skip to main content
10.1145/3478431.3499349acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

How Well do Students Understand the All-Encompassing, Ubiquitous, and Interconnected Nature of IoT?: Evaluating Student Capstone Projects

Published:22 February 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

The Internet of Things (IoT) content and curricula is a recently emerged trend for computer science and software engineering educators. IoT as a paradigm is often described as an all-encompassing new phenomenon covering homes, industries, governments, and the environment. For that reason, IoT topics have become a part of computer science and software engineering programs. Existing research has been conducted on the development of IoT curricula but as this work is fairly recent the evaluation of those approaches requires further work. This paper presents a case study from a capstone course within a three-course IoT specialization. We evaluate student capstone projects using the thematic analysis method in order to assess our IoT specialization studies. As a result, we present an overview of how the students see the IoT, and what kind of IoT projects they design and implement. Most often the student projects implemented home automation projects. Often these prototypes lacked connectivity and communication capabilities to other systems. An IoT characteristic that is most rarely seen in student projects is 'physical actions in the environment.'

References

  1. Farha N Ali. 2018. Experiences in Teaching the Internet of Things Courses. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 378--383.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Luigi Atzori, Antonio Iera, and Giacomo Morabito. 2010. The internet of things: A survey. Computer networks , Vol. 54, 15 (2010), 2787--2805.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Zorica Bogdanovic, Konstantin Simic, Milovs Milutinovic, Bovz idar Radenkovic, and Marijana Despotovic-Zrakic. 2014. A Platform for Learning Internet of Things .ERIC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology , Vol. 3, 2 (2006), 77--101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Barry Burd, Lecia Barker, Monica Divitini, Felix Armando Fermin Perez, Ingrid Russell, Bill Siever, and Liviana Tudor. 2018a. Courses, content, and tools for internet of things in computer science education. In Proceedings of the 2017 ITiCSE Conference on Working Group Reports . 125--139.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Barry Burd, Lecia Barker, Félix Armando Ferm'in Pérez, Ingrid Russell, Bill Siever, Liviana Tudor, Michael McCarthy, and Ian Pollock. 2018b. The internet of things in undergraduate computer and information science education: exploring curricula and pedagogy. In Proceedings Companion of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education . 200--216.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Luca Chiodini, Igor Moreno Santos, Andrea Gallidabino, Anya Tafliovich, André L Santos, and Matthias Hauswirth. 2021. A curated inventory of programming language misconceptions. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1 . 380--386.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Cisco. [n.d.] a. Cisco Networking Academy Builds IT Skills & Education For Future Careers . https://www.netacad.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Cisco. [n.d.] b. Cisco Packet Tracer . https://www.netacad.com/courses/packet-tracerGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Geert de Haan. 2015. Educating creative technology for the internet of things-research and practice-oriented approaches compared. In Proceedings of the Mulitimedia, Interaction, Design and Innnovation. 1--7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Norman K Denzin. 2017. The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods .Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Anatolij Fandrich, Tobias Stuckenberg, and Ira Diethelm. 2020. DIY Smart Home: The Development of an Exemplary Internet of Things Infrastructure for Computer Science Education. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education . 523--524.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Anna Förster, Jens Dede, Andreas Könsgen, Asanga Udugama, and Idrees Zaman. 2017. Teaching the internet of things. GetMobile: Mobile Computing and Communications , Vol. 20, 3 (2017), 24--28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Valerie Galluzzi, Carlotta A. Berry, and Yosi Shibberu. "2017". A Multidisciplinary Pilot Course on the Internet of Things: Curriculum Development Using Lean Startup Principles. In "2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition" . "ASEE Conferences", "Columbus, Ohio". https://peer.asee.org/27486.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Jorge Guerra Guerra and Armando Fermin Peréz. 2016. Implementation of a robotics and IoT laboratory for undergraduate research in computer science courses. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education . 369--369.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Jorge Guerra Guerra and Armando Fermin Perez. 2017. Alignment of Undergraduate Curriculum for Learning IoT in a Computer Science Faculty. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 362--362.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Stan Kurkovsky and Chad Williams. 2017. Raspberry Pi as a platform for the Internet of things projects: Experiences and lessons. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education . 64--69.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Shancang Li, Li Da Xu, and Shanshan Zhao. 2018. 5G Internet of Things: A survey. Journal of Industrial Information Integration , Vol. 10 (2018), 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Maisson Lichtenecker, Maria Cristina Carpes Marchesan, Andréia dos Santos Sachete, and Fábio Diniz Rossi. 2020. Reference Curriculum for IoT Applied to Anything: A Proposal. (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanna M"aenp"a"a , Sasu Tarkoma, Samu Varjonen, and Arto Vihavainen. 2015. Blending problem-and project-based learning in internet of things education: Case greenhouse maintenance. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM technical symposium on computer science education. 398--403.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanna M"aenp"a"a , Samu Varjonen, Arto Hellas, Sasu Tarkoma, and Tomi M"annistö. 2017. Assessing IOT projects in university education-A framework for problem-based learning. In 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training Track (ICSE-SEET). IEEE, 37--46.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: Norms and guidelines for CSCW and HCI practice. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , Vol. 3, CSCW (2019), 1--23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Adrian McEwen and Hakim Cassimally. 2013. Designing the internet of things .John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Gary J. Mullett. 2016. Teaching the Internet of Things (IoT) Using Universally Available Raspberry Pi and Arduino Platforms. In 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition . ASEE Conferences, New Orleans, Louisiana. https://peer.asee.org/26053.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Meenaxi M Raikar, Padmashree Desai, and Jayalakshmi G Naragund. 2016. Active learning explored in Open elective course: Internet of Things (IoT). In 2016 IEEE eighth international conference on technology for education (T4E). IEEE, 15--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Y Series. 2001. Global Information Infrastructure, Internet Protocol Aspects and Next-Generation Networks. ITU-T Recommendation Y (2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Juha Sorva et almbox. 2012. Visual program simulation in introductory programming education .Aalto University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Andrea Zanella, Nicola Bui, Angelo Castellani, Lorenzo Vangelista, and Michele Zorzi. 2014. Internet of things for smart cities. IEEE Internet of Things journal , Vol. 1, 1 (2014), 22--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. How Well do Students Understand the All-Encompassing, Ubiquitous, and Interconnected Nature of IoT?: Evaluating Student Capstone Projects

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGCSE 2022: Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - Volume 1
      February 2022
      1049 pages
      ISBN:9781450390705
      DOI:10.1145/3478431

      Copyright © 2022 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 22 February 2022

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,595of4,542submissions,35%

      Upcoming Conference

      SIGCSE Virtual 2024
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)19
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader