@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{ReuterStarkSedelmaieretal., author = {Reuter, Rebecca and Stark, Theresa and Sedelmaier, Yvonne and Landes, Dieter and Mottok, J{\"u}rgen and Wolff, Christian}, title = {Insights in Students' Problems during UML Modeling}, series = {2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON): Proceedings}, booktitle = {2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON): Proceedings}, doi = {10.1109/EDUCON45650.2020.9125110}, pages = {592 -- 600}, abstract = {UML (Unified Modeling Language) is the current de facto as well as de jure standard (ISO/IEC 19505:2012) notation to visualize models in software development. UML provides essential guidelines and rules to visualize and understand complex software systems. This is the reason why it has become part of curricula for software engineering courses at many universities worldwide. It is well known, however, that UML is hard to grasp for novices, mainly due to its complexity. In order to tackle the problem of teaching UML to novice students appropriately, it is inevitable to understand their needs and problems much better than we do now. This paper presents empirical insights into students' problems when developing common UML diagrams. Identified problems are generalized, giving rise to a problem catalogue that is derived from our empirical findings, thus establishing a basis for addressing these problems through focused learning arrangements.}, language = {en} } @inproceedings{HauserSchreistetterReuteretal., author = {Hauser, Florian and Schreistetter, Stefan and Reuter, Rebecca and Mottok, J{\"u}rgen and Gruber, Hans and Holmqvist, Kenneth and Schorr, Nick}, title = {Code reviews in C++: Preliminary results from an eye tracking study}, series = {ETRA '20 Short Papers: ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and ApplicationsJune 2020}, booktitle = {ETRA '20 Short Papers: ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and ApplicationsJune 2020}, isbn = {ISBN 9781450371346}, doi = {10.1145/3379156.3391980}, pages = {1 -- 5}, abstract = {Code reviews are an essential part of quality assurance in modern software projects. But despite their great importance, they are still carried out in a way that relies on human skills and decisions. During the last decade, there have been several publications on code reviews using eye tracking as a method, but only a few studies have focused on the performance differences between experts and novices. To get a deeper understanding of these differences, the following experiment was developed: This study surveys expertise-related differences in experts', advanced programmers', and novices' eye movements during the review of eight short C++ code examples, including correct and erroneous codes. A sample of 35 participants (21 novices, 14 advanced and expert programmers) were recruited. A Tobii Spectrum 600 was used for the data collection. Measures included participants' eye movements during the code review, demographic background data, and cued retrospective verbal comments on replays of their own eye movement recordings. Preliminary results give proof for experience-related differences between participants. Advanced and expert programmers performed significantly better in case of error detection and the eye tracking data implies a more efficient reviewing strategy.}, language = {en} } @inproceedings{HauserStarkMottoketal., author = {Hauser, Florian and Stark, Theresa and Mottok, J{\"u}rgen and Gruber, Hans and Reuter, Rebecca}, title = {Deliberate Practice in Programming: How is it carried out by programmers?}, series = {ECSEE '20: Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Software Engineering Education, Seeon, Germany, June 2020}, booktitle = {ECSEE '20: Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Software Engineering Education, Seeon, Germany, June 2020}, isbn = {ISBN 9781450377522}, doi = {10.1145/3396802.3396815}, pages = {42 -- 46}, abstract = {This work in progress study examines through which activities programmers perform deliberate practice to improve their own skills in coding and programming. For this reason, a qualitative questionnaire was developed and conducted with a sample of 22 participants. The results indicate that programmers perform formal and informal forms of training and learning. Typically, a classical programming training in the context of a university course or for work-related reasons is a first step in the acquisition of expertise. Building on these basic skills, non-formal and informal learning activities are carried out by the learners. Especially the social interaction and the collaborative work with other programmers is of great importance in this context. The activities mentioned by the test persons fulfil the characteristics of deliberate practice and will be examined more closely in a further study.}, language = {en} }