Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3611643.3616250acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Four-Year Study of Student Contributions to OSS vs. OSS4SG with a Lightweight Intervention

Published: 30 November 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Modern software engineering practice and training increasingly rely on Open Source Software (OSS). The recent growth in demand for professional software engineers has led to increased contributions to, and usage of, OSS. However, there is limited understanding of the factors affecting how developers, and how new or student developers in particular, decide which OSS projects to contribute to, a process critical to OSS sustainability, access, adoption, and growth. To better understand OSS contributions from the developers of tomorrow, we conducted a four-year study with 1,361 students investigating the life cycle of their contributions (from project selection to pull request acceptance). During the study, we also delivered a lightweight intervention to promote the awareness of open source projects for social good (OSS4SG), OSS projects that have positive impacts in other domains. Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, we analyze student experience reports and the pull requests they submit. Compared to general OSS projects, we find significant differences in project selection (𝑝 < 0.0001, effect size = 0.84), student motivation (𝑝 < 0.01, effect size = 0.13), and increased pull-request acceptance rates for OSS4SG contributions. We also find that our intervention correlates with increased student contributions to OSS4SG (𝑝 < 0.0001, effect size = 0.38). Finally, we analyze correlations of factors such as gender or working with a partner. Our findings may help improve the experience for new developers participating in OSS4SG and the quality of their contributions. We also hope our work helps educators, project leaders, and contributors to build a mutually-beneficial framework for the future growth of OSS4SG.

Supplementary Material

Video (fse23main-p96-p-video.mp4)
"Modern software engineering practice and training increasingly rely on Open Source Software (OSS). The recent growth in demand for professional software engineers has led to increased contributions to, and usage of, OSS. However, there is limited understanding of the factors affecting how developers, and how new or student developers in particular, decide which OSS projects to contribute to, a process critical to OSS sustainability, access, adoption, and growth. To better understand OSS contributions from the developers of tomorrow, we conducted a four-year longitudinal study with 1,361 students investigating the life cycle of their contributions (from project selection to pull request acceptance). During the study, we also delivered a lightweight intervention to promote the awareness of open source projects for social good (OSS4SG), OSS projects that have positive impacts in other domains. Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, we analyze student experience reports and the pull requests they submit. Compared to general OSS projects, we find significant differences in project selection, student motivation, and increased pull-request acceptance rates for OSS4SG contributions. We also find that our intervention correlates with increased student contributions to OSS4SG. Finally, we analyze correlations of factors such as gender or working with a partner. Our findings may help improve the experience for new developers participating in OSS4SG and the quality of their contributions. We also hope our work helps educators, project leaders, and contributors to build a mutually-beneficial framework for the future growth of OSS4SG."

References

[1]
2023. Digital Public Goods Alliance. https://ovio.org/
[2]
2023. Ovio. https://ovio.org/
[3]
2023. Supplementary Material for A Four-Year Study of Student Contributions to OSS vs. OSS4SG with a Lightweight Intervention. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8264614
[4]
Mohammad AlMarzouq, Li Zheng, Guang Rong, and Varun Grover. 2005. Open source: Concepts, benefits, and challenges. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16, 1 (2005), 37. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01637
[5]
Donald Bagert and Steve Chenoweth. 2005. Future growth of software engineering baccalaureate programs in the United States. In 2005 Annual Conference. 10–653. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–14753
[6]
Angela R Bielefeldt and Nathan E Canney. 2016. Humanitarian aspirations of engineering students: Differences between disciplines and institutions. Journal of Humanitarian Engineering, 4, 1 (2016).
[7]
Judith Bishop, Carlos Jensen, Walt Scacchi, and Arfon Smith. 2016. How to use open source software in education. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education. 321–322. https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844665
[8]
Kevin Buffardi. 2016. Localized open source software projects: Exploring realism and motivation. In 2016 11th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE). 382–387. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCSE.2016.7581611
[9]
Alistair Cockburn and Laurie Williams. 2000. The costs and benefits of pair programming. Extreme programming examined, 8 (2000), 223–247. isbn:0201710404
[10]
Kevin Crowston and James Howison. 2003. The social structure of open source software development teams.
[11]
Susan E Cutler, Randy J Larson, and Scott C Bunce. 1996. Ropressive coping style and the experience and recall of emotion: A naturalistic study of daily affect. Journal of Personality, 64, 2 (1996), 379–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00515.x
[12]
Gregory DeKoenigsberg. 2008. How successful open source projects work, and how and why to introduce students to the open source world. In 2008 21st Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training. 274–276. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSEET.2008.42
[13]
Blagoj Delipetrev, Andreja Jonoski, and Dimitri P Solomatine. 2014. Development of a web application for water resources based on open source software. Computers & Geosciences, 62 (2014), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2013.09.012
[14]
Sarah Sakha Durva Trivedi. 2019. Women in Tech: How They are Using Data and Tech for Social Good. https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/blog/women-data-tech-social-good/
[15]
H Ellis, Ralph A Morelli, and GW Hislop. 2008. Support for educating software engineers through humanitarian open source projects. In 2008 21st IEEE-CS conference on software engineering education and training workshop. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSEETW.2008.5
[16]
Heidi JC Ellis, Gregory W Hislop, Stoney Jackson, and Lori Postner. 2015. Team project experiences in humanitarian free and open source software (HFOSS). ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 15, 4 (2015), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/2684812
[17]
Heidi JC Ellis, Gregory W Hislop, Stoney Jackson, and Lori Postner. 2015. Team project experiences in humanitarian free and open source software (HFOSS). ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 15, 4 (2015), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/2684812
[18]
Madeline Endres, Madison Fansher, Priti Shah, and Westley Weimer. 2021. To read or to rotate? comparing the effects of technical reading training and spatial skills training on novice programming ability. In ESEC/FSE ’21: 29th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, Athens, Greece, August 23-28, 2021, Diomidis Spinellis, Georgios Gousios, Marsha Chechik, and Massimiliano Di Penta (Eds.). ACM, 754–766. https://doi.org/10.1145/3468264.3468583
[19]
Maria Angela Ferrario, Will Simm, Peter Newman, Stephen Forshaw, and Jon Whittle. 2014. Software engineering for’social good’: integrating action research, participatory design, and agile development. In Companion Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering. 520–523. https://doi.org/10.1145/2591062.2591121
[20]
Casey Fiesler, Jed R Brubaker, Andrea Forte, Shion Guha, Nora McDonald, and Michael Muller. 2019. Qualitative methods for CSCW: Challenges and opportunities. In Conference companion publication of the 2019 on computer supported cooperative work and social computing. 455–460. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311957.3359428
[21]
Douglas H Fisher, Jacqueline Cameron, Tamara Clegg, and Stephanie August. 2018. Integrating social good into CS education. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 130–131. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3159622
[22]
Brian Fitzgerald. 2004. A critical look at open source. Computer, 37, 7 (2004), 92–94. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2004.38
[23]
Brian Fitzgerald. 2005. Has open source software a future. Perspectives on free and open source software, 1 (2005), 93–106.
[24]
Marco Gerosa, Igor Wiese, Bianca Trinkenreich, Georg Link, Gregorio Robles, Christoph Treude, Igor Steinmacher, and Anita Sarma. 2021. The shifting sands of motivation: Revisiting what drives contributors in open source. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). 1046–1058. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE43902.2021.00098
[25]
Carlo Ghezzi and Dino Mandrioli. 2005. The challenges of software engineering education. In International Conference on Software Engineering. 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1145/1062455.1062578
[26]
Michael Goldweber, John Barr, Tony Clear, Renzo Davoli, Samuel Mann, Elizabeth Patitsas, and Scott Portnoff. 2013. A framework for enhancing the social good in computing education: a values approach. ACM Inroads, 4, 1 (2013), 58–79. https://doi.org/10.1145/2432596.2432616
[27]
Georgios Gousios, Martin Pinzger, and Arie van Deursen. 2014. An exploratory study of the pull-based software development model. In Proceedings of the 36th international conference on software engineering. 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1145/2568225.2568260
[28]
Gregory W Hislop and Heidi JC Ellis. 2017. Humanitarian Open Source Software in Computing Education. Computer, 50, 10 (2017), 98–101. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2017.3641643
[29]
Reid Holmes, Meghan Allen, and Michelle Craig. 2018. Dimensions of experientialism for software engineering education. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training. 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1145/3183377.3183380
[30]
Zhewei Hu, Yang Song, and Edward F Gehringer. 2018. Open-source software in class: students’ common mistakes. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training. 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1145/3183377.3183394
[31]
Yu Huang, Denae Ford, and Thomas Zimmermann. 2021. Leaving My Fingerprints: Motivations and Challenges of Contributing to OSS for Social Good. In 43rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2021, 22-30 May 2021. IEEE, Madrid, Spain. 1020–1032. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE43902.2021.00096
[32]
Eirini Kalliamvakou, Georgios Gousios, Kelly Blincoe, Leif Singer, Daniel M German, and Daniela Damian. 2014. The promises and perils of mining github. In Proceedings of the 11th working conference on mining software repositories. 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1145/2597073.2597074
[33]
Murtaza Ali Khan and Faizan UrRehman. 2012. Free and open source software: Evolution, benefits and characteristics. International Journal of Emerging Trends & technology in Computer Science, 1, 3 (2012), 1–7.
[34]
Antti Knutas, Victoria Palacin, Giovanni Maccani, Pablo Aragon, Annika Wolff, and Lukas Mocek. 2022. Civic Code for Social Change: Lessons in Civic Tech Grassroots for Software Engineers. IEEE Software, https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2022.3179670
[35]
Shaheen E Lakhan and Kavita Jhunjhunwala. 2008. Open source software in education. Educause Quarterly, 31, 2 (2008), 32.
[36]
Karim R Lakhani and Robert G Wolf. 2003. Why hackers do what they do: Understanding motivation and effort in free/open source software projects. Open Source Software Projects (September 2003), https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.443040
[37]
Valentina Lenarduzzi, Vili Nikkola, Nyyti Saarimäki, and Davide Taibi. 2021. Does code quality affect pull request acceptance? an empirical study. Journal of Systems and Software, 171 (2021), 110806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2020.110806
[38]
Mark W Lipsey and David S Cordray. 2000. Evaluation methods for social intervention. Annual review of psychology, 51, 1 (2000), 345–375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.345
[39]
Ju Long. 2009. Open Source Software Development Experiences on the Students’ Resumes: Do They Count?-Insights from the Employers’ Perspectives. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 8, 1 (2009), 229–242. https://doi.org/10.28945/618
[40]
Stephanie M Mazerolle and Sarah S Benes. 2014. Factors influencing senior athletic training students’ preparedness to enter the workforce. Athletic Training Education Journal, 9, 1 (2014), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.4085/09015
[41]
Gerald Midgley. 2000. Systemic intervention. In Systemic intervention. Springer, 113–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4201-8_6
[42]
United States White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. 2022. OSTP Issues Guidance to Make Federally Funded Research Freely Available Without Delay. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/08/25/ostp-issues-guidance-to-make-federally-funded-research-freely-available-without-delay/
[43]
Gustavo Pinto, Clarice Ferreira, Cleice Souza, Igor Steinmacher, and Paulo Meirelles. 2019. Training software engineers using open-source software: the students’ perspective. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training (ICSE-SEET). 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE-SEET.2019.00024
[44]
Lori Postner, Darci Burdge, Stoney Jackson, Heidi Ellis, George Hislop, and Sean Goggins. 2015. Using humanitarian free and open source software (HFOSS) to introduce computing for the social good. Acm Sigcas Computers and Society, 45, 2 (2015), 35–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/2809957.2809967
[45]
United Nations Development Programme. [n. d.]. Sustainable Development Goals. https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html
[46]
Huilian Sophie Qiu, Alexander Nolte, Anita Brown, Alexander Serebrenik, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2019. Going farther together: The impact of social capital on sustained participation in open source. In 2019 ieee/acm 41st international conference on software engineering (icse). 688–699. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2019.00078
[47]
Michael Ross. 1989. Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychological review, 96, 2 (1989), 341. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.2.341
[48]
Larissa Salerno, Simone de França Tonhão, Igor Steinmacher, and Christoph Treude. 2023. Barriers and Self-Efficacy: A Large-Scale Study on the Impact of OSS Courses on Student Perceptions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.14628, https://doi.org/10.1145/3587102.3588789
[49]
Christie N Scollon, Chu Kim-Prieto, and Ed Diener. 2003. Experience sampling: Promises and pitfalls, strengths and weaknesses. Journal of Happiness studies, 4, 1 (2003), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023605205115
[50]
Jefferson Silva, Igor Wiese, Daniel M German, Christoph Treude, Marco Aurélio Gerosa, and Igor Steinmacher. 2020. A theory of the engagement in open source projects via summer of code programs. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. 421–431. https://doi.org/10.1145/3368089.3409724
[51]
Sulayman K Sowe and Ioannis G Stamelos. 2007. Involving software engineering students in open source software projects: Experiences from a pilot study. Journal of Information Systems Education, 18, 4 (2007), 425. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/involving-software-engineering-students-open/docview/200102291/se-2
[52]
Igor Steinmacher, Tayana Conte, Marco Aurélio Gerosa, and David Redmiles. 2015. Social barriers faced by newcomers placing their first contribution in open source software projects. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing. 1379–1392. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675215
[53]
Josh Terrell, Andrew Kofink, Justin Middleton, Clarissa Rainear, Emerson R Murphy-Hill, and Chris Parnin. 2016. Gender bias in open source: Pull request acceptance of women versus men. PeerJ Prepr., 4 (2016), e1733. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.1733v1
[54]
Bianca Trinkenreich, Igor Wiese, Anita Sarma, Marco Gerosa, and Igor Steinmacher. 2022. Women’s Participation in Open Source Software: A Survey of the Literature. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 31, 4 (2022), Article 81, aug, 37 pages. issn:1049-331X https://doi.org/10.1145/3510460
[55]
Kimberly Truong. 2022. Let’s Talk Open-Source—An Analysis of Conference Talks and Community Dynamics. In 2022 IEEE/ACM 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion). 322–324. https://doi.org/10.1145/3510454.3522683
[56]
David A Watt. 2000. Programming languages-Trends in education. In Proceedings of Simposio Brasileiro de Linguagens de Programacao, Recife, Brazil, http://www. dcs. gla. ac. uk/\~ daw/publications/PLTE. ps.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)A Comparative Analysis of GitHub Contributions Before and After An OSS Based Software Engineering ClassProceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3649217.3653535(576-582)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2024

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ESEC/FSE 2023: Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering
November 2023
2215 pages
ISBN:9798400703270
DOI:10.1145/3611643
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 the author(s) 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

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 30 November 2023

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. CS Education
  2. Open Source Software
  3. Social Good

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

ESEC/FSE '23
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 112 of 543 submissions, 21%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)169
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)41
Reflects downloads up to 10 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)A Comparative Analysis of GitHub Contributions Before and After An OSS Based Software Engineering ClassProceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3649217.3653535(576-582)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2024

View Options

Get Access

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media