Conference Session

Pedagogical Approaches for Software Engineering

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Alexandra Martinez, University of Costa Rica; Marcelo Jenkins, University of Costa Rica

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

AC 2012-3237: AN EXPERIENCE USING REFLECTION IN SOFTWAREENGINEERINGDr. Alexandra Martinez, University of Costa Rica Alexandra Martinez has been working since 2009 as an Invited Professor in the Department of Computer and Information Science at the University of Costa Rica (UCR). She has taught courses in databases, soft- ware testing, and bioinformatics, and done applied research in software testing at UCR’s Research Center on Information and Communication Technologies. Previously, she worked as a Software Design Engi- neer in Test at Microsoft Corporation in Redmond, Wash., and as a Software Engineer at ArtinSoft in San Jose, Costa Rica. She received her Ph.D. in computer engineering from the University of Florida

Conference Session

Software Engineering Curricula

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Tom Reichlmayr, Rochester Institute of Technology; Michael J. Lutz, Rochester Institute of Technology

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

estimated and actual time andprovide a brief narrative as to what worked well and what they would change in the next phase.This reflection document is submitted along with work products associated with the phase.At the conclusion of a project, groups meet in class to identify the top three process improvementitems from their individual reflection documents. As a class we consolidate the group lists into aclass-wide list, and target a subset of these for tracking during the next project. Many of thesuggested improvements are what one might expect – start the project sooner, don’tprocrastinate, read the project description, don’t be afraid to ask for help, and so on. Thereflection session also provided the opportunity for students to share scripts

Conference Session

Pedagogical Approaches for Software Engineering

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Kevin A. Gary, Arizona State University, Polytechnic; Yegeneswari Nagappan, Unicon, Inc.; Supreet Verma, Delasoft, Inc.; Russell J. Branaghan, Arizona State University

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

are quite similar to mind maps8, though the context of application is different.Mind mapping activities are often done during discovery, where one is trying to understand anew domain. As examples, students may create a mind map to diagram comprehension ofreading a textbook chapter, or business analysts might create a mind map as part of an ideageneration or business modeling activity during requirements elicitation. Concept mapping, atleast in our context, is an activity that attempts to reflect the structural aspects of a student’sevolving conceptual understanding. Note in this description that we do not say that concept mapsthemselves are an assessment of any kind; indeed they can be interpreted in many ways. Forinstance, student teams

Conference Session

Software Engineering Topics

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Sushil Acharya, Robert Morris University; Walter W. Schilling Jr., Milwaukee School of Engineering

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

“disagree” and 1 represents “Strongly disagree”.Table 5 depicts the survey results for the labs. In general, we see from the results, that thestudents feel the lab exercises they have completed should be continued for future students. Ingeneral, the survey also reflects that the students believed the lab was an excellent tool forteaching the material given the level of expertise shown at that time.A second and possibly more important mechanism for assessing student’s achievement in the Page 25.500.12area of testing is to look at targeted assessments on the final exam for the course. While thereare many different types of questions given on the

Conference Session

Pedagogical Approaches for Software Engineering

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Heidi J.C. Ellis, Western New England University; Gregory W. Hislop, Drexel University; Josephine Sears Rodriguez, Western New England University; Ralph Morelli, Trinity College

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

. A closer look at the impact of the humanitarian aspect of student involvement with aproject will shed light on the impact of participation in HFOSS versus participation in FOSS.Acknowledgement Page 25.1192.11This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under GrantsDUE-0958204, DUE-0940925, CISE- 0722137, and CISE-0930934. Any opinions, findingsand conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and donot necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation (NSF).Bibliography1. Software Engineering 2004 – Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in

Conference Session

Pedagogical Approaches for Software Engineering

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Colin J. Neill, Pennsylvania State University; Joanna F. DeFranco, Pennsylvania State University, Great Valley; Raghvinder S. Sangwan, Pennsylvania State University, Great Valley

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

(or team) mental model convergence4. While we have established thatthe collaborative model aids a team in achieving its purpose, we still wanted to test whetherimproved team outcomes also implied improved individual learning for each student. That is tosay, do the team outcomes reflect individual learning in the team members?The implications of this, if not the case, are broad. Grades assigned to individuals based upon ateam project would be inaccurate representations of those students’ true attainment and the roleof team projects would be questioned. Of course, one could still argue that provided a teamdelivered a successful product or project, one that is analogous to ‘real world’ software projects,the goal of the educational program is

Conference Session

Pedagogical Approaches for Software Engineering

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Clifton L. Kussmaul, Muhlenberg College

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

Techniques(s)Students Improve learning outcomes. Average grades. Qualitative assessment of selected assignments. Improve affective outcomes. Current (e.g. SIR-II4), existing (e.g. TDS22), & custom instruments. Improve recruiting & retention. Course enrollments & major/minor counts.PIs & Develop & refine PAs. Quarterly activity reports, peer review, interviews.Project Improve faculty affective outcomes. Reflection, interviews.Team Enhance PAs (e.g. with Quarterly activity reports, peer review, interviews

Conference Session

Software Engineering Topics

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Walter W. Schilling Jr., Milwaukee School of Engineering; Eric Durant, Milwaukee School of Engineering

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

of these courses isoften similar, the content is often vastly different, reflecting the large domain of softwaresecurity. Certain aspects of security appeal to practitioners, certain aspects appeal toComputer Scientists, and certain aspects apply MIS personnel.In order to provide a holistic view of computer security, software engineering students need tohave exposure to all three aspects. Thus, for software engineering students, a single course insecurity can be inadequate. To combat this problem, the Milwaukee School of Engineering hasdeveloped a three course sequence in software security targeting the multi-disciplinary problemof security. While each of the three courses addresses software security, each course targets adifferent aspect

Conference Session

Software Engineering Topics

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

W. Eric Wong, University of Texas, Dallas

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those ofthe author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.References:1. Janzen, D. and Saiedian, H., “Test-driven Development: Concepts, Taxonomy, and Future Direction,” IEEE Computer, 38(9): 43–50, September 2005.2. Myers, G. J., Sandler, C. (revised by), Badgett, T. (revised by), and Thomas, T. M. (revised by), The Art of Software Testing, 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, June 20043. National Institute of Standards and Technology, “The Economic Impacts of Inadequate Infrastructure for Software Testing,” NIST Planning Report 02-3, May 20024. Leblanc, R., Sobel, A., Diaz-Herrera, J. L., and Hilburn, T. B., “Software

Conference Session

Software Engineering Curricula

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Susan Darling Urban, Texas Tech University; Joseph E Urban, Texas Tech University; Susan A. Mengel, Texas Tech University; William M. Marcy P.E., Texas Tech University; Patrick E. Patterson, Texas Tech University

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

under revision to better reflect the impact that the Internet hashad on software development over the last ten years.A committee was established in 2007 through Stevens Institute of Technology to develop theGSwERC as a new reference curriculum for graduate software engineering. As part of thedevelopment of GSwERC, the committee conducted a survey of 28 software engineeringprograms2. The survey indicates that 25% of the programs are housed in stand-alone softwareengineering departments, 50% are in computer science departments, and the other 25% are invarious other departments. The M.S. in Software Engineering at the University of Texas Austin,for example, is housed in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, while thesoftware