MOTIVATING AND ORIENTING NOVICE

STUDENTS TO VALUE INTRODUCTORY

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

Daniel Port, Chris Rachal, Jia Liu

University of Hawaii x 2, USA; Nanjing University, China
 Our Novice Students Were Poorly Oriented and
Motivated to Study SWE
“I’ve been “The instructor was enthusiastic about content
successful without but sometimes the content wasn’t interesting to
all this.” me and other students”

“Why do we need to do so
much documentation?”
“All this process stuff
just gets in the way of
programming ”

have
re all y
sid es
“I did not not learn b e
find any o “D i d
material t
o be inter f the new
ti on to grade”
esting. I t va d
UML was
not useful hought moti et a goo
at all.” g
 Palpable Consequences… Seriously?!
?
I learned a lot in this course
The instructor stimulated me
to think about the subject
matter

US

After course survey:

# type / total responses

• poor class performance

• Negative perception of course from students
• negative perception from employers of student preparation for jobs
• students not pursuing or poor success with software engineering careers
 But We Know Software Engineering is Important For
Our Students!

… I thought I would spend most of my

time programing, but it’s all about
requirements, documentation, and
project management just like you said. I
wish I paid more attention in ITM353.”
We Tried …
 We knew there was a problem, but were not sure
exactly what is was.
 We tried the usual prescriptions:
 Real-client projects
 Adopting agile methods
 New textbooks purporting modern, innovative learning
approaches
 Infusing software engineering concepts into pre-requisite
courses (Introductory Programming)
 Active Learning / engagement / in-class activities
 Some Improvement!
• New textbook
• Real-projects
• Infusion

The instructor stimulated me to I learned a lot in this course

think about the subject matter 4.55
Infusion into
4.6 4.5 ITM352
Infusion into
ITM352
4.4 4.45

4.4
4.2
4.35
4 4.3
campus
college campus
3.8 4.25
your dept college
your class 4.2
your dept
3.6
4.15 your class
3.4 4.1
spring 2005 spring 2006 Fall 2007 spring 2008 spring 2005 spring 2006 Fall 2007 spring 2008
But … Also quality of
work did not
improve
substantially
 With real-projects students did tend to appreciate SWE but
only after “being burned” or “after the fact”
 Not always a positive experience  frustration,
discouragement, resentment
 Poor application of material 1st time around, retention
 A survey after the course was over found students had:
 little understanding of the relevance and utility of the course
material
 low motivation and interest in the course
 lack of confidence and enthusiasm in pursuing software
engineering jobs after graduation
Lack of Motivation and Orientation

 Primary problem is that novice students tend to lack motivation

and are poorly prepared (oriented) to appreciate the study and
practice of software engineering.

 From the start of the course need to foster:

 Intrinsic motivation (self-fulfillment, enjoyment, satisfaction)
 Extrinsic motivation (perceptions of current and future success)

 BIG FAT CLUE:

 The more experienced the student, the more motivated and oriented
they tended to be from from from the start

DUH?!?But Why?
 Educational Psychologists Say …
 Students should be given an opportunity to explore for themselves the
how the course material can help achieve future goals. This is the future
time perspective (FTP)
 Students should acquire an understanding of the instrumental value of

present behavior (IVPB) for future goals.

 Barbra Grosses book “Tools for Teaching” suggests:

 Give frequent, early, positive feedback that supports students' beliefs

that they can do well. (FPF)

 Ensure opportunities for students' success by assigning tasks that are

neither too easy nor too difficult. (EZ)

 Help students find personal meaning and value in the material. (PMV)
 Create an atmosphere that is open and positive. (OPA)
 Help students feel that they are valued members of a learning
community. (LC)
Four Engagements
 Developed four “early awareness engagements”
specifically to implement suggestions
 Done before topics that have been difficult to motivate
(e.g. SDLC, project roles)
 Practical, quickly and easily implemented within any
kind of course, high-impact, low-effort
Engagement 1: Interview a Professional

ASSIGNMENT 1
Your task is to interview an “MIS professional” about SAD (Systems
Analysis and Design) topics. The main question to answer is:

“What should a successful MIS person know about SAD?”

 
1) You will work with up to two partners, as assigned. Your team will
choose an MIS professional to interview, or you may request to interview an
MIS professional you know personally.
You will contact the MIS professional assigned to your team as soon as
possible and set up an interview time. You may interview by phone, but in
person interview is recommended if possible.

http://itm-vm.shidler.hawaii.edu/itm353/asst1.html
Sign-up Example
 Example Results
Topic MIS Pro Your MIS Pro Your MIS Pro Your MIS Pro Your MIS Pro Your MIS Pro Your
Priority Interest Priority Interest Priority Interest Priority Interest Priority Interest Priority Interest

Chris,Lauren Henry, Matt Chris, Erick Perry, Vaughn Adam, Chad Yexi, Mike MIS Pro std Yours
4.       Systems Analysis 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2  2  2 1 1 1.20 0.45 1.20
3.       Project Management 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1  1  1 3 2 1.43 0.79 1.40
11.   Systems Design 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 2  2  1 1 2 1.43 0.79 1.40
5.       Fact-Finding Techniques for Requirements Discovery 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 3  2  3 2 1 1.43 0.49 1.80
1.       Information System Building Blocks 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 3  2  3 2 2 1.57 0.79 2.20
6.       Modeling System Requirements with Use Cases 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 3  1  1 2 3 1.57 0.79 2.40
16.   User Interface Design 2 3 2 1 2 2 3 2  1  1 1 2 1.71 0.76 2.00
9.       Object-Oriented Analysis and Modeling Using the UML 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 3  2  3 1 1 1.71 0.76 2.00
19.   Systems Operations and Support 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 3  1  1 3 2 1.71 0.79 2.00
8.       Process Modeling 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 3  2  2 3 2 1.71 0.82 2.00
12.   Application Architecture and Modeling 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 3  1  2 2 3 1.71 0.76 2.20
15.   Input Design and Prototyping 1 3 2 1 2 2 3 2  2  2 3 2 1.86 0.69 2.00
2.       Information Systems Development 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 2  2  3 1 2 1.86 0.69 2.00
13.   Database Design 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 2  2  2 3 2 1.86 0.90 2.00
10.   Feasibility Analysis and the System Proposal 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3  2  2 3 2 2.00 0.82 1.80
18.   Systems Construction and Implementation 2 3 1 1 2 2 3 3  2  2 2 1 2.00 0.76 2.00
7.       Data Modeling and Analysis 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 2  2  2 3 3 2.00 0.82 2.00
17.   Object-Oriented Design and Modeling Using the UML 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 3  2  3 1 1 2.00 0.76 2.20
14.   Output Design and Prototyping 2 3 2 1 2 2 3 2  2  1 2 3 2.14 0.38 2.20
Other
 Should we have some programming exercises throughout the course so
you can keep up your hard-won programming skills? In the past I have
received post-course feedback expressing frustration that there was no
programming for nearly the entire semester and some students "forgot"
how to program. Then at the end of the course, their team project required
them to do some programming and they had to re-learn PHP.

 Yes: No: Other ideas: IT Application Security

 Should the class have a real-client team project? In the past this has been
very useful for putting a lot of the abstract material and concepts into
actual practice.
 Yes: No: Other ideas:
Other
 Guest speakers on special topics - how many? what topics? who?

 Yes: No: Other ideas:

 We have access to a number of industry popular tools such as MSProject

and Visio. They are complicated and take time to learn. Should we have
some training in their use or just make them available?
 Yes: No: Other ideas:

 Student teaching. I have found that when you have to prepare a class, you
learn a lot and appreciate the material more. Should we have teams of
students prepare and present course topics (with my help of course)?
 Yes: No: Other ideas:
 ITM353 Fall 2008
1.       Information System Building Blocks
 Topics 2.       Information Systems Development
3.       Project Management
■ = light/no focus
4.       Systems Analysis
■ = heavy focus 5.       Fact-Finding Techniques for Requirements Discovery
6.       Modeling System Requirements with Use Cases
7.       Data Modeling and Analysis
 X guest speakers (ITS, HA, ???, ???)
8.       Process Modeling
 Student team teaching (max 3
9.       Object-Oriented Analysis and Modeling Using the UML
people)
10.   Feasibility Analysis and the System Proposal
 Class long team project (optional
real-client) 11.   Systems Design
12.   Application Architecture and Modeling
 Small programming 13.   Database Design
assignments related 14.   Output Design and Prototyping

to topics 15.   Input Design and Prototyping

16.   User Interface Design
17.   Object-Oriented Design and Modeling Using the UML
18.   Systems Construction and Implementation
19.   Systems Operations and Support
Engagement 2: Subject Matter and Real-World
Job Skills
 (back to the) Future Value
 Exercise is linked to a discussion of project planning and roles and
planning for their semester-long projects.
 In these projects the students had to adopt various project roles (project
leader, infrastructure analyst, business analyst, etc.) and this exercise
 convinced them that such positions really did exist in the world, and
 helped them understand the kinds of skills that they would need to undertake
such a position.
 In 10 minutes the students would collectively gather dozens of job
descriptions, which were later viewed using this same PHP script.
 As a group we would then review the collected job descriptions to
reinforce the kinds of duties, skills, and knowledge that employers
associating with each position.
 Students are excited to see the list of potential jobs they might be
eligible for in the future pile onto the screen during class!
 Engagement 3: Live Throughs
 Any student that can
provide a feasible and
convincing
recommendation for
implementing the system
within the next 30
minutes (recall that they
were expected to review
the case study long
before class) will
immediately be awarded
REA
an A+ and is excused
from any further work in
L
the course.
The Questions Not Asked …

• Have not given automatic A+ yet

• Leads to very productive discussions and
insights into SWE
Productive Discussions!
Engagement 4: Making A Sandwich and the SDLC
 #9 the instructor stimulated me to think about the subject #7 I learned a lot in this course
matter 4.6
Infusion into Early Awareness
ITM352
4.9 4.4
Early Awareness
4.7 4.2
Infusion into
4.5 ITM352
4
campus
4.3 college
3.8 your dept
4.1 your class
campus 3.6
3.9 college
your dept
3.7 Oh, by the way, I now enjoy teaching
your class 3.4 this class.
spring spring Fall 2007 spring Fall 2008 spring
3.5 2005 2006 2008 2009
spring spring Fall 2007
Thank you for2009listening and I’m happy to share the
spring Fall 2008 spring

So?
2005 2006 2008
details of the four engagements. % Class Days At-
#14 The Instructor Sets High Standards
4.9
tended
campus Early Awareness 100%
4.8 college 95%
90%
your dept
4.7 85%
your class 80%
75%
4.6
Infusion into WoW! 70%
ITM352 65%
4.5
spring spring Fall spring Fall spring
2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009
4.4

4.3

4.2

4.1
spring spring Fall 2007 spring Fall 2008 spring
2005 2006 2008 2009