TY - CHAP A1 - Klopp, Marco A1 - Gold-Veerkamp, Carolin A1 - Abke, Jörg A1 - Borgeest, Kai A1 - Reuter, Rebecca A1 - Jahn, Sabrina A1 - Mottok, Jürgen A1 - Sedelmaier, Yvonne A1 - Lehmann, Alexander A1 - Landes, Dieter T1 - Totally Different and yet so Alike: Three Concepts to Use Scrum in Higher Education T2 - Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Software Engineering Education (ECSEE '20): June 2020, Seeon/Bavaria, Germany N2 - 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. Y1 - 2020 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1145/3396802.3396817 SP - 12 EP - 21 ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Jahn, Sabrina A1 - Gold-Veerkamp, Carolin A1 - Reuter, Rebecca A1 - Mottok, Jürgen A1 - Abke, Jörg T1 - Secure Software Engineering in academic education: students’ sreconceptions of it security T2 - 12th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (ICERI2019), 11-13 November 2019, Seville, Spain Y1 - 2019 U6 - https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2019.1624 SP - 6825 EP - 6834 ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Abke, Jörg A1 - Brune, Philipp A1 - Haupt, Wolfram A1 - Hagel, Georg A1 - Landes, Dieter A1 - Mottok, Jürgen A1 - Niemetz, Michael A1 - Pfeiffer, Volkhard A1 - Studt, Reimer A1 - Schroll-Decker, Irmgard A1 - Sedelmaier, Yvonne T1 - Evelin – ein Forschungsprojekt zur systematischen Verbesserung des Lernens von Software Engineering T2 - Tagungsband 5th Embedded Software Engineering Kongress, 3. bis 7. Dezember 2012, Sindelfingen Y1 - 2012 SN - 978-3-8343-2407-8 SP - 653 EP - 658 ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Reuter, Rebecca A1 - Hauser, Florian A1 - Gold-Veerkamp, Carolin A1 - Mottok, Jürgen A1 - Abke, Jörg T1 - Towards a Definition and Identification of Learning Obstacles in Higher Software Engineering Education T2 - EDULEARN17 Proceedings, 9th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, 3-5 July, 2017, Barcelona, Spain KW - Hochschuldidaktik KW - Software Engineering Y1 - 2017 SN - 978-84-697-3777-4 U6 - https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2017.0943 SN - 2340-1117 SP - 10259 EP - 10267 ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Reuter, Rebecca A1 - Hauser, Florian A1 - Gold-Veerkamp, Carolin A1 - Stark, Theresa A1 - Kis, Juliane A1 - Mottok, Jürgen A1 - Abke, Jörg A1 - Meyer, Dany T1 - Towards the construction of a questionnaire for the identification of learning obstacles T2 - 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON 2018), 17-20 April, 2018, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain N2 - 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. Y1 - 2018 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363266 SP - 457 EP - 466 ER -