Staff Professional Development in Global

Software Innovation
- for academic and industry staff -

Author(s): Dr. J Paul Gibson, Télécom Sud Paris (Dept. ​INF​ormatique), Evry, France
paul.gibson@telecom-sudparis.eu
Dr. Radu Dobrin, Mälardalen University, Sweden, ​radu.dobrin@mdh.se

1 Context

This document is a summary of the work done in the context of the

1
European project HUBLINKED , ​WP7 – Staff Professional
Development in Global Software Innovation, ​jointly with parts of the
WP 5 – Global Laboratories for Continuing Education​.

1.1. Revised work package description

1
HUBLINKED EU Knowledge Alliance - ​http://www.hublinked.eu
One of the key dissemination vehicles for HubLinked is a Continuing
Professional Development programme for staff in the HE and industry
partners entitled "Global Software Innovation". It was envisioned that the
CPD programme will use the 'Global Lab' model of delivery for its
modules and will leverage the Erasmus+ staff mobility scheme for staff in
HE. The idea was that the programme will consists of three parts (i)
taught modules on U-I linkages and software innovation (ii) a team
project using the Global Lab model with colleagues from international
partners on a particular theme and (iii) an optional Erasmus+ mobility or
equivalent in a HE or industry partner. Teams will be mentored by
academic and industry/other stakeholders as appropriate to the project
topic. In the rest of the document we will describe the outcomes of the
work so far related to the 3 parts above. The CPD programme provides
an opportunity to establish international Communities of Practice on
various themes, which can either be discipline topics, or common ‘difficult
problems’ specific to the computer science discipline, such as gender
representation, student mobility and retention. This CPD programme is
aimed to provide a sustainable mechanism to ensure the relationships
built between staff during the project phase can endure beyond the
lifetime of the project. The programme is available to all staff working in
CS faculties in Europe and beyond. The main result from this WP is a
CPD programme has been piloted with at least 16 staff and evaluated as
part of the project phase.
To summarize, the programme was aimed to leverage on 3 main
directions:

1. taught modules on U-I linkages and software innovation

2. a team project using the Global Lab model with colleagues from
international partners on a particular theme and
3. an optional Erasmus+ mobility or equivalent in a HE or industry
partner.

2. Phase 1: Gathering requirements and best practices

from all partners

Workshops have been conducted during the project implementation

period in order to capture the existing activities and best practices from
the partners as well as to identify complementary strengths and
requirements for further and joint collaboration beyond Hublinked. A
summary of these is presented below:

What do partners do today (x number of partners)?

- adjunct staff (HE/ind) x1
- many courses with invited industrial speakers x7
- thesis/project (bachelor, masters, phd) co-supervision x7
- industrial phd schools x1
- professional bachelor/master courses to industrial staff x2
- internships at ind. Partners or joint labs x6
- industrial advisory boards in the bachelor and masters programmes
x4
- Erasmus staff exchanges x7
- Performance Management & Development System (Annual Personal
Development Process), Generic Ad-hoc Training from central Institute
offices (e.g. Innovation, IPR, project management etc.), Industry
Engagement OFfice (to handle placements & internships) &
Industry-led Data Analytics research centre (CeADAR), industry
engagement office
- Sabbatical/research stays (6 months, 1-2 persons per year, in some
places compulsory for professors) x4
- postdocs in industry (up to 1 year) x1
- research chair with industry x1
- PhD candidates at partner universities x1
What do we (HubLinked partners) want to do in the upcoming 5
years?
- Go international with our current national initiatives
- Implement staff sabbatical
- More co-supervision of phd students with international part
- More (outgoing) staff exchange
- Interdisciplinary research opportunities
- A module/programme for new/inexperienced staff, and older staff that
have lost connections with industry, to develop skills and build
confidence working with industry partners. (e.g. NDAs, IPRs,
relationship management, etc)
- "Generally, more staff working with industry on real-world projects on
a regular basis. A "velcro" interface rather than chainmail!
- Lots of small-scale industry or community relevant projects, rather
than big contractual arrangements."
- Maturity Framework for industry interactions - level 1 is small scale,
level 5 is big strategic partnerships.
- Mobility between academia and industry would be desirable but very
difficult in Irish context - there isn't a culture of this in Ireland. Similarly
there are funding opportunities for joint industry-academic research in
Ireland that are very under-subscribed because there isn't a culture of
this type of research in Ireland. This is something we could (and
should) explore
- more research long term stays with more identifiable outcomes
- more guest postdocs
- more active involvement from industry (suggest problems, project
contents, continuous feedback)
- more systematic work - suggest research problems, more theses
co-supervision
- staff placements in industry (short period/part time?)
- longer period staff exchange
- more industry contacts and internship places abroad
- more industry guest lectures
- international ind. initiatives / ind international exchanges
- more international cotutelles with industrial parnters

How to do it?
- Selected course modules (2.5 ECTS each) to be added to the 20
ECTS offer of the CPD programme
- Distributed Software Development course at MDH as part of the CPD
programme, the course can be part of the programme module, highly
relevant for the CPD
- Objectives of the research stays and sabbaticals should be related to
staff development goals / university strategy
- Identify possibilities for staff exchange with Hublinked partners
- More funding for postdocs (from industry?), stays for more than 3
months
- Offer MSc/PhD co-advising to Hublinked partners
- More courses in SW innovation and U-I linkages, offered to students
and staff (by Hublinked members)
- Try to find funding for longer exchange periods, at the receiving
university
- Establish new contacts through our partners networks
- More joint EU projects
- Funds are needed for industrial collaborations. Marie Curie Actions
are efficient tools in this way. Shared scholarships between
universities could be established.

Based on the above, this the workpackage proposed a number of

modules in U-I linkages as described in the following sections.

3. Phase 2: Proposed modules on U-I linkages and

software innovation

3.1. Module 1: Scientific Outreach

The general theme of the lab is that of ​scientific outreach:​

“Outreach entails research-related communications initiatives

directed to the general public, rather than the research community.
The goal of this activity is to create awareness among the general
public about the research work performed and its implications for
citizens. As well as raising the profile with the general public,
outreach activities should also introduce students from schools and
universities to science, research and innovation. These students
should be encouraged and motivated to pursue careers in science.
“

http://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/msca/documents/documentation/pu
blications/guidelines_en.pdf
Outreach is key for impact of scientific research:

“Researchers should ensure that their research activities are made

known to society at large in such a way that they can be
understood by non-specialists, thereby improving the public's
understanding of science. Direct engagement with the public will
help researchers to better understand public interest in priorities for
science and technology and also the public's concerns".

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reco/2005/251/oj

“​Because of the important role science plays in peoples’ lives and the
significant (and increasing) impact of humans on the environment, there is a
great and growing need to improve links between scientists and society”

https://eos.org/features/developing-and-implementing-an-effective-
public-outreach-program

Outreach is also important to industry: as a marketing tool, for greater

community support for promotion and rising profile, for attracting talent,
for education etc. This global lab will provide continuing education for
staff (in industry and academia) to help them develop and improve their
outreach activities. It will address the following key issues:

Objective​: The overall objective of this module is to provide

support services for design/implementation/evaluation of outreach
activities (industrial and academic).

Open questions:

Is the overriding objective of the activity well-defined? Is it

measurable? Is the activity appropriate for the audience?

Benchmarking​: Is there a credible approach to defining a baseline

against which results can be measured? For example, to measure
the success of an awareness raising activity, is there a measure of
the existing level of awareness before the activity starts?

Audience and messages: How well is the target audience

defined? Are the proposed messages appropriate to that
audience?
 Channels and tools: Are the communications channels and tools
proposed suitable for the audience concerned?

Deliverables​: Are there clearly documented and defined

deliverables, with a clear timetable?

Value for money​: Are the scale and resource requirements of the
activity appropriate for the size of
audience which is likely to be reached?

Measurement​: How will the Outreach results obtained from the

individual activity and/or the whole project be measured?.

Continual Improvement​: how outreach activities can be better

defined and planned in order to increase their impact in reaching
the public.

3.1.1. The outreach workshop at the HUBLINKED meeting –

a review

In order to evaluate whether this type of training activity would be

appropriately addressed by a HUBLINKED global lab (and would meet
the requirements of WP7 on staff development), we discussed the
following issues:

1. Would staff would be interested in learning about outreach?

2. Would ​Human resources​ would see the value in staff doing this?
3. Is the global lab. model well-suited to doing this?
4. Could we re-use already existing outreach
teaching/learning/support activities (that have been successful)?
5. Are HUBLINKED partners are experienced in doing this activity
for CS/SE?
6. Could we provide a web-portal/service to facilitate this (with very
little resources/effort)?

Overall, the participants were positive about all of these 6 issues.

We then split the meeting participants into 3 groups, each of which

worked on one of the following problems. The results are summarised:
 1. Agree on a CS/SE outreach activity that you would like to
participate in. What would you like to know? What would you
like to be able to do?

The team looking at this problem emphasised the need to focus on

activities that showed the role of computing/software in solving big
issues such as climate change, protecting endangered species,
robots/AI impact on jobs/society, elections and empowering citizens,
data security/big brother, etc…

The team also suggested addressing issues specific to IT and CS –

gender and inspiring women to join the discipline, explain technology
to ‘grandma’ (like “for dummies” but more friendly). Moral and ethical
issues (such as rigging elections) and impact on education (is
technology making us stupid?)

2. As a team, design an outreach activity that you would like to

be able to offer, but do not have the experience. What sort of
support would you need to develop the activity?

This group also identified the importance on activities that focused on

ethics/morals/awareness, and impact of technology on society.

They recommend specific outreach activities on:

● teaching about safe use of social networks/media
● fake news
● AI, big data and deep learning

One issue is that such outreach would require much assistance from
experts outside the discipline of IT/CS/Software

3. Review outreach activities in which you have already

participated? What worked? What didn’t work?

The final group identified many activities that focused on programming.

They also identified a strong link between HUBLINKED partners and
community involvement. With respect to gender issues, partners also
have experience in outreach activities specific to this issue.
The group also noted that such activities can be ‘widened’ to include
general engineering ‘projects’ that include some IT/CS/Software
component (eg Cansat?)

A final issue that was identified was the need to review the current level
of IT/CS/SE integration in schools in each of the countries of the
HUBLINKED partners; in order to better understand the way in which
outreach can be co-ordinated with already taught curricula.

3.2. Module 2: Blended learning for CS teachers

This module is addressed to teachers at HEI on “How to run a Global
lab”. It has been finalized on the training event in Dublin, June 2019 and
a description of the pilot is presented in section 5. The Syllabus draft is
completed and part of this deliverable.

3.3. Module 3: Advanced level courses to professionals (PROMPT)

This initiative aims to guaranteeing the supply of software-related

advanced skills and innovative power for Swedish and European private
enterprises. It provides a wide range of online courses that have been
produced in cooperation with companies to suit practitioners who need to
be able to combine work and studies. The courses combine conventional
studies with distance, web-based learning and teaching at the
participating companies. The courses are given within the framework of
the PROMPT project (Professional Master’s Education in Software
Development) which is a cooperation project between academia and
industry with the aim of strengthening competitiveness in Swedish
companies.

All academic and industrial partners within Hublinked, have access to

these courses developed in the areas of process and methods for for
Developing Software-intensive Systems, Software Testing, Dependable
Software, Architecture and Design, or Big Data. The courses are all at
advanced level and give 2.5 to 7.5 ECTS which can accounted for in a
professional master's degree. More information can be found here:
http://www.promptedu.se/

3.4. Module 4: Programming courses for highschool teachers

There is a need for the clarification of the elementary school and

highschool’s mission to strengthen students' digital skills. In Sweden, for
instance, one of the changes was that programming was introduced as a
clear element in several different subjects, especially in technology and
mathematics. From and with July 1, 2018, it is mandatory to work
according to the revised curricula and the related subject and course
plans. The course is aimed at technology and math teachers who are
teaching in grades 7 – 9 and the special school grades 8 – 10, but can
also be open to teachers in other subjects or other school forms.

The purpose of the module is to develop knowledge in programming and

how programming is applied in the teaching of the technology subject.

Upon completion of the course, the participants should:

● Be able to apply programming in teaching situations

● Be able to use didactic tools that support learning in technology
and programming
● Be oriented in the possibility of subject integration by putting
programming in relation to societal, technical and aesthetic
contexts
● Be oriented in different ways of working for how to develop
technical solutions where control and regulation are applied using
programming.
● Be oriented in the programming function in complex technical
systems and be able to reason about the driving forces,
advantages and risks of these systems
● Be able to reflect on programming linked to gender equality, ethics
and environmental perspectives.

The courses consists of lectures, practical work and

workshops/laboratory sessions.

The course content, should include examples and exercises each target
group specified for the courses. The participants should:

● Further develop the use of basic concepts and building blocks in

programming, in relation to substance content.
● Practice in creating, testing, debugging and improving program
code related to teaching situations.
● Develop knowledge about didactic tools around how programming
can be used in teaching situations.
● Implement teaching projects in programming.
 ● Gain knowledge in orientation in the possibility of subject
integration by putting programme-in relation to, for example,
societal, technical and aesthetic contexts.
● Gain knowledge in orientation in how to reflect on the different
types of programming that relate to gender equality, ethics,
international issues and the environment.

The description of the course is detailed in the deliverable from WP5 and
the draft course plan is attached. The module has been piloted in
Sweden during the spring 2019 and made available for the HubLinked
consortium. The course was conducted through 3 physical meetings and
4 webinars.

The pilot was evaluated by 13 participating students (teachers) from

elementary technical schools (year 7-9) and math teachers from
highschool.

- The perception of most of the participants was that the course was
at a pace matching the expectations, and all of them experienced
that they had been given enough time from their jobs to match the
course requirements.
- 80% of the participants expressed their interest in an advanced
version of the course, more focused on concrete examples and
results to be directly implemented in their classrooms after the
course end.
- regarding the suggestions for the improvement of the course, most
of the participants expressed their interest to have more contact
hours (physical meetings) and hands-on programming examples.

The analysis made by the course responsibles is that the courses have
followed learning objectives and followed planned content, teaching, and
examinations. When we started working on the courses, we were unsure
of the target group's capacity and needs. We designed the courses to be
challenging and attract creativity. Initially, we had thought that each lab
would have a creative examining step with its own reflection, but had to
fall back on a more traditional examination. However, this worked well.

Each lab is linked to one or more key concepts in programming. The

material contains shorter reviews of these concepts as well as rich with
links to other information online. This is to make the students aware of
the rich documentation that exists and which is a must to master in order
to become self-sufficient and further develop their ability after the end of
the course. During the course, we also developed more material -
including shorter video lectures - to respond to participants' needs.

An estimated half of the participants responded well to this course and

succeeded in completing both laboratory work and excellent projects.
The other half had more difficulty with the arrangement and, above all,
how they could use their newly acquired knowledge in their own
teaching. Simpler training materials and materials were needed that
could be used directly in their own teaching. We share this view and will
develop more basic materials with a more direct subject connection.

The most appreciated element was a programming room where a

teacher solved one of the laboratory sessions with the participants while
a teacher was available to answer questions. Although the courses are
intended as distance courses, the meeting, the opportunity to showcase,
discuss in group and personal supervision give greater opportunities to
effectively introduce the participants to basic programming - especially in
the beginning.

The subject-didactic part also contained a program language with close

connection to didactics. Our idea was that participants would be
introduced to programming through Processing to use this knowledge as
a basis for understanding a programming language with more direct
connection to their own sbject area . The idea was that the participants
would then use Processing or the new programming language as the
basis for their project. This did not work out well for resource reasons:
many of the participants simply did not have the opportunity to use our
suggestions at their schools. Instead, most participants chose to find a
programming environment for themselves. Another concern we did not
expect was that several of the participants did not have the opportunity to
install new software on their computers, which caused some concerns at
the beginning of the course. The idea of ​the students' projects is that it
should be a start for programming in their schools so it is important that
they take into account the context prevailing in each school, such as
student composition. It is also important that the integration between
topic and programming feels natural. Our conclusion from this is to a
greater extent to use frameworks that do not require installation and to
allow program language selection to be part of the project. The course
can then present a program language as a basis for basic programming
(eg Processing) and another program language as orientation and then
allow the participants to freely choose what suits their project and
resources.
In summary, we rate this course as successful, but identify some
improvement potential in terms of:

● extended basic programming material, with more and less tasks

with more direct topic linking,
● increased number of close encounters with showcasing
programming of more advanced material, as well
● measures to bridge participants' different conditions regarding
computers, software installation rights and other tools.

4. Phase 3: Team project(s) using the Global Lab model

with colleagues from international partners

4.1. Distributed software development module

The Distributed Software Development (DSD) course is a joint
project-based course held by Mälardalen University (MDH) in Sweden,
University of Zagreb (FER) in Croatia, and Politecnico di Milano (POLIMI)
in Italy. The course has been continuously running and improving since
2003, taking its current format in 2012. All three universities offer this
elective course to Master students in their standard curricula. The
number of students enrolled each year varied from 15 to 64. The student
population attending the course has been very diverse—so far we have
had 482 students coming from 45 countries and 6 continents, bringing in
different cultural and knowledge backgrounds (see Table 1 ).

These students have worked on 73 projects, 64 of which have been

developed been involved, coming from 7 countries, ranging from young
PhD students (often former DSD students) to full professors. The course
has been quite successful—it produced the winning team of the Student
Contest on Software Engineering (SCORE) at ICSE 2009, in addition to
two more teams who participated to the final and six to the semifinal; it
provided two teams for the final and five teams for the semifinal of
SCORE at ICSE 2011; it produced the winning team again at ICSE 2013
and 2018, plus two teams for the semifinal, and, finally, two teams for the
semifinal at ICSE 2015. The course is project-based but includes a
number of common lectures on development processes, as well as on
relevant industry expertise and experiences in distributed settings.
Students, organized in distributed project teams, carry out software
projects applying well-established software engineering practices. Project
development follows a set of fixed deadlines, starting from project
description and requirements analysis, ending with the release of a final
and tested prototype.

Throughout the course, each project team is accompanied by two

members of the teaching staff as supervisors, one at each location
involved in the project. Their task is to support the team, to meet it
regularly, and help out with the challenges it encounters, especially in
non-technical issues, such as organizational problems, intra-team
communication issues, and so on. They are also in charge of the project
grading, which consists of several phases. In the first phase, the whole
project is evaluated based on around 40 different criteria concerning the
followed process, the final product, documentation, and presentations.
The evaluation table with the obtained points is forwarded to the project
team. Team members discuss internally on how to distribute the points
among themselves, based on their specific contribution, and deliver the
final points distribution to the supervisors. Finally, supervisors
supplement the point distribution with their own insights, with the help of
a final questionnaire, to which every student needs to answer.

MDH started DSD as a teaching endeavor rather than as an empirical

research effort. The main objective of collecting data was to gather
evidence of the effectiveness of the work as instructors, and on the
relationship between the innovations introduced in the course and
students’ performance. In particular, the goal was to understand whether
running a completely coordinated
distributed course was effective for students to achieve the following
learning outcomes:

● Get an understanding of the implications of distributed

development;
● Be able to cope with the main issues of distributed development;
 ● Learn how to coordinate within a group of people with different
background, needs, goals, and schedule;
● Improve the project planning and estimation skills;
● Improve the design and implementation abilities of each student in
the course;
● Improve the ability of students to defend their theses in front of
other students and instructors.

The number of involved teachers increased through the years, partly

because of new partners joining the course, which brought in two new
senior staff members, and partly because we decided in 2014 to switch
from one to two supervisors per project. This choice was motivated by
the observation that a supervisor was more inclined to assign a higher
grade to his/her local sub-team against the remote one (see Figure 1 ,
“Local supervisor” and “Remote supervisor” bars). In two cases, we
experienced significant differences, up to 1 point on a 3-point scale.
Switching to a double supervisor setting has given us a clearer
perspective on the performance of the team as a whole, and this has
resulted in a more homogeneous and fair distribution of grades.
Moreover, having closer supervision from both sides of the team has
generally improved the performance of all teams. This has resulted in a
slight improvement of the overall grades (see Figure 1 , “All” and “Two
supervisors” bars).

The course is now offered in the Hublinked consortium as a complement

to the Global Labs, bringing in new industrial partners providing relevant
projects, and enabling the participation of students and staff from all
Hublinked partners. The course is given in the fall semester, and the
registration is made through the Swedish national application system
www.antagning.se​. Pictures from the last implementation in fall 2019 are
presented below.
5. How to teach a global lab - pilot implementation at DTU

A pilot implementation of the CPD programme has been conducted at

DTU in June X-Y on the theme “How to teach a global lab”. The topics
covered ranged from computer ethics, copyright, the use of storyboards
in teaching, search mechanisms, eLearning tools as well as evaluation of
learning resources. The training material is available online at DTU.

The evaluation of the pilot was performed and the results are presented
below.

Before the course, most participants reported using Blended methods

only ​Sometimes or ​Never.​ Only one participant reported using blended
methods often. Upon completing the course, participants reported a
better understanding of the various terms associated with blended
learning, see Figure 1.
Figure 1 - Familiarity with Blended Learning Terms
Regarding their attitude to blended learning, only 2 out of 6 participants
reported that the amount of blended learning methods had increased
compared to previous years, the others said that it had remained the
same.
While each participant considered the use of digital tools to be important,
when it came to the number of tools used, most participants seemed to
rely on practical work, powerpoint and groupwork. The blended learning
course did not seem to modify their thinking on the tools that they would
use, the tools that more than one participant considered for future use
were Online Seminars and Voting machines (Figure 2).
Figure 2 - Tools used in courses before the course, and those that
participants will consider following the course.
Finally, when asked whether they preferred, online, face-to-face or a
combination of both for teaching, participants responded with an equal
split between face-to-face and combination.

Other comments
Some free text comments from the participants are presented below:
Some particular aspects of the course that the participants had positive
feedback for was
● Ethics was in particular useful.
● Talks about creating lectures was also helpful as it refreshed their
memory. Something else they suggested might have been nice to
hear about was perspectives of educators who are struggling or
learning with BL too.
● Most of them didn't know what to expect, so they enjoyed seeing
an overview of what everyone else is doing.
Some aspects of Blended Learning that they felt was missing from the
talks, or that they would have liked to have seen more of:
● Talks about the additional time it requires. Asynchronous nature of
the communication. Would be good to hear about these aspects of
BL and how to make a success of it.
● Relationship with students and if that changes when blended -
how to maintain the relationships and encourage students to
create relationships with one another.
● They would have liked to have seen a workshop on how to take a
non-blended course and make it blended. What needs to change?
Does it depend on MSc or Undergraduate, size of cohort, topic
being taught? How does this affect how to blend? What's the right
mix?
● They would like to see the same workshop but in different
institutions representing different points of view.
● They would like to see a discussion on the impact of blended on
how you assess students. There were talks about assessment but
would they have liked it to be more related to blended.
Some other perspectives on things they learned:
 ● If an institution/department/lecturer is doing BL full time technical
support is needed. Resources need to be there to support for
consistency and standards.
● Accessibility discussion was a bonus, but not particularly related
to blended learning. Student wellbeing is important, increase in
anxiety and stress. Will blended learning make this more
prevalent with more use of SM?

6. Erasmus+ mobility or equivalent in a HE or industry

partner

All partners established Erasmus or bilateral Agreements and most of the

partners have double degree agreements in place. The complete picture
of this is presented in the deliverables from WP8. During the training
hosted at TUD, the eligible participants used the Erasmus+ staff training
funding while the HubLinked staff used the HubLined funding. The
partners will continue to use the Erasmus+ staff mobility scheme in a
sustainable implementation of the programme beyond the completion of
the HubLinked project.

7. Some related literature

Distributed software development

1. Ivana Bosnic, Igor Cavrak, Marin Orlic, Mario Zagar, and Ivica
Crnkovic. 2011. Student motivation in distributed soft- ware
development projects. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’11), Compan- ion
Volume to Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on
Collaborative Teaching of Globally Distributed Software
Development (CTGDSD’11). ACM Digital Library. Retrieved from
http://www.es.mdh.se/publications/2061​.

2. Ivana Bosnic, Igor Cavrak, Mario Zagar, Rikard Land, and Ivica
Crnkovic. 2010. Customers role in teaching distributed software
development. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual IEEE-CS
Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training.
IEEE. Retrieved from ​http://www.es.mdh.se/publications/1653​.
 3. Ivana Bosnić, Federico Ciccozzi, Igor Čavrak, Elisabetta Di Nitto,
Juraj Feljan, and Raffaela Mirandola. 2015. Intro- ducing SCRUM
into a distributed software development course. In Proceedings of
the 2015 European Conference on Software Architecture
Workshops. ACM, 34.

4. Rashina Hoda, Muhammad Ali Babar, Yogeshwar Shastri, and

Humaa Yaqoob. 2017. Socio-cultural challenges in global software
engineering education. IEEE Trans. Educ. 60, 3 (2017), 173–182.

5. Helena Holmstrom, Eoin Ó. Conchúir, J. Agerfalk, and Brian

Fitzgerald. 2006. Global software development chal- lenges: A
case study on temporal, geographical and socio-cultural distance.
In Proceedings of the International Con- ference on Global
Software Engineering (ICGSE’06). IEEE, 3–11.

6. Marco Kuhrmann and Jürgen Münch. 2016. Distributed software

development with one hand tied behind the back: A course unit to
experience the role of communication in GSD. In Proceedings of
the IEEE 11th International Conference on Global Software
Engineering Workshops (ICGSEW’16). IEEE, 25–30.

Outreach impact

There is much research published on outreach impact but not much on

how to do it.

7. Markowitz, Dina G. "Evaluation of the long-term impact of a

university high school summer science program on students'
interest and perceived abilities in science." ​Journal of Science
Education and Technology​ 13.3 (2004): 395-407.

8. Knox, Kerry L., Jan A. Moynihan, and Dina G. Markowitz.

"Evaluation of short-term impact of a high school summer science
program on students' perceived knowledge and skills." ​Journal of
Science Education and Technology​ 12.4 (2003): 471-478.
 9. Pivkina, Inna, et al. "Young women in computing: lessons learned
from an educational & outreach program." ​ACM SIGCSE Bulletin
41.1 (2009): 509-513.

10. McGill, Monica M., Adrienne Decker, and Amber Settle. "Does
Outreach Impact Choices of Major for Underrepresented
Undergraduate Students?." Proceedings of the eleventh annual
International Conference on International Computing Education
Research. ACM, 2015.

11. Ericson, Barbara, and Tom McKlin. "Effective and sustainable

computing summer camps." ​Proceedings of the 43rd ACM
technical symposium on Computer Science Education.​ ACM, 2012.

12. McGill, Monica M., Adrienne Decker, and Amber Settle.

"Undergraduate students’ perceptions of the impact of pre-college
computing activities on choices of major." ​ACM Transactions on
Computing Education (TOCE)​ 16.4 (2016): 15.

13. Ericson, Barbara, and Tom McKlin. "Effective and sustainable

computing summer camps." Proceedings of the 43rd ACM
technical symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 2012.

DISCLAIMER

The European Commission’s support for the production of this publication does not constitute an
endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot
be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.