Rita Garcia
Chieh-Ju Liao
Christoph Treude
ABSTRACT
Collaboration is important during software development, but related work has found gender differences can influence the collaboration process, creating inequality in the team's dynamics. In this paper, we present a gender analysis study that involved 39 students, examining their teams' online collaborations while contributing to a large open-source software project. Eight teams of 4-6 Software Engineering (SE) students communicated over an online messaging platform, Slack, to complete an eight-week project. The goal of this study is to identify gender differences emerging from team collaboration. A mixed-methods approach was used to collect students' teamwork experiences and analyse their collaboration. Our research shows statistically significant results in female students' leadership, coordination, and project-monitoring behaviours used to complete the project. The results also showed a higher rate of help seeking within the all-female team, an infrequent behaviour observed in the all-male and mixed-gender teams. Our findings raise future research opportunities to further investigate the gender differences emerging from team collaboration.
- Annelie -del. 2011. Rapport building in student group work. Journal of Pragmatics 4, 43 (2011), 2932--2947.Google Scholar
- David Boud, Ruth Cohen, and Jane Sampson. 1999. Peer learning and assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 24, 4 (1999), 413--426.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sarah Brough, Amanda E. Bauer, Kate Brooks, Andrew Hopkins, and Sarah Maddison. 2011. Women in astronomy workshop report. arXiv:1106.6094 [astroph.IM]Google Scholar
- Joanne McGrath Cohoon. 2002. Recruiting and retaining women in undergraduate computing majors. Inroads -- The SIGCSE Bulletin 34, 2 (2002), 48--52.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Allan Collins. 1985. Teaching and reasoning skills. In Thinking and Learning Skills, S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, and R. Glaser (Eds.), Vol. 2. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 579--586.Google Scholar
- Anthony Cox and Maryanne Fisher. 2008. A qualitative investigation of an allfemale group in a software engineering course project. Journal of Information Technology Education 7 (2008), 1--21.Google ScholarCross Ref
- John W. Creswell. 2012. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
- John W. Creswell and Vicki L. Plano Clark. 2006. Choosing a mixed methods design. In Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Chapter 4, 125--143.Google Scholar
- Kay Deaux and Brenda Major. 1987. Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behaviour. In Psychological Review, Vol. 94. 369--389.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Terry L. Dickinson and Robert M. McIntyre. 2009. A conceptual framework for teamwork measurement. In Team Performance Assessment and Measurement: Theory, Methods, and Applications, E. Salas M. Bannick and C. Prince (Eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mawah, New Jersey.Google Scholar
- Amy Diehl, Amber Stephenson, Leanne Dzubinski, and David Wang. 2020. Measuring the invisible: Development and multi-industry validation of the gender bias scale for women leaders. Human Resource Development Quarterly 31, 3 (2020), 249--280.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Danae Ford, Alisse, and Chris Parnin. 2017. Someone like me: How does peer parity influence participation of women on Stack Overflow?. In In proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC). 1--6.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Angela C. Garcia and Jennifer B. Jacobs. 1998. The interactional organization of computer-mediated communication in the college classroom. Qualitative Sociology 21, 3 (1998), 299--317.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Authur C. Graesser and Cathy L. McMahenand Brenda K. Johnson. 1994. Question asking and answering. In Handbook of psycholinguistics, M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.). Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 517--538.Google Scholar
- Pete Greasley. 2008. Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS (1st ed.). Open University Press, Milton Keynes, UK.Google Scholar
- Juliet Hunt. 2004. Introduction to gender analysis concepts and steps. Development Bulletin 64 (2004), 100--106.Google Scholar
- David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson. 1979. Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and learning. Review of Educational Research 49 (1979), 51--70.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Amanda Lee and Jeffrey C. Carver. 2019. FLOSS participants' perceptions about gender and inclusiveness: A survey. Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE '19) (2019), 677--687.Google Scholar
- Bin Lin, Alexey Zagalsky, Margaret-Anne Storey, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2016. Why developers Are slacking off: Understanding how software teams use Slack. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing Companion (San Francisco, California, USA) (CSCW '16 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 333--336.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jane Margolis, Allan Fisher, and Faye Miller. 2000. The anatomy of interest: Women in undergraduate computer science. Women's Studies Quarterly 28, 1/2 (2000), 104--127.Google Scholar
- Catherine Marshall and Gretchen B. Rossman. 1999. Designing Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, London.Google Scholar
- Joanne Meredith. 2019. Conversation analysis and online interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 52, 3 (2019), 241--256.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Corinne A. Moss-Racusin, John F. Dovido, Victoria L. Brescoll, Mark J. Graham, and Jo Handelsman. 2012. Science faculty's subtle gender bias favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 109, 41 (2012), 16474--16479.Google ScholarCross Ref
- National Center for Education Statistics. 2016. Bachelor's degrees conferred by degree-granting institutions, by gender and field of study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
- Harold F. O'Neil, Keith Allred, and Eva L. Baker. 1992. Measurement of workforce readiness: Review of theoretical frameworks (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 343). In Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). University of California, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
- Thomas F. Pettigrew. 1998. Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology 49, 1 (1998), 65--85.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andrea Popp, Stefanie Lutz, Sina Khatami, Tim van Emmerik, and Wouter Knoben. 2019. A global survey on the perceptions and impacts of gender inequality in the earth and space sciences. Earth and Space Science 6, 8 (2019).Google Scholar
- Daniel Riffe, Brendan Watson, Stephen Lacy, and Frederick Fico. 2019. Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research. Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
- Harvey Sacks. 1984. Notes on methodology. In Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction, J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 21--27.Google Scholar
- Pooja Sankar, Jessica Gilmartin, and Melissa Sobel. 2015. An examination of belongingness and confidence among female computer science students. SIGCAS Comput. Soc. 45, 2 (July 2015), 7--10.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Emanuel A. Schegloff. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, Volume 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
- Slack Technologies, Inc. 2020. Slack. https://slack.com. [Online; accessed 02-Oct-2020].Google Scholar
- Steven E. Stemler. 2004. A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 9, 4 (2004).Google Scholar
- Jan-Willem Strijbos, Maarten De Laat, Rob Martens, and Wim Joechems. 2005. Functional versus spontaneous roles during CSCL. In Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2005: The Next 10 Years!, D. Suthers T.W. Chan T. Koschmann (Ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 647--656.Google Scholar
- Anya Tafliovich, Andrew Petersen, and Jennifer Campbell. 2016. Evaluating student teams: Do educators know what students think? Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE '19) (2016), 181--186.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Adrian Thinnyun, Ryan Lenfant, Raymond Pettit, and John R. Hott. 2021. Gender and engagement in CS courses on Piazza. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Virtual Event, USA) (SIGCSE '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 438--444.Google Scholar
- Eileen M. Trauth, Curtis C. Cain, K.D. Joshi, Lynette Kvasny, and Kayla Booth. 2012. Embracing intersectionality in gender and IT career choice research. 50th annual conference on Computers and People Research (2012), 199--212.Google Scholar
- Jari Vanhanen, Timo Lehtinen, and Casper Lassenius. 2018. Software engineering problems and their relationship to perceived learning and customer satisfaction on software capstone project. Journal of Systems and Software 137 (2018), 50--66.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rebecca Vivian, Katrina Falkner, and Nickolas Falkner. 2013. Analysing computer science students' teamwork role adoption in an online self-organised teamwork activity. In Proceedings of the 13th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli, Finland) (Koli Calling '13). Association for Computing Machinery, 105--114.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yi Wang and David Redmiles. 2019. Implicit gender biases in professional software development: an empirical study. Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society (ICSE-SEIS '19) (2019), 1--10.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Noreen M. Webb. 1995. Group collaboration in assessment: Multiple objectives, progresses, and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 17, 1 (1995), 239--261.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jim Whitehead. 2007. Collaboration in software engineering: A roadmap. Future of Software Engineering (FOSE '07) (2007), 214--225.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Allison Woodruff and Paul M. Aoki. 2004. Conversation analysis and the user experience. Digital Creativity 15, 4 (2004), 232--238.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Gender Influence on Communication Initiated within Student Teams
Recommendations
Gender Effects on Collaborative Online Brainstorming Teamwork
CHI EA '19: Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsIt is common for individuals with diverse demographic backgrounds to collaborate through computer-mediated communication (CMC) technologies. Groups with internal diversity are typically considered to be advantageous to group performance due to the ...
A gender analysis of interaction in online work meeting tools
IHC '20: Proceedings of the 19th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing SystemsSynchronous work meetings with geographically distributed teams mediated by technologies have been a practice for decades. The advancement of ICT has allowed the improvement of the technologies used, especially in the last 20 years. However, the 2020' ...
Using virtual interactions to explore leadership and collaboration in globally distributed teams
ICIC '10: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Intercultural collaborationDespite advances in collaboration software, globally distributed teams face significant challenges, including variations in communication style, work behaviors, expectations and establishing common ground. Virtual worlds allow distributed team members ...
Comments