Balanced, Unbalances, and One-Sided Distributed Teams - An Empirical View on Global Software Engineering Education

Abstract

Global software engineering education faces unique challenges to reflect as close as possible real-world distributed team development in various forms. The complex nature of planning, collaborating, and upholding partnerships present administrative difficulties on top of budgetary constrains. These lead to limited opportunities for students to gain international experiences and for researchers to propagate educational and practical insights. This paper presents an empirical view on three different course structures conducted by the same research and educational team over a four-year time span. The courses were managed in Japan and Germany, facing cultural challenges, time-zone differences, language barriers, heterogeneous and homogeneous team structures, amongst others. Three semesters were carried out before and one during the Covid-19 pandemic. Implications for a recent focus on online education for software engineering education and future directions are discussed. As administrational and institutional differences typically do not guarantee the same number of students on all sides, distributed teams can be 1. balanced, where the number of students on one side is less than double the other, 2. unbalanced, where the number of students on one side is significantly larger than double the other, or 3. one-sided, where one side lacks students altogether. An approach for each of these three course structures is presented and discussed. Empirical analyses and reoccurring patterns in global software engineering education are reported. In the most recent three global software engineering classes, students were surveyed at the beginning and the end of the semester. The questionnaires ask students to rank how impactful they perceive factors related to global software development such as cultural aspects, team structure, language, and interaction. Results of the shift in mean perception are compared and discussed for each of the three team structures.