short-paper

Peer instruction in online software testing and continuous integration: a replication study

Authors:

Bhuvaneswari Gopal,

Stephen CooperAuthors Info & Claims

ICSE-SEET '22: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training

Pages 199 - 204

https://doi.org/10.1145/3510456.3514168

Published: 17 October 2022 Publication History

Abstract

This paper discusses the results of replicating and extending a previous study on the active learning pedagogy of Peer Instruction (PI) in the topics of unit testing, integration testing and continuous integration. The original paper studied the efficacy of PI as a pedagogy for an in-person classroom with honors students from various academic majors. In this replication study we focus on a fully virtual, synchronous online classroom consisting of computing related majors. Our findings reinforce the results in Gopal and Cooper's original study. Cognitively, we found a correlation between PI and student learning, by observing encouraging increases in levels of success as measured through cognitive pre- and post-course instrument for the topics we studied. In addition, we also found that PI had a statistically significant impact on student attitudes in the constructs of interest, gender, usefulness, confidence and professionalism.

References

[1]

R. Agarwal, S.H. Edwards, and M. Pérez-Quiñones. 2006. Designing an adaptive learning module to teach software testing. In Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 259--263.

[2]

M. Aniche, F. Hermans, and A. Deursen. 2019. Pragmatic software testing education. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '19), ACM. New York, NY, USA, 414--420.

[3]

A. Bertolino. 2007. Software testing research: Achievements, challenges, dreams. In Future of Software Engineering (FOSE'07). 85--103.

[4]

K. Buffardi and S.H. Edwards. 2014. A formative study of influences on student testing behaviors. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 597--602.

[5]

Z. Chen, J. Zhang, and B. Luo. 2011. Teaching software testing methods based on diversity principles. In 2011 24th IEEE-CS Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE T. Honolulu, HI, USA, 391--395.

[6]

P.J. Clarke, J. Pava, D. Davis, F. Hernandez, and T.M. King. 2012. Using WRESTT in SE courses: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '12), ACM. New York, NY, USA, 307--312.

[7]

Q. Cutts, S. Esper, and B. Simon. 2011. Computing as the 4th "R": A general education approach to computing education. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Workshop on Computing Education Research. 133--138.

[8]

J. Drake and J. Drake. 2003. Teaching software testing: Lessons learned. DOI=(http://www.micSymposium.org/mics_2003/Drake.PDF).

[9]

B.P. Eddy, N. Wilde, N.A. Cooper, B. Mishra, V.S. Gamboa, K.S. Shah, A.M. Deleon, and N.A. Shields. 2017. A pilot study on introducing continuous integration and delivery into undergraduate software engineering courses. In IEEE 30th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T). 47--56.

[10]

S. H. Edwards and Z. Shams. 2014. Do student programmers all tend to write the same software tests?. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education. 171--176.

[11]

S. Elbaum, S. Person, J. Dokulil, and M. Jorde. 2007. Bug hunt: Making early software testing lessons engaging and affordable. In 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'07). IEEE, 688--697.

[12]

L. Englund, F. Moosvi, and I. Roll. 2021. Interface and interaction design for an online, asynchronous peer instruction tool. Interactive Learning Environments, 1--21.

[13]

S. Esper. 2014. A discussion on adopting peer instruction in a course focused on risk management. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 29, 4, 175--182.

Digital Library

[14]

V. Garousi and J. Zhi. 2013. A survey of software testing practices in Canada. Journal of Systems Software 86, 1354--1376.

Digital Library

[15]

B. Gopal and S. Cooper. 2021. Peer instruction in software engineering - Findings from fine grained clicker data. In Proceedings of the 52nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 476--480.

[16]

B. Gopal and S. Cooper. 2021. Peer instruction in software testing and continuous integration. In Proceedings of the 52nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 255--260.

[17]

L. Greising, A. Bartel, and G. Hagel. 2018. Introducing a deployment pipeline for continuous delivery in a software architecture course. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference of Software Engineering Education. 102--107.

[18]

A. Hoegh and B.M. Moskal. 2009. Examining science and engineering students' attitudes toward Computer Science. In 2009 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. 1--6.

[19]

iClicker. 2021. Student response systems & classroom engagement tools. https://www.iclicker.com/ Last Accessed July 2021.

[20]

Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula and IEEE Computer Society. 2013. Computer Science Curricula 2013: Curriculum guidelines for undergraduate degree programs in computer science. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA.

Digital Library

[21]

E.L. Jones. 2001. Integrating testing into the curriculum --- Arsenic in small doses. In Proceedings of the 32nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 337--341.

Digital Library

[22]

C.B. Lee, S. Garcia, and L. Porter. 2013. Can peer instruction be effective in upper-division Computer Science courses? Trans Comput Educ 12, 1--12.

Digital Library

[23]

S. Liao, W. Griswold, and L. Porter. 2017. Impact of class size on student evaluations for traditional and peer instruction classrooms. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, ACM. 375--380.

[24]

E. Mazur. 1997. Peer instruction a user's manual. Prentice Hall.

[25]

C. Nerantzi. 2020. The use of peer instruction and flipped learning to support flexible blended learning during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Management and Applied Research 7, 2, 184--195.

[26]

A. Orso and G. Rothermel. 2014. Software testing: A research travelogue (2000--2014). In Proceedings of the on Future of Software Engineering, ACM. 117--132.

[27]

L. Porter, C.B. Lee, B. Simon, Q. Cutts, and D. Zingaro. 2011. Experience report: A multi-classroom report on the value of peer instruction. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ACM. 138--142.

[28]

R. Ravid. 2019. Practical statistics for educators. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

[29]

B. Simon, S. Esper, L. Porter, and Quintin Cutts. 2013. Student experience in a student-centered peer instruction classroom. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. 129--136.

Digital Library

[30]

B. Simon, J. Parris, and J. Spacco. 2013. How we teach impacts student learning: Peer instruction vs. lecture in cs0. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, ACM. 41--46.

[31]

J. Süß and W. Billingsley. 2012. Using continuous integration of code and content to teach software engineering with limited resources. In 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 1175--1184.

[32]

W. E. Wong, A. Bertolino, V. Debroy, A. Mathur, J. Offutt, and M. Vouk. 2011. Teaching software testing: Experiences, lessons learned and the path forward. In 2011 24th IEEE-CS Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T). IEEE, 530--534.

[33]

D. Zingaro. 2010. Experience report: Peer instruction in remedial computer science. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 5030--5035.

Cited By

Gopal BCooper S(2023)A comparison of Peer Instruction and Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning -like pedagogies in teaching Software Testing and DevOps2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343501(1-9)Online publication date: 18-Oct-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343501

Index Terms

Peer instruction in online software testing and continuous integration: a replication study

Recommendations

POGIL-like Learning in Undergraduate Software Testing and DevOps - A Pilot Study
ITiCSE '22: Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 1

Process Oriented Guided Inquiry-based Learning (POGIL) is an active learning pedagogy that emphasizes process skills in addition to content, and has been shown to improve student learning outcomes in various STEM disciplines. We developed 4 POGIL-like ...
Peer Instruction in Software Testing and Continuous Integration
SIGCSE '21: Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

Peer Instruction (PI) is an active learning pedagogy in which students actively participate in the classroom. There have been several research studies regarding the value of PI in computer science. The present work adds to this body of knowledge by ...
A Multi-Institution Exploration of Peer Instruction in Practice: (Abstract Only)
SIGCSE '18: Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

Peer Instruction is an active learning pedagogy that has been shown to improve student outcomes in computing, including lower failure rates, higher exam scores, and better retention in the CS major. A key classroom mechanism for Peer Instruction is the "...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

ICSE-SEET '22: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training

May 2022

292 pages

ISBN:9781450392259

DOI:10.1145/3510456

Conference Chairs:
Cécile Péraire
Carnegie Mellon University
,
Alexander Serebrenik
Eindhoven University of Technology

Copyright © 2022 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

SIGSOFT: ACM Special Interest Group on Software Engineering

In-Cooperation

IEEE CS

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 17 October 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Short-paper

Conference

ICSE '22

Sponsor:

SIGSOFT

ICSE '22: 44th International Conference on Software Engineering

May 21 - 29, 2022

Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh

Upcoming Conference

ICSE 2025

2025 IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering

April 26 - May 3, 2025

Ottawa , ON , Canada

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

1
Total Citations
View Citations
87
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)31
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6

Reflects downloads up to 16 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Gopal BCooper S(2023)A comparison of Peer Instruction and Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning -like pedagogies in teaching Software Testing and DevOps2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343501(1-9)Online publication date: 18-Oct-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343501

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents