Gary, K. A., & Nagappan, Y., & Verma, S., & Branaghan, R. J. (2012, June), Assessing Evolving Conceptual Knowledge in Software Engineering Students  Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas. 10.18260/1-2--20973

\bibitem{asee_peer_20973}
  Gary, K. A., \& Nagappan, Y., \& Verma, S., \& Branaghan, R. J. (2012, June), \emph{Assessing Evolving Conceptual Knowledge in Software Engineering Students}
  Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, San Antonio, Texas.
  10.18260/1-2--20973

Kevin A. Gary, Yegeneswari Nagappan, Supreet Verma, and Russell J. Branaghan.  "Assessing Evolving Conceptual Knowledge in Software Engineering Students".  2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas, 2012, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2012.  https://strategy.asee.org/20973 Internet.  15 May, 2024

\bibitem{asee_peer_20973}
  Kevin A. Gary, Yegeneswari Nagappan, Supreet Verma, and Russell J. Branaghan.
  "Assessing Evolving Conceptual Knowledge in Software Engineering Students".
  \emph{2012 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, San Antonio, Texas, 2012, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2012.
  https://strategy.asee.org/20973 Internet.  15 May, 2024

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_20973
author = "Kevin A. Gary, Yegeneswari Nagappan, Supreet Verma, and Russell J. Branaghan"
title = "Assessing Evolving Conceptual Knowledge in Software Engineering Students"
booktitle = "2012 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2012"
month = "June"
address = "San Antonio, Texas"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://strategy.asee.org/20973}
number = {10.18260/1-2--20973}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -         Assessing Evolving Conceptual Knowledge in Software                        Engineering StudentsOver the past decade, the software engineering education community has focused significantlyon defining the body of concepts that both undergraduate and graduate students should (in somesense) “know” and be able to apply upon graduation. Efforts such as the SWEBOK, the SEEK,and the GSwE2009 together with associated certification processes from IEEE (CSDP andCSDA) and ISO (ISO/IEC 24773:2008) go to great lengths to define outcomes primarily ascoverage of the maturing body of knowledge (BOK) in software engineering. The evolution ofthe software engineering BOK and certifications over the past decade+ is a good thing as itspeaks to the maturing of the profession. However, defining program outcomes in terms ofcontent taxonomies flies in the face of emerging trends toward active and discovery-basedteaching and learning techniques (be it called “hands-on”, “project-centric”, or “self-paced”).One criticism of active or discovery-based learning approaches is that they are not the most cost-effective modality for transmitting information. To say it directly, an instructor can cover farmore content in a traditional lecture format that in a project (or other applied) format. In light ofrecent pervasive budget pressures in higher education, the ability to cover more with less formore customers (students) is a practical reality. A second criticism of the active approach is thatindividual assessment is difficult as project work is typically done in teams. Further, it isnecessary for an instructor to continuously monitor class progress as a whole toward learningoutcomes, which is complex in an environment where team progress evolves distinctly andnonlinearly. Teams do not learn at the same rate, go about applied work in the same way, andcome upon the hoped-for “aha” moment at the same time. The authors believe hybridpedagogical approaches such as scaffolding or the Software Enterprise are the best ways toaddress this issue.Is it more important to “collect more knowledge” or to gain an understanding of how thoseconcepts relate so that a sustainable learning structure is formed? Active learning proponentswould suggest it is more important to create a durable conceptual foundation by which newexperiences are assimilated to grow the personal knowledge base in an orderly, well-formedway. But how can one assess that this is happening? In our project-centric courses we haveadopted concept maps as a technique for evaluating the evolution of student understanding ofconceptual knowledge in software engineering. This paper will describe the concept mappingexercise students are asked to conduct at the beginning and end of every semester, the evaluationof concept maps through a unique expert ranking process, and the automation of concept mapevaluation to expert concept maps through graph comparison algorithms. Data collected fromalmost two years’ of concept map practice will be presented and analyzed from the perspectivewhether this is a viable technique in the present context of software engineering education.
AU  - Kevin A. Gary
AU  - Yegeneswari Nagappan
AU  - Supreet Verma
AU  - Russell J. Branaghan
CY  - San Antonio, Texas
DA  - 2012/06/10
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Assessing Evolving Conceptual Knowledge in Software Engineering Students
UR  - https://strategy.asee.org/20973
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--20973
ER  -