340 likes | 475 Views
GRCSE Path Forward. Outline of GRCSE section. BKCASE Core team + TF have made overview responses to GRCSE review comments Identified 9 themes I present the 9 themes of comments Our responses to the 9 themes Path forward Workshop VII (June) Workshop VIII (October)
E N D
Outline of GRCSE section • BKCASE Core team + TF have made overview responses to GRCSE review comments • Identified 9 themes • I present the 9 themes of comments • Our responses to the 9 themes • Path forward • Workshop VII (June) • Workshop VIII (October) • GRCSE v0.5 (review release)
GRCSE Key Issues • Globally applicable—US Centric. • Stated intention – to be globally applicable • Seemed to fit US education/employment system • Stage of life/career at which students commence Masters in SE • Issues associated with accreditation
GRCSE Key Issues • Defense/Aerospace slant • We believe this general observation flowed from the use of examples originating from particular places • Both institutions and industries
GRCSE Key Issues • Experience (Entrance Expectations) • Global issues: is it too much? Not enough? • Some concern that it was overly restrictive • Not sensitive to different national contexts • Lack of explanation of how the entrance expectations are linked to • Content • Outcomes • Objectives
GRCSE Key Issues • Degree Type (Entrance Expectation) • MBA, social sciences • This was based on the different pathways taken by SEs and the fact that some employers had successfully encouraged people with non-engineering backgrounds to do SE programs (usually after on-the-job training in engineering based on other education)
GRCSE Key Issues • Recommendations VS Requirements • Some reviewers seemed to expect a specification of a Master of SE program • Contrary to our intention – to write a guide to assist people to • Develop Master of SE programs • Evaluate/maintain Master of SE programs • Inform activities associated with linking programs to competencies and accreditation (we specifically are not producing an accreditation framework)
GRCSE Key Issues • Software—too much emphasis? • There were many comments to the effect that there was too much about software in GRCSE, and not enough about hardware or SoS or enterprises • Entangled disciplines • We have been conscious of tension over related disciplines – especially PM and SwE • Product/Service/Enterprise/SoS
GRCSE Key Issues • Curriculum Architecture • Questions raised about the choice of explicit addressing of System Design and Technology Management • What about other aspects of lifecycle – such as O&M and Disposal • Bias – seemed to follow Defense acquisition approach
GRCSE Key Issues • How to use/examples • Some reviewers suggested it would be useful to have guidance in how to use GRCSE in various scenarios in which it could be used • Companion document • Papers (0.5) • Additional chapter/appendix (1.0?)
GRCSE Key Issues • CorBoK • Confusion about the relationship of ‘Core’ and ‘Core Extension’ • Requires better communication • Why did we choose SDD and TM • Incompleteness (X’s, not Bloom levels) made it harder to understand • Many recommended additional topics
Global applicability • Possibly different sets of recommendations by education system • We observe differences in progress through education – next slide • We interpreted the comments about global applicability as relating to these differences in education system structure internationally (not details of terminology – which also differ)
Global applicability 1 How to compensate for the difference in order? Educate Experience Educate 2 Educate Educate Experience Additional activities Practical/Hands-on work Labs 3 Educate Experience Undergrad only—holistic perspective on WFD
Global applicability • Globally applicable • Possibly different sets of recommendations by education system • Dividing out into two streams (u/g->p/g->wk; u/g->work->p/g) is likely to make changes to: • Entrance requirements • Objectives • Outcomes • More later
Defense/Aerospace slant • We believe this observation flowed from the use of examples originating from particular places • Both institutions and industries (this can follow from specific vocabulary or issues) • Contrary to the goal of domain independence • Solution • Rework to excise examples or to create new material in other areas
Entrance expectations • Concerns expressed over how much experience should be expected • Range from none to 10 years • Seems to be influenced by educations system and competitive position of the university • Education system – valid in GRCSE • Competitive position – not relevant in GRCSE • Action • Review in relation to education system decision • Link to learning outcomes and objectives
Background degree expectations • Degree Type (discipline) • Question is which kind of degree should be required as background • Is it important which degreeORWhat students should have learned through the degree? • Natural science (one or several? Physics, Bio, Chem? All? Some?) • Domain dependent? Finance requires math focus; defense physics, etc.
Background degree expectations • Degree Type (discipline) • Another set of comments expressed a lack of explanation of the link of background education and the content or outcomes and objectives of programs • Type of system focus • Product, service, enterprise • What are the commonalities?
Background degree expectations • Specifics • Need specifics? vs World view • Scientific method (scientific discipline) • Engineering thought process and proficiency (some level)—using science to solve problem • Undergraduate sequence in engineering and/or natural sciences (not dependent on specifics—domain drives specifics of which sciences) • Programs determine specifics based on their emphases, domain focuses, etc.
GRCSE Recommendations vs Requirements • Tension in how people understood GRCSE • Some expected instruction for a program • Some expected guidance for how to design a program • Solution • Improve clarity of expression of recommendations concept • Recommendations is one of the foundational positions of GRCSE (I believe correctly)
Software - emphasis • Entangled disciplines—PM and SwE • Solution • Improve the clarity and completeness of discussion of • Product • Service • Enterprise • SoS
Architecture • Some difficulty for readers to understand • Approach • Use detailed adjudication of comments to determine the best solution to deal with SDD/TM—rationale? Defense? • This also impacts the generalisability of GRCSE
Examples related to use of GRCSE • Suggested that examples of how to use GRCSE would help readers • Use of GRCSE as a tools to design a program • As a tool to review/revise an existing program • As a tool for constructing an accreditation guide • V0.5 – write as an additional chapter/appendix — companion document, papers; additional chapter/appendix
CorBOK • SDD/TM – table • What to include? • What is the intent? • Extension areas contentious • What they are – maybe others • Many recommended additional topics • SEBoK TOC stable at 15 July • Part Leads identify/prioritize KA’s and topics for CorBoK and corresponding Bloom’s levels
CorBOK • Path Forward • Use SEBOK structure to guide topic selection • More mature at 15/July • Clarify nature and content of the tables • This is likely to be much clearer when we include Bloom levels of achievement
Educational systems – 2 patterns • Two different entrance expectations based on 2 models • Weave the rest around the expectations • Packaging will create two variants • Need to trace entrance to outcomes • CorBoK Kas the same • Outcomes same or very similar (very clear) • Objectives may be different • Architecture may be different (but some similarity)
WS VI – Working Day (Day 3) • First cut at topics (~10?) with Bloom’s levels • Core • Extensions • Present end of day 3 • Brief discussion with full author team • Plan details of action to proceed • Plan how to engage authors not present at BKCASE VI
GRCSE work to WS VII • Comment adjudication 1st cut • Document update based on discussion • Solid version of materials outside CorBoK • First cut of CorBoK based on current 0.5 skeleton • Topics and Bloom’s levels • Validate post WS VII • Consider contact time budget for approx hours allocated to topics to achieve Bloom’s level • Differences between Education/Experience Model s1 and 2
Towards BKCASE VII - Companion Documents? • Examples of implementations • Schools that may use GRCSE to examine/start programs, use in academic program reviews • Plan work to be done (by WS VII)
Towards WS VIII (UK) (preliminary) • 1 Aug – Engage SEBOK Part Team leads • For guidance re CorBOK content and Bloom’s levels • Draft 0.5, with near-final CorBoK, promulgated among team, present at BKCASE VIII
Staffing • Chapter 1 – Team • Chapter 2 – Team • Chapter 3 – Tim, Rick, NEED • Chapter 4 – Olwell, NEED • Chapter 5 – Nic, Rick, Marcia, Massood, NEED • Chapter 6 – Alice, John B., NEED • Chapter 7 – JJ, Alice, Tim, (Olwell, Tim, Art), NEED 1 and 2
Staffing • Chapter 8 – Olwell, Daniel P • Chapter 9 – Tim • Appendix A – Mary, Tom, Nic (follow up?) • Appendix B – Tim, NEED • Appendix C – NEED 1, 2, and 3 • Appendix D – Prun • Appendix E – Alice, NEED • Appendix F – Freeman
Staffing • References and Glossary (compilation) - Nic