Conference Session

Software Engineering Constituent Committee Division Technical Session 3

Collection

2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Vignesh Subbian, University of Cincinnati; Nan Niu, University of Cincinnati; Carla C. Purdy, University of Cincinnati

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

Assurance (QA) course that integrates evidence from research andnew developments in software testing as well as engineering education. The specific goals are:1. To incorporate empirical studies in software engineering to supplement instruction in testing of all aspects, including safety, security, reliability, and performance.2. To increase focus on particular topics of high relevance such as formal testing of safety- critical systems and software inspection through targeted pedagogical interventions.3. To leverage existing instructional materials from the software engineering education community to create and explore blended learning models such as a flipped classroom.4. To integrate and promote inclusive and reflective teaching practices in

Conference Session

Software Engineering Technical Session 2

Collection

2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Stefan Christov, Quinnipiac University; Mark Hoffman, Quinnipiac University

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

) contained a common part that asked students toself-assess their achievement of the course learning outcomes on a 5-point Likert scale. Thesurvey given to students from managed teams contained two additional parts. The first additionalpart asked students whether having a manager contributed to their achievement of each of thecourse learning outcomes, measured again on a 5-point Likert scale. The second additional partcontained open-ended questions about the ISD students’ interaction with the managers.Course project reflection report. At the end of the semester, the students in the ISD course wereasked to write a course project reflection report (CPRR). The CPRR (shown in Appendix C) hasbeen used for a number of years to provide students with an

Conference Session

Software Engineering Constituent Committee Division Technical Session 1

Collection

2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Dan Tappan, Eastern Washington University

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

, functional solution that the students would ultimately work onalready existed (but was not available to them), they still had to go through the inception-phaseexercise of developing requirements for what they would want in a solution. Section 6 goesfurther into these details, which reflect an overall lack of critical thinking.13 In their storyboards,which described how the user would carry out various actions, there were many gaps that wouldhave prevented meaningful use. For example, with no capability to move an airplane off therunway after landing, subsequent landings would be impossible.In an agent-based simulation, the agents are the most important element to model. They aredefined primarily in terms of three aspects: data (what they are

Conference Session

Software Engineering Constituent Committee Division Technical Session 3

Collection

2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Dan Budny P.E., University of Pittsburgh; Elizabeth E. Vidal, Universidad Nacional de San Agustín

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

limitwithout any kind of visual aid. This forces the student to work a mental schema and to practiceoral communication skills. During the presentations the students are also evaluated on theguidelines received in Unit 4.B. RA II and Ability ( i): The recognition of the need for continuous learningAccording to the proposal of Candy [17], there are two areas that the student must develop inorder to achieve the continuous learning: (a) will be able to do (motivation): curious, disciplined,analytical, reflective, responsible, creative, independent and (b) can be done (ability): hasdeveloped skills of search and retrieval of information, has knowledge about the learningprocess, develops and uses its evaluation criterion (critical thinking).Extending the

Conference Session

Software Engineering Constituent Committee Division Technical Session 1

Collection

2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Walter W Schilling Jr., Milwaukee School of Engineering

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

in other disciplines. Moststudents in the computing fields can be classified as reflective sensing sequential visual learners1.In the classroom, instructors adapt to this. Courses taught in computer science encourage activelearning and interactive exercises. In class, concepts are explained visually through diagramsand pictures, even though the ultimate solutions manifest themselves in textual form as sourcecode. However, when it comes to feedback in the computing field, the variety received is not as great.This is unfortunate, for feedback has overwhelmingly been shown to be the single most powerfulinfluence on student success2. Hounsell states:“It has long been recognized, by researchers and practitioners alike, that feedback plays

Conference Session

Software Engineering Technical Session 2

Collection

2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Massood Towhidnejad, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach; Alexandria Spradlin, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University; Thomas Rogers Bassa, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

-weekly meeting, the customer introduced some additionalrequirements either as a replacement for the ones that the interns wanted to eliminate, or just the fact that “hehas forgotten to mentioned them during the initial requirement phase”. Again, this was intentionallyincorporated to the project, to reflect what can happen in the real world, and also introduce the concept ofchange control.C. Team OrganizationGiven the the nature of the project, the development team required expertise in both hardware and software.There were number of students who had higher level of interest in one of these areas, and the rest did nothave a strong preference, this allowed us to divide the interns to two groups of five. The two groupsremained fluid throughout

Conference Session

Software Engineering Constituent Committee Division Technical Session 3

Collection

2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Sally Sue Richmond, Pennsylvania State University, Great Valley; Kailasam Satyamurthy, Penn State University; Joanna F. DeFranco, Pennsylvania State University, Great Valley

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

scale ranges from 1-10 and thereforeeach scale value reflects a 10% change). The data are also not ratio data, since zero is not a possible rating(a student would only receive a zero if they did not present their work, in which case there would be nopeer evaluation). This restricts the types of analysis that can be applied to the data, and reduces thesensitivity of any conclusions (Trochim, 2006). Nonetheless, interesting conclusions regarding bias andpotential cronyism can be drawn when we organized the ratings into ranges and looked at the frequencyof ratings in each range, as discussed below.Given the small amount of data and that reliability has been studied extensively, we chose to investigateto what extent students used the entire range