@inproceedings{KloppGoldVeerkampAbkeetal., author = {Klopp, Marco and Gold-Veerkamp, Carolin and Abke, J{\"o}rg and Borgeest, Kai and Reuter, Rebecca and Jahn, Sabrina and Mottok, J{\"u}rgen and Sedelmaier, Yvonne and Lehmann, Alexander and Landes, Dieter}, title = {Totally Different and yet so Alike: Three Concepts to Use Scrum in Higher Education}, series = {Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Software Engineering Education (ECSEE '20): June 2020, Seeon/Bavaria, Germany}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Software Engineering Education (ECSEE '20): June 2020, Seeon/Bavaria, Germany}, doi = {10.1145/3396802.3396817}, pages = {12 -- 21}, abstract = {Software process models are important in software projects in order to give the work of a project guidelines or a framework. However, teaching process models in higher education seems to be quite challenging. This has to do with the fact that undergraduates have no experience with projects in which process models are used. The theoretical mediation of process models is initially on a very abstract level. For this reason, we chose to combine two didactic approaches, namely problem-based learning and project work. Various traditional plan-driven process models have been expanded in courses in Software Engineering with agile process models. The Scrum Framework is the focus of consideration of this paper. Three Universities of Applied Sciences which cooperate in the EVELIN project focused on Scrum as a process model and integrated it into their teaching. Since the respective concepts of implementation differ, they should be presented and compared in this article to presents some practice approaches. The goal of this presentation of is a uniform evaluation in order to obtain insights from different perspectives. This comparison can draw conclusions for possible necessary improvements of the respective concepts.}, language = {en} } @inproceedings{JahnGoldVeerkampReuteretal., author = {Jahn, Sabrina and Gold-Veerkamp, Carolin and Reuter, Rebecca and Mottok, J{\"u}rgen and Abke, J{\"o}rg}, title = {Secure Software Engineering in academic education: students' sreconceptions of it security}, series = {12th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (ICERI2019), 11-13 November 2019, Seville, Spain}, booktitle = {12th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (ICERI2019), 11-13 November 2019, Seville, Spain}, doi = {10.21125/iceri.2019.1624}, pages = {6825 -- 6834}, language = {en} } @inproceedings{ReuterHauserGoldVeerkampetal., author = {Reuter, Rebecca and Hauser, Florian and Gold-Veerkamp, Carolin and Mottok, J{\"u}rgen and Abke, J{\"o}rg}, title = {Towards a Definition and Identification of Learning Obstacles in Higher Software Engineering Education}, series = {EDULEARN17 Proceedings, 9th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, 3-5 July, 2017, Barcelona, Spain}, booktitle = {EDULEARN17 Proceedings, 9th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, 3-5 July, 2017, Barcelona, Spain}, isbn = {978-84-697-3777-4}, issn = {2340-1117}, doi = {10.21125/edulearn.2017.0943}, pages = {10259 -- 10267}, subject = {Hochschuldidaktik}, language = {en} } @inproceedings{ReuterHauserGoldVeerkampetal., author = {Reuter, Rebecca and Hauser, Florian and Gold-Veerkamp, Carolin and Stark, Theresa and Kis, Juliane and Mottok, J{\"u}rgen and Abke, J{\"o}rg and Meyer, Dany}, title = {Towards the construction of a questionnaire for the identification of learning obstacles}, series = {2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON 2018), 17-20 April, 2018, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain}, booktitle = {2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON 2018), 17-20 April, 2018, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain}, doi = {10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363266}, pages = {457 -- 466}, abstract = {This paper deals with the identification of learning ob-stacles using the questionnaire method. Therefore, two iterations were proceeded: The first one was part of a survey that was carried out at four lo-cations at universities of applied sciences. We asked students about obstructive facts in general providing items for five learning ob-stacle dimensions that were set up before; emotional/motivational, epistemological/cognitive, didactical, resource-related and meta-cognitive learning obstacle dimensions. After the general part, we asked them to answer the same question, but in relation to the - in their opinion - most difficult learning content. With this question, we aim to get indications regarding to epistemological obstacles. In a second step, we used the "Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire", which was developed by Pintrich [1] as a basis to develop a questionnaire that extracts learning obstacles. In its original version, the "Motivated Strategies for Learning Question-naire" was intended to measure students' learning strategies, but, as the obstacle dimensions were partly derived from learning strategy classification, we chose this already validated question-naire [2]. Within this iteration, we could confirm a five-factor structure of the questionnaire that could be mapped to the five be-fore set learning obstacle dimensions.}, language = {en} }