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

Paper ID #16485Exploring the Value of Peer AssessmentMrs. Sally Sue Richmond, Pennsylvania State University, Great Valley Sally Sue Richmond is a Lecturer in Information Science at the School of Graduate Professional Stud- ies, Penn State Great Valley. Richmond has a B.A. in Art and an M.S. in Information Science from The Pennsylvania State University. She has 25+ years experience in industry as a software developer, net- work analyst, trainer, and Help Desk supervisor. She teaches courses in Human-Computer Interaction, Computer Organization and Design, Computer Forensics, Microprocessors and Embedded Systems, Net- working

Conference Session

Accreditation and Assessment in SE Programs

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Janet E. Burge, Miami University; Paul V. Anderson, Miami University, Ohio; Michael Carter, North Carolina State University; Gerald C. Gannod, Miami University; Mladen A. Vouk, North Carolina State University

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

pts if some points are missing, 3 pts if the overall summary is missing or if some peer evaluation comments are not given a thoughtful response, 0 otherwise. In addition, significant point reductions may occur if any of the following are detected: 1. Use of any graphics, pictures, text without appropriate citations (the source MUST be given for any graphics used, etc.) 2. Lack of sensitivity towards the clients using the project 3. Inappropriate responses to audience questions5.3 Instructor supportsThe August 2010 workshop contained four sessions on teaching each of the fourcommunication skills—reading, writing, speaking, and teaming. These were designed tohelp project

Conference Session

Software Engineering Topics

Collection

2007 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Valentin Razmov, University of Washington

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

-longprojects in teams of 5-8 (typically), following the incremental delivery approach5 with a shortiteration cycle – we set intermediate project deliveries roughly once every 2.5 weeks. After eachdelivery, instructors facilitate in-class retrospectives. Instructors also meet separately with eachproject team to provide feedback, address questions, and “take the pulse” of the team. 2-3 timesduring the term, usually shortly after some of the project deliveries, students completeanonymous peer evaluations for their teammates, offering constructive feedback. Each studentalso completes 2-3 individual reflective writing assignments during the term, to which instructorsprovide extensive written feedback and follow-up questions, engaging students in

Conference Session

Software Engineering Constituent Committee Division Technical Session 2

Collection

2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

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

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

this hypothesis, wehave developed a novel pedagogical strategy called UnLecture that uses concepts from activelearning and peer instruction to fully integrate students' co-op experiences into their classroomactivities. This technique can also be applied in courses where students have worked ininternships.UnLecture Overview An UnLecture consists of a reflective writing component and a participant-driven discussion.Each UnLecture session is based on a theme directly related to one of the course topics.Typically, an UnLecture on a topic is scheduled after that topic has been covered in an in-classlecture. A rubric is provided to the students a few days prior to the session. The rubric is thecentral element facilitating various components of

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

, characteristics of and techniques topromote effective groups, and activity design tips. Gonzalez9 reported on CS1 sections whereeach session was roughly 1/3 discussion, 1/3 lecture, and 1/3 ACL, and students did significantlybetter in CS2 than peers from traditional sections. Beck and Chizhik3 reported a CS1 coursewhere students spent roughly half of class on ACL exercises, and did significantly better thanpeers in a traditional section; that effect was found for a variety of majors and both genders. Page 25.1069.2Sowell and colleagues20,21 described experiences with active learning in three courses, includingsample exercises, lessons learned, and

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

timelines, and high risks of failure. Managingthese risks is possible only by adopting good software engineering practices as part of the gamedevelopment process. Discussion of agile software process models and software quality practicesas they apply to game development is an important part of this course.The student work for this course includes the completion of several projects. All projects includedesign activities and students make use of several existing programming tools. Making use ofexisting programming tools and libraries allows students to focus on software engineering designrather writing all source code from scratch. The final project requires students to go through allphases of system life cycle: specification, design, implementation

Conference Session

Software Engineering Constituent Committee Division Technical Session 1

Collection

2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Anna Koufakou, Florida Gulf Coast University

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

for suchcourses is that related topics are typically perceived by students especially at the undergraduatelevel as uninteresting and irrelevant, while it is difficult to bring the “real-world” experience tothe classroom.This paper summarizes the author’s experiences in developing and teaching for the first time aSoftware Specifications course to the newly established Software Engineering (SE) degreeprogram at Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) in Spring 2014. The SE program belongs inan Engineering College which emphasizes undergraduate education (there is no graduate degreeoffered). The Software Specifications course is a required course for all SE students at FGCU. Itincludes topics such as Eliciting, Writing, and Testing Requirements

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

thelearner tests her models and theories with new experiences) 8.Learning journals, diaries and portfolios are increasingly used in higher education to facili-tate and to assess learning. They may be highly structured or free, but regardless of theirshape and form, they generally seem to be helpful in personalizing and deepening the quality Page 25.160.2of learning and in integrating the learning material 10. The distinction between learning jour-nal and other types of writing is that “…it focuses on ongoing issues over time and there willbe some intention to learn from either the process of doing it or from the results of it.” 10Some of the reasons why

Conference Session

Software Engineering Constituent Committee Division Technical Session 1

Collection

2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

J. Scott Hawker, Rochester Institute of Technology (COE); Robert Kuehl, Rochester Institute of Technology; Mehdi Mirakhorli

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

architecture design. This helps the students learn how requirements, especially non-functional quality requirements, drive architecture design decisions.In a recent Twin Peaks workshop3, participants found that “a major shortcoming was identifiedin that requirements and architectures are often taught independently and in a fashion thatresembles a waterfall process.” Our merged requirements and architecture course addresses thisshortcoming.Another driver of change impacting the merged requirements and architecture course was tomake this course a “writing intensive” course in support of the general education requirements atour university. Given the document and model-centric nature of the course, the requirements andarchitecture course was a natural

Conference Session

Software Engineering Projects

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

James N. Long, Oregon Institute of Technology; Linda Sue Young, Oregon Institute of Technology

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

from the University of Virginia. She has served as department chair of the Communication Department and has taught a wide range of writing and communication courses. She was instrumental in the design of the bachelor’s degree in Communication Studies at OIT. Areas of interest include the overlap of game design and learning systems, media and the communication styles of Japan, creativity and communication, and conversation analysis. Page 22.1091.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 Multiplayer On-Line Role Playing Game Style Gradingin a Project Based Software Engineering

Conference Session

Software Engineering Topics

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Lakshmi Ramachandran; Edward F. Gehringer, North Carolina State University

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

Automated Approach to Assessing the Quality of Project Reviews AbstractPeer review of code and other software documents is an integral component of a softwaredevelopment life cycle. In software engineering courses, peer reviewing is done by other studentsin the class. In order to help students improve their reviewing skills, feedback needs to beprovided for the reviews written by students. The process of reviewing a review or identifying thequality of reviews can be referred to as metareviewing. Automated metareviewing ensuresprovision of immediate feedback to reviewers, which is likely to motivate the reviewer to improvehis work and provide more useful feedback to the authors. In this work we focus

Conference Session

Software Engineering Outreach: Industry, K-12

Collection

2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Clare McInerney, Lero - the Irish Software Engineering Research Centre; Mike Hinchey, Lero-the Irish Software Engineering Reseaach Centre

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

to arise in the ICT sector with growth at 6.1%annually over the period of 2005-2010, translating into a net job creation of 11,000 over this fiveyear period.The output from undergraduate computing programmes is 754 in 2009 [9] and 959 in 2011. Thebulletin further notes that there is a particular difficulty in filling available positions in the ICTsector for software engineers and computer programmers. Our E&O programme specificallyaddresses this problem. In Ireland, there is no “computing/computer science” subject, officialcomputing curriculum or a US-like advanced placement programme at junior or senior level inhigh school. However, recently we have been commissioned by the National Centre forCurriculum and Assessment (NCCA) to write a

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

” by an expert on how to improvetheir presentation. Medical students are videotaped while performing consultations and thenreceive comments from their instructors and peers when the videos are played in public 9. In thesoftware engineering field, we use this approach to provide feedback to students on their oralpresentations, videotaping them and critiquing them post presentation.The usage of active learning activities also aids software engineering students. Formal inspections,for example, are traditionally used on software engineering projects to improve quality. However,in the classroom, formal inspections can be used to teach students both how to follow a disciplinessoftware development process and as an active learning exercise to improve

Conference Session

SE Curriculum and Course Management

Collection

2008 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Joseph Clifton, University of Wisconsin-Platteville; Rob Hasker, University of Wisconsin-Platteville; Mike Rowe, University of Wisconsin-Platteville

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

. B.5.b. Student course assessment surveys for SE 4130. B.5.c. Graduate exit survey. B.6: Maintains an existing software system B.6.a. Faculty and peer assessment of each student’s contribution to the maintenance project in SE 3860. B.6.b. Student course assessment surveys for SE 3860. B.6.c. Graduate exit survey.For each performance criterion, the first measurement listed is always a direct measurement. Fora few performance criteria, there are two direct measurements. The direct measurements aredone in the upper-division courses to better tie in with the ABET notion that “… programoutcomes are statements that describe what students are expected to know and be able to

Conference Session

Software Engineering Topics

Collection

2007 Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Steve Chenoweth, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology; Mark Ardis, Rochester Institute of Technology; Cheryl Dugas, Rochester Institute of Technology

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

different projects, thus experiencing greaterdiversity of architectural challenges than would have otherwise been possible.Some changes to the traditional classroom setting are necessary in order to practice this newmethod. Students need to work in small teams, 3 or 4 students at most, during regularly-scheduled classroom hours. The roles of individual teams must be scheduled so that sufficienttime is available for each team to play each role. Fortunately, software architecture lends itself toshort periods of intense team activity, with reporting and peer review of results later. We believethat this active learning style is an effective approach for most subjects, but especially forsoftware architecture.IntroductionThe methods described here are

Conference Session

Software Engineering Projects

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Thomas Reichlmayr, Rochester Institute of Technology

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

criteria. We elected not to have all teams develop the same app, but to let the teamscollaboratively define their own apps. In doing so the teams spent the initial part of the projectwriting their own user stories. One member of the team was appointed Product Owner to resolveproposed feature conflicts. This activity allowed everyone to participate in the writing andestimation of user stories. We included the initial development of user stories and Android bootcamp as Iteration Zero activities, with the exit criteria from Iteration Zero being that there wouldbe sufficient work defined to support the start of Sprint 1. Page 22.1712.5The instructor

Conference Session

Software Engineering Curricula

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

A. Frank Ackerman, Montana Tech of the University of Montana; Sushil Acharya, Robert Morris University

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

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

timelymanner, portfolio submissions are made in alternate weeks by each half of the student groups.All students are provided an option of making a final submission in Week 9, if needed. To monitor team function, members complete peer evaluations twice each quarter. At the endof each cycle, teams prepare a cycle report, which is a post-mortem analysis of their performancefor the cycle. The students are asked to do some critical self evaluation of their team, in the areasof planning, process and quality. They are expected to analyze what worked well for them in thecycle and what did not. Each team must formulate some concrete suggestions on how to avoidrecurrence of the mistakes that they made during the cycle. We have a dedicated web server for the

Conference Session

Software Engineering Constituent Committee Division Technical Session 2

Collection

2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Gustavo Lopez, Universidad de Costa Rica; Alexandra Martinez, Universidad de Costa Rica

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

). A problem with this approachis that due to the timeline of the course, the course ends up focusing more on the develop-ment than on the testing part (the author reports that 55% of the time is spent developingwhile only 33% of the time is spent testing, and the remaining 12% is spent writing a shortreflection paper).There have also been experiences using “real-world” (industrial) software under test in test-ing courses8, as a mean to effectively teach students how to test real software. The majorrisks of this approach are confidentiality and technical support on software that is under de-velopment by others. Garousi8 states that this approach requires and leads to strong academ-ia-industry partnerships, but points out that it is necessary

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

appointment, Gary has been working as Chief Software Architect in the Bioengineering Initiative of the Sheik Zayed Center for Pediatric Surgical Innovation at the Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, D.C., in the area of microrobotics for surgical applications. Gary has authored over forty peer-reviewed publications and received funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, IBM, the Kaufmann Foundation, and the state of Arizona. He is an active member of the ACM, IEEE, and ASEE, and serves on a number of program committees for the community.Miss Yegeneswari Nagappan, Unicon, Inc. Yegeneswari Nagappan works as Software Developer at Unicon, Inc. She holds a master’s degree 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

project management,including intensive communication with developers and potentially dealing with intricatepersonality issues.In addition to the difficulty to provide students with opportunities to exercise management skills,it could also be challenging to provide students with the experience of being managed andmaintaining a professional and productive relationship with a manager. Computing curriculatypically have students develop software artifacts on their own or in a team of peers, but studentsrarely work closely with a manager.To address the above issues, we established a collaboration between a senior-level softwareengineering course on SPM and a sophomore-level computer science course on introduction tosoftware development (ISD). The

Conference Session

Software Engineering Constituent Committee Division Technical Session 1

Collection

2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Raymond Scott Pettit, Abilene Christian University; John D. Homer, Abilene Christian University ; Kayla Michelle McMurry, Abilene Christian University; Nevan Simone, Abilene Christian University; Susan A. Mengel, Texas Tech University

Tagged Divisions

Software Engineering Constituent Committee

theUniversity of Nottingham.70 CourseMarker improved grades after the parameters for assignmentswere tweaked in response to early results. From 1998–2001 and 1999–2002 respectively, theoverall percentage of students passing first- and second-level programming rose. The authors donot provide specific numbers, but they clearly correlate student improvement to CourseMarkerwhen they write, “The ratio of student passes to failures is very high, and has improved with theevolution of CourseMarker and the support provided by the system.”In 2005, Kumar showed learning improvement with an automated tutor aimed at testing staticand dynamic scoping concepts in a programming languages course.71 The author’s experimentconsisted of a pre-test and post-test given