Westin Hotel, Ottawa   Tulips in Ottawa, 
         National Capital Commission   Parliament of 
        Canada   Ottawa at Night, 
         National Capital Commission   School of Information 
        Technology and Engineering, University of Ottawa


 
 
CSEE&T 2005 Home
 
Program
 
Registration
 
Hotel
 
Ottawa Travel Tips
 
Organizing Committee
 
Other CSEE&T Conferences and SE Education Links
 
Call for Papers
 
Information for Authors
 

CSEE&T 2005 Program

Conference at a Glance — Click on a Session For Details

Debra Richardson Keynote: Contextualizing CS&SE Laurie Williams Keynote: Debunking the Geek Bran Selic Keynote: What I Wish I Had Learned Tutorial T1 - Integrating SE Process Tutorial T1 - Integrating SE Process Tutorial T2 - Problem Based Studios Tutorial T2 - Problem Based Studios Workshop W1 - Teaching OO Frameworks Workshop W1 - Teaching OO Frameworks Workshop W2 - Performing Research in SE Educ Workshop W3 - Infusing Architecture Workshop W3 - Infusing Architecture Workshop W4 - Engaging Engineering Students Panel P1 - Professional Engineering and SE Panel P1 - Professional Engineering and SE Panel P2 - Professional Engineering and SE Paper Session A - Software Process Education Eval Paper Session B - Architecture Frameworks Paper Session C - Tools and Innovative Methods Paper Session D - SE Course Projects I Paper Session E - Methods and Practice Paper Session F - SE Course Projects I Paper Session G - Industry and Education Paper Session H - SE Course Projects II Course Module papers Reception - SITE Building Banquet - Westin Hotel Other meetings Birds-of-a-feather sessions Birds-of-a-feather sessions
Note that the Provinces I Room will be available throughout the conference for informal meetings. This will be where registration, continental breakfast, lunch and exhibits will be held. Continental breakfast will be left in place from 8 a.m. until the morning break.

WiFi access will be available for participants in all meeting rooms at no extra charge throughout the conference.

 

Session by Session Schedule

Please note that the following is tentative. Details may change for various reasons, including speaker conflicts. Click on highlighted sessions for more details. There will also be several other co-located meetings, such as the Working Group on Software Engineering Education.

    Sunday, April 17 2005

18:30-20:00 Registration

    Monday, April 18 2005

08:00 Registration opens. Continental breakfast available until morning coffee break.

09:00-09:15 Conference start
Welcome: Timothy C. Lethbridge, General Chair
Program overview: Dan Port, Program Chair
Provinces Ballroom II

09:15-10:30 Keynote address: Informatics: Contextualizing Computer Science and Software Engineering Education
Debra J. Richardson, Dean of Information and Computer Sciences, University of California, Irvine

Provinces Ballroom II

10:30-11:00 Coffee break

11:00-12:30 Parallel sessions

Paper Session A: Software Process Education and Evaluation
Session chair: Heidi Ellis
Provinces Ballroom II

  An Iterative and Agile Process Model for Teaching Software engineering
    Maria Isabel Alfonso, University of Alicante (Spain)
    Antonio Botía, University of Alicante (Spain)

 Teaching eXtreme Programming Remotely
   J.E.Tomayko, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University

 Design and Evaluation of an Educational Software Process Simulation Environment and Associated Model
   Emily Oh Navarro, University of California, Irvine
   Andre van der Hoek, University of California, Irvine

Paper Session B: Educating about Architecture and Frameworks
Session chair: Mike Lutz
Ontario Room

  Teaching a Course on Software Architecture
    Patricia Lago, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Hans van Vliet, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

  Using Post Mortem Analysis to Evaluate Software Architecture Student Projects
    Alf Inge Wang, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
    Tor Stålhane, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

  A Peer-Review Based Approach to Teaching Object-Oriented Framework Development
    Amir Zeid, The American University in Cairo
    Moemen Elswidi, The American University in Cairo

Birds-of-a-feather: PSP Certification
Quebec Room

12:30-14:00 Lunch. Provided for all participants.

14:00-15:30 Parallel sessions

Paper Session C: Tools and Innovative Teaching Methods
Session chair: Laurie Williams
Provinces Ballroom II

Note: Since there are four papers instead of three, in this session the papers will be allocated 25 minute slots instead of 30 as in all other sessions, and the session will end 10 minutes late.
 
  Using Issue Tracking Tools to Facilitate Student Learning of Communication Skills in Software Engineering Courses
    Chang Liu, Ohio University

  Autonomous Learning in Online and Traditional Versions of a Software Engineering Course
    Heidi J.C. Ellis, Rensselaer University

  Using Pantomime in Teaching OOA & OOD with UML
    Vladimir Pavlov, Intel
    Anton Yatsenko, University of Nizniy Novgorod

  Teaching Oral Communication Techniques in RE by Student-Student Role Play: Initial Experiences
    Guttorm Sindre, Norwegian University of Science and Tech.

Paper Session D: Software Engineering Programs
Session chair: Dennis Frailey
Ontario Room

  Applying a Blended Learning Strategy for Software Engineering Education
    Christian Bunse, Ines Grützner, Michael Ochs, Christian Peper, Silke Steinbach-Nordmann
    Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software Engineering (IESE) Kaiserslautern, Germany

  An Undergraduate Program in Embedded Systems Engineering
    Bruria Haberman, Holon Academic Institute of Technology, Israel
    Mark Trakhtenbrot, Holon Academic Institute of Technology, Israel

  Software Engineering Education From Indian Perspective
    Rupa Mahanti, Birla Institute of Technology, Ranchi,India
    P.Mahanti, University of New Brunswick, Saint John, Canada

Workshop W1: Best Practices for Teaching Object-Oriented Framework Development
Dr. Amir Zeid, The American University in Cairo, Egypt

Quebec Room
Will be continued after the break

15:30-16:00 Coffee break

16:00-17:30 Parallel sessions

Paper Session E: Methods and Practice
Session chair: Emily Oh Navarro
Provinces Ballroom II

  Translating Diagrams: A New Approach to Introducing Formal Methods
    A. J. Cowling, University Of Sheffield, UK

  Using Rationale for Software Engineering Education
    Allen H. Dutoit, Technische Universität München, Germany
    Timo Wolf, Technische Universität München, Germany
    Barbara Paech, University of Heidelberg, Germany
    Lars Borner, University of Heidelberg, Germany
    Jürgen Rückert, University of Heidelberg, Germany

  Best Practice: Is this the Cinderella Area of Software Engineering?
    J. Barrie Thompson and Anthony J. Fox,
  University of Sunderland, UK

Paper Session F: Software Engineering Course Projects
Session chair: James McDonald
Ontario Room

  Software Engineering Projects in Distant Teaching
    Philipp Bouillon, FernUniversität in Hagen
    Jens Krinke, FernUniversität in Hagen
    Stephan Lukosch, FernUniversität in Hagen

  Scaling Up: How Thirty-two Students Collaborated and Succeeded in Developing a Prototype Software Design Environment
    Emily Oh Navarro, University of California, Irvine
    Andre van der Hoek, University of California, Irvine

  An Investigation of Factors Affecting Student Group Project Outcomes
    Pearl Brereton, Keele University
    Sue Lees, Keele University

Workshop W1 Best Practices for Teaching Object-Oriented Framework Development (Continued)
Quebec Room

18:00-20:00 Reception: School of Information Technology and Engineering (SITE), University of Ottawa
It will be a pleasant 15 minute walk along the canal or a 3-minute bus-ride to this venue. SITE hosts one of the first Software Engineering undergraduate programs offered in Canada (starting in 1997). Its building also has an interesting architecture. Tours will be available.

    Tuesday, April 19 2005

08:30 Registration opens. Continental breakfast available until morning coffee break.

09:00-09:05 Start of the Second Day
Announcements
Provinces Ballroom II

09:05-10:30 Keynote address: Debunking the Geek Stereotype with Software Engineering Education
Laurie Williams, North Carolina State University

Provinces Ballroom II

10:30-11:00 Coffee Break
11:00-12:30 Parallel sessions

Panel Session P1: Professional Engineering and Software Engineering Part 1
Marie Lemay, Canadian Council of Professional Engineers (CCPE)
Ray Barham, TransCanada Pipelines and CCPE
Chris Zinck, Zinck Computer Group and CCPE
Paul Bassett, Cutter Consortium and Canadian Information Processing Society (CIPS)
Richard LeBlanc, Georgia Tech and ABET Program Evaluator

Provinces Ballroom II

  Topics to be discussed will include the status of licensing and accreditation in Canada and elsewhere. In this session, the panelists will give presentations, in preparation for a lively debate after lunch.

Course Module Session
Session chair: Tony Cowling
Ontario Room

  Course Module: Formal Technical Reviews
    Gregory W. Hislop, Drexel University

  Course Module: OpenSeminar in Software Engineering
    Laurie Williams, North Carolina State University
    Sarah E. Smith, North Carolina State University
    Michael Rappa, North Carolina State University

  Course Module: Design By Contract
    James C. McKim, Winthrop University
    Heidi J.C. Ellis, Rensselaer-Hartford

12:30-14:00 Lunch. Provided for all participants.

14:00-15:30 Parallel sessions

Panel Session P1: Professional Engineering and Software Engineering Continued
Part II: Debate among the panelists.

Provinces Ballroom II

Tutorial T1: Integrating Software Engineering Process in an Undergraduate Curriculum
Mark J. Sebern, Milwaukee School of Engineering
Thomas B. Hilburn, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Ontario Room
Open to all participants on a first-come first-served basis (no separate registration)
To be continued after the break

Tutorial T2: Problem-based Design Studios for Undergraduate SE Education
Jocelyn Armarego Murdoch University, Australia
Sally Clarke Auckland University, New Zealand

Quebec Room
Open to all participants on a first-come first-served basis (no separate registration)
To be continued after the break

15:30-16:00 Break

16:00-17:30 Parallel sessions

Workshop W2: Software Engineering Education (SEE) Research and Publication: Issues, Challenges and Directions
Chair: Hossein Saiedian, University of Kansas
Panelists: Timothy C. Lethbridge, University of Ottawa and Dan Port, University of Hawaii

Provinces Ballroom II

 This workshop will discuss the Researchers Guide prepared for this conference. We will seek participants' ideas for improvement

Tutorial T1: Integrating Software Engineering Process in an Undergraduate Curriculum (Continued)
Ontario Room

Tutorial T2: Problem-based Design Studios for Undergraduate SE Education (Continued)
Quebec Room

19:00-22:00 Banquet: Westin Hotel.

    Wednesday, April 20 2005

08:30 Registration opens. Continental breakfast available until morning coffee break.

09:00-09:10 Start of the Third Day
Announcements
Overview of CSEE&T 2006 - Hawaii
Provinces Ballroom II

09:10-10:30 Keynote address: What I Wish I Had Learned in School: Reflections on 30+ Years as a Software Developer
Bran Selic, IBM Rational Software

Provinces Ballroom II

10:30-11:00 Coffee Break
11:00-12:30 Parallel sessions

Paper Session G: Industry and Education
Session chair: Prabhat Mohanti
Provinces Ballroom II

 Establishing the Current Practice in Industry as the Baseline for Educational Infrastructure: Case South-East Finland
    Uolevi Nikula, Lappeenranta University of Technology
    Sami Jantunen, Lappeenranta University of Technology
    Teemu Saarelainen, Kymenlaakso Polytechnic
    Matti Karvonen, Lappeenranta University of Technology

 Educating 'agents of change'
Jocelyn Armarego Murdoch University Australia

 Transferring Experiences from Software Engineering Training in Industry to Mass University Education - The Big Picture
  Wolf-Gideon Bleek, University of Hamburg, Germany
  Carola Lilienthal, University of Hamburg, Germany
  Axel Schmolitzky, University of Hamburg, Germany

Paper Session H: Software Engineering Course Projects II
Session chair: Barrie Thompson
Ontario Room

  Distributed Cross-cultural Student Software Project: a Case Study
    A. Inkeri Verkamo, University of Helsinki
    Juha Taina, University of Helsinki
    Yury Bogoyavlenskiy, Petrozavodsk State University
    Dimitry Korzun, Petrozavodsk State University
    Turjo Tuohiniemi, University of Helsinki

  A Case Study: GQM and TSP in a Software Engineering Capstone Project
    Brian R. von Konsky, Curtin University of Technology
    Michael Robey, Curtin University of Technology

  Teaching an Advanced Design, Team-oriented Software Project Course
    Stan Jarzabek, National University of Singapore
    Pin-Kwang Eng, National University of Singapore

Workshop W3: Infusing Software Architecture into Software Engineering Curricula
Michael Lutz, Rochester Institute of Technology
Arturo Sanchez, University of North Florida

Quebec Room
Continued after lunch

12:30-14:00 Lunch.

14:00-15:30 Parallel sessions

Panel Session P2: Software Assurance Education
Samuel T. Redwine, Jr., Chair, James Madison University
Joseph Saur, Georgia Tech Research Institute
Hun Kim, Department of Homeland Security

Nancy Mead, Carnegie Mellon University
Provinces Ballroom II

Workshop W4: Using Active Learning Strategies and Web Support to Engage Engineering Students in Large Classes
Malgorzata (Gosha) Zywno, Ryerson University
Ontario Room
Sponsored by the Centre for University Teaching, University of Ottawa

Workshop W3: Infusing Software Architecture into Software Engineering Curricula Continued
Quebec Room

Keynote Speakers

The following people will give keynote addresses:

  • Debra J. Richardson, Dean of Information and Computer Sciences, University of California, Irvine

    Informatics: Contextualizing Computer Science and Software Engineering Education

    Keynote address, Monday April 18th, 9:15 (Click to see it in the schedule)

    Abstract: Forthcoming.

    Picture of Debra Richardson

    Bio: Debra J. Richardson is the Ted and Janice Smith Family Foundation Dean and Professor of Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Sciences at the University of California at Irvine. She received her PhD in Computer and Information Science at the University of Massachusetts in 1981. She joined the UCI faculty in 1987.

    Dr. Richardson pioneered research in 'specification-based testing', whereby formal specifications and methods are employed to guide and evaluate software testing and analysis. She has been investigating software testing for over 15 years. Her current work focuses on enabling specification-based testing technology throughout the software lifecycle, from requirements and architecture analysis through operation and evolution. She has developed leading edge tools, and has worked with several companies in adopting technology to improve the quality of critical software systems.

    Dr. Richardson has worked with several companies in adopting technology for improving the quality of their software products and processes. She is currently director of MICRO (Microelectronics Innovation and Computer Research Opportunities), the first industry-university cooperative research program in the University of California.

    Click here to see Debra Richardson's personal web page

     

  • Laurie Williams, Assistant Professor at North Carolina State University

    Debunking the Geek Stereotype with Software Engineering Education

    Keynote address, Tuesday April 19th, 9:05 (click to see it in the schedule)

    Abstract: Alas, the stereotypical software engineer is depicted as spending long hours working alone in a cubicle filled with empty pizza boxes and soda cans. This "work alone" stereotype can dissuade talented individuals from considering a career in the information technology industry. As educators, we often reinforce this "geek" stereotype early in the curriculum by giving students lengthy assignments and forcing them to work alone — collaborating is cheating! However in industry, software engineers actually spend a large part of their day collaborating with teammates — the "work alone" stereotype is largely unfounded. Research results indicate that through providing students with more collaborative experiences, we could retain more students without compromising their individual learning and these students would be better prepared to be collaborative team members.

    Picture of Laurie Williams

    Bio: Laurie Williams is an Assistant Professor at North Carolina State University. She received her undergraduate degree in Industrial Engineering from Lehigh University. She also received an MBA from Duke University and a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of Utah. Prior to returning to academia to obtain her Ph.D., she worked in industry, for IBM, for nine years. Dr. Williams research interests include empirical studies of agile software development including the pair programming and test-driven development practices, software reliability, software testing, and software security.

    Click here to see Laurie Williams' personal web page

     

  • Bran Selic, IBM Rational Software and head of the UML 2.0 committee.

    What I Wish I Had Learned in School: Reflections on 30+ Years as a Software Developer

    Keynote address, Wednesday April 20th, 9:10 (click to see it in the schedule)

    Abstract: Computer science and software engineering curricula are, by now, long established in most institutions of higher learning. They have evolved from a few utilitarian courses that taught essential programming skills to fully-fledged academic four- and even five-year programs to match the growing body of experience and knowledge in the field. Yet, it seems that some quite fundamental gaps persist in the education of software experts rendering many of them inadequately prepared for industrial software development. These problems, which are both technical and cultural, can be addressed only if there is a clearer understanding of the nature of software technology. Knowing how software differs from traditional technologies will indicate where innovative approaches to teaching are necessary, whereas knowing how it is similar to those technologies will help us understand where classical time-proven methods can be applied. This talk identifies some of the key problem areas in current curricula and describes suggestions for dealing with them - from the perspective of a long-term practitioner of industrial software development.

    Picture of Bran Selic

    Bio: Bran Selic is an IBM Distinguished Engineer at IBM Rational and an adjunct professor at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. He has over 30 years of experience in designing and implementing large-scale industrial software systems. Bran pioneered the application of model-driven development methods in real-time applications. He is chair of the OMG team responsible for the UML 2.0 standard.

 

Workshop Details

W1: Best Practices for Teaching Object-oriented Framework Development

Dr. Amir Zeid, The American University in Cairo, Egypt (azeid@aucegypt.edu)

Monday, April 18th: 14:00-17:30 (click to see it in the schedule)

Object-oriented framework development is one of the most challenging software development tasks. Teaching framework development is even more challenging since there is no unified framework development methodology.

This workshop aims to share the knowledge and experience of different organizations and individuals in both practical and theoretical aspects of teaching framework development. The main goal is to identify, discuss and promote best practices to properly engineer and teach object-oriented frameworks.

The following are some of the possible topics:

  • Methodologies for framework development
  • Creative approaches for teaching framework development
  • Approaches to evaluate framework development methodologies
  • Teaching framework development using design patterns
  • Tools for teaching framework development

 

W2: Software Engineering Education (SEE) Research and Publication: Issues, Challenges and Directions

Chair: Hossein Saidian, University of Kansas
Panelists: Timothy C. Lethbridge, University of Ottawa, Canada and Dan Port, University of Hawaii
Tuesday, April 19th: 16:00-17:30 (click to see it in the schedule)

We will review the researchers guide prepared for this conference. Particpants will be asked to suggest improvements to it and to comment on how it has affected the quality and rigor of the research presented at the conference.

The objective is to improve the guide in preparation for next year's conference.

 

W3: Infusing Software Architecture into Software Engineering Curricula

Michael Lutz, Rochester Institute of Technology
Arturo Sanchez, University of North Florida
Wednesday, April 20th: 11:00-12:30 and 14:00-15:30 (click to see it in the schedule)

Call for papers: Please go to http://www.unf.edu/~asanchez/cseet05-w3/ for the call for position papers. Those interested in participating are asked to send a position paper by April 13th.

Abstract: Software systems of significant size, complexity, and lifetime are critically dependent on the match between their architecture and the quality attributes of greatest importance to the system stakeholders. Teaching software architecture, however, is a challenging task in an academic setting: bringing architectural issues to the fore may require problems of a size that conflict with the limitations imposed by quarters or semesters.

This workshop will bring together faculty who are infusing architectural concepts into computing courses for an exchange of ideas as to successful and promising approaches. The scope will span the range from those with a single undergraduate software engineering course to dedicated software engineering programs. To help ensure a successful workshop, participants will be asked to submit a short, one-page position paper outlining their involvement in software architecture and their experiences in teaching this material. Topics addressed in these position papers include (but are not restricted to):

  • Weaving architectural concepts throughout a curriculum.

  • Incorporating software architecture in a one or two course sequence on software engineering in computer science or engineering.

  • Software architecture approaches appropriate for undergraduate and graduate degree programs in software engineering.

  • Classroom or laboratory exercises to improve student comprehension of architectural quality attributes.

  • Classroom or laboratory exercises to improve student ability to analyze architecture fitness for use with respect to the quality attributes required.

  • Activities that increase student ability to synthesize potential solutions and to assess the explicit and implicit tradeoffs embodied in such solutions.

The first part of the workshop will consist of very brief discussions of the position papers (we assume these will be distributed to workshop participants in advance). The bulk of the workshop will be devoted to developing approaches and materials that support the teaching of software architecture. A side benefit of this workshop will be the formation of a community of software engineering educators interested in software architecture.

We plan to invite a member of the SEI's Product Line Practice Initiative to participate in the workshop as a way to facilitate interaction in this area between the SEI and the academic community.

 

W4: Using Active Learning Strategies and Web Support to Engage Engineering Students in Large Classes

Malgorzata Zywno, Ryerson University
Wednesday, April 20th: 14:00-15:30 (click to see it in the schedule)

Sponsored by the Centre for University Teaching, University of Ottawa

Outline As class sizes continue to grow, the goal of keeping the students engaged and taking ownership of their learning can be very challenging. Integrating active learning strategies and web support into instructional design and course management can go a long way towards meeting that challenge.

In this interactive workshop, the presenter will first share her experiences from teaching a large class of engineering students, where she has been implementing the active collaborative learning model championed by a well-known engineering educator, Richard Felder. Successful strategies used in the course to engage students will be identified, with several activities modeled with the session participants. The participants will have an opportunity to 'tour' the BlackBoard website supporting Dr. Zywno's current course in Process Control, and see how multimedia can be used to support learning. Video clips of group activities and short videotaped interviews will bring to the audience the students' point of view on educational technology and on active, collaborative learning. The participants will next have an opportunity to brainstorm strategies to meet the needs of different types of learners in an engineering classroom, discuss perceived barriers to a wider adoption of active, collaborative learning strategies, and how to overcome them.

Bio Dr. Malgorzata (Gosha) Zywno is a Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Ryerson University in Toronto, with a cross appointment in the Learning and Teaching Office. Dr. Zywno has taught at Ryerson since 1982.

Dr. Zywno is passionate about teaching, and her focus on students and their learning is complemented by her research interests, which include active learning in a technology-rich environment, faculty development, and recruitment and retention strategies for women in engineering. She has taught courses and conducted workshops at universities in Canada, France, Germany and Scotland. Dr. Zywno is the recipient of several teaching excellence awards, including 3M Teaching Fellowship (2002), International Network for Engineering Education and Research Achievement Award (2002), and Technology Innovation Award (2004). Dr. Zywno's research and publications on the issues of technology-mediated teaching, active learning and learning styles have also won several awards, including the Best Conference Paper (2002) from the American Society for Engineering Education.

 

Tutorial Details

T1: Integrating Software Engineering Process in an Undergraduate Curriculum

Mark J. Sebern, Milwaukee School of Engineering
Thomas B. Hilburn, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Tuesday, April 18th: 14:00-17:30 (click to see it in the schedule)

Summary: This tutorial is intended to assist faculty members and administrators who are designing or modifying undergraduate software engineering curricula, and who wish to learn about alternative approaches to incorporating software engineering process. Curricular recommendations developed by the Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula, formed by the IEEE Computer Society and the Association for Computing Machinery, provide a context for this discussion. The applicability of the Personal Software Process (PSP) and the Team Software Process (TSP), developed by the Software Engineering Institute, is also considered. Experienced software engineering educators may benefit from the presentations, hands-on exercises, and group discussions, but the tutorial is designed primarily for educators with less experience in software engineering curriculum development.

Introduction: Software engineering process is an important component of the professional practice of software engineering (SE), and thus is also a critical element of any educational program intended to prepare students for work in the discipline. Recognizing this need, software engineering educators have reported on a variety of approaches to incorporating SE process elements into academic programs.

With the growth of academic software engineering programs, and the accreditation of the first undergraduate software engineering programs in the United States, many more educators are now grappling with identifying desired student outcomes, designing or modifying curricula, and assessing the results. Fortunately, the recent work of the Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula, sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society and the Association for Computing Machinery, has produced a document that outlines a body of software engineering knowledge (known as SEEK) and provides guidance on defining and implementing curricula that can be used to teach fundamental SE knowledge and skills.

Another significant resource for education in software process is the work done at the Software Engineering Institute. The current version of the Capability Maturity Model (known as the CMMI) provides an overall framework for improving software processes, while the Personal Software Process (PSP) and the Team Software Process (TSP) provide specific techniques for individual software engineers and teams to ensure product quality and improve process management. A number of reports describe efforts to adopt or adapt the PSP and TSP in software engineering education.

The purpose of this tutorial, then, is to assist faculty members and other interested software engineering professionals in integrating software process into a new or existing curriculum. While seasoned software engineering educators may benefit from the presentations and discussions, the tutorial is targeted primarily to an audience with less comprehensive knowledge and experience in defining, implementing, and assessing a software engineering curriculum.

This three-hour tutorial will include presentations and hands-on group exercises. The following is the proposed outline:

  • Introduction
  • SE2004 curriculum guidelines
    • Overview: SEEK (Software Engineering Education Knowledge); Guidelines for curriculum design and delivery; Courses and course sequences; Curriculum patterns.
    • SEEK knowledge areas related to software process
    • SE2004 courses related to software process
    • Group exercise and discussion
  • PSP and TSP
    • Planning
    • Quality
    • Team work
    • Process improvement
  • Approaches to process integration
    • Dedicated process courses
    • Process content distributed across courses
    • Large-scale lab course sequences
    • Capstone project courses
    • Case studies
    • Group exercise and discussion
  • Implementation issues
    • Process elements and student maturity level
    • Faculty resources and preparation
    • Process support infrastructure
    • Consistency across courses and instructors

About the Presenters:

Mark J. Sebern is a Professor in the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department at the Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE), and program director for MSOE¹s undergraduate software engineering program, one of the first four SE programs to be accredited in the United States. He is also a visiting scientist in the Software Engineering Process Management group at the Software Engineering Institute and an ABET software engineering program evaluator.

Thomas B. Hilburn is a Professor of Software Engineering at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. He is an IEEE Certified Software Developer and an editor for the ACM/IEEE-CS Computing Curriculum-Software Engineering project. Tom has been active in efforts to integrate software engineering into academic computing programs. He is also a visiting scientist at the Software Engineering Institute, where he works in developing activities and materials for promoting the use of individual and team software processes.

 

T2: Problem-based Design Studios for Undergraduate SE Education

Jocelyn Armarego Murdoch University, Australia
Sally Clarke Auckland University, New Zealand

Tuesday, April 18th: 14:00-17:30 (click to see it in the schedule)

Summary: Both the increasing knowledge needed to practise as a professional, and the accelerating rate of change within the discipline suggest that traditional learning models may not address the requirements of learners. Problem-based learning (PBL) and design studios (DS) are two approaches that focus on learners developing characteristics of lifelong learning. This tutorial explores a Problem-based Design Studio (PbDS) model of learning. The goal is to enable participants to gain some understanding of the model so as to evaluate its' applicability in their teaching/learning context.

Introduction: In traditional models applied to professional education students first study basic science, then the relevant applied science, so that learning may be viewed as a progression to expertise through task analysis, strategy selection, try-out and repetition. The formal roles of lectures, tutorials and laboratory classes are intended for knowledge transfer using essentially uni-directional modes of teaching. In this model, the purpose of the practical work students are presented with is to apply knowledge learned earlier in the curriculum to real-life problems: the students deal with know-how problems that can be solved by knowledge acquired in their lectures. Students become experienced in the use of disciplines and theories considered necessary/relevant through the practical work that supports this knowledge.

However, with the on-going increase in knowledge in the discipline, and the accelerating rate at which this increase is occurring, students cannot learn all the material required to practice as professionals in their disciplines.

Problem-based Learning (PBL) and Design Studios (DS) are two approaches that focus on centering the learning environment on the student. Student responsibility and independence help to develop characteristics of lifelong learners - motivation, self-evaluation, time management and the skills to access information. Together PBL and DS provide mechanisms and processes for the teacher to build a learning environment that encourages a community of learners to interact to define and solve problems, and to garner skills that enable them to become self-directed learners.

Characteristics of PBL: In contrast to the stronger emphasis on teacher-direction and the coverage of academic content found in most traditional models, Problem-based Learning incorporates many of the practices that are now considered the desiderata of good teaching: it is student-centered, fosters intrinsic motivation, promotes both deep and active learning, taps into students¹ existing knowledge, encourages reflection on the teaching/learning process, develops collegial learning skills, and can support student self-assessment and peer-assessment. In a PBL environment students are self-directed, independent and interdependent learners motivated to solve a problem. Evaluation of this learning model confirms that having authentic (ie feasible in the real-world practice of the discipline) problems assists students in understanding and later deploying their new knowledge. Skills acquired in this way are transferable to professional practice. When undertaken in the group environment advocated, students also develop generic interpersonal skills to draw on after their formal education is completed.

Design Studios Studio-styled learning models have evolved from the master-student relationship of the classical apprenticeship. They are commonly used in a wide variety of professional education disciplines including:

  • architecture (and other creative arts) ­ where groups of students work with the architect ³master² across all aspects of a design task. This style of education is widely used and well recognised in architectural education as being highly desirable, if not essential, as a means of achieving the essential learning outcomes for the graduate

  • clinical professions, including medicine, dentistry and veterinary science ­ where exposure to the processes of observation, diagnosis and treatment in a face-to-face environment is taken as being an essential part of the education process. We can also include a number of the para-clinical professional in this category, for example psychology, chiropractic science and physiotherapy

  • the profession of teaching itself is generally recognised as requiring exposure to real-life work situations as a part of the training process.

Examples of the implementation of PBL are reported, with the McMaster model is well documented , as is the implementation at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. In an engineering context, the University of Aalborg reports the development of the application of project- and problembased learning over a 20 year period. The Aalborg Model has been extensively reviewed, both by their University but also by the external examination panels that form the basis of their international recognition. In particular there has been a direct comparison between the graduates from Aalborg University with those from the Technical University of Denmark, where a more traditional teaching programme in Engineering is used.

The engineers from Aalborg

  • were assessed to be stronger in problem-solving, communications, co operation and general technical knowledge

  • perceived a convincing agreement between the composition of the knowledge and experience used in the project-oriented education and in the professional engineering practice

  • after three years of employment still derived their applied professional knowledge from their project work rather than from taught courses, colleagues or postgraduate courses.

Tutorial programme: This tutorial will explore the Problem-based Design Studio (PbDS) model of learning. The goal is to enable participants to gain some understanding of the model so as to evaluate its¹ applicability in their teaching/learning context.

Objectives include:

  • exploring issues around PbDS in some detail, both from
  • a student perspective and
  • implications for the teacher
  • designing a small problem on the SE discipline
  • evaluating issues concerned with implementing PbDS.

The tutorial itself will model a PbDS in action. The implication of this is that, while some presentations are included, they will usually take the form of summarising the discussion undertaken. The bulk of the tutorial will be based around activities and resource exploration in the context of a PBL process. Resources and a workbook will be provided to participants.

About the presenters

Jocelyn Armarego: Senior Lecturer - Software Engineering:

I have been involved in the application of Design Studio learning and PBL in Software Engineering at Murdoch University. I initially applied the Studio model to Software Design courses. However, evaluation of these highlighted the need for a process to anchor Studio learning, and led to the integration of PBL with the Studio (PbDS). This model was first applied to Requirements Engineering learning. Subsequently I have been involved in moving all courses in the Software Engineering program to PBLbased Design Studios. I have been actively involved in the developing a programme of staff induction in PBL and Studio learning. As of 2005 all Engineering programs will apply PbDS at years 3 and 4.

Sally Clarke: Senior Lecturer - Medical Education:

I have worked in the area of teaching and learning in higher education in several Australian Universities. As Evaluation Officer in the Graduate School of Medicine at the University of Queensland, I conducted a number of evaluations of the medical curricula before and after the change to Problem­Based Learning (PBL). Following that I have been involved in introducing PBL in Information Technology. At Queensland University of Technology I was an active member of the team from the Faculty of Information Technology implementing PBL in intermediate level programming. At Murdoch University, I worked with Jocelyn Armarego introducing PBL in software engineering. I also facilitated a workshop for Engineering staff at Murdoch on Design Studios and PBL in August 2004.

 

Panel Session Details

P1: Professional Engineering and Software Engineering

Marie Lemay, Canadian Council of Professional Engineers (CCPE)
Ray Barham, TransCanada Pipelines and CCPE
Chris Zinck, Zinck Computer Group and CCPE
Paul Bassett, Cutter Consortium and Canadian Information Processing Society (CIPS)
Richard LeBlanc, Georgia Tech and ABET Program Evaluator
Tuesday, April 19th: 11:00-12:30 and 14:00-15:30 (click to see it in the schedule)

Abstract: The purpose of this panel is to inform attendees about the current state of the accreditation of software engineering programs and licensing for software engineers in Canada and the US. We also intend to stimulate discussion of the more controversial aspects of this topic.

Panel outline: The motivation for this panel comes from the following observations:

  • Most people who graduate from either computer science or software engineering programs, or even computer engineering programs, develop software in their careers: i.e. they do the same general task.

  • The public is now exposed to the term 'software engineer', meaning generically anyone who develops software, in news reports and films.

  • The term 'Computer Scientist' has less and less meaning for the public; and in fact, very few graduates of computer science programs actually do anything that involves the 'scientific method'; they mostly do design, just like engineers.

  • Accreditation agencies (following different models in Canada and the US) accredit most software engineering and computer science programs.

  • In Canada, most universities that offer computer science or computer engineering degrees are now offering software engineering degrees.

  • In the professional engineering community it is a given that those who do any form of engineering need to graduate from an accredited engineering program (or prove equivalent competence through exams). It is also considered by many in this community either desirable or essential that they be licensed to protect the public. On the other hand, most people developing software are not licensed and do not, in North America, come from accredited engineering programs.

  • Many people argue that licensing of everyone developing software, who the public is generically coming to call 'software engineers' is not necessary, or in fact would be infeasible or harmful. Some argue that even accreditation is not necessary. The ACM famously pulled out of the development of SWEBOK over a concern that licensing is a bad idea.

  • Some say that software engineering is just another branch of engineering, whereas others say that it is sufficiently distinct from all the other defined branches of engineering that it should be treated distinctly.

  • Provincial and territorial Engineering Acts in Canada provide exclusive scope of practice over engineering practice and right-to-title legislation for Engineers. Therefore, by law those calling themselves 'engineers' and those taking responsibility for engineering work, must be licensed.

  • Given the relative immaturity of the field, it is argued by some that moves toward licensing will limit the development of innovative practices -- since engineers are expected to follow established practice.

  • Some say that only those engineers working on safety-critical systems, or those selling services directly to the public, should be licensed. But if the education of all software engineers should be broadly similar, should not all at least be 'licensable', regardless of whether their degree is called 'Computer Science' or 'Software Engineering'?

  • In the British model, both computer science and software engineering graduates are eligible to be Chartered Engineers.

In the first session, 11:00-12:30, the panelists will present their experience, expertise and opinions on the topic of accreditation of software engineering programs and/or, licensing for software engineers. In the second session, 14:00-15:30, the panelists will debate the above issues. Several controversial debate questions will be prepared, but questions from the audience will also be used to stimulate discussion.

 

Panel 2: Software Assurance Education

Samuel T. Redwine, Jr., Chair, James Madison University
Joseph Saur, Georgia Tech Research Institute
Hun Kim, Department of Homeland Security
Nancy Mead, Carnegie Mellon University
Wednesday, April 20th: 14:00-15:30 (click to see it in the schedule)

Abstract: Software engineering processes for building safe and secure software have existed for a long time. However, these processes‹particularly for secure software engineering‹have not been widely taught within colleges and universities leading to a shortage of graduates skilled in these areas. This panel will discuss the increasing need for colleges and universities to produce graduates that are skilled in building safe and secure software. Panelists will share their experiences teaching courses in these areas and future directions for curricula.

In each of the last two years, the CERT Coordination Center has reported roughly 4000 vulnerabilities, demonstrating that software security is a significant problem. Exploitation of these vulnerabilities continues to grow exponentially, with well over a hundred thousand incidents reported to the CERT CC in 2003. The problems with software are not just in operating systems and web servers; a large portion of the new vulnerabilities now being reported are within applications.

For more than twenty years, much has been known about safe and secure software development that builds on the necessary foundation of well organized, managed and disciplined software engineering processes. Distributed systems and the Internet have complicated systems design, but methods for producing dependable software remain largely unchanged. Understanding how to develop secure software is a necessity since software produced by developers often interacts with users via the Internet.

Among the questions the panel will consider are:

  • Is there a difference in the methods used to produce safe or secure systems? How are the methods the same or different? Can they be effectively taught in the same course?

  • What types of class projects that will help students understand how to build safe or secure software?

  • What are the roles of formal methods in producing secure and safe software?

  • Should changes be made in beginning courses to introduce the proper mindset and techniques as well as avoiding students developing ³bad² habits?

  • What lessons can be learned from the Safety Argument and documentation processes that can be used in developing secure software?

  • Are design vulnerabilities or code vulnerabilities more fundamental?

  • What are the roles of threat and hazard analyses in system requirements determination?

  • Why are security and safety emergent system properties not simply specialized security functionality?

Panel participants have experience with both undergraduate and graduate software engineering education. The panel has been organized to include perspectives from both the academic community and those who depend on its graduates.

 

Related meetings

In addition to the main CSEE&T conference, the following meetings are planned:

  • Meeting of the Software Engineering Program Leaders Association (SEPLA): This comprises all people who are leaders of Software Engineering academic programs (they may be called 'chairs', 'department heads', 'program heads', or whatever). The meeting is planned for Sunday April 17th. Further details will be posted here later.

    SEPLA has met annually at CSEE&T for several years. The meetings provide an opportunity for participants to learn from each other's experiences and make contacts.


  • Working Group on Software Engineering Education and Training: This group has met for many years at CSEE&T and on other occasions to discuss and advance the field.

Birds-of-a-feather sessions

There are a few timeslots with rooms available for birds-of-a-feather sessions. The organizers of these sessions should be contacted for further details. The following are ones arranged before the conference started

  • Monday, 11-12:30: PSP Certification: The Software Engineering Institute (SEI) is developing a certification program for software developers and practitioners who use the Personal Software Process (PSP). The certification will be based on the PSP Body of Knowledge (BOK) document currently in development. This document will outline the core knowledge and skill set required by software engineering professionals who use the PSP methodology. The PSP BOK is currently available for review and feedback at http://www.sei.cmu.edu/tsp/psp/bok/index.html. A PSP BOK "birds of a feather" discussion session is scheduled for CSSE&T 2005, at which SEI staff will present the document and solicit feedback from the software engineering community.

    The SEI Professional Certificate and Certifications programs are a means for transitioning technology best practices and standards to the software engineering community through products, services, and support.