Experience Using Systematic Mapping Studies to Foster Knowledge

Discovery in Emerging Technology Fields

Julieth Patricia Castellanos-Ardila

School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, M

alardalen University, V

aster

as, Sweden

Keywords:

Knowledge Discovery, Research-Based Methodology, Active Learning, Emerging Technologies.

Abstract:

Emergent technology requires fast changes in educational content and more student engagement beyond the

classroom. Therefore, this paper proposes a learning methodology to foster knowledge discovery in these

ﬁelds using a research-based approach. In particular, we promote active learning with the use of Systematic

Mapping Studies (SMS), which bring students closer to in-demand topics in emerging technologies. We

test our methodology by using it in the project module of a cloud computing course. We also evaluate the

methodology in terms of student outcomes, i.e., work products and their opinions. From the analysis of this

evaluation, we describe advantages and possible lines of action for future improvements.

1 INTRODUCTION

Emerging technologies present a radical novelty, fast

growth, and prominent impact (Rotolo et al., 2015).

Their evolution is so fast that educational content of-

ten lags behind (van der Lubbe et al., 2023). In ad-

dition, such technologies often span multiple disci-

plines, e.g., ﬁelds like machine learning, which com-

bines knowledge from computer science, mathemat-

ics, and domain-speciﬁc expertise. This knowledge

diversity represents unique challenges for students

trying to learn them (Woelmer et al., 2021). We could

consider some personalizing teaching for the students.

However, at scale, such teaching is particularly chal-

lenging (Siddiqui et al., 2022)

In information technology ﬁelds, for example, the

industry also emphasizes that engineers should gain

hands-on experience by actively learning the funda-

mentals of new technologies while solving real-world

problems (Nakayama et al., 2012). This means that,

as future practitioners, students have to learn how to

base important software engineering decisions on the

systematic and critical evaluation of the best avail-

able evidence (Jorgensen et al., 2005) by creating a

closer link between research and practice (Dyba et al.,

2005). Thus, there is a need for teaching and learning

methodologies that engage students in understanding,

synthesizing, and learning relevant knowledge from

fast-evolving technology domains by themselves.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9970-7580

In this paper, we propose a research-based learn-

ing methodology, as they are widely regarded as

a cornerstone of effective education (Elmgren and

Henriksson, 2021), to foster knowledge discovery in

emerging technologies. In particular, we promote

active learning (Bonwell and Eison, 1991) with the

use of Systematic Mapping Studies (SMS) (Petersen

et al., 2008). SMS offers a structured approach to dive

into academic literature and industry reports, helping

students discover trends, gaps, and challenges within

a study area, a skill applicable in both academia and

industry (Kitchenham et al., 2010). Students are ac-

tive in their learning process by critically organizing

and assessing information. It also cultivates team-

work, as SMS projects require students to agree on

various aspects. We apply our methodology to a cloud

computing course, which, as reported in (Anglano

et al., 2020), is a subject of growing relevance but

difﬁcult to teach due to the lack of open and collab-

orative educational materials. We also evaluated the

methodology in terms of student outcomes, i.e., work

products and their opinions, to search, as suggested

by (Edstr

om, 2008), for advantages and possible lines

of action for future improvements.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Sec-

tion 2 presents background. Section 3 presents our

proposed methodology. Section 4 presents the results

of the methodology application and evaluation. Sec-

tion 5 presents a discussion of the ﬁndings. Finally,

Section 6 presents conclusions and future work.

Castellanos-Ardila, J. P.

Experience Using Systematic Mapping Studies to Foster Knowledge Discovery in Emerging Technology Fields.

DOI: 10.5220/0013287800003932

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2025) - Volume 2, pages 721-728

ISBN: 978-989-758-746-7; ISSN: 2184-5026

721

2 BACKGROUND

This section introduces the essential background in-

formation used in the rest of the paper.

2.1 Active Learning

Active learning (Bonwell and Eison, 1991) is an ap-

proach that involves students in high-order thinking

tasks, i.e., analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, fa-

cilitating their participation in the learning process.

This approach focuses on developing students’ skills

rather than transmitting information by encouraging

them to engage with the course material (Brame,

2016). It aims to promote deeper understanding, crit-

ical thinking, and retention of information by mov-

ing away from traditional lecture-based instruction

and toward student-centered methods. As recalled

in (Carr et al., 2015), active learning is associated

with experiential learning (e.g., project work and role-

playing), activities involving technology (e.g., simu-

lators and games), interpersonal interaction between

students (e.g., peer review, discussions) and student

control, autonomy, and self-regulation. The use of ac-

tive learning is reported to signiﬁcantly improve exam

performance in STEM education, i.e., an approach

that combines science, technology, engineering, and

math (Freeman et al., 2014).

2.2 Systematic Mapping Studies

A systematic mapping study (SMS) (Petersen et al.,

2008) is a particular type of literature review that fo-

cuses on categorizing the results published in a re-

search ﬁeld. In particular, an SMS approach provides

a well-deﬁned and accepted process, which, once ap-

plied, provides a visual summary of the existing lit-

erature in a ﬁeld. Such a summary permits the iden-

tiﬁcation of research trends, gaps, and opportunities,

making them valuable in educational contexts. Ac-

cording to (Kitchenham et al., 2010), mapping stud-

ies can teach students how to search the literature and

organize the results of such search methodologically.

It also provides students with transferable skills, i.e.,

qualities that can be used in different jobs and career

paths. One of those skills is critical thinking, which

is the ability to synthesize, analyze, and objectively

evaluate information to produce an original insight or

judgment. Students also consider that the results of an

SMS are valuable means of initiating research activi-

ties (Kitchenham et al., 2010). In particular, students

in the ﬁnal stages of their education ﬁnd the results

of an SMS a helpful asset that permits them to ﬁnd

research ideas for their bachelor’s or master’s thesis.

2.3 Course DVA 500

DVA 500 - Industrial Systems in Cloud Computing

is a 7.5-credit course at M

alardalen University that in-

troduces students to principles for cloud computing

technologies applied to industrial challenges. This

is a second-cycle course in the area of computer sci-

ence, which does not require preliminary knowledge

of cloud computing. One of the goals of the course

is that students will be able to elicit, summarize, re-

port, and present relevant information (relate to cloud

computing). To fulﬁll this goal, an intended learning

outcome (ILO) has been considered (see Table 1).

Table 1: Intended Learning Outcome (ILO).

The students will select topics within the cloud

computing areas and analyze them using formal

review method and present their analysis results.

2.4 Course Evaluation

Course evaluations are considered a tool for course

analysis and course improvement (Edstr

om, 2008).

One of the elements to be evaluated is the stu-

dent’s views of the course, which shall be appro-

priately documented by using, e.g., personal opin-

ion surveys (Handbook, nd). This kind of survey is

a comprehensive research method for collecting in-

formation using a questionnaire completed by sub-

jects (Kitchenham and Pﬂeeger, 2008). When creat-

ing a survey, the ﬁrst step is to deﬁne the expected

outcomes. Then, the survey should be designed in

a speciﬁed way, e.g., cross-sectional (participants are

asked for information at one ﬁxed point in time). It is

also essential to deﬁne options related to how the sur-

vey would be administered. Once designed, the sur-

vey instrument should be developed, evaluated, and

applied to a sample population from which the ob-

tained data is analyzed.

In creating surveys, Likert Scales (Bertram, 2006)

are widely used. Likert Scales are psychometric re-

sponse scales, e.g., a ﬁve-point scale ranging from

“Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree,” used to ask

respondents to indicate their level of agreement with

a given statement. On a Likert scale, each speciﬁc

question can have its response analyzed separately or

summed with other related items to create a score

for a group of statements. Individual responses are

generally treated as ordinal data because although the

response levels are relative, we cannot presume that

participants perceive the difference between adjacent

levels as equal.

See http://bit.ly/3UO6vbB

CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

722

3 METHODOLOGY

Technology’s fast-paced nature demands that practi-

tioners continuously learn new knowledge and adapt

it to societal demands throughout their careers. Thus,

they need to address their knowledge gap as soon as

required by building a self-directed learning approach

during their education. In particular, active learning

approaches (see Section 2.1) engage students in their

learning process through tasks that require them to

analyze, synthesize, and apply knowledge. The SMS

approach (see Section 2.2) can support active learning

since it encourages students to actively understand a

ﬁeld’s research landscape, develop critical thinking,

and reﬁne information synthesis skills. It also en-

hances learners’ engagement with large volumes of

evolving research. Figure 1 presents our proposed

research-based learning methodology. As the ﬁgure

depicts, there are two main processes in the method-

ology, i.e., the active learning process (at the top) and

the supporting process (at the bottom). The latter pro-

cess is expected to disappear (or the role of the teacher

replace by peers) once the student becomes an inde-

pendent researcher by learning the basis of the former.

3.1 Active Learning Process

The active learning process is designed for the stu-

dent. In the ﬁrst activity, the student built founda-

tional knowledge, including a basic understanding

of cloud computing and the SMS methodology. In

the second activity, the students select a topic based

on group interest. At this stage, group discussion

fosters idea generation by bringing individuals with

different perspectives, backgrounds, and expertise. In

the third activity, the students perform a preliminary

study, a small-scale study conducted to test and re-

ﬁne the research questions. In the fourth activity, the

students conduct and report the mapping study by

considering the previous activities and also the feed-

back from the teacher. This is the project’s main ac-

tivity and, therefore, the longest. Students are free to

do it by themselves without supervision. However,

they can ask for support from the teachers if needed.

In the ﬁfth activity, the students prepare the oppo-

sition. This activity is common in research environ-

ments and permits students to read and analyze the

work of others. For this, the students receive the SMS

report from another group, read it, and prepare ques-

tions to be asked during the presentation day. Finally,

in the last activity, the students present the ﬁndings

and opposition. For this activity, the students prepare

a presentation in which they report the result of their

work and defend it from the opposite group.

3.2 Supporting Process

This process, which is done by the teacher, starts

with a task called provide foundational knowledge,

where the teacher introduces the course concepts and

the research methodology by selecting material and

providing lectures. Then, the teacher review the topic

selected by the students. The comments from this ac-

tivity can help the students scope their SMS to the

time given in the course. After that, the teacher re-

view the pilot study focusing on comment to develop

students’ research skills, i.e., research question design

and the selection process of the studies. Then, the

teacher review the SMS report, where the transpar-

ent application of the methodology, the comprehen-

siveness of the data extraction and classiﬁcation, and

the interpretation and relevance of the ﬁndings are the

main focus. The student can use the comments to im-

prove the SMS report, which can be reiteratively sub-

SupportingProcess

(Teachers)

ActiveLearning

Process(Students)

Built

foundational

knowledge

Selectatopic

basedon

groupinterest

Perform/report

apreliminary

study

Conductand

reportthe

mappingstudy

Prepare

opposition

TopicSelection PilotStudy

SMSReport QuestionsList

Provide

foundational

knowledge

Reviewtopic

selection

Reviewpilot

study

ReviewSMS

report

Review

presentation

andopposition

Lectures

Comments Comments

Presentthe

findingsand

opposition

Presentationand

Opposition

Comments Grades

Reading

Material

Supervision(Facetoface,onlineandviae‐mail)

GroupWork(Facetoface,onlineandviae‐mail)

GradingCriteria

Figure 1: Learning Methodology to Foster Knowledge Discovery in Emerging Technology Fields.

Experience Using Systematic Mapping Studies to Foster Knowledge Discovery in Emerging Technology Fields

723

mitted. Finally, the teacher review the presentation

and opposition during the presentation day. While

presentation skills are considered important, the cru-

cial aspect reviewed is the involvement of the students

in the project and their general learning experience.

3.3 Motivational Approach

Motivation in active learning refers to the internal and

external factors that stimulate students to participate,

engage, and take responsibility for their learning. It

encompasses the desire to learn, the enthusiasm for

participation in activities, and the commitment to the

learning process. Motivation can be categorized as in-

trinsic and extrinsic. The former is the drive to engage

in learning activities for their own sake (e.g., personal

satisfaction). The latter is the drive to engage in learn-

ing due to external rewards (e.g., earning participation

points). We promote internal motivation by giving

students control over the decision of the topic to in-

vestigate and the partners to work with. Extrinsic mo-

tivation is also promoted by dividing the project into

manageable deliverables that build upon each other

and accumulate points. Students can always earn the

total of points to form the ﬁnal grade by doing and

redoing project activities.

4 RESULTS

This section presents the results of the application of

our research-based learning methodology.

4.1 Participants

We apply the methodology (see Section 3) to a course

called Industrial Systems in Cloud Computing (see

Section 2.3) to fulﬁll the ILO described in Table 1.

The course started with 22 students, who formed

groups freely, i.e., six groups with three members and

two groups with two members. One 2-member group

left the course after the second activity, and one per-

son from the remaining 2-member group also left af-

ter the third activity. The remaining six groups ﬁn-

ished the SMS and evaluate the methodology. The

student working alone refuses to be part of another

group and it is still pending for grading at the moment

of writing this paper.

4.2 Project Material

Teachers introduce essential cloud computing con-

cepts through traditional and guest lectures. One

laboratory, where students practiced theoretical con-

cepts, was also executed. The reading material was

provided in the form of a book. Students also got in

touch with the SMS process during one lecture and

reading material. Evaluation criteria in the form of

rubrics were also provided and socialized. Rubrics are

structured frameworks used to evaluate work quality,

especially in educational settings. Our rubrics were

also created to provide students with guidelines, i.e.,

expected document parts, point-by-point (see, for ex-

ample, Table 2). Strict deadlines were also commu-

nicated to the students so they could plan the work

accordingly. Lectures, reading materials, evaluation

criteria, and deadlines were available in the learning

management system used in the course (i.e., Canvas).

Table 2: Evaluation Criteria for the Pilot Study.

Criteria Points

The report is written according to the IEEE template. 1

The introduction for performing the SMS contains:

1. A short introduction of the topic selected,

2. The motivation and goal for performing the SMS in the selected topic.

The three research questions that address the main interests are presented. Consider:

1. The focus areas of the topic selected,

2. The types of research and contributions of the topics selected,

3. Publication sources of the selected primary studies.

The search string is well-deﬁned. Well-deﬁned means:

1. The terms used are related to a set of keywords that cover the intended research.

2. The terms in the search string shall be correctly associated with logical connectors.

There are inclusion and exclusion criteria. Also, there is a list of selected databases (min. 2) 1

The process of selection of the studies is presented. In this section, you should include:

1. The initial number of studies obtained after the database search.

2. The number of studies selected after doing the title screening.

3. The number of studies selected after doing the abstract screening.

4. A short text explaining whether the number of studies selected match the investigation intended.

CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

724

4.3 Project Development

In this section, we report the project development in

terms of the students deliverables.

4.3.1 Topic Selection

The students selected interesting topics based on an

initial list of options provided by the teacher. As de-

picted in Figure 2, topics on the left side are related

to properties of cloud computing, while topics on the

right side focus on its relationship with other tech-

nologies. In general, the selected topics had a vast

scope and the students motivations superﬂuous due to

a lack of topic understanding. Some groups were very

enthusiastic, demonstrating learning interest.

Cloud

Computing

Energy savings

Sustainability

Security

Load

balancing

Finance

Video games

Healthcare

Artificial

intelligence

Figure 2: Selected Course Topics.

4.3.2 Pilot Study

Students reﬁned the scope of the SMS based on the

teacher’s feedback. Then, they performed the pilot

study based on the grading criteria presented in Ta-

ble 2. Four groups received minor comments dur-

ing this phase (including one group that asked ques-

tions via email), mostly related to grammar, spelling,

punctuation, or word choice. One group has more im-

portant problems to solve besides grammatical ones,

such as minor methodological errors, e.g., a bad def-

inition of one of the research questions (out of three

mandatory ones). The remaining two groups, includ-

ing the one with two students, performed their study

deﬁciently, presenting non-sense information that in-

cluded grammatical, methodological, and template

misalignments (even when an example of the report

template was given). We could observe that members

of these groups did not participate in the SMS lecture,

which could be the reason for their poor performance.

4.3.3 SMS Report

Six groups worked on the SMS report. During this pe-

riod, which lasted ﬁve weeks, only two groups asked

for and received support from the teacher through

face-to-face supervision. One of the groups asked

questions via email on several occasions. The six

groups submitted their work on time and received

comments. The exact number of groups submitted

their work again, with remarkable improvements.

4.3.4 Presentation and Opposition

Six groups presented their ﬁndings and opposed the

assigned groups. The quality of the presentation var-

ied from group to group. Many students were not used

to presenting in public. However, the students took

the opposition role very seriously, preparing relevant

questions. In most of the cases, the students in charge

of responding were also coherent with their work.

4.4 Students Evaluation

We evaluate the course by using a personal opinion

survey with Likert scales (see Section 2.4). We also

included one open question related to suggestions for

improving the course. The survey, which was done

at the end of the presentations day, had a average of

89% participation rate. We collected their opinions

through a web-based application called Mentimeter

Figures 3, 4 and 5 present a set of statements related to

the project material, project development, and project

goals, respectively, to which we ask students to rate

them from strongly disagree to strongly agree. In gen-

eral, the results show that students did not disagree

with any of those statements. For example, Figure 3

presents statements referring to the project material,

when the students provided their opinions between 3-

neutral to 5-strongly agree, as presented below.

• The statement: “The content of the lecture was

easy to understand” was evaluated in average 3,6.

• The statement: “The evaluation criteria for the

project assignments were clear” was evaluated in

average 3,6.

• The statement: “The recommended readings were

helpful” was evaluated in average in average 4,1.

Similar behavior can be seen in the responses for

the project development (see Figure 4). In particular:

• The statement: “The project instructions were

clear” was evaluated in average 3,4.

• The statement: “The due dates for project assign-

ments were clearly communicated”, the average

answer was 4,8.

• The statement: “Feedback was provided in a

timely fashion”, the average was 4,6.

Finally, in Figure 5, the statements refer to the

project goal, which students provided opinions in

similar rankings, as follows:

https://www.mentimeter.com/auth/logout

Experience Using Systematic Mapping Studies to Foster Knowledge Discovery in Emerging Technology Fields

725

Figure 3: Evaluation of the Project Material.

Figure 4: Evaluation of the Project Development.

Figure 5: Evaluation of the Project Goal.

• The statement: “The project goals align with my

general expectations about the course.” was eval-

uated in average 3,0.

• The statement: “The project goals were realistic

and achievable within the given timeline and re-

sources.”, the average answer was 4,2.

• The statement: “The project goals encouraged

creativity and innovation within the team”, the av-

erage was 3,5.

Students provided 16 comments (see Figure 6) in

response to an open question we proposed regarding

project improvements. In general, the comments were

positive with expression towards the teachers (e.g.,

they were great teachers) and towards the course (e.g.,

the course was helpful, useful, good, and beneﬁcial).

Some students were interested in more clear expla-

nations about some SMS terminology such as contri-

bution and research types, and the plots used to create

the map. Other clarify the need for more material (be-

yond the SMS guidelines (Petersen et al., 2008)). Two

students would like to have a more practical course in

general and less theoretical. One talk about the tem-

plate used as something limiting and one more about

her/his difﬁculties in presentation.

CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

726

Figure 6: Suggestions for future project instances.

5 DISCUSSION

The SMS approach naturally complements active

learning. First, it permits knowledge acquisition be-

yond the classroom (see the topics addressed in Fig-

ure 2). Second, it promotes analytical skills since

SMS tasks require students to evaluate the quality and

relevance of research papers. Third, it facilitates peer-

to-peer learning as students work collaboratively. Fi-

nally, it promotes individual reﬂections as students

need to be prepare for working with their peers. In

the following subsections, we present insights gath-

ered from the application of the methodology.

5.1 Students Participation

As presented in Section 4.1, 3 out of 22 students aban-

doned the project. We did not investigate the reasons

for this situation. To be sure, we can try to con-

tact students to understand the reasons for their de-

cision (which could be merely personal). However,

we may also need to provide a stronger initial motiva-

tion for the project to create a more robust link with

the course syllabus to match the course expectations

better. In addition, a project like the one considered

in this methodology (i.e., the SMS) may also be seen

by some students as overwhelming. Thus, it may also

be necessary to help the students scope their project

by providing them with literature in that respect. We

could also provide examples of course project studies

done in previous instances (we did not do this before

since the previous reports were based on slightly dif-

ferent criteria). For example, we can provide students

with two kinds of previous SMS projects, one with

high quality and the other with deﬁcient outcomes. In

that way, students can easily understand what is ex-

pected from their reports and what can be avoided.

5.2 Material Suitability and Project

Development

For some students, (see Figure 3), the provided mate-

rial still lacks appropriateness, However, for the ma-

jority, the project development strategy was good (see

Figure 4) We also consider that some actions can be

done in such respect. First, we could include a written

but brief text at the beginning of the project to guide

students in the steps of the SMS process. The evalua-

tion criteria shall be slightly revised to be less speciﬁc

and open room for creativity. Finally, we could im-

plement a ﬂipped classroom strategy where students

prepare the material in advance. Teachers, in turn, can

address misconceptions in real-time and work closely

with students who need additional help.

5.3 Project Goal and Deliverables

Students strongly agree with the timeline proposed for

the project (see Figure 5). However, they were neu-

tral regarding the statement “the project goals align

with my general expectations about the course.” This

may mean that some students expect different things

from this kind of courses. For example, 2 comments

(out of 14) in Figure 6) mention that students would

like a more practical approach. However, the course

Experience Using Systematic Mapping Studies to Foster Knowledge Discovery in Emerging Technology Fields

727

syllabus is very clear in its focus, i.e., “the students

will be trained to be able to apply critical thinking

to elicit relevant information, summarize, report, and

present information” (see Section 2.3). We may need

to clarify this focus at the beginning of the course to

mitigate some students’ personal goal misalignments

and negative feelings. However, generally speaking,

it was a reasonable success rate for the course project

since 6 groups out of eight (i.e., 75%) approved the

project in due time. Moreover, students’ comments

were generally favorable regarding the project. In ad-

dition, we experienced only a few interactions for the

deliverables, i.e., only two interactions were enough

for the students to improve the SMS report.

6 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE

WORK

This paper proposes a learning methodology to fos-

ter knowledge discovery in emergent ﬁelds using a

research-based approach. In particular, we promote

active learning with the use of Systematic Mapping

Studies (SMS), which bring students closer to in-

demand topics in emerging technologies. We ap-

plied our methodology to a cloud computing course

and evaluated it in terms of students’ work products

and their opinions. From this evaluation, we identify

strengths that make this methodology suitable, i.e., it

permits knowledge acquisition not just by reading but

by interacting with the research material and peers.

Possible lines of action for future improvements

were also identiﬁed. In particular, there is a need

for more activities that include work done by the stu-

dents in the classroom. We could include at least one

mandatory supervision where students need to con-

sider a set of relevant questions to be asked to the

teacher. Revision of current materials (specially the

evaluations criteria and project guidelines) is also re-

quired. Finally, a more formal evaluation that com-

prises multiple course instances will also be applied.

REFERENCES

Anglano, C., Canonico, M., and Guazzone, M. (2020).

Teaching Cloud Computing: Motivations, Challenges

and Tools. In International Parallel and Distributed

Processing Symposium, pages 300–306. IEEE.

Bertram, D. (2006). Likert Scales Are the Meaning of Life.

CPSC 681-Topic Report.

Bonwell, C. C. and Eison, J. A. (1991). Active Learning:

Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHE-ERIC.

Brame, C. (2016). Active Learning. Vanderbilt University

Center for Teaching.

Carr, R., Palmer, S., and Hagel, P. (2015). Active Learn-

ing: The Importance of Developing a Comprehen-

sive Measure. Active Learning in Higher Education,

16(3):173–186.

Dyba, T., Kitchenham, B. A., and Jorgensen, M. (2005).

Evidence-based Software Engineering for ractition-

ers. IEEE Software, 22(1):58–65.

Edstr

om, K. (2008). Doing Course Evaluation as if Learn-

ing Matters Most. Higher Education Research & De-

velopment, 27(2):95–106.

Elmgren, M. and Henriksson, A.-S. (2021). Academic

Teaching. Studentlitteratur AB, Lund.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K.,

Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., and Wenderoth, M. P. (2014).

Active Learning Increases Student Performance in

Science, Engineering, and Mathematics. Proceedings

of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23):8410–

8415.

Handbook, K. (nd). Policy for Course Analysis. Vol. 2, Tab

14.1.

Jorgensen, M., Dyba, T., and Kitchenham, B. (2005).

Teaching Evidence-based Software Engineering to

University Students. In 11th International Software

Metrics Symposium, pages 8–pp. IEEE.

Kitchenham, B., Brereton, P., and Budgen, D. (2010). The

Educational Value of Mapping Studies of Software

Engineering Literature. In 32nd ACM/IEEE Interna-

tional Conference on Software Engineering-Volume 1,

pages 589–598.

Kitchenham, B. and Pﬂeeger, S. (2008). Personal Opin-

ion Surveys. In Guide to Advanced Empirical Soft-

ware Engineering, chapter 3, pages 63–92. Springer

Science & Business Media.

Nakayama, M., Fueki, M., Seki, S., Uehara, T., and Mat-

sumoto, K. (2012). Team Learning Program for In-

formation Technology Engineers Using Project-based

Learning. In International Conference on Computer

Supported Education, pages 105–111.

Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., and Mattsson, M.

(2008). Systematic Mapping Studies in Software En-

gineering. In International Conference on Evaluation

and Assessment in Software Engineering. BCS Learn-

ing & Development.

Rotolo, D., Hicks, D., and Martin, B. R. (2015). What

is an Emerging Technology? Research Policy,

44(10):1827–1843.

Siddiqui, S., Maher, M. L., Najjar, N., Mohseni, M., and

Grace, K. (2022). Personalized Curiosity Engine

(Pique): A Curiosity Inspiring Cognitive System for

Student Directed Learning. In International Confer-

ence on Computer Supported Education, pages 17–28.

van der Lubbe, L. M., van Borkulo, S. P., Boon, P. B.,

van Velthoven, W., and Jeuring, J. (2023). Bridging

the Computer Science Teacher Shortage with a Digi-

tal Learning Platform. In International Conference on

Computer Supported Education, pages 289–296.

Woelmer, W. M., Bradley, L., Haber, L. T., Klinges, D. H.,

Lewis, A. S., Mohr, E. J., Torrens, C. L., Wheeler,

K. I., and Willson, A. M. (2021). Ten Simple Rules for

Training Yourself in an Emerging Field. PLoS Com-

putational Biology, 17(10):e1009440.

CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

728