1 / 18

Software Engineering Masters Programs- Lessons Learned

Software Engineering Masters Programs- Lessons Learned. Vladan Jovanovic Georgia Southern University Paul MacNeil Mercer University Duane Matlen US Army TACOM Kenneth Modesitt University of Michigan- Dearborn Daniel Shoemaker University of Detroit Mercy. Issues. Students

tevin
Download Presentation

Software Engineering Masters Programs- Lessons Learned

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Software Engineering Masters Programs- Lessons Learned Vladan Jovanovic Georgia Southern University Paul MacNeil Mercer University Duane Matlen US Army TACOM Kenneth Modesitt University of Michigan- Dearborn Daniel Shoemaker University of Detroit Mercy

  2. Issues • Students • What you base curriculum on? • Curriculum • Qualifications • Employers • Common Body of Knowledge • Conclusions and Future Work Directions

  3. Students: Background • Student experience background • Converting students from other areas • Lack of technical skills • Admissions criteria/conditions for admission • Academic preparation • Oral examination as a screening method • Work experience as a screening method (1-2 years) • Coordination of student prep work important • Consortia as a basis for delivery system/distance ed. • Industrial focus versus “academic”

  4. Students • New program setup as a guide for interested institutions • Traditional student track adds complexity • Foreign students add complexity • Part time/full time issues • Various motivation issues for students in the program • Work/retention issues • Certification a response to above • Separate boot camp for career retrainees • New CS graduates not allowed in program • Asynchronous education a useful support tool

  5. Students • Non technical students don’t have some of the biases of the more technical ones • Different lifecycles for courses • Coursework/GRE score requirements/TOEFL • Coop didn’t work out as an experience requirement • Master in IT with an SE concentration (has practicum) • The definition and impact of experience varies • Personalized customization of programs for each student • Program designed for working individuals taught on site • Undergrads at Ottawa moved very easily into Masters • Five different MS Programs in specific areas of focus UK

  6. Students • Entry equivalent to an honors degree in computing • Definition/standardization of terminology/nomenclature across programs • Performance issues for students with a specific SWE background (by degree level) • People with MS do only marginally better than those with BS (not much difference) needs differentiation

  7. What do you Base Curriculum On? • MS requires differentiating “need to know” since there is very little time • You need to guess what they will need to know in the future (broadly applicable principles) • UMD Used Carnegie Mellon Model (SEI) for program setup • Faculty interest as stakeholders • Adjuncts are a valuable source of guidance • CMM is a valuable source of guidance • SWEBOK is a valuable source of guidance • Systems thinking is important • Having a core body of knowledge defined is useful • Topic based curricula

  8. Curriculum • Ethics/applied research as topics • Standard cases important (MBA case study example)

  9. Qualifications • Industry interest (spend time in industry) • Adjuncts as a resource

  10. Employers • Communication (coordination)between employers and student employees • Employers and feedback is important • Hard to keep students from job hopping • Long term payoff important

  11. Curriculum: Best Practices and/or? • Teachers: Qualifications and Pedagogy • Employers: Re SE Master Programs • Common Body of Knowledge • Impact by/on UG and Doctoral Programs • Graduate SwEng Education [GSEED] Models

  12. Lessons-Experiences from Examples • NPS [CS => SE in Eng] also Doctoral Program • OU [CS => SE in Eng] • MU [CIS => SE in Eng, separate from CS] • UMD [CIS => SE in Eng] • UDM [CIS => SM in Sci, separate from CS] • Other SE Master Programs: • Experience in programs with Master SE courses: • CS, IS, CIS, IT • System Engineering, • Computer Engineering

  13. Orientation on Key Competency • Other Models as Examples: • Engineering [McMaster- under Parnas] • Formal Methods [Oxford University, NPS]

  14. Other examples: • Software Architecture and Design • Systems Engineering – LS SwE • Software Process Management • Software Standards • Programming and Maintenance

  15. Conclusions • Key Experiences • Role of Application Domains • What are conclusions from this Panel • See draft summary in review below

  16. Common Body of Knowledge • There ARE models/taxonomies available • Should use/refine what we have rather than reinvent the wheel • Doctoral programs in SWE necessary

  17. Future work on GSEED • Will you be willing to participate in writing a report on “Recommended Models for Graduate Software Engineering and/or closely related Education, please elaborate: • Send an e-mail to: vladan@gasou.edu

  18. Introduce Yourself • Name: • Institution: • e-mail address: • interest in Graduate SE Education [GSEED]:

More Related