research-article

Analyzing students' software redesign strategies

Authors:

Sylvia Stuurman,

Harrie Passier,

Erik BarendsenAuthors Info & Claims

Koli Calling '16: Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research

Pages 110 - 119

https://doi.org/10.1145/2999541.2999559

Published: 24 November 2016 Publication History

Abstract

The design of software is known to be difficult for novice computer scientists. In this paper, we focus on software redesign and on the refactoring necessary to implement a redesign. Redesigning an application aims to improve non-functional aspects such as extensibility, without changing the functionality. Redesign is a complex task, involving knowledge and skills from software design in general and the use of design patterns in particular. This study is part of an educational design research project aiming at developing scaffolding for students' software redesign activities in the form of procedural guidance. We investigated students' strategies and usage of concepts during a software redesign assignment using students' reports and team colllaboration recordings as data sources, thus focusing on the process instead of on the design results, in contrast with existing studies. We identified several difficulties that can serve as starting points for procedural guidance. For instance, students seem to avoid using a structured analysis method. Our findings indicate that students' activities were mainly directed towards the code rather than the design problem.

References

[1]

J. R. Anderson. Problem solving and learning. American Psychologist, 48(1):35, 1993.

[2]

C. J. Atman, J. R. Chimka, K. M. Bursic, and H. L. Nachtmann. A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes. Design Studies, 20(2):131--152, 1999.

[3]

J. B. Biggs and K. F. Collis. Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). Academic Press, New York, USA, 1982.

[4]

E. J. Braude. software design, from programming to architecture. John Wiley & Sons, 2006.

[5]

L. L. Bucciarelli. Reflective practice in engineering design. Design studies, 5(3):185--190, 1984.

[6]

A. Chatzigeorgiou, N. Tsantalis, and I. Deligiannis. An empirical study on students' ability to comprehend design patterns. Computers and Education, 51(3):1007 -- 1016, 2008.

Digital Library

[7]

L. Cohen, L. Manion, and K. Morrison. Research methods in education. London, New York: Routledge, 2013.

[8]

J. O. Coplien. Multi-Paradigm Design. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Wetenschappen, Departement Informatica, 7 2000.

[9]

J. O. Coplien, D. Hoffman, and D. Weiss. Commonality and variability in software engineering. Software, IEEE, 15(6):37--45, 1998.

Digital Library

[10]

N. Cross. Expertise in design: an overview. Design studies, 25(5):427--441, 2004.

[11]

I. Darwin. Gui development with Java. Linux Journal, 1999(61es):4, 1999.

Digital Library

[12]

S. P. Davies. Models and theories of programming strategy. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39(2):237--267, 1993.

Digital Library

[13]

C. Denzler and D. Gruntz. Design patterns: Between programming and software design. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE '08, pages 801--804, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM.

Digital Library

[14]

A. Eckerdal, R. McCartney, J. E. Moström, M. Ratcliffe, and C. Zander. Can graduating students design software systems? ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(1):403--407, 2006.

Digital Library

[15]

A. Eckerdal, R. McCartney, J. E. Moström, M. Ratcliffe, and C. Zander. Categorizing student software designs: Methods, results, and implications. Computer Science Education, 16(3):197--209, 2006.

[16]

P. Flores, N. Medinilla, and S. Pamplona. What do software design students understand about information hiding?: A qualitative case study. In Proceedings of the 14th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, Koli Calling '14, pages 61--70, New York, NY, USA, 2014. ACM.

Digital Library

[17]

M. E. Fonteyn, B. Kuipers, and S. J. Grobe. A description of think aloud method and protocol analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 3(4):430--441, 1993.

[18]

M. Fowler, K. Beck, J. Brant, W. Opdyke, and D. Roberts. Refactoring: Improving the design of existing programs. Addison-Wesley Reading, 1999.

Digital Library

[19]

E. Gamma, R. Helm, R. Johnson, and J. Vlissides. Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software. Pearson Education, 1994.

Digital Library

[20]

J. Garofalo and F. Lester. Metacognition, cognitive monitoring, and mathematical performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16(3):163--176, May 1985.

[21]

P. Gestwicki and F.-S. Sun. Teaching design patterns through computer game development. J. Educ. Resour. Comput., 8(1):2:1--2:22, Mar. 2008.

Digital Library

[22]

D. H. Jonassen. Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational technology research and development, 48(4):63--85, 2000.

[23]

J. Kerievsky. Refactoring to patterns. Pearson Deutschland GmbH, 2005.

Digital Library

[24]

P. A. Kirschner, J. Sweller, and R. E. Clark. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2):75--86, 2006.

[25]

C. Loftus, L. Thomas, and C. Zander. Can graduating students design: revisited. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 105--110. ACM, 2011.

Digital Library

[26]

T. Mens and T. Tourwé. A survey of software refactoring. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 30(2):126--139, 2004.

Digital Library

[27]

J. J. Merriënboer and P. A. Kirschner. Ten Steps to Complex Learning. Taylor & Francis, New York, USA, second edition, 2013.

[28]

R. Or-Bach and I. Lavy. Cognitive activities of abstraction in object orientation: an empirical study. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(2):82--86, 2004.

Digital Library

[29]

F. Palma, H. Farzin, Y.-G. Guéhéneuc, and N. Moha. Recommendation system for design patterns in software development: An dpr overview. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Recommendation Systems for Software Engineering, RSSE '12, pages 1--5, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2012. IEEE Press.

Digital Library

[30]

R. D. Pea. The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The journal of the learning sciences, 13(3):423--451, 2004.

[31]

T. Plomp. Educational design research: An introduction. In T. Plomp and N. Nieveen, editors, Educational design research, pages 10--51. Enschede: SLO, 2013.

[32]

S. I. Robertson. Problem Solving. University of Luton, UK, 2001.

[33]

A. Robins, J. Rountree, and N. Rountree. Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer science education, 13(2):137--172, 2003.

[34]

A. Shalloway and J. R. Trott. Design patterns explained: a new perspective on object-oriented design. Pearson Education, 2004.

Digital Library

[35]

D. Skrien. Learning appreciation for design patterns by doing it the hard way first. Computer Science Education, 13(4):305--313, 2003.

[36]

S. Smith, S. Stoecklin, and C. Serino. An innovative approach to teaching refactoring. In Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE '06, pages 349--353, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM.

Digital Library

[37]

E. Soloway, J. Spohrer, and D. Littman. E unum pluribus: Generating alternative designs. In Teaching and Learning Computer Programming, pages 137--152. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.

[38]

S. Stoecklin, S. Smith, and C. Serino. Teaching students to build well formed object-oriented methods through refactoring. In Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE '07, pages 145--149, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM.

Digital Library

[39]

A. Strauss, J. Corbin, et al. Basics of qualitative research, volume 15. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990.

[40]

S. Stuurman and G. Florijn. Experiences with teaching design patterns. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(3):151--155, 2004.

Digital Library

[41]

S. Stuurman, F. J. Wester, and M. Witsier-Vogel. Design patterns. Open Universiteit Nederland, 2002.

[42]

G. Suryanarayana, G. Samarthyam, and T. Sharma. Refactoring for Software Design Smells. Morgan Kaufmann, Elsevier, Waltham, MA, USA, 2015.

Digital Library

[43]

J. Tenenberg, S. Fincher, K. Blaha, D. Bouvier, T.-Y. Chen, D. Chinn, S. Cooper, A. Eckerdal, H. Johnson, R. McCartney, A. Monge, J. E. Moström, M. Petre, K. Powers, M. Ratcliffe, A. Robins, D. Sanders, L. Schwartzman, B. Simon, C. Stoker, A. E. Tew, and T. VanDeGrift. Students designing software: a multi-national, multi-institutional study. Informatics in Education, 4(1):143--162, 2005.

[44]

J. L. Whalley, R. Lister, E. Thompson, T. Clear, P. Robbins, P. Kumar, and C. Prasad. An Australasian study of reading and comprehension skills in novice programmers, using the Bloom and SOLO taxonomies. In Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Conference on Computing Education-Volume 52, pages 243--252. Australian Computer Society, Inc., 2006.

Digital Library

Cited By

Ericson BPearce JRodger SCsizmadia AGarcia RGutierrez FLiaskos KPadiyath AScott MSmith DWarriem JZavaleta Bernuy ALaakso MMonga MSimon Sheard J(2023)Multi-Institutional Multi-National Studies of Parsons ProblemsProceedings of the 2023 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education10.1145/3623762.3633498(57-107)Online publication date: 22-Dec-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3623762.3633498
Huber FEigler THagel GWolff C(2023)Qualitative Requirements Elicitation of Student Requirements for Tool-supported Teaching of UML DiagramsProceedings of the 5th European Conference on Software Engineering Education10.1145/3593663.3593673(189-193)Online publication date: 19-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3593663.3593673
Huber FEigler THagel GWolff C(2023)From Difficulties to Functional Requirements - Deriving Requirements from Literature about Tool-supported Teaching of UML Diagrams in Software Engineering EducationProceedings of the 5th European Conference on Software Engineering Education10.1145/3593663.3593672(184-188)Online publication date: 19-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3593663.3593672
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Analyzing students' software redesign strategies
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education
      1. Computing education programs
        Computer science education
2. Software and its engineering
  1. Software creation and management
    1. Designing software

Recommendations

Redesign and reuse in compositional knowledge-based systems

The paper introduces a task model for the redesign of compositional knowledge-based systems based on a generic task model of design. A generic task model of design provides an abstract description of a design task and a generic structure which can be ...
On the use of genetic programming for automated refactoring and the introduction of design patterns
GECCO '10: Proceedings of the 12th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation

Maintaining an object-oriented design for a piece of software is a difficult, time-consuming task. Prior approaches to automated design refactoring have focused on making small, iterative changes to a given software design. However, such approaches do ...
Lecture design patterns: laying the foundation
EuroPLoP '13: Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Pattern Languages of Program

Lectures as method of instruction are conversely discussed in the literature, but despite all critics are lectures still widely used in academic institutions. The efficiency of these lectures is highly dependent on their design. Patterns can help with ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

Koli Calling '16: Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research

November 2016

189 pages

ISBN:9781450347709

DOI:10.1145/2999541

Conference Chairs:
Judy Sheard
Monash University, Australia
,
Calkin Suero Montero
University of Eastern Finland, Finland

Copyright © 2016 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

Univ. Eastern Finland: University of Eastern Finland
Univ. Turku: University of Turku
Monash University, Australia: Monash University, Australia

In-Cooperation

SIGCSE: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 24 November 2016

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

Koli Calling 2016

Sponsor:

Univ. Eastern Finland
Univ. Turku
Monash University, Australia

Koli Calling 2016: 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research

November 24 - 27, 2016

Koli, Finland

Acceptance Rates

Koli Calling '16 Paper Acceptance Rate 21 of 57 submissions, 37%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 80 of 182 submissions, 44%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

7
Total Citations
View Citations
179
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)15
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5

Reflects downloads up to 16 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Ericson BPearce JRodger SCsizmadia AGarcia RGutierrez FLiaskos KPadiyath AScott MSmith DWarriem JZavaleta Bernuy ALaakso MMonga MSimon Sheard J(2023)Multi-Institutional Multi-National Studies of Parsons ProblemsProceedings of the 2023 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education10.1145/3623762.3633498(57-107)Online publication date: 22-Dec-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3623762.3633498
Huber FEigler THagel GWolff C(2023)Qualitative Requirements Elicitation of Student Requirements for Tool-supported Teaching of UML DiagramsProceedings of the 5th European Conference on Software Engineering Education10.1145/3593663.3593673(189-193)Online publication date: 19-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3593663.3593673
Huber FEigler THagel GWolff C(2023)From Difficulties to Functional Requirements - Deriving Requirements from Literature about Tool-supported Teaching of UML Diagrams in Software Engineering EducationProceedings of the 5th European Conference on Software Engineering Education10.1145/3593663.3593672(184-188)Online publication date: 19-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3593663.3593672
Huber FHagel G(2022)Tool-supported teaching of UML diagrams in software engineering education - A systematic literature review2022 45th Jubilee International Convention on Information, Communication and Electronic Technology (MIPRO)10.23919/MIPRO55190.2022.9803560(1404-1409)Online publication date: 23-May-2022
https://doi.org/10.23919/MIPRO55190.2022.9803560
Huber FHagel G(2022)Semi-automatic generation of textual exercises for software engineering education2022 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)10.1109/EDUCON52537.2022.9766802(51-56)Online publication date: 28-Mar-2022
https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON52537.2022.9766802
Aronshtam LShrot TShmallo R(2021)Can we do better? a classification of algorithm run-time-complexity improvement using the SOLO taxonomyEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-021-10532-0Online publication date: 5-May-2021
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10532-0
Huber FHagel G(2020)Work-in-Progress: Towards detection and syntactical analysis in UML class diagrams for software engineering education2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)10.1109/EDUCON45650.2020.9125244(3-7)Online publication date: Apr-2020
https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON45650.2020.9125244

View Options

Get Access

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