Bhuvana Gopal
Stephen Cooper
ABSTRACT
Peer Instruction (PI) is an active learning pedagogy in which students actively participate in the classroom. There have been several research studies regarding the value of PI in computer science. The present work adds to this body of knowledge by examining outcomes from an undergraduate software engineering course with specific focus on the effects of PI on student learning in the topics of unit testing, integration testing and continuous integration. We find encouraging increases in levels of success as measured through a cognitive pre- and post-course survey for those topics. This work also documents and hypothesizes reasons for the cognitive gains from PI, as well as student attitudes towards PI.
- ACM Computing Curricula Task Force (Ed.). 2013. Computer science curricula 2013: Curriculum guidelines for undergraduate degree programs in computer science. ACM.Google Scholar
- Adawi,T., Burden,H., Olsson, D., and Mattiasson, R. 2016. Characterizing software engineering students? discussions during peer instruction: Opportunities for learning and implications for teaching. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 32, 2 , 927--936.Google Scholar
- Agarwal, R., Edwards, S.H., and Pérez-Quiñones, M.. 2006. Designing an adaptive learning module to teach software testing. In Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 259--263.Google Scholar
- Aniche, M., Hermans, F., and Deursen, A. 2019. Pragmatic software testing education. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '19), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 414--420.Google Scholar
- Banerjee, M., Capozzoli, M., McSweeney, L., and Sinha, D. 1999. Beyond kappa: A review of interrater agreement measures. Can. J. Stat. 27, 1 (1999), 3--23.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Baptista, A. 2017. Report: Software failures cost $1.1 trillion in 2016. Service Virtualization Today. Retrieved August 7, 2019 from http://servicevirtualization.com/report-software-failures-cost-1--1-trillion-2016/Google Scholar
- Bertolino, A. 2007. Software testing research: Achievements, challenges, dreams. In Future of Software Engineering (FOSE '07), IEEE, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 85--103.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bloom, B. S. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook 1: Cognitive domain (2nd edition Edition edition ed.). Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
- Buffardi, K. and Edwards, S.H. 2014. A formative study of influences on student testing behaviors. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '14), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 597--602.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chen, Z., Zhang, J., and Luo, B. 2011. Teaching software testing methods based on diversity principles. In 2011 24th IEEE-CS Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE T), Honolulu, HI, USA, 391--395.Google Scholar
- Clarke, P.J., Pava, J., Davis, D., Hernandez, F., and King, T.M. 2012. Using wrestt in se courses: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '12), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 307--312.Google Scholar
- Cutts, Q., Esper, S.,and Simon, B. 2011. Computing as the 4th ?R?: A general education approach to computing education. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER '11), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 133--138.Google Scholar
- Drake, J.M. 2003. Drake, J., 2003. Teaching Software Testing: Lessons learned.DOI=(http://www. micsymposium. org/mics_2003/Drake. PDF.Google Scholar
- Drost, E.A. 2011. Validity and reliability in social science research. Educ. Res. Perspect. 38, 1, 105--123.Google Scholar
- Eddy, B.P., Wilde, N., Cooper, N.A., Mishra, B., Gamboa, V.S., Shah, K.S., Deleon, A.M. and Shields, N.A. 2017. A pilot study on introducing continuous integration and delivery into undergraduate software engineering courses. In IEEE 30th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T), 47--56.Google Scholar
- Edwards, S.H. 2004. Using software testing to move students from trial-and-error to reflection-in-action. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 26--30.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Esper, S. 2014. A discussion on adopting peer instruction in a course focused on risk management. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 29, 4, 175--182.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Garousi, V. and Zhi, J. 2013. A survey of software testing practices in Canada. J. Syst. Softw. 86, 1354--1376.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Goldwasser, M.H. 2002. A gimmick to integrate software testing throughout the curriculum. In Proceedings of the 33rd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 271--275.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gopal, B. 2020. Peer instruction questions for unit testing, integration testing and continuous integration. https://cse.unl.edu/~bgopal/PISWT.htmlGoogle Scholar
- Greising, L., Bartel, A. and Hagel, G. 2018. Introducing a deployment pipeline for continuous delivery in a software architecture course. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference of Software Engineering Education, 102--107.Google Scholar
- Henderson, P.B. 2013. CS2013. ACM Inroads 4, 3 (2013), 48--49.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hoegh, A. and Moskal, B. M. 2009. Examining science and engineering students' attitudes toward computer science. In 2009 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 1--6.Google Scholar
- Jones, E.L. 2001. Integrating testing into the curriculum ? Arsenic in small doses. In Proceedings of the Thirty-second SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 337--341.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kinne, J., Misner, E., Carter, A.S. and Tuttle, S.M. 2018. Evaluating the efficacy of clicker-based peer instruction across multiple courses at a single institution. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 34, 1, 164--170.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Koretsky, M.D., Brooks, B.J., White, R.M. and Bowen, A. S. 2016. Querying the questions: Student responses and reasoning in an active learning class. J. Eng. Educ. 105, 2 (2016), 219--244.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Krathwohl, D. R. and Anderson, L.W. 2009. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom?s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
- Lee, C.B., Garcia, S. and Porter, L. 2013. Can peer instruction be effective in upper-division computer science courses? Trans Comput Educ 13, 3, 12:1--12:22.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Liao, S., Griswold, W. and Porter, L. 2017. Impact of class size on student evaluations for traditional and peer instruction classrooms. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, ACM, 375--380.Google Scholar
- Mazur, E. 1997. Peer instruction: A user's manual. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
- Ng, S.P., Murnane, T., Reed, K., Grant, D., and Chen, T.Y. 2004. A preliminary survey on software testing practices in Australia. In Australian Software Engineering Conference Proceedings, IEEE, Melbourne, Vic., Australia, 116--125.Google Scholar
- Orso, A. and Rothermel, G. 2014. Software testing: A research travelogue (2000--2014). In Proceedings of the on Future of Software Engineering, ACM, 117--132.Google Scholar
- Pargas, R.P. and Shah, D.M. 2006. Things are clicking in computer science courses. In Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, ACM, 474--478.Google Scholar
- Leo Porter, Cynthia Bailey Lee, and Beth Simon. 2013. Halving fail rates using peer instruction: A study of four computer science courses. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, ACM, 177--182.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Porter, L., Lee, C.B., Simon, B., Cutts, Q. and Zingaro, D. 2011. Experience report: A multi-classroom report on the value of peer instruction. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ACM, 138--142.Google Scholar
- Porter, L., Lee, C.B., Simon, B., and Zingaro, D. 2011. Peer instruction: Do students really learn from peer discussion in computing? In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computing Education Research, ACM, 45--52.Google Scholar
- Simon, B., Parris, J., and Spacco, J. 2013. How we teach impacts student learning: Peer instruction vs. lecture in cs0. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, ACM, 41--46.Google Scholar
- Tan, N., Shoemaker, G., Gedi, A., Mache, J., and Weiss, R. 2017. Applying a framework for creating and analyzing cybersecurity questions for peer instruction. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 33, 1, 102--108.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wong, W.E., Bertolino, A., Debroy, V., Mathur, A., Offutt, J. and Vouk, M. 2011. Teaching software testing: Experiences, lessons learned and the path forward. In 24th IEEE-CS Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training, 530--534.Google Scholar
- Zingaro, D. 2010. Experience report: Peer instruction in remedial computer science. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 5030--5035. Retrieved August 6, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/36184/USA, 356--361.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Peer Instruction in Software Testing and Continuous Integration
Recommendations
Peer instruction in online software testing and continuous integration: a replication study
ICSE-SEET '22: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and TrainingThis paper discusses the results of replicating and extending a previous study on the active learning pedagogy of Peer Instruction (PI) in the topics of unit testing, integration testing and continuous integration. The original paper studied the ...
Peer Instruction in Software Engineering - Findings from Fine-grained Clicker Data
SIGCSE '21: Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science EducationThis paper discusses the results of partially replicating and modifying a study performed by Zingaro and Porter examining the relationship between fine grained clicker data from in class Peer Instruction and students' performance in quizzes and exams. ...
POGIL-like Learning in Undergraduate Software Testing and DevOps - A Pilot Study
ITiCSE '22: Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 1Process Oriented Guided Inquiry-based Learning (POGIL) is an active learning pedagogy that emphasizes process skills in addition to content, and has been shown to improve student learning outcomes in various STEM disciplines. We developed 4 POGIL-like ...
Comments