Using SlackBot-Prompted Reflections to Promote Contribution Equality in Team Software Development Projects

Abstract

Background and Context. Many software development courses involve agile team projects where students are asked to work through a series of sprints toward a final team deliverable. Such team projects often require adding features to or fixing bugs in legacy code bases. A key challenge for students is to distribute the workload so that all students contribute equally to the team project. Previous studies have reported significant variability in individual contributions in team projects, often where one member contributes more than twice the expected share of work. One common approach to assessing the quality of team processes is reflection—predominantly performed during retrospectives after the sprint. Previous work has found that students’ reflections tend to be at surface level, lacking the depth required to make meaningful changes to team processes. This study explores how reflection prompts embedded into team communication channels can help improve the equality of contributions. Objectives. This study investigates whether weekly reflection prompts, delivered through a Slack bot intervention, can improve the equality of contributions in team projects, compared to a Control Group with no reflection prompts. We examine: (1) the impact of reflection prompts on the equality of contributions between the two groups, (2) differences in team retrospectives, including team practices and the depth of reflection, and (3) whether there is a shift in students’ perceptions of their peers in terms of their contributions and interactions. Method. We conducted a between-subjects study of 19 undergraduate software development teams (114 students) enrolled in two offerings of the same course in different academic quarters within a one-year span. In the first quarter (Control Group), automated updates on the current state of individual project contributions were posted daily in the team communication channel. In the second quarter (Experimental Group), additional weekly prompts were added to encourage participation and reflection on the equality of those contributions. We used a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative analysis of project contributions, qualitative analysis of team retrospectives, and peer evaluation ratings. Findings. The Experimental Group demonstrated significantly less inequality in contributions, with a large effect size for code review inequality ( \(\beta=-0.16\) , \(p<0.01\) , \(f^{2}=0.95\) ) and story point inequality ( \(\beta=-0.07\) , \(p<0.05\) , \(f^{2}=0.38\) ), and medium-large effect size for inequality in the number of issues assigned to each team member, inequality in points awarded for merged pull requests, and inequality in pull requests authored (all \(\beta=-0.10\) , \(p<0.05\) , \(f^{2}=0.34\) ). In retrospectives, a significant difference in reflection depth was observed ( \(\chi^{2}=27.57\) , \(p<0.001\) , df = 3, Cramér's V = 0.15), with the Control Group exhibiting deeper reflection. The groups also differed in focus areas ( \(\chi^{2}=79.35\) , \(p<0.001\) , df = 13, Cramér's V = 0.25), with the Experimental Group focusing more on pull request discussions ( \(p<0.001\) ). Finally, peer evaluations showed higher interaction ratings in the Experimental Group ( \(U=1237.0\) , \(p<0.05\) , Cliff's Delta = \(0.22\) ). Implications. The findings suggest that automated reflection prompts in team communication channels can enhance contribution equality and improve peer interactions, without the need for extensive instructor involvement. These results highlight the potential for lightweight, embedded interventions to foster more equitable collaboration in undergraduate team projects. However, the greater depth of students’ reflections in the Control Group suggests that, in the absence of such an intervention, retrospectives serve as a key venue for team discussions, and that sprint assessment and evaluation may benefit from their structure or from the design of tools that support them. Further replication studies are needed to assess the generalizability of these findings and explore long-term factors that may impact contribution patterns in undergraduate team projects.