Design of Interventions for Instructional Reform in Software Development Education for Competency Enhancement: Summary of PhD Thesis

Posted on April 17, 2010

4


Author:  Sanjay Goel, http://in.linkedin.com/in/sgoel

________________________________________

Full text of this thesis can be  downloaded from Thesis 150410

It is also available at: 

i.     ERIC digital library at http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/recordDetails.jsp?searchtype=keyword&pageSize=10&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=sanjay+goel&eric_displayStartCount=1&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=kw&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&objectId=0900019b8045bbde&accno=ED516414&_nfls=false

ii.     http://www.openthesis.org/documents/Design-Interventions-Instructional-Reform-in-600872.html    

iii. Shodhganga at http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/10603/2416

______________________________________________________

Community and culture significantly influence value orientation, perceived needs, and motivation as well as provide the ground for creating shared understanding. All disciplines have their own cultures, and all cultures evolve through cross-cultural exchanges. The computing community has created and documented a sound body of knowledge of software engineering (IEEE SWEBOK). It is one of finest examples of multi-cultural synthesis of many disciplines especially engineering, computer science, and even social sciences. With the very large scale worldwide endeavor on computing or software engineering education, it is now time to leverage education and ‘learning’ related research to create and document a theoretically sound body of knowledge of software developers’ education. Such a body of knowledge should naturally require us to synthesis the evolving disciplines of software engineering and higher education.

In this thesis, we discuss our study and investigations about the following types of questions:

  1. How has software development education evolved, specifically with reference to educational research?
  2. What is meant by competent and professionally oriented computing engineers, especially with respect to software engineering? What are the essential attributes? What is the relative importance of these attributes?
  3. What is the degree with which the various components of traditional processes of engineering education succeed in creating opportunities for enhancing these competencies? What students think about their educational experiences? What students think works well for them? What processes do professional engineers recommend?
  4. What pedagogical practices succeed in developing competencies, and under what circumstances? What comes in the way of implementing these strategies? What kinds of lectures are effective for learning in the views of students and faculty?  What factors block students from effective learning? How to overcome these difficulties?
  5. What kind of instructional interventions are required? How can the existing education theories/strategies/methodologies be used to educate competent computing engineers? Do we need new theories of learning for software development education? If so, what would be main aspects of such a theory of learning?

In this study, the research processes included a wide-ranging survey of published literature in diverse areas of software development, computer science and IT education, engineering education, professional and higher education, learning theories, thinking, instruction design, and human development. The research also included a study of a large number of comments written by professional software developers about contemporary issues related to software development processes, required competencies, endorsements, etc., in various professional forums. More than three hundred professionals of more than sixty organizations from various countries have been consulted and/or surveyed on various issues. More than one thousand undergraduate computing students, and more than one hundred faculty members, have also been surveyed on selected issues.

In this study, we have proposed a three-tier taxonomy of twelve competencies for software development education. It includes five basic competencies, three ‘competency driver-habits of mind,’ and four ‘competency conditioning attitudes and perspectives.’  The five basic competencies are: (i) technical competence, (ii) computational thinking competence (iii) domain competence, (iv) communication competence, and (v) complex problem solving competence. The three ‘competency driver-habits of mind’ are: (i) attention to details, (ii) critical and reflective thinking, and (iii) creativity and innovation. The ‘competency conditioning attitudes and perspectives’ include: (i) curiosity, (ii) decision making perspective, (iii) systems-level perspective, and (iv) intrinsic motivation to create/improve artifacts.

We have reviewed the educational research literature to examine its applicability for developing these competencies through appropriate interventions for instructional reform. We have done many empirical (qualitative and quantitative) studies among students, faculty, and professionals, to find out the preferred approaches of learning and effective pedagogical techniques. Our empirical studies suggest that didactic approaches of teaching are ineffective. Students experience much deeper learning in active, integrative, reflective, and collaborative constructive environment.

Hence, we have proposed a comprehensive unified framework of pedagogic engagements. Our proposed framework of pedagogic engagements in software development education is grounded in (a) core activities of software development, and (b) distinguishing characteristics of software development profession. It includes – (i) three-tier taxonomy of twelve core competencies, (ii) five-dimensional ladder of professional and human development, (iii) three-dimensional perspective of the knowledge domain of software development, (iv) two core principles (cognitive dissonance and cognitive flexibility) for facilitating deep learning, and (v) a four-dimensional taxonomy of pedagogic engagements (active, integrative, reflective, and collaborative) over (iii) for developing (i) and (ii).

We have also discussed some instructional interventions developed by us, manifesting some aspects of our framework. These interventions were administered in a chosen set of existing computing courses. Some new courses have also been developed in the process. The development of the framework of pedagogic engagement, and these interventions for instructional reform of software development education, has been an intertwined and highly spiral process. Large classes offer a huge challenge. There is a need to explore the possibility of a complete revamp of the software development education and curriculum through our framework. While some interventions have been successfully tested with large classes, others were not as successful for large numbers. For example, the use of inquiry teaching in lecture classes offers huge benefits to learning oriented students, it has not been found to be as attractive to exam oriented students.

We hope that our proposed framework of pedagogic engagement in software development education will help the community of software development educators and researchers to create a variety of interventions that will help in extending the ‘Software Engineering Body of Knowledge’ (SWEBOK) to ‘Software Development Education Body of Knowledge’ (SDEBOK). Designers of educational programs for other professions can also adapt this framework and methodology.

Thesis Layout:

The first chapter of the thesis gives an overview of the motivation, objective, background, research method, and results of the reported work. In addition, we also discuss the evolution of computing curriculum in the last five decades.

In the second chapter, the required core competencies for software developers are explored with the help of published recommendations of accreditation agencies, professional societies, and published research. Fresh survey has also been carried out for this investigation.  These competencies are then consolidated into a three-dimensional taxonomy. More literature is explored to consolidate the competency requirements of the software services and software product companies.

The third chapter analyzes the distinguishing features and multidimensional aspects of software development with a view to further analyze the required competencies. In this process, a large number of software professionals were consulted on various issues related to software development and required educational inputs. The three-dimensional taxonomy of competencies proposed in the second chapter is distilled and revised into a three-tier taxonomy of twelve competencies.

In the fourth to sixth chapters, we discuss the meaning of the identified twelve competencies in the context of software development work. The basic competencies are discussed in fourth chapter.  The competency driver-habits of mind are elaborated in fifth chapter and competency conditioning attitudes and perceptions are discussed in sixth chapter. We draw upon multi-disciplinary published literature and empirical studies in the process. Each of these chapters deals with a different category of competencies as per our taxonomy.

The seventh chapter gives an overview of various quantitative and qualitative surveys among computing students, software developers, and faculty of engineering institutes. We conducted these surveys to empirically investigate the phenomenon of ‘learning’ in computing/engineering disciplines. In this chapter, we essentially discuss the rationale for student-centric active learning.

The eighth chapter gives the most significant theoretical contribution in this work. We consolidate all our earlier findings discussed in the earlier chapters with the results of carefully chosen classical and contemporary ‘learning’ theories. These theories have been chosen with respect to their applicability for software development education. We propose a unified framework of pedagogic engagements in software development education. This framework focuses on development of required core competencies for software development as consolidated in the third chapter and discussed in the fourth, fifth, and sixth chapters.

Some aspects of this framework are manifested in some instructional interventions discussed in the ninth chapter.  The tenth chapter provides a summary, and suggests future scope of research.

*************************************************************************************

TABLE OF CONTENT

Chapter-1      

INTRODUCTION      (http://www.openthesis.org/documents/Design-Interventions-Instructional-Reform-in-600872-s3.html)                                                            

1.1       BASIS FOR THE NEED FOR REFORMS IN COMPUTING    EDUCATION                       

1.2       EVOLUTION OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION                      

1.3       RESEARCH APPROACH                                                                           

1.4      THESIS LAYOUT                                                                                                                                                                     

CHAPTER-2 

IDENTIFICATION OF CORE COMPETENCIES FOR  SOFTWARE ENGINEERS (http://www.openthesis.org/documents/Design-Interventions-Instructional-Reform-in-600872-s7.html)

2.1       STUDY REPORT ON CORE COMPETENCIES FOR ENGINEERS  WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

2.2       NECESSARY COMPETENCIES AS EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES FOR SOFTWARE ENGINEERS AS RECOMMENDED BY

ACCREDITATION BOARDS, PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES’

AND OTHER APPROACHES

2.2.1      IMPACT ON CURRICULUM AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS                   

2.2.2      INDIAN SCENARIO                                                           

2.3        SOME OTHER CONTEMPORARY RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT DESIRED COMPETENCIES OF ENGINEERING GRADUATES

2.4       RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOME INTERNATIONAL  PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES RELATED TO COMPUTING

2.5       SOME CONTEMPORARY RECOMMENDATIONS ON DESIRED COMPETENCIES OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS

2.6       A PERSPECTIVE FROM THE PROFESSIONAL CODES OF  CONDUCT, ETHICS, AND/OR PRACTICE 

2.7       CLASSICAL AND CONTEMPORARY RECOMMENDATIONS  ON DESIRED COMPETENCIES OF GRADUATES

2.8       A COMPREHENSIVE DISTILLED VIEW ON DESIRED COMPETENCIES

2.9       FURTHER EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS ON REQUIRED   CORE COMPETENCIES FOR ENGINEERING GRADUATES WITH REFERENCE TO THE INDIAN IT INDUSTRY

2.10     CLASSIFYING THE CORE COMPETENCIES FOR   SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS

2.11     CHAPTER CONCLUSION                                                                    

CHAPTER-3 

DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF SOFTWARE  DEVELOPMENT AND REQUISITE TAXONOMY OF CORE COMPETENCIES (http://www.openthesis.org/documents/Design-Interventions-Instructional-Reform-in-600872-s10.html)

3.1      PROGRAMMING AS AN ART TO SOFTWARE ENGINEERING   

3.2      DEBUGGING AS A CORE ACTIVITY IN  SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT

3.3      PROCESS CENTRIC SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND   MAINTENANCE IN SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

3.4      SOFTWARE AS INTEGRAL PART OF BUSINESS, AND NEED FOR COMPREHENSION FOR SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 

3.5      ROLE OF EMPATHY AND SOCIAL SENSITIVITY IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT

3.6      PROJECT SCOPING AND ESTIMATION FOR SOFTWARE CONTRACT 

3.7      LEARNING NEW DOMAIN AND KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURING IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT

3.8      SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FOR ILL-DEFINED  PROBLEMS

3.9      EMPIRICAL AND QUALITATIVE APPROACHES IN  SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH

3.10    SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT: WHOLE-BRAIN ACTIVITY             

3.11    REVISED TAXONOMY OF CORE COMPETENCIES  FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS

CHAPTER- 4 

 SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS’ EDUCATION FOR    DEVELOPMENT OF BASIC COMPETENCIES  (http://www.openthesis.org/documents/Design-Interventions-Instructional-Reform-in-600872-s11.html)

4.1      SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS’ EDUCATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNICAL COMPETENCE

4.2      SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS’ EDUCATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF COMPUTATIONAL THINKING

4.3      SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS’ EDUCATION FOR  DEVELOPMENT OF DOMAIN COMPETENCE

4.4      SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS’ EDUCATION FOR  DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE

4.5      SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS’ EDUCATION FOR  DEVELOPMENT OF COMPLEX PROBLEM SOLVING  COMPETENCE

 4.5.1   EXPERT PROBLEM SOLVERS                                                     

4.6      CHAPTER CONCLUSION                                                                         

CHAPTER-5  

SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS’ EDUCATION FOR  DEVELOPMENT OFCOMPETENCY DRIVER-HABITS OF MIND  (http://www.openthesis.org/documents/Design-Interventions-Instructional-Reform-in-600872-s16.html)

5.1:     SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS’ EDUCATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ATTENTION TO DETAILS

5.2:     SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS’ EDUCATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF CRITICAL AND REFLECTIVE THINKING

5.3:     SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS’ EDUCATION FOR  DEVELOPMENT OF CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION

5.4:     CHAPTER CONCLUSION                                                                          

CHAPTER-6  

SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS’ EDUCATION FOR    DEVELOPMENT OF COMPETENCY CONDITIONING  ATTITUDES AND PERSPECTIVES  (http://www.openthesis.org/documents/Design-Interventions-Instructional-Reform-in-600872-s18.html)

6.1      SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS’ EDUCATION FOR   DEVELOPMENT OF CURIOSITY

6.2      SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS’ EDUCATION FOR   DEVELOPMENT OF DECISION MAKING PERSPECTIVE

6.3      SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS’ EDUCATION FORDEVELOPMENT OF SYSTEMS-LEVEL PERSPECTIVE

6.4      SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS’ EDUCATION FOR    DEVELOPMENT OF INTRINSIC MOTIVATION  TO CREATE/IMPROVE ARTIFACTS

6.5      CHAPTER CONCLUSION                                                            

CHAPTER-7   THE PHENOMENON OF ‘LEARNING’       (http://www.openthesis.org/documents/Design-Interventions-Instructional-Reform-in-600872-s21.html)                         

7.1      EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS FOR ASSESSING  EFFECTIVENESS OF EDUCATIONAL METHODS WITH RESPECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT

7.1.1   EMPIRICAL STUDIES ON EFFECTIVENESS  OF TEACHING METHODS AND EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES OF COMPUTING STUDENTS AND SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS

7.1.2   EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION OF SOFTWARE  DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION THROUGH  BLOOM’S TAXONOMY

7.1.3   QUALITATIVE STUDY OF EFFECTIVE LECTURES               

7.1.3.1 PERCEPTIONS OF COMPUTING STUDENTS AT SENIOR AND JUNIOR LEVELS

7.1.3.2 PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY MEMBERS   IN ENGINEERING INSTITUTES

7.1.4   QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF EFFECTIVE LECTURES             

  7.1.4.1 PERSPECTIVE OF COMPUTING STUDENTS                 

7.2     REFLECTIONS ABOUT THE PHENOMENON OF ‘LEARNING’         

7.3     IMPLICATIONS FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT                            

          EDUCATION

7.4    STUDENT ENGAGEMENTS FOR FACILITATING  DEEP LEARNING THROUGH HIGHER EDUCATION

           7.4.1     CURRICULUM INTEGRATION                                             

           7.4.2     SOLO TAXONOMY                                                                     

           7.4.3     COLLABORATIVE LEARNING                                                

                        7.4.3.1  PAIR PROGRAMMING                                                 

           7.4.4     CROSS-LEVEL PEER MENTORING                                        

                        7.4.4.1  POSSIBILITY OF CROSS-LEVEL                                               

    PEER MENTORING IN

    SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION

7.5      CHAPTER SUMMARY                                                                             

CHAPTER-8  

 A FRAMEWORK OF PEDAGOGIC ENGAGEMENTS  IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION    (http://www.openthesis.org/documents/Design-Interventions-Instructional-Reform-in-600872-s25.html)

8.1      THREE-DIMENSIONAL KNOWLEDGE DOMAIN FOR   DESIGNING COMPUTING COURSES

8.2      TWO CORE PRINCIPLES RELATED TO LEARNING                     

           8.2.1   COGNITIVE DISSONANCE                                                           

           8.2.2   COGNITIVE FLEXIBILITY                                                        

8.3      FOUR-DIMENSIONAL TAXONOMY OF PEDAGOGIC ENGAGEMENTS IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION

8.3.1  DIMENSION 1- LEVELS OF ACTIVE ENGAGEMENTS  (EXTENSION OF BLOOM’S TAXONOMY) 

8.3.2  DIMENSION 2- LEVELS OF INTEGRATIVE   ENGAGEMENTS (EXTENSION OF SOLO TAXONOMY)

8.3.3  DIMENSION 3- LEVELS OF REFLECTIVE ENGAGEMENTS  

8.3.4  DIMENSION 4- LEVELS OF COLLABORATIVE    ENGAGEMENTS

8.4     CHAPTER SUMMARY                                                                        

CHAPTER-9  

 SOME INTERVENTIONS FOR ENHANCING THE   QUALITY OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION     (http://www.openthesis.org/documents/Design-Interventions-Instructional-Reform-in-600872-s28.html)

9.1      INCREASING COGNITIVE DISSONANCE THROUGH  A PROBLEM-CENTRIC APPROACH IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION

9.1.1    INQUIRY TEACHING IN SOFTWARE   DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION

9.1.1.1 SERO MODEL FOR INQUIRY TEACHING IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION

9.1.2   PROJECT-INCLUSIVE TEACHING IN  SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION

9.1.3   CREATING CONDITIONS FOR REFLECTIVE  ENGAGEMENTS IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT  EDUCATION

9.2     INCREASING COGNITIVE FLEXIBILITY THROUGH  A MULTIFACETED INTEGRATED APPROACH IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION

9.2.1   MULTILEVEL INFUSION FOR CONTINUOUS  INTEGRATION IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION

9.2.2   INTEGRATIVE CAPSTONE COURSES IN SOFTWARE  DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION

9.2.3   GROUP AND COMMUNITY ORIENTED ENGAGEMENTS  IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION

          9.2.3.1  COLLABORATIVE PAIR AND  QUADRUPLE PROGRAMMING

 9.2.3.2  CROSS-LEVEL PEER MENTORING IN  SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION

9.3      REFLECTIVE WORKSHOP ON PEDAGOGY FOR ENGINEERING FACULTY

9.4      CHAPTER SUMMARY                                                                            

CHAPTER-10  

SUMMARY AND FUTURE SCOPE OF WORK        (http://www.openthesis.org/documents/Design-Interventions-Instructional-Reform-in-600872-s31.html)                     

REFERENCES          (http://www.openthesis.org/documents/Design-Interventions-Instructional-Reform-in-600872-s32.html)                                                                     

APPENDICES         (http://www.openthesis.org/documents/Design-Interventions-Instructional-Reform-in-600872-s34.html)                                                                      

A1       SPINE-LIKE SURVEY ON IMPORTANCE OF COMPETENCIES        

A2       A COMPREHENSIVE DISTILLED VIEW ON                                      

            DESIRED COMPETENCIES

A3       REVISED SURVEY ON REQUIRED COMPETENCIES, 2007         

A4       MAPPING OF THIRTY-FIVE COMPETENCIES (APPENDIX A3)  WITH FINAL SET OF TWELVE CORE COMPETENCIES 

A5              CATALOGUE OF TECHNICAL AND TECHNICALLY ORIENTED ACTIVITIES RELATED TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT

A6              TAXONOMY OF COMMON SOFTWARE BUGS                            

A7     PROPOSED CURRICULUM FOR MASTERS IN   ARCHAEO-HERITAGE INFORMATICS

A8       SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR BREADTH COURSES                            

A9     INADEQUATE DEVELOPMENT OF CURIOSITY IN                

SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION

A10   SURVEY:  “SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS – (HOW) DID YOUR   COLLEGE HELP YOU IN YOUR DEVELOPMENT?”

A         EFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHING METHODS: SURVEY OF  SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS (2009)

                        A1       EFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHING METHODS-II:  EFFECT ON DESIRED COMPETENCIES

B         EFFECTIVENESS OF  TEACHING METHODS:  SURVEY OF STUDENTS (2009) 

A11   EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION THROUGH BLOOM’S TAXONOMY  

A12   ANECDOTES OF MOST EFFECTIVE LEARNING EXPERIENCES/LECTURES

A13   QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF COMPUTING   STUDENTS’ PERSPECTIVE OF EFFECTIVE LECTURES

A14   SUMMARY OF SERO STYLE LECTURES IN TWO COURSES         

A15   EVOLUTIONARY STAGES OF STUDENT PROJECTS         

A16   REFLECTIVE ENGAGEMENTS                                                          

A17   FEEDBACK FROM THE CROSS-LEVEL MENTORS ON INFUSION           

OF SOME PERVASIVE TOPICS IN FOUNDATION COURSES

A18   MULTI-LEVEL INFUSION OF SECURITY RELATED ASPECTS       

A19   DESCRIPTION OF THE NOTATION FOR CONCEPT MAPPING       

A20   SOME PROPOSED INSTRUCTIONAL INTERVENTIONS FOR    INFUSING DEBUGGING IN COMPUTING LABORATORIES

A21   COLLABORATIVE PAIR PROGRAMMING                                 

A22   SAMPLE COLLABORATIVE QUADRUPLE PROGRAMMING ASSIGNMENTS FOR J2EE

A23   ALUMNI’S FEEDBACK ON LEARNING GAINS THROUGH CROSS-LEVEL MENTORING

A24   ADVANTAGES OF MENTORING AS IDENTIFIED BY FINAL YEAR STUDENTS INVOLVED IN CROSS-LEVEL MENTORING OF JUNIORS, 2009

ANNEXURES    (http://www.openthesis.org/documents/Design-Interventions-Instructional-Reform-in-600872-s40.html)

AN1  IMPORTANT THEORIES ABOUT HUMAN LEARNING,  INTELLIGENCE, AND THINKING

AN2    COMPETENCY RECOMMENDATIONS BY ACCREDITATION   BOARDS OF SOME COUNTRIES

AN3    SOME MODELS FOR CLASSIFICATION OF COMPETENCIES  

AN4    METZGER’S OBSERVATIONS ABOUT DEBUGGING                 

AN5    LETHBRIDGE’S STUDY ON MOST IMPORTANT AND   INFLUENTIAL TOPICS IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION

AN6    SOME IMPORTANT MODELS ON PROBLEM SOLVING                  

AN7    SOME THEORIES ON ATTENTION                                                  

AN8    SOME IMPORTANT PERSPECTIVES ON CURIOSITY                     

AN9    SOME IMPORTANT PERSPECTIVES ON SYSTEM THINKING         

AN10  SOME IMPORTANT PERSPECTIVES ON INTRINSIC MOTIVATION         

AN11  SUCCESSFUL PRACTICES IN INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING  EDUCATION (SPINE) STUDY

AN12  SOME THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ABOUT LEARNING  AND TEACHING

LIST OF AUTHOR’S PUBLICATIONS             

**************************************************************************                                    

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is the result of a long personal journey across a variety of professional experiences: learning, designing, teaching, and also leading teams.  This work has humbled me and has made me realize the magnitude of my ‘ignorance’ about ‘learning,’ and also many intricacies of software development. During this journey, I have had the good fortune of wonderful and engaging interactions with experts and scholars of diverse disciplines.

To top the list, I am highly grateful to hundreds of software professionals from all over the world who have participated in many surveys, polls, and discussions during the course of this research. I am thankful to all my past, present, and future students, who are my main inspiration for this work. Some of the past students are my most valued professional consultants, collaborator, and critiques. I also want to express my gratitude to all my enthusiastic colleagues in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the Jaypee Institute of Information Technology for their confidence, support, and active collaboration in contextualizing and administering many ideas in their various courses.

I am most indebted to Dr. Mukul K. Sinha, my mentor for the last twenty years, for innumerable professional lessons and values that I have learnt from him. His systems thinking approach, ability to take risks, commitment for excellence, and coaching has been a great source of strength for sustaining this long and personally enriching inquiry. Only a few blessed people have the good fortune of receiving such selfless mentoring.

I am highly thankful to Prof. J.P. Gupta for his affection, generosity, and patience. But for his blessings and whole-hearted support, it was not possible to try out many instructional interventions that have provided very useful insights for this thesis.

Numerous discussions with Prof. M.N. Faruqui encouraged me to maintain my enthusiasm for carrying out this research. His critique and wisdom reflected the depth and breadth of his vision, as well as multifaceted and rich experience in higher education. I am also thankful to Prof. S.K. Kak for his interest and motivation. He introduced me to the SPINE project that became a very important reference for this work. I have also learnt many lessons about curriculum design, and also critical inquiry, from Prof. S.L. Maskara. Several discussions with Prof. A.B. Bhattacharyya and Mr. H.S. Dagar were very enriching. Few Indian researchers get the benefit of such comprehensive editorial support, as was extended by Mr. Dagar.  Moral support extended by Prof. S.K. Khanna, Prof. (Late) Prof. C.S. Jha, and Dr. Y. Medury has been very encouraging in this journey. I am also highly grateful to the co-authors, reviewers, and editors of all my papers. 

It will not be proper if I forget to acknowledge the lessons I learnt about the value of context and holistic thinking at the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (IGNCA) during my tenure there from 1995 to 2002. My way of thinking and perceptions about excellence, diversity, scholarship, aesthetics, education, and its relationship with human life evolved significantly during the process of innumerable interactions with Dr. Kapila Vatsyayan, Prof. P.S. Filliozat, Prof. T.S. Maxwell, Prof. Saskia Kersenboon, Prof. R. Nagaswamy, Prof. Aditya Malik, Dr. V. Filliozat, Prof. B.N. Saraswati, Prof. Frits Stall, Prof. Anil K. Jain, Prof. Sutcliffe, Prof. Gary Marchionini, Prof. S.P. Mudur, Prof. Ranade, Pierre Pichard, Prof. John Emigh, and many others during the course of designing several interactive multimedia learning systems at the IGNCA.

Lastly, and equally importantly, I am highly thankful to my parents, wife, brothers, sister, and two sons for their care, love, and also tolerance for my carelessness. Not many people get as much pampering at home as has been extended to me since my childhood.  Their generosity to take care of all my responsibilities at home enables me to focus more on my studies and work.

List of My publications wrt this thesis:

1.  Sanjay Goel, What is high about higher education: Examining engineering education through Bloom’s taxonomy, The National Teaching & Learning Forum, Vol. 13, pp 1-5, Number 4, 2004.

2.  Sanjay Goel and Nalin Sharda, What do engineers want? Examining engineering education through Bloom’s taxonomy, Proceedings of 15th Annual AAEE Conference, pp173-185,  2004.

3.  Sanjay 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.

4.  Sanjay Goel, Competency Focused Engineering Education with Reference to IT Related Disciplines:  Is Indian System Ready for Transformation? Journal of Information Technology Education, Vol. 5, Informing Science Institute, USA, pp 27-52, 2006.

5.   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.

6.   Sanjay Goel, Do Engineering Faculty Know What’s Broken?, The National Teaching & Learning Forum, James Rhem & Associates, USA, Vol. 15,  pp 1-10, Number 2, 2006.

7.  Sanjay Goel, Activity based flexible credit definition, Tomorrow’s Professor, Stanford University, 2003, http://ctl.stanford.edu/Tomprof/postings/513.HTML.

8.  Ritu Arora, Sanjay Goel, “Software Engineering Approach for Teaching Development of Scalable Enterprise Applications,”, 22nd IEEE-CS Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training CSEET, pp.105-112, February 2009.

9.   Sanjay Goel and Vanshi Kathuria A Novel approach for pair programming,  Journal of Information Technology Education, USA, Vol 9, pp 183-196, 2010.

10.   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).

11.   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.

12.   Sanjay Goel, Multimedia for Cultural learning, International workshop on Computer Applications in Archaeology, H.B. Bahuguna University, Sri Nagar, India, Invited paper, 2002.

13.  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,

14.   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.

15.  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.

16.  Sanjay Goel, A Model Design for Computer based Cognition Support Systems, International Conference on Multimedia in Humanities, IGNCA, 1998.

17.  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.

________________

Keywords: Software Engineering Education, Computing Education, Computer Science Education, Engineering Education, Information Technology Education, Information Systems Education, College Education, Higher Education, Professional Education

_________________

This work is dedicated to the revering memory of my grandparents,

Sh.(late) Chiranji Lal Goel, a dedicated teacher, who taught me that work is its own reward, and

Smt.(late) Shanti Devi Goel, who personified simplicity and patience.

_________________

Full Text of the thesis is available at http://www.openthesis.org/documents/Design-Interventions-Instructional-Reform-in-600872.html

also check http://in.linkedin.com/in/sgoel

________________

Advertisements
Posted in: Uncategorized