Validating the Formal Specification of the THUNDERS Process

Vista sencilla de ítem
dc.creatorAgredo-Delgado, Vanessa
dc.creatorRuiz, Pablo H.
dc.creatorCollazos, Cesar A.
dc.date2023-08-29
dc.date.accessioned2025-10-01T23:53:08Z
dc.descriptionCollaborative work encourages participants to build knowledge through exploration, discussion, negotiation, and debate to generate a better understanding or shared understanding of a concept, problem, or situation within a group. The aim of collaborative work is to find that shared understanding, which is understood as the existing agreement or similarity in the perceptions of the participants on a topic. Considering this, it can be determined that the greater the understanding and cohesion among all team members, the better results will be obtained in the development of the tasks and responsibilities that each of the members must fulfill, generating greater group trust and allowing everyone to move in the same direction. However, such understanding is not easy to build, there is no clarity on how it should be built, and it is simply given as something obvious or to be achieved, without giving it real importance. Trying to address these problems, from the multi-cycle action research methodology, THUNDERS is defined as a process that establishes how to build shared understanding in problem-solving activities. This article shows the conceptual and methodological cycles for its construction, and more in detail the validation cycle, in which was performed: an expert validation of the formal specification of THUNDERS to determine the correctness and completeness of its structure, a quality validation of its process model SPEM 2.0, and an experiment to validate its feasibility and usefulness. As results of these validations, it was obtained that THUNDERS needs to improve the syntactic and semantic elements of its specification and the cognitive load generated by its use. In addition, it was found that is a viable and useful process for the construction of a shared understanding with each of the elements that compose it.en-US
dc.descriptionEl trabajo colaborativo permite incitar a los participantes a la construcción de conocimiento mediante la exploración, discusión, negociación y debate, con el fin de generar una mejor comprensión o entendimiento compartido de un concepto, problema o situación dentro de un grupo. El objetivo del trabajo colaborativo es encontrar ese entendimiento compartido, el cual se entiende como la concordancia o similitud existente en las percepciones de los participantes sobre una temática. Considerando esto, se puede determinar que cuanto mayor sea el entendimiento y la cohesión entre todos los miembros del equipo, mejores resultados se obtendrán en el desarrollo de las tareas y responsabilidades que cada uno de los miembros debe cumplir, generando mayor confianza grupal y permitiendo que todos avancen en la misma dirección. Sin embargo, dicho entendimiento no es fácil de construir, no hay claridad en cómo se debe construir, y sencillamente se da como algo obvio o que debe lograrse, sin darle la real importancia. Tratando de abordar estas problemáticas, a partir de la metodología de investigación-acción multiciclo se define THUNDERS, un proceso que establece cómo construir entendimiento compartido en actividades de resolución de problemas. Este artículo muestra los ciclos conceptual y metodológico para su construcción, y más en detalle el ciclo de validación, en el cual se realizaron: una validación de expertos de la especificación formal de THUNDERS para determinar la correctitud y completitud de su estructura, una validación de calidad de su modelo de proceso SPEM 2.0, y un experimento para validar su viabilidad y utilidad. Como resultado de estas validaciones se obtuvo que THUNDERS necesita mejorar elementos sintácticos, semánticos de su especificación, y la carga cognitiva que genera su uso. Además, se obtuvo que es un proceso viable y útil para la construcción de un entendimiento compartido con cada uno de los elementos que lo componen.es-ES
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.formatapplication/zip
dc.formattext/xml
dc.formatapplication/zip
dc.formattext/html
dc.identifierhttps://revistas.itm.edu.co/index.php/tecnologicas/article/view/2658
dc.identifier10.22430/22565337.2658
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12622/7870
dc.languageeng
dc.languagespa
dc.publisherInstituto Tecnológico Metropolitano (ITM)es-ES
dc.relationhttps://revistas.itm.edu.co/index.php/tecnologicas/article/view/2658/2922
dc.relationhttps://revistas.itm.edu.co/index.php/tecnologicas/article/view/2658/2923
dc.relationhttps://revistas.itm.edu.co/index.php/tecnologicas/article/view/2658/2965
dc.relationhttps://revistas.itm.edu.co/index.php/tecnologicas/article/view/2658/3135
dc.relationhttps://revistas.itm.edu.co/index.php/tecnologicas/article/view/2658/3223
dc.relation/*ref*/D. Parmelee, L. K. Michaelsen, S. Cook, and P. D. Hudes, “Team-based learning: A practical guide: AMEE Guide No. 65,” Med Teach, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. e275–e287, May 2012. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.651179
dc.relation/*ref*/P. N. Robillard, and M. P. Robillard, “Types of collaborative work in software engineering,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 219–224, Sep. 2000. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0164-1212(00)00013-3
dc.relation/*ref*/O. Kozar, “Towards Better Group Work: Seeing the Difference between Cooperation and Collaboration,” English Teaching Forum, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 16–23, 2010. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ914888
dc.relation/*ref*/R. T. Johnson, and D. W. Johnson, “Active Learning: Cooperation in the Classroom,” The Annual Report of Educational Psychology in Japan, vol. 47, pp. 29–30, 2008. https://doi.org/10.5926/arepj1962.47.0_29
dc.relation/*ref*/M. Vinagre Laranjeira, “Teoría y práctica del aprendizaje colaborativo asistido por ordenador,” 2010. https://redined.educacion.gob.es/xmlui/handle/11162/65234
dc.relation/*ref*/P. Van den Bossche, W. Gijselaers, M. Segers, G. Woltjer, and P. Kirschner, “Team learning: building shared mental models,” Instr Sci, vol. 39, pp. 283–301, May 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9128-3
dc.relation/*ref*/P. J. Hinds, and S. P. Weisband, “Knowledge sharing and shared understanding in virtual teams,” in Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual teams effectiveness, C. B. Gibson and S. G. Cohen, Eds., San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass, 2003, pp. 21–36. http://communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/virtual_teams_that_work_creating_conditions_for_virtual_team_effectiveness.pdf#page=46
dc.relation/*ref*/F. S. Corrêa da Silva, and J. Agustí-Cullell, Information Flow and Knowledge Sharing. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2008. https://books.google.com.co/books?hl=es&lr=&id=QsdPMk7hdNQC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=F.+S.+Correa+da+Silva+and+J.+Agusti-Cullell,+%22Information+Flow+and+Knowledge+Sharing,%22+in+Shared+understanding,+Elsevier,+2008.+&ots=IFl77lNdih&sig=oQAmCED4iDzvp6n8OeSjoIat9SY&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
dc.relation/*ref*/C. E. Wanstreet, and D. S. Stein, “Gender and Collaborative Knowledge Building in an Online Community of Inquiry,” in Encyclopedia of Information Communication Technologies and Adult Education Integration, IGI Global, 2010, pp. 707–722. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61692-906-0.ch042
dc.relation/*ref*/Y. Hsieh, “Culture and Shared Understanding in Distributed Requirements Engineering,” in 2006 IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE’06), Florianopolis2006, pp. 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICGSE.2006.261221
dc.relation/*ref*/M. Kleinsmann, J. Buijs, and R. Valkenburg, “Understanding the complexity of knowledge integration in collaborative new product development teams: A case study,” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, vol. 27, no. 1–2, pp. 20–32, Jun. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2010.03.003
dc.relation/*ref*/P. R. Smart, “Understanding and Shared Understanding in Military Coalitions,” Southampton, 2011. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/267735/
dc.relation/*ref*/V. Agredo-Delgado, P. H. Ruiz, and C. A. Collazos, “Building Shared Understanding with THUNDERS,”, in Iberoamerican Workshop on Human-Computer Interaction, Switzerland, Springer, 2022, pp. 68–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24709-5_6
dc.relation/*ref*/OMG specification, “Software & Systems Process Engineering Metamodel Specification. Version 2.0,” 2007. https://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/2.0/PDF
dc.relation/*ref*/M. C. Camacho, J. A. Hurtado, and P. Ruiz, “Un método incremental para el análisis visual de modelos de proceso software,” Gerencia en Tecnología Informatica, vol. 15, no. 43, pp. 79–91, Dec. 2016. https://revistas.uis.edu.co/index.php/revistagti/article/view/6822
dc.relation/*ref*/F. J. Pino, M. Piattini, and G. Horta Travassos, “Gestionar y desarrollar proyectos de investigación distribuidos en ingeniería del software mediante la investigación-acción,” Revista Facultad de Ingeniería Universidad de Antioquia, vol. 68, Sep. 2013, http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?pid=S0120-62302013000300007&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en
dc.relation/*ref*/R. Granados, “Constructing intersubjectivity in representational design activities,” The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 503–530, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(01)00055-4
dc.relation/*ref*/M. De Haan, “Intersubjectivity in models of learning and teaching: Reflections from a study of teaching and learning in a Mexican Mazahua community,” in The theory and practice of cultural-historical, Aarhus University Press, 2001, pp. 174–1999. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-06251-010
dc.relation/*ref*/E. A. C. Bittner, and J. M. Leimeister, “Creating Shared Understanding in Heterogeneous Work Groups: Why It Matters and How to Achieve It,” Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 111–144, Jul. 2014. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222310106
dc.relation/*ref*/D. Gomes, P. Tzortzopoulos, and M. Kagioglou, “Collaboration through shared understanding in early design stage,” in 24th Ann. Conf. of the Int’l. Group for Lean Construction, Boston, 2016. https://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/29052/
dc.relation/*ref*/J. Kniel, and A. Comi, “Riding the Same Wavelength: Designers’ Perceptions of Shared Understanding in Remote Teams,” Sage Open, vol. 11, no. 3, Jul. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211040129
dc.relation/*ref*/W. R. Sieck, L. J. Rasmussen, and P. Smart, “Cultural Network Analysis,” in Network Science for Military Coalition Operations, IGI Global, 2010, pp. 237–255. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61520-855-5.ch011
dc.relation/*ref*/E. D. Rosenman et al., “A Simulation-based Approach to Measuring Team Situational Awareness in Emergency Medicine: A Multicenter, Observational Study,” Academic Emergency Medicine, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 196–204, Feb. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.13257
dc.relation/*ref*/F. O. Bjørnson, and T. Dingsøyr, “Knowledge management in software engineering: A systematic review of studied concepts, findings and research methods used,” Inf Softw Technol., vol. 50, no. 11, pp. 1055–1068, Oct. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.03.006
dc.relation/*ref*/A. Nakakawa, P. Van Bommel, E. H. A. Proper, and H. J. B. F. Mulder, “A Situational Method for Creating Shared Understanding on Requirements for an Enterprise Architecture,” Int J Coop Inf Syst, vol. 27, no. 04, Nov. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218843018500107
dc.relation/*ref*/S. McCarthy, P. O’Raghallaigh, C. Fitzgerald, and A. Frédéric, “Towards a framework for shared understanding and shared commitment in agile distributed ISD project teams,” in Proceedings of the 27th European Conference on Information Systems, Stockholm & Uppsala, 2019. https://cora.ucc.ie/items/065cd63a-495a-4855-a6a5-8d43fc60ac89
dc.relation/*ref*/C. S. Dossick, L. Osburn, and B. Astaneh, “Measuring Shared Understanding: Developing Research Methods for Empirical Research on Interdisciplinary Engineering Team Practices,” in 15th Engineering Project Organization Conference, Manchester, 2017. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bita-Astaneh-Asl/publication/324646468_Measuring_Shared_Understanding_Developing_Research_Methods_for_Empirical_Research_on_Interdisciplinary_Engineering_Team_Practices/links/5ad98633aca272fdaf82127a/Measuring-Shared-Understanding-Developing-Research-Methods-for-Empirical-Research-on-Interdisciplinary-Engineering-Team-Practices.pdf
dc.relation/*ref*/C. Jentsch, D. Beimborn, C. P. Jungnickl, and G. S. Renner, “How to Measure Shared Understanding among Business and IT,” Academy of Management, vol. 2014, no. 1, p. 16980, Jan. 2014. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2014.138.
dc.relation/*ref*/J. Grudin, “Why CSCW applications fail: problems in the design and evaluation of organizational interfaces,” in Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work, Austin, 1988, pp. 85–93. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/62266.62273
dc.relation/*ref*/N. Rummel, and H. Spada, “Learning to Collaborate: An Instructional Approach to Promoting Collaborative Problem Solving in Computer-Mediated Settings,” Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 201–241, Apr. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1402_2
dc.relation/*ref*/E. R. Lai, “Collaboration: A Literature Review,” Jun. 2011. https://docplayer.net/10473716-Collaboration-a-literature-review.html
dc.relation/*ref*/W. S. Humphrey, “The software engineering process: definition and scope,” in Proceedings of the 4th international software process workshop on Representing and enacting the software process, New York, 1988, pp. 82–83. https://doi.org/10.1145/75110.75122
dc.relation/*ref*/G. L. Kolfschoten, and G.-J. de Vreede, “The Collaboration Engineering Approach for Designing Collaboration Processes,” in Groupware: Design, Implementation, and Use 13th International Workshop, CRIWG 2007, Bariloche, 2007, pp. 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74812-0_8
dc.relation/*ref*/G.-J. Vreede, R. O. Briggs, and A. P. Massey, “Collaboration Engineering: Foundations and Opportunities: Editorial to the Special Issue on the Journal of the Association of Information Systems,” J Assoc Inf Syst, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 121–137, Mar. 2009. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00191
dc.relation/*ref*/C. A. Collazos, J. Muñoz, and Y. Hernández, Aprendizaje colaborativo apoyado por computador. Iniciativa Latinoamericana de Libros de Texto Abiertos. 2014. https://api.mountainscholar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/e3b08a51-c42a-4a05-9bdb-6aab1f996bf1/content
dc.relation/*ref*/G. Stahl, “Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning,” J Comput Assist Learn, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 79–90, Apr. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00115.x
dc.relation/*ref*/N. M. Webb, and A. S. Palincsar, “Group processes in the classroom”, in Handbook of Educational Psychology, New York: Prentice Hall International, 1996, pp. 841–873. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-98614-025
dc.relation/*ref*/M. Baker, “A model for negotiation in teaching-learning dialogues,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 199–254, 1994. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Baker-44/publication/32231399_A_model_for_negotiation_in_teaching-learning_dialogues/links/0046352727ab95f805000000/A-model-for-negotiation-in-teaching-learning-dialogues.pdf
dc.relation/*ref*/E. A. C. Bittner, and J. M. Leimeister, “Why Shared Understanding Matters -- Engineering a Collaboration Process for Shared Understanding to Improve Collaboration Effectiveness in Heterogeneous Teams,” in 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Wailea2013, pp. 106–114. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2013.608
dc.relation/*ref*/M. J. Garfield, and A. R. Dennis, “Toward an Integrated Model of Group Development: Disruption of Routines by Technology-Induced Change,” Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 43–86, Dec. 2012. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222290302
dc.relation/*ref*/J. A. Hurtado Alegría, M. C. Bastarrica, and A. Bergel, “Avispa: a tool for analyzing software process models,” Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 434–450, Apr. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.1578
dc.relation/*ref*/J. A. H. Alegría, A. Lagos, A. Bergel, and M. C. Bastarrica, “Software Process Model Blueprints,” in New Modeling Concepts for Today's Software Processes International Conference on Software Process, ICSP 2010, Paderborn, 2010, pp. 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14347-2_24
dc.relation/*ref*/G. Lescano, and R. Costaguta, “COLLAB: Conflicts and Sentiments in chats,” in Proceedings of the XIX International Conference on Human Computer Interaction, New York, 2018, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1145/3233824.3233864
dc.relation/*ref*/G. Lescano, R. Costaguta, and A. Amandi, “Genetic algorithm for automatic group formation considering student’s learning styles,” in 2016 8th Euro American Conference on Telematics and Information Systems (EATIS), Cartagena, 2016, pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/EATIS.2016.7520110
dc.relation/*ref*/V. Agredo Delgado, P. H. Ruiz, C. A. Collazos, H. M. Fardoun, and A. Y. Noaman, “Software Tool to Support the Improvement of the Collaborative Learning Process,” in 12th Colombian Conference on Computing, CCC 2017, Cali, 2017, pp. 442–454 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66562-7_32
dc.relation/*ref*/H. R. Neave, Elementary Statistics Tables, 2nd ed. Routledge, 2011. https://www.routledge.com/Elementary-Statistics-Tables/Neave/p/book/9780415563475
dc.relation/*ref*/V. Agredo-Delgado, P. H. Ruiz, A. Mon, C. A. Collazos, F. Moreira, and H. M. Fardoun, “Validating the Shared Understanding Construction in Computer Supported Collaborative Work in a Problem-Solving Activity,” in Trends and Innovations in Information Systems and Technologies, Cham, Springer, 2020, pp. 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45697-9_20
dc.rightsDerechos de autor 2023 TecnoLógicases-ES
dc.rightshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0es-ES
dc.sourceTecnoLógicas; Vol. 26 No. 57 (2023); e2658en-US
dc.sourceTecnoLógicas; Vol. 26 Núm. 57 (2023); e2658es-ES
dc.source2256-5337
dc.source0123-7799
dc.subjectComputer supported collaborative worken-US
dc.subjectshared understandingen-US
dc.subjectproblem-solving activityen-US
dc.subjectvalidation processen-US
dc.subjectformal specification in SPEM 2.0en-US
dc.subjectTrabajo colaborativo asistido por computadores-ES
dc.subjectentendimiento compartidoes-ES
dc.subjectactividad de resolución de problemases-ES
dc.subjectproceso de validaciónes-ES
dc.subjectespecificación formal en SPEM 2.0es-ES
dc.titleValidating the Formal Specification of the THUNDERS Processen-US
dc.titleValidación de la especificación formal del proceso THUNDERSes-ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.typeResearch Papersen-US
dc.typeArtículos de investigaciónes-ES

Archivos

Bloque original

Mostrando 1 - 5 de 5
Miniatura
Nombre:
2658-MPU-VF.pdf
Tamaño:
448.85 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descargar
Miniatura
Nombre:
2658_Supplementary_Material.zip
Tamaño:
10.17 MB
Formato:
Unknown data format
Descargar
Miniatura
Nombre:
2256-5337-teclo-26-57-e209.xml
Tamaño:
138.17 KB
Formato:
Extensible Markup Language
Descargar
Miniatura
Nombre:
344276660011.epub
Tamaño:
1.19 MB
Formato:
Electronic publishing
Descargar
Miniatura
Nombre:
3223.html
Tamaño:
150.66 KB
Formato:
Hypertext Markup Language
Descargar

Colecciones

Revista TecnoLógicas - Cosecha Portal de Revistas