 0.03 (<0.05).)
We think that the reason is that if team members have difference personality, students are complementary each other.