Technology Enhanced Active Learning in Software Engineering

Muthu Ramachandran

School of Computing, Creative Technologies, and Engineering, Headingley Campus, Leeds Beckett University,

Leeds LS6 3QS, U.K.

Keywords: Software Engineering Management, Active Learning, Group Project, Project Supervision, Collaborative

Learning.

Abstract: Educating software engineers in software management have long been hard both in academia and in

industry. It is extremely difficult to educate software engineering management techniques actively.

Historically, we have been quite used to educate in programming in a classroom and in a lab with

instructions Teaching any management aspects has been traditionally based on instructions and case studies.

We have adopted an active based learning approach to teach final year BSc students in Software

Engineering. We let the final year students manage group projects carried out by level 5 students. Mainly,

we don’t come across a large real-world case study. This work on active learning has changed our way of

teaching software engineering and it has made a significant impact on the way the students learning and

have been taught traditionally. This research has also proposed an information system model for

Technology Enhanced Active Learning and Teaching (ALT) with emphasis on three key principles for

teaching Software Engineering: divergent thinking, collaborative learning, and learning through

differentiated assessments. More than 90% of students felt they had gained knowledge more quickly with

active learning. The ALT model is part of the large scale technology enhanced learning for future learning

environments which has been developed adopting most of computer science courses and specialist module.

1 INTRODUCTION

Software Engineer (SE) education is highly essential

in this era of high demand for software systems that

has become part of our everyday life. It has been

hard to train high level of software engineering

concepts, methods, techniques, tools, and managing

large scale projects. It is even harder to train

software engineering management practices in

academia as it is often self-learned in industrial

practice or at work place. Historically, we have been

quite used to educate in programming and related

science. It is extremely difficult to educate software

engineering management techniques actively.

Mainly we don’t come across a large real-world case

study. This we have seen being criticized as methods

that have not been demonstrated in real work. It is

important to educate SE management techniques in

this global world with some real practical aspects.

Software Engineering itself is increasingly a

management discipline of any education and in the

real world. Due enhancement and innovation in

software technology, we are in a much better

position to capture, resolve requirements, intuitively

make our design solution with the use of a wide

range of design notations and CASE tools, develop

code which is much more efficient, and test it all

again with a wide range of tools.

One of our main aims of this module (managing

software development) is blending of formal

academic methods with knowledge of industrial

development practices. Consequently, an objective

of the course is to provide a balance between the

science of management and the practice of

management. This emphasis on the 'hands-on'

approach to management required a considerable

rethinking of this and other modules of the course.

There are several definitions of active learning

used worldwide across different disciplines from

social sciences to school teaching. The aims of this

approach are to make students learn themselves by

doing it rather than only by reading and instructing

them in a classroom or in a lab. There is an

immediate change needed in Software Engineering

242

Ramachandran, M.

Technology Enhanced Active Learning in Software Engineering.

DOI: 10.5220/0006257602420248

In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2017) - Volume 1, pages 242-248

ISBN: 978-989-758-239-4

Education whether it is taught in the classroom or on

online (E-Learning) by applying active and other

practical learning types (should not totally be lab

based on the other hand as seen in Japan). Offutt

(2013) argues that “Software engineering isn’t a

branch of computer science; it’s an engineering

discipline relying partly on computer science, in the

same way that mechanical engineering relies on

physics.” Similarly, David Parnas (1999) asserts that

process must be shown, not taught, by mentoring

young engineers through actual projects. Therefore,

this research, have considered more practical and

engineering approach to teach Software Engineers in

a more active manner with emphasis on professional

values and consultancy approach.

IT courses, in particular, Software Engineering

courses have seen as difficult to complete in the

social inclusion context as well as normal perception

in schools. Yet, a shortage for these skills remains

high across the globe. One of the main reasons for

this situation is the lack of teaching practices and

methods adopted in the computing curriculum as we

tend to focus more on the new technologies to

practice ourselves and quickly convert them into

courses. This situation has to change. Therefore, we

have adopted an active learning technique of

practicing level 6 final year BSc (Hons) students to

supervise level 5 (pre-final year/2

year of BSc

(Hons)) group project students in making them to

apply the key software engineering principles as

well as making them to progress. In this context, this

paper is divided into a number sections: section 1

provides an introduction to this work, section 2

provides a brief survey on active learning, section 3

provides the case study of the group project

management, and finally section 4 discusses the

results and analysis.

2 ACTIVE LEARNING IN

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

MANAGEMENT PRACTICE

Active learning helps to facilitate re-enforced

learning, participation, and communication by

actually doing it rather than just listening. In

addition, educating management aspects can’t be

just done in a classroom setting. As it involves

managing and communicating with people. Johnson

(1998) explains active learning as how college

faculty can use cooperative learning to increase

student achievement, create positive relationships

among students, and promote healthy student

psychological adjustment to college. Johnson (1998)

and Walsh and Inala (2010) discuss several

approaches to teach librarians with practical

examples of active learning style. They have also

proposed a number active learning characteristics:

 Students are involved in more than just

listening.

 Less emphasis is placed on transmitting

information and more on developing

students’ skills.

 Students are involved in higher order

thinking (analysis, synthesis and

evaluation). Cognitive and meta-cognitive

activities.

 Students are engaged in activities (e.g.

reading, discussing and writing).

 Greater expectation is placed on the

students’ exploration of their attitudes and

values.

This highlights the importance of active learning

method as opposed to passive learning methods that

we are used to in higher education sectors. In

addition, in computer science education, Hamada

(2007) reports to have successfully adopted a web

based active e-learning strategy. “With the advance

in applying technology in education, the traditional

lecture-driven teaching style is gradually replaced by

a more active teaching style where the students play

a more active role in the learning process. Hamada

(2007) has introduced a set of web-based tools for

active (e-)learning in Automata theory and related

fields in addition to experimental evaluation of its

use in context”.

Meyers and Thomas (1993) explain classroom

experiences and faculty suggestions in providing a

practical guide to teaching strategies to encourage

active learning in the college classroom. A wide

range of teaching tools which ask students to apply

what they are learning are considered, including

problem-solving exercises, cooperative student

projects, informal group work, simulations, case

studies, and role playing.

Silberman (1996) explains in 101 principles of

active learning as specific, practical strategies that

can be used for almost any subject matters to

promote active learning. It brings together in one

source a comprehensive collection of instructional

strategies, with ways to get students to be active

from the beginning through activities that build

teamwork and get students thinking about the

Technology Enhanced Active Learning in Software Engineering

243

subject matter. The 101 strategies are grouped into

the following areas: (1) "Introducing Active

Learning"; (2) "How To Get Students Active from

the Start";

Barnet and Coate (2005) suggest we need change

the way we teach and to re-consider our strategies.

Furthermore, they argue that “the test of an effective

curriculum is ‘engaged’: Are the students

individually engaged? Are they collectively

engaged?” Their main argument is that a complex

and uncertain world requires curricula in which

students as human beings are placed at the centre of

quality of learning experience. Brew (2006)

discusses the need for initiatives to strengthen the

relationship between teaching and research as steps

on the path to the development of a new higher

education. Using examples, conversations and

critical inquiry, it suggests that the establishment of

inclusive scholarly knowledge-building communities

of both students and staff should result from the

development of a stronger relationship between

research and teaching.

Offutt (2013) has proposed three principles for

teaching Software Engineering: divergent thinking,

collaborative learning, and learning through

differentiated assessments. Typically, Convergent

thinking meaning of the traditional believes that

computer science and mathematical problems, in

general, always or most likely have one correct

answer and successful students should tend toward

that answer. Engineering, however, especially

software engineering, on the other hand needs

divergent thinking, where multiple answers are

possible and the most successful students should

find a solution that’s unique when compared with

other students solutions (Offutt, 2013). Computer

science projects and homework assignments tend to

be assessed on a uniform scale that measures every

student’s work with the same yardstick. But in

engineering, especially software engineering, the

notion of what will succeed often varies depending

on the context, including users, market, platform,

and release date. This suggests that we, as educators,

should use differentiated assessments.

Therefore, in summary, Offutt (2013) emphasis

is on, when we teach software engineering, we must

remember that divergent thinking and collaborative

learning are essential abilities for practicing

engineers, and differentiated assessment is essential

for teaching software engineering.

The current research study has learned that “the

feedback and our interaction with our learners via

our teaching has a strong and positive effect on the

achievement of our learners” (Hendry et al., 2016;

Bonwell, 1991). Other active learning adopted in

software engineering courses and in computer

science courses include (Boud and Soloman, 2001;

Spicer, 1983; Huynth et al., 2016; Krusche et al.,

2017; Manohar et al., 2015; Lutz et. al., 2014;

Exposito, 2014). However, they mostly mean active

learning is a way of interacting with computer based

assessment, short cycle exercises, etc. These are one

of the traditional forms of interactive learning

techniques with the use of a computer. In our work,

we use the term active learning to include face to

face meeting, interaction and social activities with a

group project students, self-learning, etc.

Teaching Software Engineering at Leeds Beckett

at the graduate level include taking two semester

foundation modules in the first year and moving on

to second year where they learn project

management, group projects, and software design

module. In their final year, they take a two semester

module on software engineering with emphasis on

software reuse, component-based software

engineering (CBSE), software cost estimation

models, model-driven development, software

process improvement, quality models and testing

techniques. As part of their assessment in the final

year they are required to manage a second year

group project with a size of 5 maximum. The main

idea is that students learn more effectively when

they are faced with situation to introduce and teach

someone else and it is dynamic as they judged based

on actively self-engaged as well to make sure the

managed group is also actively engaged in their

project. This is the rational for adopting active

learning techniques into software engineering

classrooms. The dynamic nature of the arrangement

makes them to collaborate (achieving collaborative

learning), socialise, and to think differently

(divergent thinking) as they needed to meet outside

the normal classroom hours, often encouraged to

meet in the social areas such as cafeteria, etc.

This section outlined some of the existing

literature on good learning practices. However, it is

not clear how we can teach those practices and

therefore, we need efficient teaching strategies along

with those learning strategies. The following section

presents our work on applying some of the learning

strategies adopted through active learning methods

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

244

as Offutt (2013) and others have not presented how

we can teach those techniques in practice.

3 ACTIVE LEARNING &

TEACHING MODEL BASED ON

SPECIFIC LEARNING

OUTCOME (ALT MODEL)

It is important to have an efficient teaching and

learning model which should consist of a clear

learning objectives, learning outcome, proposed

assessment, and clear marking criteria. However, for

an active learning technique this can be quite hard,

especially during the first time around. Making clear

assessment criteria can also be quite difficult as it

should be based on observation, feedback from the

students themselves to each other, group dynamics,

etc. In our approach to active learning is specifically

tuned for learning outcome so the effectiveness of

the learning method can easily be monitored and can

also see how well students have progressed with the

work. Our proposed learning model is shown in

Figure 1 which consists of a list of learning

objectives and expected outcomes and the

assessment criteria are largely based around meeting

those expected results/achievements by the groups.

Figure 1: Technology Enhanced Active Learning

Environment.

In the final year software engineering module, our

course structure has the following learning

outcomes:

1. Practice of diverse Requirements

Engineering Methods (Divergent

Thinking)

2. Practice of applying diverse software cost

estimation techniques (Divergent

thinking)

3. Practice of Software Project Management

Techniques such as scope management,

communication management, project

planning and scheduling (Differential

Assessment)

4. Application of software metrics measuring

the productivity of group projects

(emphasis is on Collaborative Learning)

This model has been implemented in a group

project that level 5 students take which was

managed by level 6 students. This has been

demonstrated in the following section with details of

data observed. As discussed, this paper has enforced

three types of learning practices that is proposed by

Offutt (2013) more efficiently with our approach to

ALT model. The divergent thinking was enforced

through application of variety of requirements,

design, and cost estimation approaches consulted

and trained Level 5 students, collaborative learning

has been enforced and supervised by making sure

smooth and successful delivery of level 5 group

project students and their product deliverable in a

timely and in a more engineered manner with

professional values and dignity of others (assessed

through acting as professional consultant) in the

group is also monitored. The successful

implementation of differential assessment is

implemented and monitored through varying degree

of assessment mark sheets, feedback from the

groups, and interview with consultant engineers with

the module tutors.

4 CASE STUDY – GROUP

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The group project module is the appropriate one

selected for Software Engineering Consultancy and

Management (SECM). The aim of the group project

is to develop a web-based video rental agency. This

module has its own learning outcome such as to

work as a team, attend meetings regularly, record

and monitor progress, meet the deadlines, show

individual contribution to the group, know your

strength and weakness when working as a team.

Managing Software Development (MSD) module

has its own learning outcomes such as to be able to

consult group project, write a reflective report,

knowledge transfer skills, group communications,

technical consultancy on software engineering

methods and management. Our aim is to achieve

both, but at the same time encourage active learning.

The aim is to marry and synchronise expected

learning outcome and deliverable between MSD and

Learning

objectives

on Group

based/Team

based

Active

Learning

Software

Management

with specific

Learning

objectives &

teaching

principles of

key skill sets:

Expected

learning

Participants/Ac

tive Learners

Student

Manager –

Final Year

BSc (Hons)

Cloud Based

Technology

Subject-Specific

Learning

Environment

Learning

Environment

Technology Enhanced Active Learning in Software Engineering

245

the group project (year 2). The MSD coursework

descriptions are:

 To supervise a Level 2 group project (1 or 2

groups will be allocated to each student in

ASE module).

 Their role is to act as a project manager to

monitor, measure, advice, and measure

project metrics and to facilitate

communication amongst the group members.

This should be about processes and metrics

for managing quality in software

development, and practicing professional

facets of software engineering.

 They are expected to apply methods, tools,

techniques, and metrics where possible.

Apply knowledge from Managing Software

Development module (taught in the autumn

term –Semester A) and to use their own

experience as a Software Engineer.

The expected outcome is a reflective managerial

report consists of assessment of group dynamics,

role analysis and allocation, metrics collection,

observation, facilitating communication, conflict

resolution, and assessing product deliverables such

as requirements, project planning, cost estimation,

and implementation. The reflective report was

marked against the following criteria:

 Log book – activities, issues, solutions.

Should reflect phases of development

process. Must incorporate application of

selected metrics

 Reflective report on what could be done to

improve the process of managing projects,

ethical issues about conflict between getting

it done and quality, cost estimation success,

usefulness of selected metrics, post mortem

analysis of the project, etc.

 A report consisting of both technical merits

that are introduced and management

summary

 A range of metrics

 Assessment of the project process

 Evidence of facilitating the Group

communication and management

 Range of requirements engineering technique

introduced (e.g. use case diagram)

 The cost estimation technique used

 SQA technique used

 Metrics collected (using Together CASE tool

as well as ASE module)

 Complexity analysis of the code

 Application of MSD module techniques

 Test plan, Test case design, and test

implementation techniques for web based

projects

 Feedback form from your group (Hint

format)

o How useful was your participation?

o Did they learn new techniques?

o Did they feel their development was speeded

up?

o What did you introduce?

o What were their problems and issues, and

have they been solved?

o How well you managed communication and

management?

o Will they feel they can work with you on

another project?

Each year we are continuing to update on each of the

above activities and expected outcome.

5 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

It is relatively hard to make any clear observation in

action research type of project due their nature of

personality and communication issues. However, we

have made some quite interesting observation. From

the past three years of this approach we have

identified a number of key outcomes:

 Students manager/consultant need to be

assigned to a group by the instructor instead

of leaving them to choose their preferred

group didn’t work well in the first year of

this approach

 Step in, when necessary, to resolve

conflicts between the consultant and the

group early on during their involvement

 Improvise the student manager now and

then during their discussion. This was made

easy due a specific allocated hour for group

projects.

 We found that the 90 % of the student

manager expressed this assignment as very

interesting and different to their usual

assignments.

 More than 90% expressed more than

satisfactory to the feedback questionnaire

completed by the group project team

members.

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

246

 More than 60% of the student

managers/consultants felt this has increased

their learning and deeper understanding of

some of the SE issues as it was questioned

by group project students

 2

year students felt they had learned

something additional to their normal way of

working on a group project on a software

development project and hence speeded up

their work. For example, they have learned

effort estimation and structuring,

questioning and rationalising of

requirements earlier on before starting their

development.

We are hoping to continue this approach for

coming years, but hopefully with more assessment

of the group communication and conflict resolution

conducted by the student managers. Figure 2

summaries the feedback received on the application

of ALT based learning. The group project students

year BSc SE students) expressed overall 90%

satisfaction with active learning based approach to

their assessment and the help they received from

their final year students as compared to just by

themselves and the final year students expressed

nearly 100% and felt how much they enjoyed in

supervising and applying software project

management, learned people’s management, and

have also improved their communication skills.

100

GroupProject

Students(2nd

Year)

Software

Engineering

Student

Managers

(FinalYear)

Figure 2: Results and Analysis on SE Practices.

In addition, the final year project managers have

also expressed how efficient they had this

opportunity to learn by teaching, coaching, and

monitoring the group project students in terms of

individual topics such as software projects

management practice, cost estimations, etc, and as

follow:

SPM: Effective Application of Software Project

Management Practices (over 90%)

U: Deeper Understanding of SPM Techniques

(>85%)

TC: Team Communications & Dealing with Team

Issues

CE: Application of SPM Cost Estimation

Techniques (FP, COCOMO)

RE&D: Application of Requirements Engineering

and Design Methods

Ref: Reflective Report Writing Skills

QM: Application of software quality assurance

techniques & software metrics techniques

PM: Improved Presentation & Communication

Skills

These are the practices asked in the feedback

form for which we have obtained more than 90%

satisfaction with effective application of SE

practices on SPM, CE, Ref, QM, and PM by group

project students as well as the student managers

have improved their understanding of the SE

practices and their leadership and communication

skills. Compared to other approaches in software

engineering education in particular they all refer to

computer based interaction with some team project.

In our project, we used a meaningful active learning

that developed group communication and

management practices early in their educational

career.

6 CONCLUSION

This research on Active Teaching and Learning in

Software engineering Education looked at existing

approaches to teaching and learning practices in

computer science and software engineering. We

have adopted our own teaching and learning model

based on active learning strategies that are

successful in school and social science education.

We have also have discovered three key learning

approaches have also been successfully adopted:

divergent thinking, collaborative learning, and

differential assessment. The ALT model has also

been evaluated by students and found to be 100%

more effective in their learning.

REFERENCES

Offutt, J (2013) Putting the Engineering into Software

Engineering Education, IEEE Software, Jan-Feb 2013,

30(1):96

Technology Enhanced Active Learning in Software Engineering

247

Parnas, D (1999) “Software Engineering Programs Are

Not Computer Science Programs,” IEEE Software,

vol. 16, no. 6, 1999, pp. 19–30.

Johnson, D. et al (1998) Active Learning: Cooperation in

the College Classroom, Interaction Book Company,

USA

Walsh, A and Inala, P (2010) Active Learning Techniques

for Librarians: Practical examples, Chandos

Publishing

Hamada, M (2007) Web-based Active e-Learning Tools

for Automata Theory, Seventh IEEE International

Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies

(ICALT 2007)

Meyers, Chet Jones, Thomas B (1993). Promoting Active

Learning. Strategies for the College Classroom,

Jossey-Bass Inc Publishers, USA

Silberman, L (1996) Active Learning: 101 Strategies To

Teach Any Subject, Prentice Hall

Barnett, R. and Coate, K. (2005) Engaging the curriculum

in higher education. Maidenhead: Open University

Press and McGraw Hill.

Brew, A. (2006) Research and teaching: beyond the

divide. London: Palgrave, Macmillan.

Hendry, G.D, White, P, and Herbert (2016) Providing

exemplar-based ‘feedforward’ before an assessment:

The role of teacher explanation, Active Learning in

Higher Education Journal (SAGE Publication) July

2016 17: 99-109, first published on March 18, 2016

doi:10.1177/1469787416637479

Bonwell, C (1991) Active Learning: Creating Excitement

in the Classroom, www.active-learning-site.com

Boud, D, Ed. and Soloman, N. Ed (2001) Work-Based

Learning: A New Higher Education?, Taylor &

Francis Inc, USA.

Spicer, C. J (1983) A Spiral Approach to Software

Engineering Project Management Education, ACM

SIGSOFT SOFTWARE ENGINEERING NOTES Vol

8 No 3 Jul 1983 Page 30

Huynh, Trongnghia; Hou, Gene; Wang, Jin (2016)

Communicating Wave Energy: An Active Learning

Experience for Students, American Journal of

Engineering Education, v7 n1 p37-46 Jun 2016. 10 pp.

Krusche, S. et al. (2017) Interactive Learning: Increasing

Student Participation through Shorter Exercise Cycles,

The proceeding of the 2016 Australasian Computing

Education Conference, ACM Digital Library 2017.

Manohar, P. A., et al. (2015) Case Studies for Enhancing

Student Engagement and Active Learning in Software

V&V Education, Journal of Education and Learning,

v4 n4 p39-52 2015. 13 pp.

Lutz, Michael J., Naveda, J. F., and Vallino, James R

(2014) Undergraduate Software Engineering,

Communications of the ACM. Aug2014, Vol. 57 Issue

8, p52-58. 7p.

Exposito, E (2014) yPBL: An Active, Collaborative and

Project-Based Learning Methodology in the Domain

of Software Engineering, Journal of Integrated Design

& Process Science. 2014, Vol. 18 Issue 2, p77-95. 19p

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

248