Conference Session

Software Engineering Curriculum Components

Collection

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Donald Bagert, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

Arlington, use senior projects to satisfytheir application domain requirement, with no additional courses specifically required. Auburnlists “wireless, artificial intelligence, database systems, compiler front-ends, and softwareengineering tools” among their project domain areas.3.1.2 Impact on Graduates All of the survey respondents agree that their application domain area(s) helps prepare thestudents for the workplace (one reports that it helps their graduates meet program outcomes).Another school reported higher salaries in its application domain area, and another reports anumber of graduates having gained employment in their domain area. Still, to date there is

Conference Session

Software Engineering Teaching Methods and Practice

Collection

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

James Walden, Northern Kentucky University; Rose Shumba, Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

, “Virus attacks mobiles via Bluetooth,” The Register, http://www.theregister.co. uk/2004/06/15/symbian_virus/, June 15, 2004. [2] CERT, Cyber Security Bulletin 2005 Summary, http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/ SB2005.html, Dec. 29, 2005. [3] S. Lipner, “The Trustworthy Computing Security Development Lifecycle”, 20th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, http://www.acsac.org/2004/dist.html, Dec. 2004. [4] G. Sindre and A.L. Opdahl, “Eliciting Security Requirements by Misuse Cases,” Proceedings of the TOOLS Pacifi c Conference, pp. 120-131, Nov. 20-23, 2000. [5] K. Spett, “SQL Injection,” http://www.spidynamics.com/whitepapers/WhitepaperSQL Injection.pdf, 2002. [6] G. Zuchlinski, “The Anatomy of Cross Site

Conference Session

Software Engineering Curriculum Components

Collection

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Deepti Suri, Milwaukee School of Engineering; Mark Sebern, Milwaukee School of Engineering

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

Software Engineering,” Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Software Engineering Education & Training, Charlotte, NC, USA, February 2001, pp. 7-17. [3] Halling, M.A., Zuser, W. et. al. , “Teaching the Unified Process to Undergraduate Students”, Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training, Covington, KY, USA, February 25-27, 2002, pp. 148-159. [4] Humphrey, W. S., A Discipline for Software Engineering, Addison-Wesley, 1995. [5] Humphrey, W. S., Introduction to the Team Software Process, Addison-Wesley, 2000. [6] Hunter, R.B. and Thayer, R.H. (eds), Software Process Improvement, IEEE Computer Society, 2001. [7] Lisack, S., “The Personal Software Process in the Classroom

Conference Session

Software Engineering Teaching Methods and Practice

Collection

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Yung-Hsiang Lu, Purdue University; Mark C Johnson, Purdue University

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

steps. All five teams passedthe qualification procedure and entered the final competition. Every team was encouragedto post the latest program (executable without the source code) on their web site in thefifteenth week so that the other teams could test and improve. The final competition washeld on the last day of the fifteenth week. The sixteenth week was used for the students toanalyze their competition results and to finish the final reports. Page 11.1223.7 player 1 player 2 spectator(s) network game serverFigure 2: Two

Conference Session

Software Engineering Teaching Methods and Practice

Collection

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Eric Durant, Milwaukee School of Engineering

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

presentation that counts for 5% of thecourse grade. In this presentation, they summarize the goals and context diagram beforepresenting a few functional and non-functional requirements, with an emphasis on how therequirements can be traced back to use cases, goals, etc.In an effort to increase the actual and apparent objectivity of the evaluation of the presentation,and to let students know, very specifically, how they will be evaluated, a group presentationrubric was developed [Appendix A]. This rubric was created by modifying one that the authordeveloped for senior design presentations and which has been in use for nearly two years. Threerequirements-specific sections were added: Use Case(s), Functional and Non-functionalRequirements, and Postmortem

Conference Session

Software Engineering Teaching Methods and Practice

Collection

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Frank Tsui, Southern Polytechnic State University; Orlando Karam, Southern Polytechnic State University

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

. 4. Dutoit, A.H. and Bruegge, B. (1998) “Communication Metrics for Software Development,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 24 no. 8, August 1998, pp 615-628. 5. Kaushik, S. (2001) “A Study of Attributes of Communications as They Relate to Software Development,” Master’s Research Project, Southern Polytechnic State University, 2001. 6. Cockburn, A. (2000) “Selecting A Project’s Methodology,” IEEE Software, July/August 2000, pp 64-71. 7. Roberts, T.L., Cheney, P.H., Sweeney, P.D. (2002), “Project Characteristics and Group Communication: An Investigation,” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol.45, no.2, June, 2002, pp 84 – 96. 8. Hirschheim, R. and Newman, M

Conference Session

Tools and Support for Software Education

Collection

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Barbara Gannod, Arizona State University; Kevin Gary, Arizona State University; Harry Koehnemann, Arizona State University

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

A should review the reqs and the product knowledge to put consider follow-up questions. together a useful questionnaire. 7. Subgroup A re-interviews subgroup B to ask • Perform Research (Y): We all follow-up questions. researched OWL-S and WSDL 8. Subgroup A should review the requirements specifications in order to better understand Stakeholder for validity. requests

Conference Session

Tools and Support for Software Education

Collection

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

J. Scott Hawker, Rochester Institute of Technology

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

absolutionem, paucitatem s f 2 3 brevitatem, absolutionem, s f paucitatem Views Content Metadata (descriptions, Ontologies brevitatem, 2 3 absolutionem, subject headings, (taxonomies, controlled paucitatem s f provenance, rights, quality

Conference Session

Tools and Support for Software Education

Collection

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Yung-Hsiang Lu, Purdue University; Evan Zelkowitz, Purdue University; Mark C Johnson, Purdue University

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

study discovers that up to 72% errors can be attributedto design errors of single components. There is not clear correlation between the sizes ofmodules and the error density. Shen et al.14 analyze software to determine how to allocateresources for testing. Their study compares five products written in Pascal, PL/S, and as-sembly. They find that smaller modules do not necessarily have lower error density. Errordensity can be a size-normalized indication of program quality for only the modules withmore than 500 lines of codes. Thus, they conclude that error density is not an effective way Page 11.1057.4to measure quality. Withrow16 analyzes

Conference Session

Software Engineering Curriculum Support

Collection

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Sheryl Duggins, Southern Polytechnic State University

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

particularly useful, was described. Finally both the status ofour accreditation efforts and the benefits we have received were discussed.References[1] Duggins, Sheryl (2002) “Process Teaching and Learning in Engineering Education”, in Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education, Montreal, Canada, June 2002.[2] Wheeler, S. & Duggins, S. (1998) “Improving Software Quality”, in Proceedings of the Southeastern ACM Conference, Marietta, GA, April 1998, pp. 300-309, ACM, New York, NY.[3] Deming, W. E. (1986) Out of the Crisis, M.I.T., Center for Advanced Engineering Studies, Cambridge, MA.[4] Paulk, Mark C. et.al. (1993) “Capability Maturity Model for Software, Version 1.1”, Software Engineering Institute Technical Report

Conference Session

Software Engineering Curriculum Support

Collection

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Jayathi Raghavan, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University; Massood Towhidnejad, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University-Daytona Beach

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

Mergerstat Free Reports: M&A Activity U.S. and U.S. Cross-Border Transactions, www.mergerstat.com/new/free_reports_m_and_a_activity.asp6. Harrison, J.V., Enhancing Software Development Project Courses Via Industry Participation, Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training, 1997, 192-204.7. Kornecki, A.J., Hirmanpour, I.Towhidnejad, M., Strengthening Software Engineering Education through Academic Industry Collaboration, Proceeding of the 10th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training, 1997, 204-209.8. Kornecki, A. J. Khajenoori, S., Gluch, D., and Karneli, N., On a partnership between Software Industry and Academia, Proceedings of 16th Conference on Software Engineering

Conference Session

Software Engineering Curriculum Support

Collection

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Joseph Clifton, University of Wisconsin-Platteville

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

. and Tomayko, J. Applying the Personal Software Process in CS1: An Experiment. The Proceedings of the Twenty-ninth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (1998), 322-325.[7] Nagappan, N., Williams, L., Ferzli, M., Wiebe, E., Yang, K., Miller, C., and Balik, S. Improving the CS1 Experience with Pair Programming. The Proceedings of the Thirty-fourth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (2003), 359-362. Page 11.1137.10[8] Werner, L., Hanks, B., McDowell, C., Bullock, H. and Fernald, J. Want to Increase Retention of Your Female Students? Computing Research News, Volume 17, Number 4, March

Conference Session

Software Engineering Teaching Methods and Practice

Collection

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Bruce Maxim, University of Michigan

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

. Maxim, B. R. Game design: games for and the World Wide Web. In The Internet Encyclopedia, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2004.8. Maxim, B. R., Software Requirements Analysis and Design, NIIT, Atlanta, GA 2004.9. Overmars, M. Teaching computer science through game design. Computer 37 5 (April 2004), 81-83.10. Parberry, I., Roden, T., and Kazenzadeh, M. Experience with an industry-driven capstone course on game programming, an extended abstract. In Proceedings of 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium (St. Louis, MO, February, 2005), ACM Press, New York, NY, 2005, 91-96.11. Pleva, G. Game programming and the myth of child’s play. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 20 2 (December 2004), 125-136.12. Rabin, S. Introduction to Game Development

Conference Session

Tools and Support for Software Education

Collection

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Jiacun Wang, Monmouth University; Daniel Ghiringhelli, Monmouth University

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

can be seen that Task 2 will always pre-empt Task 1,at any given time. Thus at time t=0, t=3, t=6 (since Task 2’s period = 3), Task 2 is immediatelyscheduled. Consider the time t=6. At this moment, Task 1 has executed for 2 seconds andrequires just 1 additional second to complete execution before it’s deadline at t=8. Conversely,Task 2 has yet to execute (for the new instance) and its deadline is at t=9. It is important to notethat in this scenario, the DM scheduler will cause Task 1 to miss its deadline, while it wouldhave been possible for both tasks to complete before their deadline. Figure 4 DM schedule of tasks (0, 9, 3 8) and (0, 3, 2, 4).Earliest Deadline First (EDF)The EDF scheduler was designed to address some of

Conference Session

Software Engineering Curriculum Support

Collection

2006 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

James McDonald, Monmouth University

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

Technology (ABET), we are required to specify educational objectives for theprogram and to measure our graduates’ achievement of those objectives. The objectives that wespecify are intended to be things that our graduates should be able to achieve within the first fewyears after graduation. We are seeking your assistance to insure that the objectives we haveselected are appropriate for your organization and to help us measure our graduates’ progresstowards achievement of those objectives.On the next few pages you will see a series of questions about the objectives and your opinionabout ’s achievement of those objectives. We would appreciate it if you would take afew minutes to review these questions and provide appropriate answers. When you complete