Paper ID #15728Work in Progress: A Student Activity Dashboard for Ensuring Project-basedLearning ComplianceSuhas Xavier, Arizona State UniversityChristian Murphy, Arizona State UniversityDr. Kevin A Gary, Arizona State University Dr. Gary is an Associate Professor in the School of Computing, Informatics, and Decision Systems Engineering of the Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering at Arizona State University. His interests are broad and deep in all areas of the professorate: research, teaching, and service. His research interests are in software engineering education, web & mobile applications (specifically mHealth
Paper ID #15229Evaluating the Collaboration between a Software Project Management Courseand a Software Development Course in Terms of Student Learning and Ex-perienceDr. Stefan Christov, Quinnipiac University Stefan Christov is an assistant professor of software engineering at Quinnipiac University. He has ex- perience in teaching introductory computer science as well as upper-level software engineering courses, including software quality assurance, software project management, and software engineering in health care. His current research interests include improving the quality of human-intensive processes (HIPs), such as
research interests are in Computer Science pedagogy. He is an experienced student instructor. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 Long Term Effects of Partner Programming in an Introductory Computer Science Sequence Andrew Giugliano and Andrew DeOrio agiuglia@umich.edu, awdeorio@umich.edu Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science University of MichiganAbstractComputer scientists often work in teams on complex software projects, and their education oftenincludes group work or pair programming. In the literature, group work and pair programminghave been
to be controlled remotely by a ground station. They went throughthe full development life-cycle using formal agile process. The participants gained experience in projectmanagement, and how to negotiate with the customer to reduce the complexity of the project to anachievable scope, given available resources (time, personnel, and cost).I. INTRODUCTIONThis paper describes one of our activities under the INSPRE-CT (Computational Thinking) project that hasbeen funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) CPATH-2 program NSF-DUE-0939028. TheINSPIRE-CT project explored vertical integration of student teams to improve student learning and raisestudent interest in computing. Throughout the project, we looked for opportunities where we
contact hours acrossthe curriculum.One of the opportunities in meeting the new curriculum requirements was merging therequirements and architecture courses. By merging the two courses, we could provide courseteam projects and individual activities that spanned the requirements specification andarchitecture design activities of software development. The tight relationship betweenrequirements and architecture development is often described with the Twin Peaks model,1,2emphasizing the iterative co-development of requirements and architecture. When the courseswere separate, we could not have a single project that spanned the two courses. With the mergedcourse, the students carry the same project from inception through to requirements specificationand
computer engineering courses, in general. We present detailed courseware and instructional modalities, including implementationdetails of daily in-class active learning activities, out-of-class assignments, and project resources,along with supporting materials from the literature and student feedback results.1. Introduction Evidence-based instruction or education is generally considered as the utilization of existingevidence from research and literature on education1. While findings from educational researchare critical, appraisal of discipline-specific research is often overlooked or not well-integratedinto instruction. We propose a unique research-to-practice model that combines evidence fromresearch on education as well as the
engineering instructor. Assessment is a vast topic withmany options. There are generally two types of knowledge to assess: declarative and procedural.Instructors vary the assessment method depending on that category of knowledge. For example,instructors can easily measure a student’s declarative knowledge with a written exam and proceduralknowledge with a project. However, in a graduate engineering course assessing procedural knowledge ismore prevalent, since the student must apply the declarative knowledge appropriately in order to succeedin our competitive workforce. In addition to an instructor’s method to evaluate a project, both peer andself-evaluation are often used as a complement to an instructor’s evaluation. Assessing softwareengineering
Paper ID #16378A New Software Engineering Undergraduate Program Supporting the Inter-net of Things (IoT) and Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS)Prof. Linda M Laird, Stevens Institute of Technology (School of Systems & Enterprises) I am currently an industry professor in software engineering at Stevens Institute of Technology. Prior to that, I ran large development projects at Bell Labs/Lucent.Dr. Nicholas S Bowen, Stevens Institute of Technology Dr. Nicholas Bowen is an Industry Professor in the School of Systems and Enterprises. His primary focus is developing new graduate programs that combine Systems Engineering & Software
he worked with Cisco customers designing and deploying core Internet designs and technologies. In 2005 Mr. Smith earned a master’s degree in Computer Science from Colorado State and 1 year later left industry to teach engineering at Oklahoma Christian University. Mr. Smith’s emphasis is in first year student success, mentoring young engineers, and data communications. He consistently scores well in student feedback and enjoys regular strong relationships with his students and classes. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016Adding Software Engineering Emphasis to an ECE curriculumAbstractThis paper describes a project conducted at Oklahoma Christian (OC) University to add
, describes the project, and connects these concepts to studentlearning and a summary of the outcomes.2 Software engineering foundationSoftware engineering is a vast collection of theory and practice with the goal of producing thehighest-quality software at the lowest cost. It shares many characteristics with traditionalengineering design processes, but for the purposes of this work, the following elements are theemphasis. In particular, this course promotes the Agile methodology, which is supposed toachieve the same results without imposing onerous, administration-heavy overhead.1 Agile is nota substitute for proper planning and execution, however, so this freedom demands discipline,which is generally lacking in students at this stage of their
Engineering Education, 2016 The Integration of Novel Forms of Feedback into Software Engineering CoursesAbstractSoftware Engineering students exhibit a wide array of learning styles across the perception,input, organization, processing, and understanding dimensions. To improve students’performance in the classroom, many techniques have been developed to address these variances.Active learning has a long history of usage in the software engineering classroom, and thedisciplines strong history of diagramming and visual representations have been very supportiveto the large percentage of students who are visual learners. Coaching by faculty in project basedcourses also is common in the discipline. However, when it
understanding of the scope of his/her career (b) teach the students the impact theirsoftware engineering solutions have in a global context, including environmental and social (c)help develop critical thinking and (d) improve the motivation and involvement the students willhave with activities related to their future profession.Some examples of the themes developed this semester were:• Comparative analysis of the use of augmented reality for the teaching of mathematics in primary education: USA and Europe.• Comparative analysis of the use of augmented reality in projects of Architecture and Urbanism: Japan and Europe.• Comparative analysis of the use of ubiquitous computing in Medicine: USA and Latin America• Comparative analysis of