research-article

POGIL-like Learning in Undergraduate Software Testing and DevOps - A Pilot Study

Authors:

Bhuvaneswari Gopal,

Stephen CooperAuthors Info & Claims

ITiCSE '22: Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 1

Pages 484 - 490

https://doi.org/10.1145/3502718.3524776

Published: 07 July 2022 Publication History

Abstract

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 activities for unit testing, integration testing and continuous integration, in software engineering. We delineate one of the activities in this paper, and explain how we implemented our POGIL-like pedagogy in the classroom. We measured student success through a cognitive pre- and post-course survey for those topics, and found significant increases in score correctness gains. We also document and hypothesize reasons for the cognitive gains from the POGIL-like pedagogy.

References

[1]

[n. d.]. CS-POGIL | DCV (Directed, Convergent, Divergent) Questions. https://csPOGIL.org/DCV+(Directed,+Convergent,+Divergent)+Questions

[2]

K. Abernethy, P. Gabbert, and K. Treu. 1998. Inquiry-based computer science instruction: Some initial experiences. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 30, 3, 14--17.

Digital Library

[3]

M. R. Abraham. 2005. Inquiry and the learning cycle approach. Chemists' guide to effective teaching 1, 41--52.

[4]

H. Alshaher, X. Yuan, and S. Khorsandroo. 2020. Teaching flooding attack to the SDN data plane with POGIL. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference on Information Technology Education. 194--199.

[5]

C. P Bailey, V. Minderhout, and J. Loertscher. 2012. Learning transferable skills in large lecture halls: Implementing a POGIL approach in biochemistry. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 40, 1, 1--7.

[6]

L. Bijlsma, H. Passier, H. Pootjes, S. Stuurman, and N. Doorn. 2020. How do students test software units? Part one: Their natural attitude diagnosed. Technical Report. Open Universiteit,. Faculty of Science, Department of Computer Science.

[7]

George M Bodner. 1986. Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education 63, 10, 873.

[8]

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.

[9]

B. Coleman and M. Lang. 2012. Collaboration across the curriculum: a disciplined approach todeveloping team skills. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 277--282.

[10]

National Research Council et al. 2012. A framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.

[11]

J. Coutinho, W. Andrade, and P. Machado. 2021. Teaching Exploratory Tests through PBL and JiTT: An experience report in a context of distributed teams. In Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering. 205--214.

[12]

P.L. Daubenmire, D.M. Bunce, C. Draus, M. Frazier, A. Gessell, and M.T. van Opstal. 2015. During POGIL implementation the professor still makes a difference. Journal of College Science Teaching 44, 5, 72--81.

[13]

L.N. de Gale, S.and Boisselle. 2015. The Effect of POGIL on Academic Performance and Academic Confidence. International Council of Associations for Science Education 26, 56--61.

[14]

C.A. de Lima Salge and N. Berente. 2016. Pair Programming vs. Solo Programming: What Do We Know After 15 Years of Research?. In 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). IEEE, 5398--5406.

[15]

T Eberlein, J Kampmeier, V Minderhout, R.S. Moog, T Platt, P Varma-Nelson, and H.B. White. 2008. Pedagogies of engagement: a comparison of PBL, POGIL, and PLTL. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ 36, 262--273.

[16]

S.H. Edwards. 2004. Using software testing to move students from trial-and-error to reflection-in-action. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 26--30.

Digital Library

[17]

G. Fraser, A. Gambi, M. Kreis, and J. Rojas. 2019. Gamifying a software testing course with code defenders. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 571--577.

[18]

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.

[19]

B. Gopal, S. Cooper, J. Olmanson, and R. Bockmon. 2021. Student difficulties in unit testing, integration testing and continuous integration: An exploratory pilot qualitative study. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Psychology of Programming Interest Group Workshop (PPIG).

[20]

T. Greening, J. Kay, J.H. Kingston, and K. Crawford. 1997. Results of a PBL trial in first-year Computer Science. In Proceedings of the 2nd Australasian Conference on Computer Science Education. 201--206.

[21]

D. Handelsman, J.and Ebert-May, R. Beichner, P. Bruns, A. Chang, R. DeHaan, J. Gentile, S. Lauffer, J. Stewart, S.M. Tilghman, et al. 2004. Scientific teaching. Vol. 304. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 521--522 pages.

[22]

D.M. Hanson. 2005. Designing process-oriented guided-inquiry activities. Pacific Crest, 1--6.

[23]

S.M. Hein. 2012. Positive impacts using POGIL in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education 89, 7, 860--864.

[24]

H.H. Hu and B. Avery. 2015. CS principles with POGIL activities as a learning community. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 31, 2, 79--86.

Digital Library

[25]

H.H. Hu and C. Kussmaul. 2012. Promoting student-centered learning with POGIL. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 579--580.

[26]

H.H. Hu, C. Kussmaul, B. Knaeble, C. Mayfield, and A. Yadav. 2016. Results from a survey of faculty adoption of process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL) in Computer Science. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 186--191.

[27]

H.H. Hu, M. Lang, C. Kussmaul, C. Mayfield, and T. Pirmann. 2014. Guided inquiry learning in context: perspectives on POGIL in CS. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 467--468.

[28]

H.H. Hu and T.D. Shepherd. 2013. Using POGIL to help students learn to program. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 13, 3, 1--23.

Digital Library

[29]

H.H. Hu and T.D. Shepherd. 2014. Teaching CS 1 with POGIL activities and roles. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 127--132.

[30]

Minjie Hu, Michael Winikoff, and Stephen Cranefield. 2012. Teaching novice programming using goals and plans in a visual notation. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference-Volume 123. 43--52.

Digital Library

[31]

S. Huss-Lederman, D. Chinn, and J. Skrentny. 2008. Serious fun: Peer-led team learning in CS. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 330--331.

[32]

M. Jonas. 2019. Lessons learned from integrating POGIL into a CS1 course. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 34, 6, 139--140.

Digital Library

[33]

R. Karplus and H.D. Thier. 1967. A new look at elementary school science: Science curriculum improvement study. Rand McNally.

[34]

C. Kussmaul. 2011. Process oriented guided inquiry learning for soft computing. In International Conference on Advances in Computing and Communications. Springer, 533--542.

[35]

C. Kussmaul. 2012. Process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL) for Computer Science. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 373--378.

Digital Library

[36]

C. Kussmaul, C Mayfield, and H.H. Hu. 2017. Process oriented guided inquiry learning in Computer Science: The CS-POGIL & IntroCS-POGIL projects. In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings. 1--7.

[37]

O. Lemos, F. Ferrari, F. Silveira, and A. Garcia. 2015. Experience report: Can software testing education lead to more reliable code? In 2015 IEEE 26th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE). IEEE, 359--369.

[38]

P.C. Lotlikar and R. Wagh. 2016. Using POGIL to teach and learn design patterns-a constructionist based incremental, collaborative approach. In 2016 IEEE Eighth International Conference on Technology for Education (T4E). IEEE, 46--49.

[39]

P.L. Machemer and P. Crawford. 2007. Student perceptions of active learning in alarge cross-disciplinaryclassroom. Active learning in higher Education 8, 1, 9--30.

[40]

M. L. Maher, C. Latulipe, H. Lipford, and A. Rorrer. 2015. Flipped classroom strategies for CS Education. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposiumon Computer Science Education.218--223.

[41]

C. McDowell, L. Werner, H.E. Bullock, and J. Fernald. 2006. Pair programmingimproves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Commun. ACM 49,8, 90--95.

Digital Library

[42]

M. D. Medley. 2007. Inquiry-based learning in CS1. Journal of Computing Sciencesin Colleges 23, 2, 209--215.

Digital Library

[43]

R.S. Moog and J.N. Spencer. 2008. Process oriented guided inquiry learning. Vol. 994.American Chemical Society Washington, DC.

[44]

B. Simon, Päivi Kinnunen, L. Porter, and Dov Zazkis. 2010. Experience report: CS1for majors with media computation. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conferenceon Innovation and Technology inComputer Science Education. 214--218.

Digital Library

[45]

S.R. Simonson and S. Shadle. 2013. Implementing process oriented guided inquirylearning (POGIL) in undergraduate biomechanics: Lessons learned by a novice.Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research 14, 1.

[46]

J. Smith, J. Tessler, E. Kramer, and C. Lin. 2012. Using peer review to teachsoftware testing. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual International Conference onInternational Computing Education Research. 93--98.

[47]

A. Straumanis and E.A. Simons. 2008. A multi-institutional assessment of theuse of POGIL in Organic Chemistry. ACS Publications.

[48]

R.L. Wasserstein and N.A. Lazar. 2016. The ASA statement on p-values: Context,process, and purpose. Am. Stat 70, 2, 129--133.

[49]

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.

[50]

A. Yadav, C. Kussmaul, C. Mayfield, and H.H. Hu. 2019. POGIL in computer science: Faculty motivation andchallenges. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM TechnicalSymposium on Computer Science Education. 280--285.

[51]

L. Yang, X. Yuan, W. He, J. Ellis, and J. Land. 2019. Cybersecurity education withPOGIL: Experiences with access control instruction. In Journal of The Colloquiumfor Information Systems Security Education, Vol. 6. 14--14.

[52]

X. Yuan, L. Yang, W. He, J.T. Ellis, J. Xu, and C.K. Waters. 2017. Enhancingcybersecurity education using POGIL. In Proceedings of the 20

Cited By

Hu HShepherd TKussmaul CCampbell P(2023)The CS POGIL Activity Writing Program2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings10.18260/1-2--44068Online publication date: Jun-2023
https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--44068
Gopal BCooper S(2023)Process Oriented Guided Inquiry-based learning-like pedagogy (POGIL-like) in Online Software Testing and DevOps – A Replication Study2023 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops (ICSTW)10.1109/ICSTW58534.2023.00080(438-445)Online publication date: Apr-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSTW58534.2023.00080
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

Recommendations

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 ...
Teaching Testing with Modern Technology Stacks in Undergraduate Software Engineering Courses
ITiCSE '21: Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1

Students' experience with software testing in undergraduate computing courses is often relatively shallow, as compared to the importance of the topic. This experience report describes introducing industrial-strength testing into CMPSC 156, an upper ...
Peer instruction in online software testing and continuous integration: a replication study
ICSE-SEET '22: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training

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 ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

ITiCSE '22: Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 1

July 2022

686 pages

ISBN:9781450392013

DOI:10.1145/3502718

General Chairs:
Brett A. Becker
University College Dublin, Ireland
,
Keith Quille
Technological University Dublin, Ireland
,
Mikko-Jussi Laakso
University of Turku, Finland
,
Program Chairs:
Erik Barendsen
Radboud University & Open University, The Netherlands
,
Simon
Unaffiliated, Australia

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

SIGCSE: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 07 July 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

ITiCSE 2022

Sponsor:

SIGCSE

ITiCSE 2022: Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

July 8 - 13, 2022

Dublin, Ireland

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 552 of 1,613 submissions, 34%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

3
Total Citations
View Citations
109
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)24
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7

Reflects downloads up to 16 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Hu HShepherd TKussmaul CCampbell P(2023)The CS POGIL Activity Writing Program2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings10.18260/1-2--44068Online publication date: Jun-2023
https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--44068
Gopal BCooper S(2023)Process Oriented Guided Inquiry-based learning-like pedagogy (POGIL-like) in Online Software Testing and DevOps – A Replication Study2023 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops (ICSTW)10.1109/ICSTW58534.2023.00080(438-445)Online publication date: Apr-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSTW58534.2023.00080
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