The week's pick
Reseach Article
GSOFT: A Generic Model for Teaching and Learning Large-scale Software Programs
| International Journal of Computer Applications |
| Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA |
| Volume 92 - Number 1 |
| Year of Publication: 2014 |
| Authors: Radhakrishnan P, Kanmani S |
10.5120/15976-4869
|
Radhakrishnan P, Kanmani S . GSOFT: A Generic Model for Teaching and Learning Large-scale Software Programs. International Journal of Computer Applications. 92, 1 ( April 2014), 38-43. DOI=10.5120/15976-4869
Abstract
Learning software engineering in practical laboratory based on present curriculum is under the clutches of hard practices and not well defined. The effort and time taken for planning, designing and coding, have a few issues in student's learning aspect. Same is the case for evaluating the student's program. With the effect, both the teacher and students have leaned towards lightweight learning method using Extreme Programming (XP). Pair Programming, which is one among the twelve practices of XP has been widely used by the pedagogical community. However, this practice is found suitable for introductory level small-scale programs. Also, the researchers incorporating pair programming, have not given much importance for program assignments and program correction. To address these problems, we have developed a Generic software teaching and learning model called GSOFT with few software development practices, and pair programming. COSMIC FFP (Common Software Measurement Integration Consortium Full Function Point) standard was used for program assignments and program evaluation. This method was applied on real time project assigned to student as large scale programs and examined. For this study, the students were grouped into pair programmers (PP) and solo programmers (SP). The performance of the PP and SP groups were measured using our generic model and found the person-days taken to complete the program. The results show that PP used less person-day than the SP. This study also proves that the program developed by PP has better coding.
References
- Ally M. , Darroch F. , and Toleman M. ,2005. Framework for Understanding the Factors Influencing Pair Programming Success. Proc. 6th Int'l Conf. Extreme Programming and Agile Process in Software Engineering, Sheffield, UK, pp. 82-91.
- Beck K. , and Andres C. 2003. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change, 2nd Ed. Addison Wesley Professional.
- Braught G. , Wahls T. , and Marlin Eby. L. 2011. The Case for Pair Programming in the Computer Science Classroom. ACM Transaction on Computing Education, Vol. 1, Issue 11, pp. 2- 21.
- Cockburn A. , and Williams L. 2001. The costs and benefits of pair programming, in Extreme programming examined. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. , Inc. pp. 223-243.
- COSMIC – Common Software Measurement International Consortium 2007. The COSMIC Functional Size Measurement Method – version 3. 0 Measurement Manual (The COSMIC Implementation Guide for ISO/IEC 19761:2003).
- Desharnais J. M. 2011. Using the COSMIC Method to Evaluate the Quality of the Documentation of Agile User Stories. Joint Conference of the 21st International Workshop on Software Measurement, pp. 269-272.
- Frent M. 2005. Correctness: A Very Important Quality Factor in Programming," STUDIA UNIV. BABES, BOLYAI, INFORMATICA, Vol. L, No. 1, pp. 11-20.
- Hannay J E. , Tore D. , Erik A. , and Sjøberg D. I. k. 2009. The Effectiveness of Pair Programming : A Meta-Analysis. Science Direct, Vol. 51, Issue 7, pp. 1110-1122.
- Jeffrey C C. , Lisa H. , He L. , Julia H. , and Donna R. 2007. Increased Retention of Early Computer Science and Software Engineering Students using PP. 20th Conference on Software Engineering Education & Training (CSEET'07) Dublin, Ireland, pp. 115 – 122.
- Kanmani S. , and Radhakrishnan P. 2010. A Hybrid Approach to Assess the Students Program Automatically," Journal of the Indian Institute of Engineers India, pp. 3-9.
- Miranda E. 2009. Sizing User Stories Using Paired Comparisons. Information and Software Technology (IST) Journal, vol. 51, issue 9, pp. 1327-1337.
- Panagiotis S. , Ioannis S. , Lefteris A. , and Ignatios D. 2009. An experimental investigation of the personality types impact on pair effectiveness in pair programming. Empirical Software Engineering. pp. 187–226.
- Radermacher A. , Walia G. , and Rummelt R. 2012. Assigning student programming pairs based on their mental model consistency: an initial investigation. SIGCSE'12, ACM. pp. 325-330.
- Ramli N. , and Fauzi S. S. M. 2008. The Effects of PP in Programming Language Support. International Symposium on Information Technology, Vol. 1, pp. 1-4.
- Salleh N. , Mendes E. , Grundy J, and Giles J B. 2010. An Empirical Study of the Effects of Conscientiousness in Pair Programming Using the Five-Factor Personality Model. ICSE'10, Cape Town, South Africa. ACM, pp. 577-585.
- Tanja B T. , Lepper A. , and Schedding D. 2008. Pair Programming in software development teams- An empirical study of its benefits" Information and Software Technology, Elsevier, pp. 231-240.
- Walle T. , and Hannay J E. 2009. Personality and Nature of Collaborations in Pair Programming. Third International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Management, IEEE. pp. 203-213.
- Williams L. A. , and Kessler R. 2000. The Effects of "Pair Pressure" and "Pair Learning" on Software Engineering Education. Proceeding CSEET '00 Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Software Engineering Education & Training. IEEE Computer Society Washington, pp. 59-65.
- www. extremeprogrammig. org.
- www. cosmicoa. com
Index Terms
Keywords