Crossed Teams: Leveraging Student Interaction in Software Engineering Practice
Pages 524 - 533
Abstract
One of the primary challenges faced by Software Engineering courses is bridging the gap between the classroom and real-world software development. Various approaches have been attempted to simulate certain aspects of software development within the classroom. A specific challenge in simulating the real-world experience in course practice is the difficulty of reproducing client-developer interaction. In this study, we present an experience in a SE course that has evolved over time, involving student teams taking on the roles of both clients and developers simultaneously in projects developed during the course within the SE domain. This approach involved forming crossed-teams, where one pair of teams (Team A and Team B) acted as clients for the other team and vice versa. We discuss the benefits of adopting this approach as well as the challenges and hindrances we encountered during the course iterations. Our observations indicate that this approach has contributed to the learning process, although a careful planning by the instructor is essential to mitigate potential drawbacks in the learning process.
References
[1]
Scott W. Ambler. 2002. Agile Modeling: Effective Practices for Extreme Programming and the Unified Process. John Wiley and Sons, USA.
[2]
Julian M. Bass. 2016. Artefacts and Agile Method Tailoring in Large-Scale Offshore Software Development Programmes. Inf. Softw. Technol. 75, C (jul 2016), 1–16.
[3]
Kent Beck. 1999. Embracing change with extreme programming. Computer 32, 10 (1999), 70–77.
[4]
Andrew Begel and Beth Simon. 2008. Struggles of New College Graduates in Their First Software Development Job. In Proc. of the 39th SIGCSE Tech. Symp. on Computer Science Education. 226–230.
[5]
Dave Bernstein and Grady Booch. 2020. The UML and the Rational unified process. IEEE Software 37, 06 (2020), 12–12.
[6]
Marcelo Cataldo, James D. Herbsleb, and Kathleen M. Carley. 2008. Socio-Technical Congruence: A Framework for Assessing the Impact of Technical and Work Dependencies on Software Development Productivity(ESEM ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2–11.
[7]
David Delgado, Alejandro Velasco, Jairo Aponte, and Andrian Marcus. 2017. Evolving a Project-Based Software Engineering Course: A Case Study. In IEEE 30th Conf. on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEET). 77–86.
[8]
J Alberto Espinosa and Erran Carmel. 2003. The impact of time separation on coordination in global software teams: a conceptual foundation. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 8, 4 (2003), 249–266.
[9]
Oscar Hauptman and Karim K Hirji. 1996. The influence of process concurrency on project outcomes in product development: An empirical study of cross-functional teams. IEEE transactions on Engineering Management 43, 2 (1996), 153–164.
[10]
Oscar Hauptman and Karim K Hirji. 1999. Managing integration and coordination in cross-functional teams: an international study of Concurrent Engineering product development. R&D Management 29, 2 (1999), 179–192.
[11]
O. Hazzan and Y. Dubinsky. 2003. Teaching a software development methodology: the case of extreme programming. In Proceedings 16th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training, 2003. (CSEET 2003).176–184.
[12]
Ivar Jacobson, Grady Booch, and James Rumbaugh. 1999. The unified process. Ieee Software 16, 3 (1999), 96.
[13]
Terhi Kilamo, Imed Hammouda, Tommi Mikkonen, and Timo Aaltonen. 2012. From proprietary to open source—Growing an open source ecosystem. Journal of Systems and Software 85, 7 (2012), 1467–1478. Software Ecosystems.
[14]
Craig Larman. 2003. Agile and Iterative Development: A Manager’s Guide. Pearson Education.
[15]
Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock and Joseph A Allen. 2018. Modeling temporal interaction dynamics in organizational settings. Journal of business and psychology 33, 3 (2018), 325–344.
[16]
Timothy C. Lethbridge, Jorge Diaz-Herrera, Richard J. Jr. LeBlanc, and J. Barrie Thompson. 2007. Improving Software Practice through Education: Challenges and Future Trends. In 2007 Future of Software Engineering(FOSE ’07). IEEE Computer Society, USA, 12–28.
[17]
R. Lingard and E. Berry. 2002. Teaching teamwork skills in software engineering based on an understanding of factors affecting group performance. In 32nd Annual Frontiers in Education, Vol. 3. S3G–S3G.
[18]
Ruchika Malhotra, Massoud Massoudi, and Rajni Jindal. 2020. An Innovative Approach: Coupling Project-Based Learning and Game-Based Learning Approach in Teaching Software Engineering Course. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Technology, Engineering, Management for Societal impact using Marketing, Entrepreneurship and Talent (TEMSMET). 1–5.
[19]
L. K. Michaelsen, A. B. Knight, and L. D. Fink. 2004. Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups in college teaching. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
[20]
Barbara Oakley, Richard M. Felder, Rebecca Brent, and Imad Elhajj. 2004. Turning Student Groups into Effective Teams. Journal of Student Centered Learning 2, 1 (2004), 9–34.
[21]
M. Pikkarainen, J. Haikara, O. Salo, P. Abrahamsson, and J. Still. 2008. The Impact of Agile Practices on Communication in Software Development. Empirical Softw. Engg. 13, 3 (jun 2008), 303–337.
[22]
Mary Beth Pinto, Jeffrey K. Pinto, and John E. Prescott. 1993. Antecedents and Consequences of Project Team Cross-Functional Cooperation. Management Science 39, 10 (1993), 1281–1297.
[23]
Mary Poppendieck. 2007. Lean software development. In 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’07 Companion). IEEE, 165–166.
[24]
Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland. 2011. The Scrum guide. Scrum Alliance 21, 1 (2011), 1–38.
[25]
Mary Shaw. 2000. Software Engineering Education: A Roadmap. In Proceedings of the Conference on The Future of Software Engineering (Limerick, Ireland) (ICSE ’00). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 371–380.
[26]
Maurício Souza, Renata Moreira, and Eduardo Figueiredo. 2019. Students Perception on the Use of Project-Based Learning in Software Engineering Education. In Proc., of the XXXIII Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (Salvador, Brazil) (SBES ’19). ACM, 537–546.
[27]
Daniel Ståhl, Kristian Sandahl, and Lena Buffoni. 2022. An Eco-System Approach to Project-Based Learning in Software Engineering Education. IEEE Transactions on Education 65, 4 (2022), 514–523.
Index Terms
- Crossed Teams: Leveraging Student Interaction in Software Engineering Practice
Recommendations
The impact of social media on software engineering practices and tools
FoSER '10: Proceedings of the FSE/SDP workshop on Future of software engineering researchToday's generation of software developers frequently make use of social media, either as an adjunct or integrated into a wide range of tools ranging from code editors and issue trackers, to IDEs and web-based portals. The role of social media usage in ...
Software Engineering Expert System for Global Development
ICTAI '06: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial IntelligenceSoftware project control and software process improvement both depend on the ability to measure software development status. This paper introduces the Software Engineering Expert System (SEES) tool where the software professional can gather metrics from ...
A Survey of Software Engineering Practice: Tools, Methods, and Results
The results of a survey of software development practice are reported and analyzed. The problems encountered in various phases of the software life cycle are measured and correlated with characteristics of the responding installations. The use and ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
September 2023
570 pages
ISBN:9798400707872
DOI:10.1145/3613372
Copyright © 2023 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 the author(s) 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: 25 September 2023
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
SBES 2023
SBES 2023: XXXVII Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering
September 25 - 29, 2023
Campo Grande, Brazil
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 147 of 427 submissions, 34%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 41Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)22
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 05 Mar 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format