Abstract
AbstractTeam composition is a critical factor influencing collaboration within agile software development. This study investigates the impact of gender distribution on teamwork quality in software engineering capstone courses. We examined the experiences of 240 students organized into 40 teams during an agile project course. We analyzed two surveys, one conducted before team composition and one at the end of the project work. As much as 91% of the students chose to use the practice of conducting stand-up meetings in their project work and the majority were satisfied with the practice. Further, our analysis reveals that while women tend to engage more in design and men in programming, an increase in the proportion of women within a team correlates with a higher involvement of women in programming tasks. Our findings highlight gender differences in perceptions and experiences related to project involvement in agile software engineering courses.
Publisher
Springer Nature Switzerland
Reference42 articles.
1. Aeby, P., Fong, R., Vukmirovic, M., Isaac, S., Tormey, R.: The impact of gender on engineering students’ group work experiences. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 35(3), 756–765 (2019)
2. Bastarrica, M.C., Perovich, D., Samary, M.M.: What can students get from a software engineering capstone course? In: 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on software engineering: software engineering Education and Training Track (ICSE-SEET), pp. 137–145. IEEE (2017)
3. Berntzen, M., Stray, V., Moe, N.B.: Coordination strategies: Managing inter-team coordination challenges in large-scale agile. In: Gregory, P., Lassenius, C., Wang, X., Kruchten, P. (eds.) XP 2021. LNCS, vol. 419, pp. 140–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73101-6_9
4. Borges, G.G., de Souza, R.C.G.: Skills development for software engineers: systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 168, 107395 (2024)
5. Born, A., Ranehill, E., Sandberg, A.: Gender and willingness to lead: does the gender composition of teams matter? Rev. Econ. Stat. 104(2), 259–275 (2022)