DESIGN OF INTERVENTIONS  FOR INSTRUCTIONAL REFORM  IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION FOR COMPETENCY ENHANCEMENT (2003-2011...
Inspiration and Motivation Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
Inspiration <ul><li>Student in engineering(1981-86, 1988-1991):   Alas it was done  differently. </li></ul><ul><li>Teachin...
Turning points:  inspirational exposures at JIIT, 2002-04 <ul><li>Pleasant Exposure:   ABET, SIGCSE, IEEE-ACM curricular r...
Engineering and Computing Education Some International Journals … <ul><li>Journal of Engineering Education, ASEE, since 19...
Engineering and Computing Education Some International Journals  <ul><li>Journal of Learning Sciences, LEA since 1991 </li...
Engineering and Computing Education Some international Conferences and other Publications <ul><li>Annual conference of ASE...
Motivation <ul><li>Significant  Gap :  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Institution offering  Vs Industry and society expectations </...
Brief Overview of Work Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
Research Goals <ul><li>Design pedagogical engagement methods to  expand the efficacy of undergraduate computing education ...
Research Processes <ul><li>Literature review:  studied a large number of  papers and reports on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sof...
Thesis layout <ul><li>Chapters:  10 Nos.  (300+ pages including reference list ) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Introduction </li><...
Published/Under publication  Papers on Computing Education  <ul><li>Sanjay Goel, A Learners’ Pyramid: Undergraduate Mentor...
Published  Papers on Computing Education  <ul><li>Sanjay Goel, What is high about higher education: Examining engineering ...
Main Contributions Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
Evolving Role of Computing and Information Technology <ul><li>Information Technology’s possibility is to serve the human n...
Distinguishing features of Software Development <ul><li>Support for  Cognitive processes  Vs Physical processes.  </li></u...
Three-tier Taxonomy of Core Competencies for Software Developers  Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 Basic Competencies Competency Dr...
Summary of Instructional Interventions <ul><li>Inquiry teaching </li></ul><ul><li>Project-inclusive teaching:  </li></ul><...
Theory Building: Unified Framework of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education <ul><ul><ul><li>Our Novel Th...
Some Important Details Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
Research Goals <ul><li>Design pedagogical engagement methods to  expand the efficacy of undergraduate computing education ...
Evolution of Computing Education Curriculum <ul><ul><li>65’ ACM curricula committee for CS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>68’ ...
Evolution of Computing Education Curriculum <ul><li>Key observations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ACM, IEEE, IFIP, SEI, AIS, and ...
A Taxonomy of Software development related Engineering Activities <ul><li>Planning:  project and risk planning  </li></ul>...
A Taxonomy of Software development related Engineering Activities <ul><li>Design:   at various stages and multiple levels ...
A Taxonomy of Software development related Engineering Activities <ul><li>Realization  :  Implementation and Maintenance <...
A Taxonomy of Software development related Engineering Activities <ul><li>Client Interface :  </li></ul><ul><li>Requiremen...
A Taxonomy of Software development related Engineering Activities <ul><li>Overarching Activities   applied companywide acr...
Recommended Most Important Activities wrt  Education  <ul><li>Algorithm/Computational Procedure/Component and Interface De...
Research Goals <ul><li>Design pedagogical engagement methods to  expand the efficacy of undergraduate computing education ...
Required Professional Competencies wrt Software Development Activities Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
Competency ratings by working engineers in IT companies Goel Sanjay (2006), Investigations on required core competencies f...
<ul><ul><li>Competent Computing professional? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Paper: </li></ul><ul><li>Goel Sanjay (2006), Competen...
Comparative analysis of some common competencies identified by some accreditation agencies   Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 Compe...
Meaningful usage, extension, and acquisition of knowledge   Productive habits of mind Attitudes and perceptions  Three-dim...
Competency Focused Engineering Education with Reference to  IT Related Disciplines: Is the Indian System Ready for Transfo...
Revised Competency ratings…,  2007…71  responses from 33  companies Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 No. Competencies Category 1 Pe...
Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 16 Communication skills. Obligatory 17 Research skills. 18 Adaptability  and ability to multi-task...
wrt Software services work   Average competency rating for 35 competencies =  33/100 Revised Competency ratings…,  2007…71...
IT professionals  wrt  Research or product development  work in large or midsize companies   Average competency rating for...
IT professionals  wrt  Research or product development  work in small companies   Average competency rating for 35 compete...
<ul><li>Table 4.8: Academic and Real life Problems </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 Academic Problems Real life practical...
<ul><li>Communication Competence wrt Software Development ? </li></ul><ul><li>Table 4.6:  Summary of Responses, 2009-2010 ...
<ul><li>Weaknesses of Engg. Education in  </li></ul><ul><li>Computing disciplines? </li></ul><ul><li>Summary of Responses,...
Competency Recommendations: Key References   <ul><li>NSF report , 1989 </li></ul><ul><li>EMTA  (Engineering and Marine Tra...
Competency Recommendations: Key References   <ul><li>Codes of conduct, ethics, and/or practice:  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ame...
Other important Recommendation/Studies  <ul><li>John Henry Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated’ (1852...
Models of Competency Classification:  Key references <ul><li>Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (1956) </li></ul><...
Three-tier Taxonomy of Core Competencies for Software Developers  Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 Basic Competencies Competency Dr...
Research Goals <ul><li>Design pedagogical engagement methods to  expand the efficacy of undergraduate computing education ...
Phenomenon of Learning: Some Results Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
Bloom’s Taxonomy: Levels of Cognition <ul><li>Goel Sanjay and Sharda Nalin (2004),  What do engineers want? Examining engi...
Rating Comparison  Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011     Bloom levels What students think they get ?       What students get in exam...
What working IT engineers think about  Teaching Methods?,  SPINE based Study, 2004-05 Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 No (j) Teach...
Effective lecturing in engineering and computing courses, 2005-06? <ul><li>Documentation :  250 Anecdotes of most effectiv...
What students think about lectures attributes? Goel Sanjay (2006), Do Engineering Faculty Know What’s Broken?  The Nationa...
Table A9.1: 29 students’ responses on ‘questioning in the class’,2005 Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 <ul><li>Learning is a conseq...
Table A10.1 :  Effectiveness of educational experiences for competency enhancement of software developers   67 Software de...
Table 7.2:  Perceived effectiveness of engagements with respect to  competencies  67 Software developers - (How) Did your ...
Table A10.3:  Effectiveness of educational experiences for competency enhancement with respect to direct/indirect contribu...
Phenomenon of Learning: Some Important  Learning Theories Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
Human learning, intelligence, and thinking?  Theories… <ul><li>Connectionism (Thorndike, 1913) </li></ul><ul><li>Genetic e...
Human learning, intelligence, and thinking?  Theories… <ul><li>Originality (Maltzman, 1960) </li></ul><ul><li>Conditions o...
<ul><li>Script theory (Schank, 1970s and 80s)  </li></ul><ul><li>Modes of learning (Norman and Rumelhart, 1978) </li></ul>...
<ul><li>Cognitive apprenticeship (Collins et al, 1987) </li></ul><ul><li>Four perspectives on professional expertise  (Ken...
<ul><li>Learning by design (Kolodner et al, 1995-2004) </li></ul><ul><li>Model of critical thinking (Paul, 1996) </li></ul...
<ul><li>Story centered curriculum (Schank, 2002) </li></ul><ul><li>Models of interplay between emotions and learning (Kort...
Research Goals <ul><li>Design pedagogical engagement methods to  expand the efficacy of undergraduate computing education ...
Experimentation: <ul><li>Instructional Interventions  </li></ul><ul><li>Modifying   teaching style ,  evaluation method , ...
Theory Building: Unified Framework of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education <ul><ul><ul><li>Our Novel Th...
Two Core Principles Related to Learning <ul><li>Cognitive Dissonance  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Humans are sensitive to incons...
Summary of Instructional Interventions <ul><li>Inquiry teaching </li></ul><ul><li>Project-inclusive teaching:  </li></ul><...
Instructional Interventions <ul><ul><li>Problem Centric Approach for inducing Cognitive Dissonance  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul...
Instructional Interventions <ul><ul><li>Problem Centric Approach for inducing Cognitive Dissonance  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul...
Instructional Interventions <ul><ul><li>Problem Centric Approach for inducing Cognitive Dissonance  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul...
Instructional Interventions <ul><ul><li>Problem Centric Approach for inducing Cognitive Dissonance  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul...
Instructional Interventions <ul><li>Problem Centric Approach for inducing Cognitive Dissonance  </li></ul><ul><li>Increasi...
Perceived Benefits of Using PSP in laboratories:  Students feedback Its  modified format  been tested for getting higher g...
Instructional Interventions <ul><li>Problem Centric Approach for inducing Cognitive Dissonance  </li></ul><ul><li>Increasi...
Instructional Interventions <ul><li>Problem Centric Approach for inducing Cognitive Dissonance  </li></ul><ul><li>Increasi...
Instructional Interventions <ul><li>Problem Centric Approach for inducing Cognitive Dissonance  </li></ul><ul><li>Increasi...
Table A23.1: Mentors’ reflections on the effect of mentoring on their own competencies  <ul><ul><ul><li>Benefits reported ...
Summary of Instructional Interventions <ul><li>Inquiry teaching </li></ul><ul><li>Project-inclusive teaching:  </li></ul><...
Impact Analysis of a Faculty Development Workshop: What faculty think about lectures attributes?, 2005 Sanjay Goel, JIIT, ...
Summary of Instructional Interventions <ul><li>Inquiry teaching </li></ul><ul><li>Project-inclusive teaching:  </li></ul><...
Research Goals <ul><li>Design pedagogical engagement methods to  expand the efficacy of undergraduate computing education ...
Theory Building Unified Framework of  Pedagogic Engagements in  Software Development Education Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
Theory Building: Unified Framework of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education <ul><ul><ul><li>Our Novel Th...
Three-tier Taxonomy of Core Competencies for Software Developers  Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 Basic Competencies Competency Dr...
Three-tier Taxonomy of Core Competencies for Software Developers  <ul><ul><li>Five-dimensional ladder of professional  </l...
Theory Building: Unified Framework of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education <ul><ul><ul><li>Our Novel Th...
Four-dimensional Taxonomy of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education Reflective Engagements Integrative En...
Table 8.5:  Levels of Active Engagements  <ul><li>Bloom’s revised taxonomy,  </li></ul><ul><li>Sternberg’s propulsion theo...
Four-dimensional Taxonomy of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education Reflective Engagements Integrative En...
Table 8.8: Levels of integrative engagements <ul><li>Solo Taxonomy,  </li></ul><ul><li>Harden’s Taxonomy </li></ul><ul><li...
Four-dimensional Taxonomy of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education Reflective Engagements Integrative En...
<ul><li>Pre-reflection:  No reflection </li></ul><ul><li>1st order Reflection: Product Reflection - creating ladders of re...
Four-dimensional Taxonomy of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education Reflective Engagements Integrative En...
<ul><li>Solo:  no collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>Dialogue:  simple exchange of information </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Intra-gr...
Summary of Presentation Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
Research Goals <ul><li>Design pedagogical engagement methods to  expand the efficacy of undergraduate computing education ...
Research Processes <ul><li>Literature review:  studied a large number of  papers and reports on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sof...
Distinguishing features of Software Development <ul><li>Support for  Cognitive processes  Vs Physical processes.  </li></u...
Summary of Instructional Interventions <ul><li>Inquiry teaching </li></ul><ul><li>Project-inclusive teaching:  </li></ul><...
Theory Building: Unified Framework of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education <ul><ul><ul><li>Our Novel Th...
Three-tier Taxonomy of Core Competencies for Software Developers  <ul><ul><li>Five-dimensional ladder of professional  </l...
Four-dimensional Taxonomy of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education Reflective Engagements Integrative En...
Thanks Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Ph D Presentation

2,229

Published on

Also check http://goelsan.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/summary-of-the-phd-thesis/

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,229
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Ph D Presentation"

  1. 1. DESIGN OF INTERVENTIONS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL REFORM IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION FOR COMPETENCY ENHANCEMENT (2003-2011) (Synopsis Submission:Aug, 2009, Thesis Submission: April 2010, Oral defense: Jan, 2011) Sanjay Goel Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  2. 2. Inspiration and Motivation Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  3. 3. Inspiration <ul><li>Student in engineering(1981-86, 1988-1991): Alas it was done differently. </li></ul><ul><li>Teaching experience (1988-2002): Intuitively designed and tried many teaching techniques. Felt that teaching is a creative art. </li></ul><ul><li>Educational software design experience (1995-2002): </li></ul><ul><li>Intuitively approached the design tasks much like a HCI and software engineering problem. Midway became sensitive to learning literature. Finally, realised that a much deeper understanding of Learning is essential for design and development of educational software. </li></ul><ul><li>Landmark education courses (1999-2002). Got fascinated by their teaching method for large full day classes . How Can we do it as effectively in our courses? </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  4. 4. Turning points: inspirational exposures at JIIT, 2002-04 <ul><li>Pleasant Exposure: ABET, SIGCSE, IEEE-ACM curricular recommendations, IEEE Tr, on Education etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Does Engineering Education Have Anything to Do with Either One? 1982, Prof. Richard Felder </li></ul><ul><li>Every Curriculum Tells a Story, Roger Schank , International Journal of Cognition and Technology, Volume 1, Number 1, 2002 </li></ul><ul><li>Learnt about a new interdisciplinary area “ Learning Sciences ” at Georgia, CMU etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Large classes and many Unmotivated students </li></ul><ul><li>Got initial encouragement to pursue research in this area from </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Raj Reddy, Richard Felder, Rajiv Sangal, SK Kak,… </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Recognized that Learning, Engineering Education, and even computer science education are already established research areas and need systematic research. </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  5. 5. Engineering and Computing Education Some International Journals … <ul><li>Journal of Engineering Education, ASEE, since 1910 </li></ul><ul><li>European Journal of Engineering Education, Taylor and Francis, UK, since 1976 </li></ul><ul><li>The International Journal of Engineering Education, Dublin Institute of Tech., since 1985 </li></ul><ul><li>IEEE Transaction on Education, IEEE, since 1988 </li></ul><ul><li>Journal of Computer Science Education, Taylor and Francis, UK, since 1990 </li></ul><ul><li>International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Springer, since 1990 </li></ul><ul><li>Australasian Journal of Engineering Education. Australasian Association of Engineering education, since 1991 </li></ul><ul><li>The Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, Consortium for Computing Sciences in Colleges, Archived by ACM, since 1991 </li></ul><ul><li>Engineering Science and Education Journal, IEE, since 1992 </li></ul><ul><li>Global Journal of Engineering Education, UNESCO International Centre for Engineering Education, since 1997 </li></ul><ul><li>Journal of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education, Auburn University, USA, since 2000 </li></ul><ul><li>British Journal of Engineering Education, British Engineering Education Society, since 2000 </li></ul><ul><li>Journal of Information Technology Education, Informing Science Institute,USA, since 2002 </li></ul><ul><li>Journal of Information Systems Education, AITP, since 2003 </li></ul><ul><li>Online Journal of Global Engineering Education, University of Rhode Island, since 2006 </li></ul><ul><li>Advances in Engineering Education, ASEE, since 2007 </li></ul><ul><li>Transactions on Computing Education, ACM, USA, since 2009 </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  6. 6. Engineering and Computing Education Some International Journals <ul><li>Journal of Learning Sciences, LEA since 1991 </li></ul><ul><li>Innovative Higher Education, Springer </li></ul><ul><li>Research in Science Education, Springer </li></ul><ul><li>Education and Information Technologies, Springer </li></ul><ul><li>Research in Higher Education, Springer </li></ul><ul><li>Higher Education, Springer </li></ul><ul><li>International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning , Georgia Southern University </li></ul><ul><li>International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, International Society for Exploring Teaching and Learning </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  7. 7. Engineering and Computing Education Some international Conferences and other Publications <ul><li>Annual conference of ASEE, since 1894 </li></ul><ul><li>Annual Conference of SIGCSE, ACM, since 1970. </li></ul><ul><li>Frontiers in Education, ASEE & IEEE, since 1977. </li></ul><ul><li>Annual Conferences of Consortium for Computing Sciences in Colleges, since 1985 </li></ul><ul><li>IEEE Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training, since 1988 </li></ul><ul><li>Annual Conference of Australasian Association of Engineering Education, since 1990 </li></ul><ul><li>Annual Conference on Informing Science and Information Technology Education, Informing Science Institute, since 2001 </li></ul><ul><li>Annual ASEE Global Colloquium on Engineering Education, since 2002 </li></ul><ul><li>Annual Conference of SIGITE, ACM, since 2003 </li></ul><ul><li>International Computing Education Research Workshop, ACM, since 2005 </li></ul><ul><li>The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS), ISLS since 1992. </li></ul><ul><li>SIGCSE Bulletin, since 1969 </li></ul><ul><li>National Teaching and Learning Forum, Newsletter, USA, since 1991 </li></ul><ul><li>Prism, a magazine by ASEE, since 1998 </li></ul><ul><li>Tomorrow's Professor Listserv, Stanford University, USA, since 2000 </li></ul><ul><li>SIGITE Bulletin, since 2005 </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  8. 8. Motivation <ul><li>Significant Gap : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Institution offering Vs Industry and society expectations </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Analogy: Software industry has realized that in order to address the huge gaps between client’s real needs and delivery, they have to put much more emphasis on requirement analysis and engineering </li></ul><ul><li>Huge difference in ability (B. Boehm. 1988) </li></ul><ul><li>25:1 productivity ratio between the most productive & least productive software developers </li></ul><ul><li>10:1 difference in their error rates. </li></ul><ul><li>Not much change is observed in the Perry’s Intellectual level of the engineering students in 1-3 year (Wise et al, 2001) </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  9. 9. Brief Overview of Work Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  10. 10. Research Goals <ul><li>Design pedagogical engagement methods to expand the efficacy of undergraduate computing education with special reference to software development . </li></ul><ul><li>By investigating following questions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Evolution of Software Development Education Vs Educational Research? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Competent Software Engineering? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Effective pedagogical practices? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Instructional interventions? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Theory of Software Development Education? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Using mixed techniques of </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Analytical, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Qualitative, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quantitative, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Action research methods: </li></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  11. 11. Research Processes <ul><li>Literature review: studied a large number of papers and reports on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Software development, Engineering, Systems Thinking </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Computer Science & IT Education </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Engineering education, Professional and higher education </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>100+ Theories on Learning, Intelliegence, Instruction Design, Curriculum Design, and Human Development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Peers’ and clients’ publically available endorsements of software engineers (300+) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Primary Data Collection: Surveys, polls, discussions, and consultations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Working Software Engineers (300+ engrs., 60+ companies, global community) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Students (1000+) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Faculty (150+) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Experiments: Course design and Instructional interventions, Validation, and Deployment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Instructional interventions in regular core computing courses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New courses </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Theory Building: Analysis, Reflection, Theory extension, Interpretation, and Integration </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Three Tier Taxonomy of critical competencies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A Comprehensive framework for designing Pedagogical engagements </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Dissemination and Peer review: Publications, workshops/tutorials/talks , discussions with few senior Prof’s, Blog on “Learning and Computing Education”: 5700 hits in last 6 months. </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  12. 12. Thesis layout <ul><li>Chapters: 10 Nos. (300+ pages including reference list ) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Introduction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identification of Core Competencies for Software Engineers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Distinguishing Features of Software Development and Requisite Taxonomy of Core Competencies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Software Developers’ Education For Development Of Basic Competencies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Software Developers’ Education For Development Of Competency Driver-habits Of Mind </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Software Developers’ Education For Development Of Competency Conditioning Attitudes And Perspectives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Phenomenon Of ‘Learning’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A Framework Of Pedagogic Engagements In Software Development Education </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Some Interventions For Enhancing The Quality Of Software Development Education </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Summary And Future Scope Of Work </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Appendices: 24 Nos. (60+ pages) </li></ul><ul><li>Annexures: 12 Nos. (30 pages) </li></ul><ul><li>Tables: 100+ Nos. </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  13. 13. Published/Under publication Papers on Computing Education <ul><li>Sanjay Goel, A Learners’ Pyramid: Undergraduate Mentoring in Software Engineering, Book chapter in Tania Smith (Ed.), Enriching Courses with Undergraduate Peer Mentors: Theory and Practice, (Accepted), McGill University Press, Canada, 2010. </li></ul><ul><li>Sanjay Goel and Vanshi Kathuria A Novel approach for pair programming, Journal of Information Technology Education, USA , Vol 9, pp 183-196, 2010. </li></ul><ul><li>Sanjay Goel, A proposal for a tutorial on enriching the culture of software engineering education through theories of knowledge and learning, Proceedings, 22nd IEEE-CS Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training , CSEET, pp.279-282, February 2009. </li></ul><ul><li>Ritu Arora, Sanjay Goel, &quot;Software Engineering Approach for Teaching Development of Scalable Enterprise Applications,&quot;, 22nd IEEE-CS Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training CSEET, pp.105-112, February 2009. </li></ul><ul><li>Siddharth Batra and Sanjay Goel, Digislim: A learning tool for logic level digital electronics, Computers in Education Journal, Vol XVIIII No 3, American Society of Engineering Education, USA, pp 17-27, July, 2009, </li></ul><ul><li>Sanjay Goel, Design of Interactive Systems: Looking Beyond Cognitive domain, INCITE’07, EU-India co-operation in IT research Workshop , New Delhi, Invited talk, 2007. </li></ul><ul><li>Goel, Investigations on required core competencies for engineering graduates with reference to Indian IT industry, European Journal of Engineering Education, Taylor & Francis, UK , pp 607-617, October, 2006. </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  14. 14. Published Papers on Computing Education <ul><li>Sanjay Goel, What is high about higher education: Examining engineering education through Bloom’s taxonomy, The National Teaching & Learning Forum, USA ,Vol. 13, pp 1-5, Number 4, 2004. </li></ul><ul><li>Sanjay Goel and Nalin Sharda, What do engineers want? Examining engineering education through Bloom’s taxonomy, Proceedings of 15th Annual Austrasian Engg Education Conference, Australia, pp173-185, 2004. </li></ul><ul><li>Sanjay Goel, Activity based flexible credit definition, Tomorrow’s Professor, Stanford University, 2003 , http://ctl.stanford.edu/Tomprof/postings/513.HTML. </li></ul><ul><li>Sanjay Goel and Mukul K. Sinha, Virtual Archaeolo-Heritage Exploratorium: A model design for School students, Indo-US S&T Forum Workshop on Digital Arcahaeology : A New Paradigm for Visualizing Past through Computing and Information Technology, India, Invited paper, Nov. 2005. </li></ul><ul><li>Sanjay Goel, Om Vikas, Mukul Sinha, Guidelines for Masters in Archaeo-heritage Informatics, Indo US S&T Workshop on Digital Archeology , Musoorie, India, Invited paper, Nov 11-13, 2005. </li></ul><ul><li>Sanjay Goel, Anshul Jain, Priyank Singh, Saaransh Bagga, and Siddhartha Batra, Computer Vision aided Classification and Reconstruction of Indian Potteries, Indo-US S&T Forum Workshop on Digital Archaeology : A New Paradigm for Visualizing Past through Computing and Information Technology, India, Invited paper, Nov. 2005. </li></ul><ul><li>Sanjay Goel, Multimedia for Cultural learning, International workshop on Computer Applications in Archaeology , H.B. Bahuguna University, Sri Nagar, India, Invited paper, 2002. </li></ul><ul><li>Sanjay Goel, A Model Design for Computer based Cognition Support Systems, International Conference on Multimedia in Humanities, IGNCA, 1998. </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  15. 15. Main Contributions Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  16. 16. Evolving Role of Computing and Information Technology <ul><li>Information Technology’s possibility is to serve the human needs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>at all levels of human needs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Maslow’s model : physiological, safety, belonging, esteem, cognition, aesthetic, self actualization, and also transcendence. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>through transfer, transformation, and application of Information </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The old computing is about what computers can do ; The new computing is about what people can do . </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Collaboration, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Empowerment, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Creativity. </li></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  17. 17. Distinguishing features of Software Development <ul><li>Support for Cognitive processes Vs Physical processes. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ill-defined and socio-technical problems. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>No high volume manufacturing/repeated implementations. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>New problems everyday. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Imagination Vs Physical constraints . Like ‘writing,’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Possible applications in all discipline (pure/applied, hard/soft, life/non-life) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Knowledge acquisition, construction, structuring, and representation. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Main Challenges : Requirements, Debugging, Project scoping and estimation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Projects face higher uncertainty factor, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Several iterations. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Discrete abstractions, complex interactions, inherent invisibility  Higher vulnerable to failures and unpredictable behavior. </li></ul><ul><li>Maintenance : learning misunderstood and changing requirement, removing development errors and continued development. </li></ul><ul><li>Psycho-social Challenges related to intellectual property, security, privacy, anonymity, offensive content, cyber regulation, cultural diversity, user psychology and so on. </li></ul><ul><li>Theories, best practices, and essential development tools are still fast evolving. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Re-usage based development methodologies are becoming more popular </li></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  18. 18. Three-tier Taxonomy of Core Competencies for Software Developers Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 Basic Competencies Competency Driver-Habits of Mind Competency Conditioning Attitudes and Perspectives <ul><li>Technical competence </li></ul><ul><li>Computational thinking competence </li></ul><ul><li>Domain competence </li></ul><ul><li>Communication competence </li></ul><ul><li>Complex problem solving competence </li></ul><ul><li>Attention to details </li></ul><ul><li>Critical and reflective thinking </li></ul><ul><li>Creativity and innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Curiosity </li></ul><ul><li>Decision making perspective </li></ul><ul><li>Systems-level perspective </li></ul><ul><li>Intrinsic motivation to create/improve artifacts </li></ul>
  19. 19. Summary of Instructional Interventions <ul><li>Inquiry teaching </li></ul><ul><li>Project-inclusive teaching: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>project-centric and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>project-oriented teaching </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>3. Creating Conditions for Reflective Engagements </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>4. Multilevel infusion </li></ul><ul><li>5. Integrative courses </li></ul><ul><li>6. Group and Community learning: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Collaborative Pair and Quadruple programming a </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cross-level Peer Mentoring </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Reflective Workshop on Pedagogy for Engineering Faculty </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  20. 20. Theory Building: Unified Framework of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education <ul><ul><ul><li>Our Novel Theory = Integration of (Old theories + insights from observations) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A novel Three-tier taxonomy of twelve core competencies </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Five-dimensional ladder of professional and human development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A novel 3D Taxonomy of Knowledge Domain for Designing Computing Courses </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Two Core Principles Related to Learning </li></ul><ul><li>A novel 4D Taxonomy of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  21. 21. Some Important Details Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  22. 22. Research Goals <ul><li>Design pedagogical engagement methods to expand the efficacy of undergraduate computing education with special reference to software development . </li></ul><ul><li>By investigating following questions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Evolution of Software Development Education Vs Educational Research? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Competent Software Engineering? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Effective pedagogical practices? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Instructional interventions? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Theory of Software Development Education? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Using mixed techniques of </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Analytical, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Qualitative, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quantitative, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Action research methods: </li></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  23. 23. Evolution of Computing Education Curriculum <ul><ul><li>65’ ACM curricula committee for CS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>68’ ACM Curricula for CS (UG and PG) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>68 COSINE’ IEEE for CS in EE </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>71 COSINE’ IEEE for CS in EE (UG) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>72’ ACM curriculum on IS (UG) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>73’ ACM curriculum on IS (PG) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>75’ IEEE Model Curricula for CSE (UG) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>77’ IEEE Model Curricula for CSE (UG) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>78’ ACM Health Computing Curriculum (UG &PG) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>78’ ACM Curricula for CS (UG) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>81’ ACM Curricula for CS (PG) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>82’ ACM curriculum on IS (UG and PG) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>84’ IFIP curriculum for CS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>85’ CMU curriculum for CS (UG) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>86’ LACS Model Curriculum for CS (UG) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>89’ ACM report on Computing as a discipline (UG &PG) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>90’ SEI model curriculum for SE (UG) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>91’ ACM/IEEE (UG and PG) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>93’ IEEE paper, Model Indian currriculum for CSE (UG) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>94’ IFIP curriculum for CS (UG) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>96’ LACS curriculum for CS (UG) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>97’ ACM curriculum on IS (UG) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>99’ SEI-CMU Software Engineering Body of Knowledge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>00’ IFIP curriculum for Informatics (UG) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>00’ AICTE curriculum for CSE (UG) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>00’ AICTE curriculum for IT (UG) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>01’ ACMIEEE curriculum on computing </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>02’ ACM/AIS/AITP curriculum for IS </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>04’ ACM IEEE curriculum for SE </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>04’ ACM IIEEE curriculum for CE </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>04’ IEEE SWEBOK 2004 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>05’ ACM- IEEE curriculum for CS </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>05’ ACM-IEEE curriculum for IT </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>07’ LACS curriculum for CS (UG) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>10’ IEEE SWEBOK draft </li></ul></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  24. 24. Evolution of Computing Education Curriculum <ul><li>Key observations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ACM, IEEE, IFIP, SEI, AIS, and AITP have played a key role in recommending curricula. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Indian Computing Curriculum is disconnected from this discourse. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Application linked courses have gradually shifted their focus from scientific computing to business computing and now to entertainment computing as well. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Computer and society and such courses have consistently been in the curricula since 1978. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reference to Curriculum design and pedagogical theories has been generally missing until recently . SWEBOK 2004 started referring to Bloom’s taxonomy. </li></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  25. 25. A Taxonomy of Software development related Engineering Activities <ul><li>Planning: project and risk planning </li></ul><ul><li>Design: design activities at various stages and multiple levels </li></ul><ul><li>Realization: implementation and maintenance </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation: selection and evaluation of tools, technology, products, and process </li></ul><ul><li>Client Interface: requirements and support </li></ul><ul><li>Ubiquitous Activities: process support activities that apply across all phases of a project </li></ul><ul><li>Overarching Activities: applied companywide across the projects </li></ul><ul><li>Consultations with 16 mid/senior level engineering managers with collective work exp. of 300+ man years. </li></ul><ul><li>Followed by a survey of other 57 software professionals with average experience of 7-8 years. </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  26. 26. A Taxonomy of Software development related Engineering Activities <ul><li>Design: at various stages and multiple levels </li></ul><ul><li>Prototyping </li></ul><ul><li>Component and interface Design </li></ul><ul><li>Component Selection </li></ul><ul><li>Algorithm/ Computational Procedure Design </li></ul><ul><li>Architecting </li></ul><ul><li>Application Design </li></ul><ul><li>Service Design </li></ul><ul><li>Product Design </li></ul><ul><li>System Design </li></ul><ul><li>Network Design </li></ul><ul><li>Process Design </li></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure Design </li></ul><ul><li>Security Architecture Design </li></ul><ul><li>Process Tailoring </li></ul><ul><li>Test Design </li></ul><ul><li>Content Design </li></ul><ul><li>Standardization </li></ul><ul><li>Restructuring </li></ul><ul><li>Intellectual Property Management </li></ul><ul><li>Planning: </li></ul><ul><li>Project and risk planning </li></ul><ul><li>Time to market Planning </li></ul><ul><li>Estimation and Costing </li></ul><ul><li>Resource Planning and Management </li></ul><ul><li>Project Scheduling </li></ul><ul><li>Risk Planning and Mitigation </li></ul><ul><li>Staffing and Team Development </li></ul><ul><li>Project Monitoring and Control </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  27. 27. A Taxonomy of Software development related Engineering Activities <ul><li>Realization : Implementation and Maintenance </li></ul><ul><li>Application Customization </li></ul><ul><li>ApplicationDevelopment </li></ul><ul><li>Component Development </li></ul><ul><li>Product Development </li></ul><ul><li>Service Development </li></ul><ul><li>System Integration </li></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure set-up </li></ul><ul><li>Process Implementation and Change Management </li></ul><ul><li>Configuration Management </li></ul><ul><li>Code AnalysisBuild and Release Management </li></ul><ul><li>Validation and Verification (Testing) </li></ul><ul><li>Maintenance, Enhancement, Up-gradation, Porting </li></ul><ul><li>Data Migration </li></ul><ul><li>Technology Migration </li></ul><ul><li>Performance Tuning </li></ul><ul><li>System Administration </li></ul><ul><li>Database administration </li></ul><ul><li>Network administration </li></ul><ul><li>Security administration </li></ul><ul><li>Service Management </li></ul><ul><li>Standards and regulatory Compliance </li></ul><ul><li>Program Comprehension and re-documentation </li></ul><ul><li>Reconstruction </li></ul><ul><li>Code Archaeology </li></ul><ul><li>Disaster recovery </li></ul><ul><li>Production support </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  28. 28. A Taxonomy of Software development related Engineering Activities <ul><li>Client Interface : </li></ul><ul><li>Requirements and support </li></ul><ul><li>Technical Marketing </li></ul><ul><li>Consulting </li></ul><ul><li>Feasibility Study </li></ul><ul><li>Work flow/Process Study and Modeling </li></ul><ul><li>Visualization </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge Elicitation </li></ul><ul><li>Requirement Engineering </li></ul><ul><li>Migration Assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Test assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Product/ Requirement Definition and Specification </li></ul><ul><li>Business Technology Alignments </li></ul><ul><li>Deployment and roll out </li></ul><ul><li>User Acceptance and Usability Analysis </li></ul><ul><li>User interface Design </li></ul><ul><li>End User Documentation </li></ul><ul><li>Customer Support </li></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure planning </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation: Selection and evaluation of tools, technology, products, and process </li></ul><ul><li>Application Audit </li></ul><ul><li>Process Audit </li></ul><ul><li>Technology Audit </li></ul><ul><li>Tools and Technology Selection and Evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Architecture Evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Impact Analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Value Analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Usability Analysis </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  29. 29. A Taxonomy of Software development related Engineering Activities <ul><li>Overarching Activities applied companywide across the projects </li></ul><ul><li>Technology Entrepreneurship </li></ul><ul><li>Program Management </li></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure Management and Maintenance (Operations Management) </li></ul><ul><li>Contract Management </li></ul><ul><li>Partnership/ Outsourcing/ Vendor Development </li></ul><ul><li>Product Quality Assurance and Control </li></ul><ul><li>Process Quality Assurance and Control </li></ul><ul><li>Procurement </li></ul><ul><li>Ubiquitous Activities process support activities across all phases of a project </li></ul><ul><li>Measurement </li></ul><ul><li>Technical Documentation and Presentation </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Research </li></ul><ul><li>Presenting ideas and insights </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge Management </li></ul><ul><li>Training and Talent Development </li></ul><ul><li>Group work, people management, and leadership </li></ul><ul><li>Idea convergence </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  30. 30. Recommended Most Important Activities wrt Education <ul><li>Algorithm/Computational Procedure/Component and Interface Design (79% respondents) </li></ul><ul><li>Application/Product/System Design/Prototyping (75%) </li></ul><ul><li>Product/Requirement Definition and Specification/Requirement Engineering/Visualization/ </li></ul><ul><li>Consulting (75%) </li></ul><ul><li>Code Analysis, Program Comprehension, Re-documentation (68%) </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation and research (66%) </li></ul><ul><li>Application, Component Development/System Integration (65%) </li></ul><ul><li>Group work, people management, and leadership ( 65%) </li></ul><ul><li>Estimation and Costing, Project Scheduling (63%) </li></ul><ul><li>Product/Process Quality Assurance and Control (60%) </li></ul><ul><li>Validation and Verification (Testing) (58%) </li></ul><ul><li>Technical Documentation, Presenting Ideas and Insights (54%) </li></ul><ul><li>Test Design (52%) </li></ul><ul><li>User Interface Design (47%) </li></ul><ul><li>User Acceptance, End-user Documentation, Deployment and Roll-out, Customer support (45%) </li></ul><ul><li>Security Architecture Design, Architecting, Component Selection (42%) </li></ul><ul><li>Project Monitoring and Control (40%) </li></ul><ul><li>Tools and Technology Selection and Evaluation (40%) </li></ul><ul><li>Usability/Value/Impact Analysis (39%) </li></ul><ul><li>Resource Planning and Management, Staffing and Team Development (36%) </li></ul><ul><li>Risk Planning and Mitigation (36%) </li></ul><ul><li>Build and Release, Configuration Management (36%) </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  31. 31. Research Goals <ul><li>Design pedagogical engagement methods to expand the efficacy of undergraduate computing education with special reference to software development . </li></ul><ul><li>By investigating following questions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Evolution of Software Development Education Vs Educational Research? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Competent Software Engineering? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Effective pedagogical practices? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Instructional interventions? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Theory of Software Development Education? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Using mixed techniques of </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Analytical, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Qualitative, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quantitative, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Action research methods: </li></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  32. 32. Required Professional Competencies wrt Software Development Activities Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  33. 33. Competency ratings by working engineers in IT companies Goel Sanjay (2006), Investigations on required core competencies for engineering graduates with reference to the Indian IT industry, European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol 31 Issue 5, October, Taylor & Francis, UK. 54 respondents from 15 companies. Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 No Engineering Competency Normalised Figure of Merit (Max. = 10) Category 1 Problem solving 10.0 Pivotal 2 Analysis / Methodological skills 8.8 Critical 3 Basic engineering proficiency 8.5 Critical 4 Development know-how 8.2 Critical 5 Teamwork skills 8.2 Critical 6 English Language skills 7.6 Critical 7 Presentation skills 7.5 Critical 8 Practical engineering experience 7.3 Critical 9 Leadership skills 7.3 Critical 10 Communication skills 7.2 Critical … Total 23 competencies
  34. 34. <ul><ul><li>Competent Computing professional? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Paper: </li></ul><ul><li>Goel Sanjay (2006), Competency Focused Engineering Education with Reference to IT Related Disciplines: Is Indian System Ready for Transformation? Journal of Information Technology Education, USA </li></ul><ul><li>Aim: To collate various recommendations about core competencies for engineering graduates with specific reference to various IT related disciplines. </li></ul><ul><li>- Accreditation agencies in US, UK, Australia, Singapore, and Japan. </li></ul><ul><li>- NSF, National Academy of Engineers (NAE), Engineering Professor’s Council (EPC), and NASSCOM. </li></ul><ul><li>- Curricular recommendations by ACM, IEEE, AIS, AITP </li></ul><ul><li>- Papers by researchers like Felder, Bordogna, and many others. </li></ul><ul><li>Critical review of more than 50 references. </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  35. 35. Comparative analysis of some common competencies identified by some accreditation agencies Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 Competency Position in the respective list ABET ’01 UK-SPEC, ‘03 IES, ’04 EA, ‘05 JABEE, ‘04 Avg 1 Ability to apply knowledge 1 2 1 1 3 1.6 2 Design skills. 3 2 3 5 5 3.6 3 Problem solving skills. 5 - 4 4 4 4.25 4 Technical competence. 11 1 5 3 4 4.8 5 Ability to work in multidisciplinary teams. 4 4 9 6 1 4.8 6 Communication skills. 7 4 6 2 6 5 7 Sensitivity towards global, societal, and environmental issues. 8 5 8 7 2 6 8 Sensitivity towards ethical and professional issues. 6 5 10 9 2 6.4 9 Readiness for life-long learning. 9 5 7 10 7 7.6
  36. 36. Meaningful usage, extension, and acquisition of knowledge Productive habits of mind Attitudes and perceptions Three-dimensional framework of competencies Dimensions of Learning (Marzano R. J., Pickering D. & McTighe J. 1993) Dimension 1: Attitudes and perceptions. Dimension 2: Acquire and Integrate Knowledge Dimension 3: Extend and Refine Knowledge Dimension 4: Use Knowledge Meaningfully Dimension 5: Productive Habits of Mind Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  37. 37. Competency Focused Engineering Education with Reference to IT Related Disciplines: Is the Indian System Ready for Transformation? Sanjay Goel, Journal of Information Technology Education Volume 5, 2006 Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 <ul><ul><li>Attitudes and perceptions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Productive habits of mind </li></ul></ul>Meaningful usage, extension, and acquisition of knowledge <ul><li>System-level perspective (including Knowledge integration, consideration for multilateral viewpoint, and User centeredness). </li></ul><ul><li>Ability to work in homogeneous, multidisciplinary, multi-locational and multicultural teams. </li></ul><ul><li>Sensitivity towards global, societal, environmental, moral, ethical and professional issues and sustainability. </li></ul><ul><li>“ Be the customer” Mentality </li></ul><ul><li>Listening. </li></ul><ul><li>Readiness for lifelong learning. </li></ul><ul><li>Entrepreneurship. </li></ul><ul><li>Ability to assist others through mentoring and philanthropic donations. </li></ul><ul><li>Perseverance. </li></ul><ul><li>Sense of urgency and stress management. </li></ul><ul><li>Adaptability and ability to multi-task . </li></ul><ul><li>Attention to detail. </li></ul><ul><li>Critical thinking. </li></ul><ul><li>Creativity and idea initiation. </li></ul><ul><li>Numerical ability. </li></ul><ul><li>Ability to apply knowledge. </li></ul><ul><li>Design skills. </li></ul><ul><li>Problem solving skills. </li></ul><ul><li>Technical competence. </li></ul><ul><li>Decision making skills </li></ul><ul><li>Analytical skills. </li></ul><ul><li>Research skills. </li></ul><ul><li>Constructive criticism </li></ul><ul><li>Experimentation skills. </li></ul><ul><li>Communication skills. </li></ul><ul><li>Project planning and management. </li></ul><ul><li>Organizational skills </li></ul><ul><li>Persuasion skills. </li></ul><ul><li>Mentoring skills. </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge of contemporary issues. </li></ul><ul><li>Wealth creation skills. </li></ul>
  38. 38. Revised Competency ratings…, 2007…71 responses from 33 companies Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 No. Competencies Category 1 Perseverance, commitment, and hardwork. Existential 2 Ability to work in teams. 3 Ability to apply knowledge. Pivotal 4 Integrity and authenticity. 5 Analytical skills. 6 Accountability and responsibility. 7 Technical competence. 8 Problem solving skills. 9 Listening skills. Critical 10 Attention to detail. 11 Project planning and management. 12 Quality consciousness and pursuit of excellence. 13 Critical thinking. 14 Readiness for lifelong learning. 15 Design skills.
  39. 39. Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 16 Communication skills. Obligatory 17 Research skills. 18 Adaptability and ability to multi-task. 19 “ Be the customer” Mentality 20 Systems-level perspective 21 Decision making skills 22 Creativity and idea initiation. 23 Organizational skills Desirable 24 Mentoring skills. 25 Experimentation skills. 26 Numerical ability. 27 Constructive criticism skills 28 Persuasion skills. 29 Sense of urgency and stress management. 30 Ability to assist others through mentoring and philanthropic donations. 31 Wealth creation skills. 32 Knowledge of contemporary issues. 33 Cost consciousness. 34 Sensitivity towards global, societal, environmental, moral, and ethical issues and sustainability. Complimentary 35 Entrepreneurship.
  40. 40. wrt Software services work Average competency rating for 35 competencies = 33/100 Revised Competency ratings…, 2007…71 responses from 33 companies Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 Competency 1 Ability to work in teams. Existential 2 Perseverance, commitment, and hardwork. Critical 3 Listening skills. Obligatory
  41. 41. IT professionals wrt Research or product development work in large or midsize companies Average competency rating for 35 competencies = 47/100 Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 Sno. Competencies 1 Ability to work in teams. Existential 2 Ability to apply knowledge. 3 Perseverance, commitment, and hardwork. Pivotal 4 Accountability and responsibility. Critical 5 Analytical skills. 6 Problem solving skills. 7 Research skills. 8 Integrity and authenticity. Obligatory 9 Critical thinking. 10 Design skills. 11 Technical competence.
  42. 42. IT professionals wrt Research or product development work in small companies Average competency rating for 35 competencies = 49/100 Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 Sno. Competencies 1 Perseverance, commitment, and hardwork. Existential 2 Accountability and responsibility. Pivotal 3 Ability to apply knowledge. 4 Problem solving skills. 5 Research skills. 6 Attention to detail. Critical 7 Analytical skills. 8 Integrity and authenticity. 9 Readiness for lifelong learning. 10 Technical competence. 11 Quality consciousness and pursuit of excellence. Obligatory 12 Critical thinking. 13 Design skills.
  43. 43. <ul><li>Table 4.8: Academic and Real life Problems </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 Academic Problems Real life practical problems <ul><li>Tend to be formulated by other people </li></ul><ul><li>Well-defined or well-structured </li></ul><ul><li>Tend to be complete. Presented with all the parameters and constraints. Usually consist of a well-defined initial state, a known goal state, and a constrained set of logical operators. </li></ul><ul><li>Typically posses only a single answer </li></ul><ul><li>Tend to encourage single method of obtaining a correct answer </li></ul><ul><li>Require application of a finite number of concepts, rules, and principles </li></ul><ul><li>Divorced from ordinary experience </li></ul><ul><li>Tend to be of little or no intrinsic interest </li></ul><ul><li>Require (re)formulation . </li></ul><ul><li>Ill-defined or ill-structured </li></ul><ul><li>Require information seeking. One or more elements of the ill-defined problem are unknown or not known with certainty. The goals of real-life practical problems are usually vaguely defined with unstated constraints. </li></ul><ul><li>Usually possess multiple acceptable solutions . </li></ul><ul><li>Allow multiple paths to solution . </li></ul><ul><li>Present uncertainty about useful and usable concepts, rules, and principles as well. Further, in case of ill-defined problems, the relationships between concepts, rules, and principles may be inconsistent between cases. </li></ul><ul><li>Embedded in and require prior experience . This requires the problem solver of ill-structured problem to distinguish important from irrelevant, and construct a problem space for generating solutions. </li></ul><ul><li>Require motivation and personal involvement </li></ul>
  44. 44. <ul><li>Communication Competence wrt Software Development ? </li></ul><ul><li>Table 4.6: Summary of Responses, 2009-2010 </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 Micro level communication skill Most Important (84 responses) Greatest Weakness (69 responses) Listening with understanding and empathy 55% 37% Writing with clarity 16% 14% Speaking with clarity 15% 33% Reading with comprehension 7% 5% Making impressive presentations 4% 8%
  45. 45. <ul><li>Weaknesses of Engg. Education in </li></ul><ul><li>Computing disciplines? </li></ul><ul><li>Summary of Responses, 2009-2010 </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 Competencies Weakest Area (58 responses) Decision making ability 41% Thinking ability 24% Procedural knowledge 15% Conceptual Knowledge 15% Learning ability 3%
  46. 46. Competency Recommendations: Key References <ul><li>NSF report , 1989 </li></ul><ul><li>EMTA (Engineering and Marine Training Authority) Survey, 1998 </li></ul><ul><li>EPC report, UK, 2000 </li></ul><ul><li>SPINE: Successful Practices in International Engineering Education, 2002 </li></ul><ul><li>Computer Science graduate, IEEE-CS and ACM, 2001-02 </li></ul><ul><li>NASSCOM-KPMG report, 2003 </li></ul><ul><li>Government of India Task Force report, 2003 </li></ul><ul><li>Computer Engineering Graduate, IEEE-CS and ACM, 2004 </li></ul><ul><li>Software Engineering Graduates, IEEE-CS and ACM, 2004 </li></ul><ul><li>Information Systems Graduates, IEEE-CS, ACM, AIS, and AITP 2004 </li></ul><ul><li>Computing Accreditation commission, ABET, 2004 </li></ul><ul><li>Information Technology Graduates, IEEE-CS and ACM, 2005 </li></ul><ul><li>NAE reports, 2005 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>College Learning for the New Global Century, American Association of College and University, 2007 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Software Architecture report, SEI, CMU. 2008 </li></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  47. 47. Competency Recommendations: Key References <ul><li>Codes of conduct, ethics, and/or practice: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>American Council of Engineering Companies, 1980 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), 1993 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Institution of Engineers, Australia </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>American Association of Engineering Societies, 2000 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>American Society of Civil Engineers, 1996 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>American Society of Mechanical Engineers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 2003 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), 1990 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ACM (Association of Computing Machinery), 1993 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Information Processing Society of Japan, 1996 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ACM-IEEE Code for Software Engineers Ver 5.2, 2002 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The first and the most important recommendation in all these codes is that concerned professional shall fulfill their professional duties by holding paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public . </li></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  48. 48. Other important Recommendation/Studies <ul><li>John Henry Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated’ (1852), </li></ul><ul><li>Franklin Bobbitt, Theory of Curriculum, (1918), and subsequent writing of till 40’s </li></ul><ul><li>Robbins Report (1963) </li></ul><ul><li>Four Perspectives on Professional Expertise, Kennedy (1987) </li></ul><ul><li>Cultivating Humanity:A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education, Martha Nussbaum (1997) </li></ul><ul><li>Five core values of eXtreme Programming (2004) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>communication, simplicity, feedback, courage, and respect </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Star and average performers at Bell Labs (1993) </li></ul><ul><li>Competencies of software engineers in a Fortune 500 computing company (1995 </li></ul><ul><li>US based Professional Aptitude Council (2005) </li></ul><ul><li>Passow Honor J., What Competencies Should Undergraduate Engineering Programs Emphasize?, PhD Thesis, University of Michigan (2008) </li></ul><ul><li>11-25 Stark et al (1987), Armour (2000), Rugarcia et al, (2000), Cabrera et al (2001), Dodridge (2003) , Bordogna (2005), Hoscette (2005), Erlendsso (2005), Chang (2005), Erlendsson (2005), Connor et al (2005) , Hazzan and Tomakyo (2005), Sodiya et al (2007), García-Aracil and Van der Velden (2008) </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  49. 49. Models of Competency Classification: Key references <ul><li>Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (1956) </li></ul><ul><li>Costa’s model of intellectual functioning (1985), </li></ul><ul><li>Kennedy’s four perspectives on professional expertise (1987), </li></ul><ul><li>Dimensions of learning, Marzano (1988) </li></ul><ul><li>Anderson and Krathwohl modification of Bloom’s taxonomy (2001), </li></ul><ul><li>The classification of college graduate’s competencies, Stark et al (1989), </li></ul><ul><li>Marzano’s revised taxonomy (2000), </li></ul><ul><li>García-Aracil and Van der Velden (2008), </li></ul><ul><li>Kelly Coate schema for curriculum design (2009) </li></ul><ul><li>10-14: Becker, Nordhaug, Heijke, Bunk, Kellerman (1980 onwards) </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  50. 50. Three-tier Taxonomy of Core Competencies for Software Developers Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 Basic Competencies Competency Driver-Habits of Mind Competency Conditioning Attitudes and Perspectives <ul><li>Technical competence </li></ul><ul><li>Computational thinking competence </li></ul><ul><li>Domain competence </li></ul><ul><li>Communication competence </li></ul><ul><li>Complex problem solving competence </li></ul><ul><li>Attention to details </li></ul><ul><li>Critical and reflective thinking </li></ul><ul><li>Creativity and innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Curiosity </li></ul><ul><li>Decision making perspective </li></ul><ul><li>Systems-level perspective </li></ul><ul><li>Intrinsic motivation to create/improve artifacts </li></ul>
  51. 51. Research Goals <ul><li>Design pedagogical engagement methods to expand the efficacy of undergraduate computing education with special reference to software development . </li></ul><ul><li>By investigating following questions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Evolution of Software Development Education Vs Educational Research? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Competent Software Engineering? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Effective pedagogical practices? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Instructional interventions? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Theory of Software Development Education? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Using mixed techniques of </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Analytical, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Qualitative, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quantitative, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Action research methods: </li></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  52. 52. Phenomenon of Learning: Some Results Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  53. 53. Bloom’s Taxonomy: Levels of Cognition <ul><li>Goel Sanjay and Sharda Nalin (2004), What do engineers want? Examining engineering education through Bloom’s taxonomy, Conference of Australasian Association of Engineering Education, September, 2004, Australia. </li></ul><ul><li>Goel Sanjay (2004), What is high about higher education : Examining Engineering Education Through Bloom’s Taxonomy, The National Teaching & Learning Forum, Vol. 13 Number 4, pp 1-5, USA . </li></ul>What students think they get to do? calculate, explain, prove (studied theorem, studied method), define (studied definitions), write, solve, compute, show (studied fact, studied method), evaluate(computation), derive, state, describe, determine, find, analyze, justify, …. What students think works well for them wrt learning? design, analyze, understand, build, apply, adapt, implement, create, develop, demonstrate, validate, define (new things), show (unstudied fact in the direct context of studied material) , illustrate, compare, enjoy, correlate, argue, research, evaluate (the options), ... What professional engineers recommend ? analyse, design, develop, implement, evaluate (the options), integrate, build, conclude, define (new things), acquire, demonstrate, justify, assess, organize, formulate, estimate, summarize, categorize, validate, document, standardize, identify Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 Correlation What professional engineers recommend ? What students get in exams? -0.57
  54. 54. Rating Comparison Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011     Bloom levels What students think they get ?       What students get in exams ? What students think works well for them ? What engineers recommend ? Knowledge 0.24 0.36 0.04 0.09 Comprehen-sion 0.24 0.16 0.11 0.10 Application 0.22 0.40 0.13 0.10 Analysis 0.14 0.04 0.15 0.19 Synthesis 0.14 0.05 0.46 0.38 Evaluation 0.02 0.00 0.11 0.15
  55. 55. What working IT engineers think about Teaching Methods?, SPINE based Study, 2004-05 Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 No (j) Teaching Method Normalised Figure of Merit (Max. = 10) Category 1 Group Projects 10.0 Pivotal 2 Project 9.8 Pivotal 3 Practical Training 9.2 Pivotal 4 Industrial Training /Internship 6.5 Obligatory 5 Lecture 6.5 Obligatory 6 Seminars 6.3 Obligatory 7 Written projects/studies 6.2 Obligatory 8 Home work/Out of class assignment 3.8 Complementary
  56. 56. Effective lecturing in engineering and computing courses, 2005-06? <ul><li>Documentation : 250 Anecdotes of most effective lecture </li></ul><ul><ul><li>110 anecdotes of as recalled by computing students </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>99 anecdotes of as recalled by faculty from their student days </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>43 anecdotes of as recalled by faculty as teachers. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Observations </li></ul><ul><li>Most effective lectures were found to have at least one form of active and collaborative learning strategies e.g., problem solving, group work, discussions, critique and so on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>90% anecdotes by final year students </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>55% anecdotes by second year students </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>80% anecdotes by faculty members (as students) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>94% anecdotes by faculty members (as teachers) </li></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  57. 57. What students think about lectures attributes? Goel Sanjay (2006), Do Engineering Faculty Know What’s Broken? The National Teaching & Learning Forum , Vol 15 Number 2, USA Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 Lecture Format property Most Effective for learning Least Effective for learning Most Often used 1. careful listening and preparing notes 36.36% 70.45% 79.55% 2. explain textbook 11.36% 90.91% 88.64% 6. creative thinking 75.00% 4.55% 9.09% 7. in-class-group-work 63.64% 4.55% 2.27% 14. discover 63.64% 2.27% 0.00% Correlation Most Effective for Learning Least Effective for Learning Least Effective for Learning -0.79 Most Often used Lecture Format -0.69 0.99
  58. 58. Table A9.1: 29 students’ responses on ‘questioning in the class’,2005 Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 <ul><li>Learning is a consequence of thinking, and knowing facts is only small part of it. </li></ul><ul><li>Most students attend classes of most teachers mostly to meet the attendance requirements. </li></ul><ul><li>Only some students take initiative to ask questions when confused or curious, and very few asked questions that required thinking and contribute to classroom discussions. </li></ul><ul><li>Only a few teachers ask sufficient number of questions during lecture classes. </li></ul><ul><li>Only some teachers give sufficient wait-time (at least few seconds) before calling a student to answer their questions during their lectures. </li></ul><ul><li>Most questions asked by most teachers are related to facts, syntax, formula, procedure or recall that do not require deep thinking. Very few teacher questions enhance creative/analytical thinking, or promote teamwork. </li></ul><ul><li>Very few teachers help students to expand their initial answers through more probing conversations or help them through cues and clues. </li></ul>
  59. 59. Table A10.1 : Effectiveness of educational experiences for competency enhancement of software developers 67 Software developers - (How) Did your college help you in your development?” Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 Pedagogical Engagements Rating Avg (0-4) <ul><li>Projects </li></ul>3.40 <ul><li>Laboratory work </li></ul>2.99 <ul><li>Discussions with other students </li></ul>2.96 <ul><li>Teaching peers/juniors </li></ul>2.84 <ul><li>Thinking and work oriented Lectures </li></ul>2.76 <ul><li>Discussions with Faculty </li></ul>2.70 <ul><li>Industrial Training. </li></ul>2.60 <ul><li>Research Literature survey oriented assignments </li></ul>2.55 <ul><li>Discussions with others </li></ul>2.39 <ul><li>Homework and Tutorial </li></ul>1.97 <ul><li>Knowledge transmission oriented Lectures (explain and follow the textbooks) </li></ul>1.91 <ul><li>Written examinations and required preparation </li></ul>1.85
  60. 60. Table 7.2: Perceived effectiveness of engagements with respect to competencies 67 Software developers - (How) Did your college help you in your development?” Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 Competency Most effective pedagogical engagements Technical competence Projects (84%) and Laboratory work (65%) Communication competence Discussions with other students (84%), Mentoring juniors (71%), Discussions with faculty (69%), and Discussion with others (51%) Domain competence Projects (61%), Research literature survey (51%), and Knowledge transmission oriented lectures (51%) Complex problem solving Projects (79%), Laboratory work (59%), and Thinking oriented lectures (51%) Computational thinking Projects (64%) and Thinking oriented lectures (49%) Attention to details Projects (71%) Critical and reflective thinking Projects (50%) Creativity and innovation Projects (82%) and Thinking oriented lectures (53%) Curiosity Projects (66%) and Research literature survey (62%) Decision making perspective Projects (90%), Industrial training (71%) Systems-level perspective Projects (58%) and Mentoring other students (51%) Intrinsic motivation to create/improve artifacts Projects (74% ), Research literature survey (58%), Thinking oriented lectures (54%), Discussions with students (50%), and Discussions with faculty (50%).
  61. 61. Table A10.3: Effectiveness of educational experiences for competency enhancement with respect to direct/indirect contribution for final year project by 210 computing students (7th sem) Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 Pedagogical Engagements Rating, 0-4 <ul><li>Minor project-I/Minor project-II of 3rd year </li></ul>2.8 <ul><li>Mini projects as part of specific courses </li></ul>2.8 <ul><li>Laboratory work (during laboratory classes) </li></ul>2.7 <ul><li>Industrial Training </li></ul>2.5 <ul><li>Developmental work (for laboratory classes) </li></ul>2.5 <ul><li>Discussions with faculty </li></ul>2.4 <ul><li>Literature survey oriented assignments </li></ul>2.2 <ul><li>Discussions with peers/seniors </li></ul>2.1 <ul><li>Lectures </li></ul>1.9 <ul><li>Tutorial </li></ul>1.8 <ul><li>Written examination and required preparation </li></ul>1.6 <ul><li>Mentoring juniors </li></ul>1.5
  62. 62. Phenomenon of Learning: Some Important Learning Theories Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  63. 63. Human learning, intelligence, and thinking? Theories… <ul><li>Connectionism (Thorndike, 1913) </li></ul><ul><li>Genetic epistemology (Piaget, 1915) </li></ul><ul><li>Theory of Curriculum (Bobbit, 1918) </li></ul><ul><li>Social development theory (Vygotsky, 1920s) </li></ul><ul><li>Gestalt theory (Wertheimer, 1924). </li></ul><ul><li>Theory of cognitive development (Piaget, 1930s onwards) </li></ul><ul><li>Contiguity theory (Guthrie, 1938) </li></ul><ul><li>Fluid and crystallized intelligence (Cattell, 1941) </li></ul><ul><li>A theory of human motivation (Maslow, 1943) </li></ul><ul><li>Theory of inventive problem solving (TRIZ/TIPS) (Altshuller, 1946) </li></ul><ul><li>Phenomenology (Rogers, 1951), </li></ul><ul><li>Information processing theory (Miller, 1956) </li></ul><ul><li>Taxonomy of educational objectives (Bloom, 1956) </li></ul><ul><li>Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) </li></ul><ul><li>Motivation to work (Herzber, 1959) </li></ul><ul><li>Two cultures (Snow, 1959) </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  64. 64. Human learning, intelligence, and thinking? Theories… <ul><li>Originality (Maltzman, 1960) </li></ul><ul><li>Conditions of learning (Gagne, 1962) </li></ul><ul><li>Systems thinking (Emery and Trist, 1965) </li></ul><ul><li>Constructivist theory (Bruner, 1966) </li></ul><ul><li>Structure of intellect (Guilford, 1967) </li></ul><ul><li>Lateral thinking (Edward de Bono, 1967) </li></ul><ul><li>Experiential learning (Rogers, 1960s) </li></ul><ul><li>Sub-sumption theory (Ausubel, 1960s) </li></ul><ul><li>The stage theory (Atkinson and Shiffrin 1968) </li></ul><ul><li>ERG theory (Alderfer, 1969) </li></ul><ul><li>Intellectual and ethical development (Perry, 1970) </li></ul><ul><li>Androgogy (Knowles, 1970) </li></ul><ul><li>Levels of processing (Craik and Lockart, 1970s) </li></ul><ul><li>Framework of reflective activities (Borton, 1970) </li></ul><ul><li>Conscious competence theory (Gordon Institute, early 1970s) </li></ul><ul><li>Classification of disciplines (Biglan, 1973) </li></ul><ul><li>Attribution theory (Weiner, 1974) </li></ul><ul><li>Conversation theory (Pask, 1976) </li></ul><ul><li>Double loop learning (Chris Argyris, 1976) </li></ul><ul><li>Approaches to learning (Marton and Saljo, 1976) </li></ul><ul><li>Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) </li></ul><ul><li>Theory of tri-archic intelligence (Sternberg, 1977) </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  65. 65. <ul><li>Script theory (Schank, 1970s and 80s) </li></ul><ul><li>Modes of learning (Norman and Rumelhart, 1978) </li></ul><ul><li>Logical categories of learning (Bateson, 1979) </li></ul><ul><li>Flow theory of motivation (Csikszentmihalyi 1979) </li></ul><ul><li>Four quadrant model of the brain (Herrmann’s 1979) </li></ul><ul><li>Repair theory (Brown and VanLehn, 1980) </li></ul><ul><li>Self determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 1980 onwards) </li></ul><ul><li>Adult learning theory (Cross, 1981) </li></ul><ul><li>Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) Taxonomy (Biggs and Collis, 1982) </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple intelligence theory (Gardner, 1983) </li></ul><ul><li>Component display theory (Merrill, 1983) </li></ul><ul><li>Tri-archaic theory of intelligence (Sternberg, 1970s and 80s) </li></ul><ul><li>Learning style and experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984) </li></ul><ul><li>Concept mapping and Vee mapping (Novak and Gowin, 1984) </li></ul><ul><li>Nature of moral stages (Kohlberg, 1984) </li></ul><ul><li>Mathematical problem solving (Schoenfeld, 1985) </li></ul><ul><li>Intellectual functioning in three levels (Costa, 1985) </li></ul><ul><li>Levels of professional expertise (Dreyfus brothers, 1985) </li></ul><ul><li>Women’s 5 ways of knowing (Belenky et al, 1986) </li></ul>Human learning, intelligence, and thinking? Theories… Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  66. 66. <ul><li>Cognitive apprenticeship (Collins et al, 1987) </li></ul><ul><li>Four perspectives on professional expertise (Kennedy, 1987) </li></ul><ul><li>Knowing in action (Schön, 1987) </li></ul><ul><li>3P model (Biggs, 1987-99) </li></ul><ul><li>Dimensions of learning (Marzano, 1988) </li></ul><ul><li>Mental self-government learning theory (Sternberg, 1988) </li></ul><ul><li>Style of learning and teaching (Entwistle, 1988) </li></ul><ul><li>Framework for reflection (Gibbs, 1988) </li></ul><ul><li>Cognitive load theory (J. Sweller, 1988) </li></ul><ul><li>Framework for reflection on action (Smyth, 1989) </li></ul><ul><li>Minimalism (Carrol, 1990) </li></ul><ul><li>Situated learning (Lave and Wenger, 1991) </li></ul><ul><li>Investment theory of creativity (Sternberg, 1991) </li></ul><ul><li>Curriculum integration (Fogarty, 1991) </li></ul><ul><li>Staged Self Directed Learning Model (Grow, 1991) </li></ul><ul><li>Cognitive flexibility theory (Spiro et al, 1992) </li></ul><ul><li>Capability (Stephenson, 1992) </li></ul><ul><li>Model of critical thinking (APA, 1992-2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Epistemological reflection model (Baxter-Magolda, 1992) </li></ul><ul><li>Value inventory (Schwartz, 1992) </li></ul><ul><li>Learner managed learning (Graves, 1993) </li></ul><ul><li>Reflective judgment model (King and Kitchener, 1994) </li></ul>Human learning, intelligence, and thinking? Theories… Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  67. 67. <ul><li>Learning by design (Kolodner et al, 1995-2004) </li></ul><ul><li>Model of critical thinking (Paul, 1996) </li></ul><ul><li>Work-based learning (Gattegno, 1996; Hase, 1998). </li></ul><ul><li>CHC theory (McGrew 1997, Flanagan 1998) </li></ul><ul><li>Intelligence as developing expertise (Sternberg, 1997) </li></ul><ul><li>Framework of learning style (Vermunt, 1998) </li></ul><ul><li>Socialisation, Externalisation, Combination, and Internatisation (SECI) (Noanaka &Takeuchi, 1998) </li></ul><ul><li>Action learning (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1998) </li></ul><ul><li>Propulsion theory of creativity (Sternberg, 1999) </li></ul><ul><li>Ergonagy (Tanaka and Evers, 1999) </li></ul><ul><li>Constructivist alignment (Biggs, 1999) </li></ul><ul><li>Phases in critical reflective inquiry (Kim,1999) </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborative learning (Dillenbourg, 1999) </li></ul><ul><li>Heutagogy (Hase and Kenyon, 2000) </li></ul><ul><li>Taxonomy of learning (Marzano, 2000) </li></ul><ul><li>Framework of critical thinking (Minger, 2000) </li></ul><ul><li>Taxonomy of Curriculum Integration (Harden 2000) </li></ul><ul><li>Learning Style (Entwistle, 2001) </li></ul><ul><li>Bloom’s revised taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) </li></ul>Human learning, intelligence, and thinking? Theories… Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  68. 68. <ul><li>Story centered curriculum (Schank, 2002) </li></ul><ul><li>Models of interplay between emotions and learning (Kort, 2001) </li></ul><ul><li>Balance theory of wisdom (Sternberg, 2003) </li></ul><ul><li>Community of practice ellipse (Medeni, 2004) </li></ul><ul><li>Spiral of experience based action learning (SEAL) (Medeni, 2004) </li></ul><ul><li>Taxonomy of knowledge Types (Carson, 2004) </li></ul><ul><li>Theory of successful intelligence, (Sternberg, 2005) </li></ul><ul><li>Framework for information and information processing of learning systems (Rauterberg, 2005) </li></ul><ul><li>Six factors of psychological well-being (Ryff & Singer, 2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Fixed and Growth Mindsets (Carol Dweck, 2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Teaching for wisdom, intelligence, creativity, and success‎ (Sternberg et al, 2009) </li></ul>Human learning, intelligence, and thinking? Theories… Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  69. 69. Research Goals <ul><li>Design pedagogical engagement methods to expand the efficacy of undergraduate computing education with special reference to software development . </li></ul><ul><li>By investigating following questions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Evolution of Software Development Education Vs Educational Research? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Competent Software Engineering? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Effective pedagogical practices? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Instructional interventions? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Theory of Software Development Education? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Using mixed techniques of </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Analytical, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Qualitative, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quantitative, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Action research methods: </li></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  70. 70. Experimentation: <ul><li>Instructional Interventions </li></ul><ul><li>Modifying teaching style , evaluation method , and course content of some regular computing courses. </li></ul><ul><li>some new courses have also been conceived and created. </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  71. 71. Theory Building: Unified Framework of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education <ul><ul><ul><li>Our Novel Theory = Integration of (Old theories + insights from observations) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A novel Three-tier taxonomy of twelve core competencies </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Five-dimensional ladder of professional and human development </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Professional development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cognitive Development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Motivation Development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Systems Thinking Development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Moral Reasoning </li></ul></ul><ul><li>A novel 3D Taxonomy of Knowledge Domain for Designing Computing Courses </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Important S/w development related activities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ext. of Anderson and Krathwohl’s knowledge categories </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Knowledge categories by Routio </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Two Core Principles Related to Learning </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cognitive Dissonance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cognitive Flexibility </li></ul></ul><ul><li>A novel 4D Taxonomy of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Active Engagements (Ext. of Bloom's taxonomy), + many other models </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integrative Engagements (derived from SOLO taxonomy , Harden taxonomy, Biglan classification) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reflective Engagements (derived from Bateson’s , Schön’s, and Borton’s models) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Collaboratively engagements (Integration of Salmon’s levels and Dillenboug’s condition) </li></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  72. 72. Two Core Principles Related to Learning <ul><li>Cognitive Dissonance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Humans are sensitive to inconsistencies between actions and beliefs. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Recognition of an inconsistency results in cognitive dissonance , and motivates an individual to resolve the dissonance. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dissonance can be resolved in one of three ways: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>change in beliefs, </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>change actions, or </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>change perception of actions . </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Cognitive Flexibility </li></ul><ul><li>The ability to ‘transfer’ what learners have learned in a context, to different, even unique situations is referred to as ‘cognitive flexibility’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In advanced knowledge domains, interconnectedness of ideas must be emphasized. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>For deeper learning, Information must be presented in a variety of ways and contexts </li></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  73. 73. Summary of Instructional Interventions <ul><li>Inquiry teaching </li></ul><ul><li>Project-inclusive teaching: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>project-centric and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>project-oriented teaching </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>3. Creating Conditions for Reflective Engagements </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>4. Multilevel infusion </li></ul><ul><li>5. Integrative courses </li></ul><ul><li>6. Group and Community learning: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Collaborative Pair and Quadruple programming a </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cross-level Peer Mentoring </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Reflective Workshop on Pedagogy for Engineering Faculty </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  74. 74. Instructional Interventions <ul><ul><li>Problem Centric Approach for inducing Cognitive Dissonance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Inquiry Teaching : SERO Model (Seed, Evolve, Reseed, learning Outcome) revolves around questions. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Suited for developing curiosity, self learning, analytical skills, humbleness, inductive and lateral thinking skills. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Data Structures, Computer Graphics (Appendix A14) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Requires the transformation of students’ perception about their own role in the process of learning from an information receiver to an active contributor to meaning making . For maximizing the benefits of inquiry teaching, students need to ‘ learn to learn’ through this method. Developing habit of Inquiry learning through puzzle solving </li></ul></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  75. 75. Instructional Interventions <ul><ul><li>Problem Centric Approach for inducing Cognitive Dissonance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Inquiry Teaching: SERO Model - Data Structures, Computer Graphics </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Project Inclusive Teaching </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Project-Centric Evolutionary Teaching </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Project scope is incrementally enhanced and made more sophisticated later to create the context for the forthcoming concepts and topics of the subject matter. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>EAD, SE, OOPS, Web Application Engg., Adv. DBMS (Appendix A15) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>Ritu Arora and Sanjay Goel (2009), Software Engineering approach for teaching development of Scalable Enterprise Applications, proceedings of 22nd Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training, IEEE, pp 105-112. Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  76. 76. Instructional Interventions <ul><ul><li>Problem Centric Approach for inducing Cognitive Dissonance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Inquiry Teaching SERO Model - Data Structures, Computer Graphics </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Project Inclusive Teaching </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Project-Centric Evolutionary Teaching </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Project scope is incrementally enhanced and made more sophisticated later to create the context for the forthcoming concepts and topics of the subject matter. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>EAD, SE, OOPS, Web Application Engg., Adv. DBMS </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Project-Oriented Teaching </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>a two-level content delivery scheme </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>OS, Microprocessors and Controllers, CN, Compiler </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  77. 77. Instructional Interventions <ul><ul><li>Problem Centric Approach for inducing Cognitive Dissonance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Inquiry Teaching SERO Model - Data Structures, Computer Graphics </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Project Inclusive Teaching </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>EAD, SE, OOPS, Web Application Engg., Adv. DBMS, </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>OS, Microprocessors and Controllers, CN, Compiler </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Creating Conditions for Reflective Engagements </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Borton’s frame-work for reflective ‘ What, So what, and Now what?’ </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Modified PSP for OOPS/SE, Final year Project, Software documentation, software construction, software risk engineering, and software arteology (Appendix A16) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  78. 78. Instructional Interventions <ul><li>Problem Centric Approach for inducing Cognitive Dissonance </li></ul><ul><li>Increasing Cognitive Flexibility through a Multifaceted Integrated Approach </li></ul><ul><li>Multilevel Infusion (Appendix A17 - A20) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Professional practices like </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Estimation, - PSP tested and modified </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>System Design – Concept mapping (Appendix A19) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>FOSS Usage - Program Comprehension </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Defect Tracking – Designed a Bug taxonomy (Appendix A6) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Software documentation, Software quality, Software risks managements, Advanced level programming techniques , Formal methods in software engineering (future work) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Web </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Multimedia </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Security </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mobile </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Inclusive & Sustainable Development and Systems Thinking (future work) </li></ul></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  79. 79. Perceived Benefits of Using PSP in laboratories: Students feedback Its modified format been tested for getting higher gains in Estimation Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 Ist year (109) 2 nd yr (91) 3 rd yr (75) Programming Efficiency Enhancement 57% 59% 76% Defect Rate Reduction 37% 37% 59% Activity Record and Reflection 32% 39% 59% Estimations and Planning 25% 27% 31%
  80. 80. Instructional Interventions <ul><li>Problem Centric Approach for inducing Cognitive Dissonance </li></ul><ul><li>Increasing Cognitive Flexibility through a Multifaceted Integrated Approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Multilevel Infusion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integrative Capstone courses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Courses for Integration of diversified computing concepts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Multi-dimensional Data Structures </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Graph Algorithms and Applications </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Systems Programming </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Courses for Integration with selected elements of Human Sciences </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Theory of Knowledge, Learning, and Research </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Human Aspects for Information Technology </li></ul></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  81. 81. Instructional Interventions <ul><li>Problem Centric Approach for inducing Cognitive Dissonance </li></ul><ul><li>Increasing Cognitive Flexibility through a Multifaceted Integrated Approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Multilevel Infusion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integrative courses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Group and Community Oriented Engagements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Collaborative Pair and Quadruple Programming </li></ul></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel and Vanshi Kathuria A Novel approach for pair programming, Journal of Information Technology Education, USA , Vol 9, pp 183-196, 2010. Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  82. 82. Instructional Interventions <ul><li>Problem Centric Approach for inducing Cognitive Dissonance </li></ul><ul><li>Increasing Cognitive Flexibility through a Multifaceted Integrated Approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Multilevel Infusion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integrative courses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Group and Community learning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Collaborative Pair and Quadruple Programming </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cross-level Peer Mentoring: </li></ul></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 Alumni rating (36 Nos) for enhanced Competency (-2 to 2) Communication skills 1 Accountability and responsibility, strength of conviction, and self-regulation, ability to see the self as bound to all humans with ties of recognition and concern, sensitivity towards global, societal, environmental, moral, ethical and professional issues, and sustainability 1 Ability to accommodate self to others, ability to work such that others can easily understand and build upon. 0.9 Critical and reflective thinking, 0.9
  83. 83. Table A23.1: Mentors’ reflections on the effect of mentoring on their own competencies <ul><ul><ul><li>Benefits reported by Mentors </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>refresh their basics, and also enhances their knowledge </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>experience of joy and satisfaction, </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>enhanced confidence, </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>improved understanding of self and others, </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>appreciation of diversity, </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>development of patience, </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>empathy, </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>multi-perspective and out of box thinking, </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>improvement of analytical and debugging skills, </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>enhancement of communication, collaboration, leadership and decision making skills. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  84. 84. Summary of Instructional Interventions <ul><li>Inquiry teaching </li></ul><ul><li>Project-inclusive teaching: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>project-centric and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>project-oriented teaching </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>3. Creating Conditions for Reflective Engagements </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>4. Multilevel infusion </li></ul><ul><li>5. Integrative courses </li></ul><ul><li>6. Group and Community learning: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Collaborative Pair and Quadruple programming a </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cross-level Peer Mentoring </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Reflective Workshop on Pedagogy for Engineering Faculty </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  85. 85. Impact Analysis of a Faculty Development Workshop: What faculty think about lectures attributes?, 2005 Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 Lecture Format attribute Fraction of faculty who rated the attribute as most important at the beginning of the workshop Fraction of faculty who rated the attribute as most important towards the end of the workshop e. problem solving 38.89% 60.38% f. creative thinking 66.67% 83.02% g. in-class-group-work 22.22% 60.38% h. create conceptual designs 31.48% 69.81%
  86. 86. Summary of Instructional Interventions <ul><li>Inquiry teaching </li></ul><ul><li>Project-inclusive teaching: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>project-centric and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>project-oriented teaching </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>3. Creating Conditions for Reflective Engagements </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>4. Multilevel infusion </li></ul><ul><li>5. Integrative courses </li></ul><ul><li>6. Group and Community learning: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Collaborative Pair and Quadruple programming a </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cross-level Peer Mentoring </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Reflective Workshop on Pedagogy for Engineering Faculty </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  87. 87. Research Goals <ul><li>Design pedagogical engagement methods to expand the efficacy of undergraduate computing education with special reference to software development . </li></ul><ul><li>By investigating following questions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Evolution of Software Development Education Vs Educational Research? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Competent Software Engineering? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Effective pedagogical practices? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Instructional interventions? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Theory of Software Development Education? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Using mixed techniques of </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Analytical, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Qualitative, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quantitative, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Action research methods: </li></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  88. 88. Theory Building Unified Framework of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  89. 89. Theory Building: Unified Framework of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education <ul><ul><ul><li>Our Novel Theory = Integration of (Old theories + insights from observations) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A novel Three-tier taxonomy of twelve core competencies </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Five-dimensional ladder of professional and human development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Professional development </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cognitive Development </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Motivation Development </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Systems Thinking Development </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Moral Reasoning </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A novel 3D Taxonomy of Knowledge Domain for Designing Computing Courses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Important S/w development related activities </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ext. of Anderson and Krathwohl’s knowledge categories </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Knowledge categories by Routio </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Two Core Principles Related to Learning </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cognitive Dissonance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cognitive Flexibility </li></ul></ul><ul><li>A novel 4D Taxonomy of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Active Engagements (Ext. of Bloom's taxonomy), + many other models </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integrative Engagements (derived from SOLO taxonomy , Harden taxonomy, Biglan classification) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reflective Engagements (derived from Bateson’s , Schön’s, and Borton’s models) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Collaboratively engagements (Integration of Salmon’s levels and Dillenboug’s condition) </li></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  90. 90. Three-tier Taxonomy of Core Competencies for Software Developers Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 Basic Competencies Competency Driver-Habits of Mind Competency Conditioning Attitudes and Perspectives <ul><li>Technical competence </li></ul><ul><li>Computational thinking competence </li></ul><ul><li>Domain competence </li></ul><ul><li>Communication competence </li></ul><ul><li>Complex problem solving competence </li></ul><ul><li>Attention to details </li></ul><ul><li>Critical and reflective thinking </li></ul><ul><li>Creativity and innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Curiosity </li></ul><ul><li>Decision making perspective </li></ul><ul><li>Systems-level perspective </li></ul><ul><li>Intrinsic motivation to create/improve artifacts </li></ul>
  91. 91. Three-tier Taxonomy of Core Competencies for Software Developers <ul><ul><li>Five-dimensional ladder of professional </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>and human development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Professional development </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cognitive Development </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Motivation Development </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Systems Thinking Development </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Moral Reasoning </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A novel 3D Taxonomy of Knowledge Domain </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Important S/w development activities </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ext. of Anderson and Krathwohl’s knowledge categories </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Knowledge categories by Routio </li></ul></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 Basic Competencies Competency Driver-Habits of Mind Competency Conditioning Attitudes and Perspectives <ul><li>Technical competence </li></ul><ul><li>Computational thinking competence </li></ul><ul><li>Domain competence </li></ul><ul><li>Communication competence </li></ul><ul><li>Complex problem solving competence </li></ul><ul><li>Attention to details </li></ul><ul><li>Critical and reflective thinking </li></ul><ul><li>Creativity and innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Curiosity </li></ul><ul><li>Decision making perspective </li></ul><ul><li>Systems-level perspective </li></ul><ul><li>Intrinsic motivation to create/improve artifacts </li></ul>
  92. 92. Theory Building: Unified Framework of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education <ul><ul><ul><li>Our Novel Theory = Integration of (Old theories + insights from observations) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A novel Three-tier taxonomy of twelve core competencies </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Five-dimensional ladder of professional and human development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Professional development </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cognitive Development </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Motivation Development </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Systems Thinking Development </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Moral Reasoning </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A novel 3D Taxonomy of Knowledge Domain for Designing Computing Courses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Important S/w development related activities </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ext. of Anderson and Krathwohl’s knowledge categories </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Knowledge categories by Routio </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Two Core Principles Related to Learning </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cognitive Dissonance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cognitive Flexibility </li></ul></ul><ul><li>A novel 4D Taxonomy of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Active Engagements (Ext. of Bloom's taxonomy), + many other models </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integrative Engagements (derived from SOLO taxonomy , Harden taxonomy, Biglan classification) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reflective Engagements (derived from Bateson’s , Schön’s, and Borton’s models) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Collaboratively engagements (Integration of Salmon’s levels and Dillenboug’s condition) </li></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  93. 93. Four-dimensional Taxonomy of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education Reflective Engagements Integrative Engagements Active Engagements Collaborative Engagements Individual engagement problem solving activity Inclusion and integration of various ideas and diverse perspectives . Think deeply to evaluate and refine/transform their own approach and views collaborate with others to solve problems Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  94. 94. Table 8.5: Levels of Active Engagements <ul><li>Bloom’s revised taxonomy, </li></ul><ul><li>Sternberg’s propulsion theory of creativity, </li></ul><ul><li>Minger’s framework of critical thinking , and </li></ul><ul><li>Rowe and Boulgarides taxonomy of decision style </li></ul>These engagements must also ensure a good mix of convergent, assimilative, divergent, and accommodative activities as per Kolb’s model Over 3D Taxonomy of Knowledge Domain Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  95. 95. Four-dimensional Taxonomy of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education Reflective Engagements Integrative Engagements Active Engagements Collaborative Engagements Individual engagement problem solving activity Inclusion and integration of various ideas and diverse perspectives . Think deeply to evaluate and refine/transform their own approach and views collaborate with others to solve problems Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  96. 96. Table 8.8: Levels of integrative engagements <ul><li>Solo Taxonomy, </li></ul><ul><li>Harden’s Taxonomy </li></ul><ul><li>Biglan Classification, </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  97. 97. Four-dimensional Taxonomy of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education Reflective Engagements Integrative Engagements Active Engagements Collaborative Engagements Individual engagement problem solving activity Inclusion and integration of various ideas and diverse perspectives . Think deeply to evaluate and refine/transform their own approach and views collaborate with others to solve problems Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  98. 98. <ul><li>Pre-reflection: No reflection </li></ul><ul><li>1st order Reflection: Product Reflection - creating ladders of reflections around the results and products of their other engagements </li></ul><ul><li>2nd order Reflection: Process Reflection- creating ladders of reflections around the processes in their other engagements </li></ul><ul><li>3rd order Reflection: Assumption Reflection- creating ladders of reflections around the assumptions behind the products and/or processes in their other engagements </li></ul><ul><li>4th order Reflection: Value Reflection- creating ladders of reflections around their self-beliefs and value system that influences their assumptions, goals, and role in their other engagements </li></ul><ul><li>Borton’s model of reflection for all levels </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What? So what? Now what? </li></ul></ul>Table 8.9: Levels of Reflective Engagements Bateson’s logical categories of learning Schön’s ladders of reflection Borton’s Model of reflection Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  99. 99. Four-dimensional Taxonomy of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education Reflective Engagements Integrative Engagements Active Engagements Collaborative Engagements Individual engagement problem solving activity Inclusion and integration of various ideas and diverse perspectives . Think deeply to evaluate and refine/transform their own approach and views collaborate with others to solve problems Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  100. 100. <ul><li>Solo: no collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>Dialogue: simple exchange of information </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Intra-group, Intergroup </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Peer review: reviewing others’ work </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Intra-group, Intergroup </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Parallel Collaboration: dividing the task in the beginning, and finally integrating individuals’ work </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Intra-group, Intergroup </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Sequential Collaboration: building upon each other work </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Intra-group, Intergroup </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Synergistic Collaboration: doing it together in a synergistic manner </li></ul><ul><li>Dillenboug’s four condition (Table 7.11) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Set up the initial conditions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Over-specify the collaboration contract with a scenario based on roles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Scaffold productive interactions by encompassing interaction in the medium </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Monitor and regulate the interactions </li></ul></ul>Table 8.9: Levels of Collaborative Engagements Salmon’s levels of collaborative e-learning Dillenboug’s four conditions of collaborative learning Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  101. 101. Summary of Presentation Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  102. 102. Research Goals <ul><li>Design pedagogical engagement methods to expand the efficacy of undergraduate computing education with special reference to software development . </li></ul><ul><li>By investigating following questions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Evolution of Software Development Education Vs Educational Research? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Competent Software Engineering? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Effective pedagogical practices? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Instructional interventions? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Theory of Software Development Education? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Using mixed techniques of </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Analytical, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Qualitative, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quantitative, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Action research methods: </li></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  103. 103. Research Processes <ul><li>Literature review: studied a large number of papers and reports on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Software development, Engineering, Systems Thinking </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Computer Science & IT Education </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Engineering education, Professional and higher education </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>100+ Theories on Learning, Intelliegence, Instruction Design, Curriculum Design, and Human Development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Peers’ and clients’ publically available endorsements of software engineers (300+) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Primary Data Collection: Surveys, polls, discussions, and consultations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Working Software Engineers (300+ engrs., 60+ companies, global community) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Students (1000+) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Faculty (100+) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Experiments: Course design and Instructional interventions, Validation, and deployment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Instructional interventions in regular core computing courses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New courses </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Theory Building: Analysis, Reflection, Theory extension, Interpretation, and Integration </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Three Tier Taxonomy of critical competencies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A Comprehensive framework for designing Pedagogical engagements </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Dissemination and Peer review: Publications, workshops/tutorials/talks , discussions with few senior prof’s, Blog on “Learning and Computing Education”: 5700 hits in last 6 months. </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  104. 104. Distinguishing features of Software Development <ul><li>Support for Cognitive processes Vs Physical processes. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ill-defined and socio-technical problems. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>No high volume manufacturing/repeated implementations. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>New problems everyday. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Imagination Vs Physical constraints . Like ‘writing,’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Possible applications in all discipline (pure/applied, hard/soft, life/non-life) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Knowledge acquisition, construction, structuring, and representation. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Main Challenges : Requirements, Debugging, Project scoping and estimation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Projects face higher uncertainty factor, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Several iterations. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Discrete abstractions, complex interactions, inherent invisibility  Higher vulnerable to failures and unpredictable behavior. </li></ul><ul><li>Maintenance : learning misunderstood and changing requirement, removing development errors and continued development. </li></ul><ul><li>Psycho-social Challenges related to intellectual property, security, privacy, anonymity, offensive content, cyber regulation, cultural diversity, user psychology and so on. </li></ul><ul><li>Theories, best practices, and essential development tools are still fast evolving. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Re-usage based development methodologies are becoming more popular </li></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  105. 105. Summary of Instructional Interventions <ul><li>Inquiry teaching </li></ul><ul><li>Project-inclusive teaching: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>project-centric and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>project-oriented teaching </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>3. Creating Conditions for Reflective Engagements </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>4. Multilevel infusion </li></ul><ul><li>5. Integrative courses </li></ul><ul><li>6. Group and Community learning: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Collaborative Pair and Quadruple programming a </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cross-level Peer Mentoring </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Reflective Workshop on Pedagogy for Engineering Faculty </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  106. 106. Theory Building: Unified Framework of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education <ul><ul><ul><li>Our Novel Theory = Integration of (Old theories + insights from observations) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A novel Three-tier taxonomy of twelve core competencies </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Five-dimensional ladder of professional and human development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A novel 3D Taxonomy of Knowledge Domain for Designing Computing Courses </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Two Core Principles Related to Learning </li></ul><ul><li>A novel 4D Taxonomy of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education </li></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  107. 107. Three-tier Taxonomy of Core Competencies for Software Developers <ul><ul><li>Five-dimensional ladder of professional </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>and human development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Professional development </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cognitive Development </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Motivation Development </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Systems Thinking Development </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Moral Reasoning </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A novel 3D Taxonomy of Knowledge Domain </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Important S/w development activities </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ext. of Anderson and Krathwohl’s knowledge categories </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Knowledge categories by Routio </li></ul></ul></ul>Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011 Basic Competencies Competency Driver-Habits of Mind Competency Conditioning Attitudes and Perspectives <ul><li>Technical competence </li></ul><ul><li>Computational thinking competence </li></ul><ul><li>Domain competence </li></ul><ul><li>Communication competence </li></ul><ul><li>Complex problem solving competence </li></ul><ul><li>Attention to details </li></ul><ul><li>Critical and reflective thinking </li></ul><ul><li>Creativity and innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Curiosity </li></ul><ul><li>Decision making perspective </li></ul><ul><li>Systems-level perspective </li></ul><ul><li>Intrinsic motivation to create/improve artifacts </li></ul>
  108. 108. Four-dimensional Taxonomy of Pedagogic Engagements in Software Development Education Reflective Engagements Integrative Engagements Active Engagements Collaborative Engagements Individual engagement problem solving activity Inclusion and integration of various ideas and diverse perspectives . Think deeply to evaluate and refine/transform their own approach and views Collaborate with others to solve problems Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011
  109. 109. Thanks Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2011

×