Forum for Advancing Software engineering Education (FASE) Volume 9 Number 10 (117th Issue) - October 15, 1999 868 subscribers Note: If you have problems with the format of this document, try An HTML version of this issue is available at ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Table of Contents Letter from the Academic Editor: FASE-TALK Archive and Email Change This Month's Topic: Distance Learning and Internet Education November 1999 Topic: The Relationship Between Software Engineering and Other Disciplines December 1999 Topic: Top Ten Events of the Century January 2000 Topic: Coping with the Faculty Shortage February 2000 Topic: Top Ten Events - The Readers' Picks Call for Guest Editors and Topic Suggestions News Items Licensing Update Canadian Lawsuit Discontinued Software Engineering Accreditation Approved in Ontario Engineering Times Articles Response to DeMarco's Comments Published Accreditation Update Doris Lidtke Named Abet Adjunct Accreditation Director for Computing Calls for Participation ICSE 2000 SEAT Track (second listing) Position Openings Texas Tech University Contact and General Information about FASE ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From: Don Bagert (Academic/Misc Editor) Letter from the Academic Editor: FASE-TALK Archive and Email Change There is now an archive of FASE-TALK emails at http://www.cs.ttu.edu/fase/fase-talk.htm. Thanks to Tom Horton for the suggestion. Early next year, my university is going to a standardized format for email address names. In anticipation of that, my email alias has changed to Don.Bagert@ttu.edu. The old address of bagert@ttu.edu will still work until 1 September 2000. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This Month's Topic: Distance Learning and Internet Education Guest Editors: Joe Kasser, University of Maryland University College (UMUC) A Rajagopal, Tata Infotech Limited Bruce Schafer, Oregon College of Engineering and Computer Science Ahmed Seffah, Centre de recherche informatique de Montreal (CRIM) Software Engineering Education at the Age of the Web Fever: Promising Applications and Challenging Obstacles The rise of Internet technology has created an infrastructure that has the potential to provide the software engineering education and training with new tools and innovative means of sharing skills and delivering just-in-time learning resources anywhere. In this special issue, the following authors discuss the potential applications and obstacles of the Internet as a medium for SE education and training: - Booksites: Web-based Dynamic Supplements to Software Engineering Books by Roger Chapman - Teaching Software Maintenance Online via (Mostly) Asynchronous Distance Learning by Joseph Kasser and Steve Kerby - The Web as Medium for Learners-Centered Education by Ahmed Seffah - Internet-based Software Engineering Education at Murdoch University (Australia) by Geoffrey G. Roy, Jocelyn Armarego, Terry Woodings and Peng Lam - Distance Education Program at Central Queensland University (Australia) by Dave Oliver - Is Internet-Based Software Engineering Education and Training Cost- Effective? By Ahmed Seffah ###################################################################### Booksites: Web-based Dynamic Supplements to Software Engineering Books Roger Chapman Booksite Director for Ben Shneiderman's, "Designing the User Interface" http://www.aw.com/dtui/ The Ohio State University Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering Email: roger.chapman@acm.org Introduction Web-based resources can productively supplement software-engineering books. No matter how well a book describes the state of the field when it is written, over time new topics will emerge and valuable resources will become available. In contrast to the static pages of a book, the pages of a Web site can be highly dynamic and potentially always up- to-date. A Web site dedicated to supplementing a book, referred to as a 'Booksite', therefore offers a particularly valuable additional resource to authors and users of software engineering books in this age of the Internet. Booksite Advantages A booksite can: 1. Provide potential readers of the book a preview of the material it contains and the ability to order a copy on-line; 2. Provide instructors with supplementary materials such as examination questions, projects, lecture notes, teaching tips, and links to related resources on the Web. 3. Provide students with supplementary materials such as practice examination questions, study guides, on-line demonstrations, and links to related resources on the Web. 4. Provide both instructors and students with a convenient method for giving feedback on the book. 5. Provide additional insight into what users are interested in via automated page hit counting. 6. Facilitate communication within a community of those interested in the book. 7. Allow booksite visitors to quickly search the site for material on a particular topic. Booksite Design The kind of booksite described here is not produced by simply taking an electronic version of a book and using a conversion utility to transform it to html. At the same time, the book metaphor and the particular material covered by a book provide useful frames of reference that should be considered when designing the booksite. For instance, a textbook typically has a preface, table of contents and is divided into chapters containing subtopics within the main theme of the book. A booksite's home page might be created as a table of contents with links to the same set of sub-level topics as the book itself plus sub-levels for additional topics only found at the booksite. Some additional topics can be submitted syllabi, a list of contributors to the booksite, links to Web resources related to the overall theme of the book, or a page for requesting a copy of the book. A book will also have an index, and the booksite might have something similar, but the larger the booksite becomes the more useful it will be to have a search feature on the home page. Practical Considerations One example of a booksite is the one for Ben Shneiderman's, "Designing the User Interface" (DTUI) at http://www.aw.com/dtui, which was originally designed by Blaise Liffick at Millersville University and is now being developed further by Roger Chapman at The Ohio State University. Experience with this booksite has taught us that while a booksite can be a very useful supplement to a book, it is a dynamic up-to-date resource only to the extent that people are able to make it so. For instance, a person or persons are needed to: 1. Provide access to, and support for, a Web server to host the booksite; In the case of the DTUI booksite this is provided by the book publisher, Addison Wesley Longman, itself. This demonstrates that publishers may recognize that a booksite can make the book more attractive to potential buyers and therefore increases sales. Having a publisher host the Web pages can complicate updating the booksite if that is not done by the publisher, although it should be possible for updates to take place via ftp transfers. 2. Develop the supplementary materials. The author of the book may develop these, but there is also the potential to involve users of the book by including material such as their syllabi, examination questions, projects, teaching tips or studying tips. These may be stored on the machine hosting the booksite or links to the material developers' pages may be used. In the case of the DTUI booksite much of this type of material is kept on the machine hosting the booksite, but links are used for the more dynamic material, such as descriptions for courses where the book is used. 3. Design and implement the interface to the booksite; Good booksite design requires a person with skills in both HCI and a language or tool that can be used to implement that design on the Web. The author of the book may have those skills, but prefer to see someone else assume this responsibility, as is the case with the DTUI booksite. 4. Keep any Web links to remote sites maintained. When there is much material elsewhere on the Web related to the material of a book, it is a service to the user to organize links that material and connects them appropriately to the organization of the book and booksite. At the DTUI booksite there are a large number of links organized by the chapters of the book and the subtopics within those chapters. It is a significant amount of work to maintain these links as pages are moved on or removed from the Web, and new relevant pages are added. A person or persons may be assigned this responsibility, but if the community of book users also contribute in this effort it helps tremendously. There are software programs for automatically checking for broken links, which helps reduce the workload, but finding quality new resources is much more labor intensive. 5. Interact with the users of the booksite. Like any other reasonably sophisticated Web site the visitors to a booksite expect to be able to find an email address on the site for situations when they have a comment, question or suggestion for those maintaining that site. A person or persons are therefore needed to respond to these messages. A Discussion List for the Book and Booksite Discussion between users of a book or booksite can be supported by a mailing list dedicated to this purpose. This also provides a convenient method for distributing announcements about the book or booksite to its users. Experience with the mailing list for the DTUI booksite has shown that it is useful for such a list to be restricted so that only those on a list of accepted subscribers may post messages. The main reason for this being to avoid the increasing number of spam messages appearing on the Internet. Potential users of both a booksite and discussion list can be made aware of these resources by referring to them in the associated book, assuming the addresses are unlikely to change for quite some time. Their addresses can also be posted on search engines or requests can be made to relate sites to reference them. Conclusion A well-supported dynamic booksite has much to offer as a supplement to a static book. However, it is important not to underestimate the workload and financial resources that will be needed to make a booksite a useful complement and not simply a less static supplement. ###################################################################### Teaching Software Maintenance Online via (Mostly) Asynchronous Distance Learning Joseph Kasser and Steve Kerby Graduate School of Management and Technology University of Maryland University Boulevard at Adelphi Road College Park, MD 20742-1614 Telephone 301 985 4616, Fax 301 985 4611 Email: jkasser@umuc.edu and skerby@umuc.edu Introduction The Graduate Department of Information and Telecommunication Studies at the University of Maryland University College (UMUC) in College Park, Maryland offers a Software Development Management (SDM) track in its Master of Science in Computer Systems Management degree. The SDM track is designed for software development professionals and technical managers who are interested in the software life-cycle process. CSMN648 , the capstone course in the track, focuses primarily on the issues of software maintenance, but also considers such matters as software evolution, process, performance, planning, and change. In the past, CSMN648 was taught in the classroom synchronously in real time on the College Park campus via the traditional lecture and discussion method. Students also worked on individual papers and group projects as part of the course. Conversion to on-line Dr. Joseph Kasser re-designed the course for asynchronous on-line delivery via UMUC's WebTycho distance learning software platform. He did it in such as way as to use the best of both synchronous and asynchronous techniques duplicating the lectures that had been delivered synchronously and making them available in multiple asynchronous options. Several of Dr. Kasser's colleagues questioned this approach, suggesting that it would be more effective to design something new that played to the Web's strengths (i.e. interactivity, collaboration, and synchronicity), rather than trying to duplicate what happens in the traditional Face-to-face classroom lecture. Dr. Kasser, however, argued that the lecture experience was valuable and entirely appropriate for CSMN 648 On-line, and that he was indeed using the Web to its best advantage by making the lecture available asynchronously and in multiple formats. Further, he pointed out that the lecture was only one component of the class, that the weekly discussions (which take place in WebTycho) and the group projects (supported by the Study Group section of WebTycho) add the collaborative and interactive component to the class. One of CSMN 648 On-line's unique features is that it offers asynchronous delivery of the lectures in multiple options. Further, not only do the students have the option of viewing / hearing / reading the text on-line, they can download the files for viewing / hearing / reading on their own computers. How the Technology Affects the Students' Learning The various lecture options have at least two purposes: - To match the instruction with the technology. The lectures are delivered in more than one technical format. So if, for instance, a student has restricted Internet access, a slow CPU, and/or a slow modem, they can either access the RealPresenter presentation without streaming or simply read the lecture while viewing the transparencies. - To match the instruction with different ways of learning. The lectures are delivered in more than one instructional format. So if, for instance, a student learns better aurally, visually, audio- visually, or through some combination of them all, CSMN648 On-line gives that student those opportunities. Not only do the multiple formats give students technological and instructional options, the formats also give students the opportunity to gather the lecture information repeatedly (in more than one way.) Although this particular course design is only currently undergoing formal evaluation and testing, the anecdotal evidence is encouraging (positive student feedback), and it is almost certain that the multiple opportunities to learn significantly facilitate the students' learning experience. In the third semester of CSMN 648 On-line, Dr. Kasser gave the students the option of delivering their presentations in the same format as his lectures. Twenty-one out of fifty students chose to provide audio accompaniment to their PowerPoint slides. The presentations were viewed and rated in an asynchronous conference developed by Dr. Kasser's software engineering students in another class in spring 1999. The asynchronous conference also allows the students to post, and respond to, questions about the presentation. This conference may be previewed by accessing Dr. Kasser's Web page at http://www.umuc.edu/~jkasser and clicking on the link to the Experimental Asynchronous Web Conference. The design approach Much has been written about the objectivist and constructivist approaches to instructional design [1]. The objectivist approach is based on the assumption that there is a real, objective, and knowable world, and that the instructor's primary duty is to convey that knowledge to the students. The constructivist approach, on the other hand, is based on the assumption that knowledge is constructed by the learner, that learning is active and collaborative and that the instructor's primary duty is to provide a context whereby the student can discover his or her own "constructed" knowledge. CSMN 648 on-line nods to both objectivist and constructivist theories of learning by combining: the traditional lecture (teacher centered) with the highly interactive and collaborative On-line Conferencing and Study Group features (student centered). Dr. Kasser's lecture nods to the objectivist philosophy. It is assumed that there is real, objective, and knowable information about software maintenance, so the instructor "imparts" his information to his students. On the other hand, if there is indeed objective and knowable information, it is also assumed that there is constructed knowledge--knowledge that is acquired actively, collaboratively, and on the students' own initiative. The study groups, class conferencing, and asynchronous delivery provide the context for individual and collaborative discovery. Communicating with the Instructor Students communicate with the Dr. Kasser in several ways including: - Synchronously via the telephone or Internet voice using PhoneFree software (available as shareware at http://www.phonefree.com). - Asynchronously using audio via the telephone answering machine or PhoneFree's voice mail. - Asynchronously using text via E-mail or in the discussion groups. In an asynchronous class structure, it is important that class communication be made available to all students. Dr. Kasser's rule of thumb for student questions is: If the question - would be asked out loud in a "real" classroom, then the students are expected to post it in the appropriate discussion thread in the relevant conference area of the class. - is of a personal nature -- the kind of question a student might ask in a private meeting with the professor -- then the students may E-mail the professor privately. It is important to stress that on-line instruction is a highly interactive, highly collaborative medium. E-mail is discouraged for all but the most private matters. The conversion process and results Dr. Kasser began creating the on-line course with an established baseline of a set of PowerPoint slides that had been used in his classroom lectures. In the conversion from face-to-face to on-line, he had to supplement these PowerPoint slides with full text notes (which became the audio component of the Real Media Presenter). The first time the class ran, preparation time averaged approximately 10 hours per session. This dropped to about 1.5 hours per session when the course ran the second time. For the third offering of the class, preparation time is averaging about 30 minutes per session. Remember that in an on-line class, there are no classroom hours. Preparation time is teaching time. Dr. Kasser has found that this "re-use" approach allows him to spend increasing amounts of time interacting with students. Summary In summary, the primary way that on-line technology affects student learning is that the lecture (indeed, the class itself) is available to students regardless of time and distance. A student who lives and works in Korea, for instance, has just as much access to the UMUC teacher, class materials, and class discussion as a student who lives in Washington DC. This asynchronous element of on-line class delivery is crucial. No doubt, it is the central reason why on-line class delivery is becoming so widespread. Quality education may not be more affordable, but it is becoming more available to working adults (as well as to full-time students). In CSMN 648 On-line, not only are students presented with a blend of traditional and on-line methods of instruction in multiple options, the instructional design itself spans the philosophical spectrum of learning theory. The point is that no matter how a student learns, or how knowledge is "constructed," CSMN 648 On-line has something substantial to offer. You are welcome to take a look at the preview and comment. Access is via http://polaris.umuc.edu/~skerby/wit/wit_presentation.htm Notes: 1. Urban Nulden's "Designing Environments for Reflection and Collaborative Learning," 2. Mart Laanpere's "Underlying Theories of Learning and Instruction," 3. John Vargo's "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Internet Delivered Coursework," and Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education by David Jonassen, et al. ###################################################################### The Web as Medium for Learners-Centered Education Ahmed Seffah Computer Research Institute of Montreal 550 Sherbrooke St. W, Montreal, Canada H3A 2N4 Tel: (514) 840-1234 - Fax: (514) 840-1244 E-mail: aseffah@crim.ca - http://www.crim.ca/~aseffah A revolution is taking place in academic and continuing education, one that deals with the philosophy of teaching and learning, the relationship between educators and learners, the way classrooms are structured, and the nature of curriculum. This new approach, termed learner-centered education [Norman-96 and Denning-96], focus on the needs, skills and interests of the learner rather than on the organization of the curriculum content. The following are the fundamentals steps of our approach that combine the power of the emerging education paradigm and Internet technologies and tools: - Presenting students with a set of relevant resources and information - Encouraging students to added their own resources and share their ideas - Inviting students to collaboratively share and comment their projects - Making the bridge between academic education and industry best practices - Improving the personal learning process by integrating self- assessment and mentoring strategies Step 1: Presenting students with an initial set of relevant resources and information A typical environment that a professor can establish as a starting point towards an Internet-based training environment include different types of resources that can be used to either achieve a greater understanding of a concept or to obtain further information about it. The following are example of these resources: - Overheads - Course outline - Objectives - Assigned readings an references - Assignment list - Frequently Asked Questions - Bibliography - Tutorials Step 2: Encouraging students to added their own resources and share their ideas The infrastructure also supports communication between students and/or instructors through newsgroups and mail tools. Communication tools are powerful for the following - Professor comments - Students ideas - Personalized questions/answers - Training follow-up - Corrected exams - Experts to consult - Personal information - Students personal resources - Class projects and accomplishments Step 3: Inviting students to critique each other's projects We had our students publish their projects, making them available for all other students in the class. Students were anxious that their work would be so visible, but it does seem to push them along to polish their projects more than in the past. The following is the scenario that have experimented in an object-oriented modeling and design issues of user interfaces: - Each team put their first OO design model on the FTP server with an anonymous name several weeks before the final due date. - Students are invited to comment and criticize other students design models through a newsgroup especially established for this purpose. The professor acted as a moderator of the newsgroup. - Each team was invited to submit by email a compilation of all comments made by other students about their works. - The professor graded this compilation and gave the students time to make changes and/or extend their model. Step 4: Making the bridge between academic education and industry best practices Learning resources listed in step 2 can introduce concepts and present simple case studies in an attempt to help with the understanding of those concepts. Students' projects and achievements are also limited and constrained in their scope to reflect true-life experiences. In this step, the professor should add to the environment obtained during step 3, learning resources that can help students develop skills they will use in the real world in as realistic a way as possible [Denning- 92]. Examples of such learning resources for object-oriented technology education and training are: (1) examples [Hermann-96], (2) complex problems [Guzdial-96], (3) pedagogical design patterns [Manns-96] and, (4) scaffolded examples [Rosson-96]. These resources are the essence of learner-centered education in the sense that they are picked to fit the interests and needs of learners. For example scaffolded examples are sample problems of realistic size whose complexity is gradually revealed in steps that leverage and reinforce the intrinsic structure of the problem-solving process. Scaffolding enables learners to build their understanding through a process of successive elaboration and integration. Step 5: Improving the personal learning process by integrating self- assessment and mentoring strategies From a learner perspective, the environment obtained during step 4 has the potential to offer a flexible structure allowing self-directed, self-paced instruction on any topic. However, we believe that in order to take advantage of this potential, one must concurrently adapt existing object-oriented education approaches with new methods of apprenticeship capable of empowering and sustaining the act of self- learning. A priori, we need to anticipate and identify the end-user's unique and self-paced exploration of the given materials and then respond to their need for insight, alternatives and new directions by providing embedded questions, and correct, summative self-evaluation instruments. Once a learner profile has been established, we can confidently design the assessment strategies. - Suggested Readings - Alvaraz-Rubio, J. Leon-Serrano, G. "An introduction to a C++ course: on-site and distance teaching." ECOOP'96 Educator's Symposium. - Bagert, D et al (1999) "Guidelines for Software Engineering Education: version 1.0", Working group on SE Education and Training - Capell, P. (1995). "Distance Learning Technologies". CMU/SEI-95-TR- 004. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University. - Denning, P.J. (1992). Educating the new engineers. Communications of the ACM 35. - Dupuis, R et al (1998) "A Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge: a Straw Man version", IEEE Computer Society - Guzdial, M. Kolodner, J. Hmelo, C. "Computer Support for Learning Through Complex Problem Solving." Communications of the ACM. 39(4). - Hermann, H. Metz, I. (1996). "Teaching OO Software Engineering by Examples" ECOOP'96 Educator's Symposium. - John Vargo's "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Internet Delivered Coursework," and Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education by David Jonassen, and all. - Lato, k. Drechsler, A. Effective Training in OOT: Learn by doing. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming. 9(6) - Maly, Kurt, Hussein Abdel-Wahab, C. Michael Overstreet, J. Christian Wild, Ajay K. Gupta, Alaa Youssef, Emilia Stoica, Ehab S. Al-Shaer. "Interactive Distance Learning over Intranets". IEEE Internet Computing, Volume 1(1). - Manns M.L Pedagogical Patterns Successes in Teaching Object Technology. ECOOP'96 Educator's Symposium - Mart Laanpere's "Underlying Theories of Learning and Instruction," - Norman, D.A. Spohrer, J.C (1996). "Learner-Centered Education." Communications of the ACM. 39(4). - Seffah Ahmed, Michel Desmarais, and Ramzan Khuwaja. Mastering Object-Oriented Technology Using a Web-Based Training and Assessment System. Computer Applications in Engineering Education Journal. Wiley and Sons, 1999. - Seffah, Ahmed. "Involving Learners in an Object-Oriented Technology Teaching Process: Five Web-Based Steps for Success." Workshops Reader, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1543, Springer Verlag. European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Brussels, Belgium, July 20-24, 1998. - Urban Nulden's "Designing Environments for Reflection and Collaborative Learning," ###################################################################### Internet-based Software Engineering Education at Murdoch University Geoffrey G. Roy, Professor of Software Engineering Jocelyn Armarego, Lecturer Terry Woodings Associate Professor Peng Lam, Senior Lecturer Lynne Fowler, Lecturer Contact: Geoffrey G. Roy Email: geoff@eng.murdoch.edu.au Background In 1996 Murdoch University established a new School of Engineering with two specialists Bachelor of Engineering (BE) degree programs, one in Instrumentation and Control Engineering and the other in Software Engineering (SE). At that time there was only one other undergraduate SE degree program in Australia (at the University of Melbourne). Since, several new BE SE courses have commenced or are currently being planned. In Australia, the Bachelor of Engineering degree is a professional engineering qualification taken over 4 years and would normally be expect to be accredited by the Institution of Engineers, Australia (IEAust). This could be considered equivalent to the ABET accreditation in the USA. There are, of course, a wide range of computing or IT degree programs that contain courses in Software Engineering, perhaps as majors, but these would not normally be accredited as a professional engineering qualification. Our teaching objectives are focused on producing graduate professional engineers with a special skill in Software Engineering. This implies that we will expect our graduates to find career opportunities in both traditional engineering industries which have a strong interest in software as well as the full range of IT disciplines where the design and implementation of quality software is considered a priority. The development of our BE (SE) program naturally preceded the publication of the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) [Dupuis-98], but in review we are reasonably well satisfied that our course conforms to these proposals. It is also closely aligned with the recently published sample curricula as proposed by the Working Group Software engineering Education and Training [Bagert-99], which can be found at (http://faculty.db.erau.edu/hilburn/se-educ) Curriculum Delivery Strategies Given that we were starting from scratch in 1996, opportunities to use the Internet as a primary delivery mode were available. At that time the teaching facilities available were crude, and our approaches to delivery are still evolving as new tools and capabilities become available. Our initial thoughts were driven by two key objectives: 1. To develop efficient means of delivery for both on- and off-campus students. From the outset we were intending to provide our courses via distance education -- distance education is a significant element of teaching for our University. 2. To provide a means of documenting a complete curriculum that is not fully dependent on individual staff interests and capabilities. This might seem a little strange, but we know from experience that many university courses are very dependent on individual staff. The "collective memory" is often limited, and replacing a lecturer may often imply re-writing the courses previously taught. Developing Web-based curricula does appear to offer a reasonable approach to achieving both of these objectives. While there might still be debate on the required SWEBOK, the real problems in delivering a course on the Internet are more relating to teaching and learning paradigms rather than the actual content. This is not to diminish the importance of content (as will expand on later), but it is important that there is a reasonable model for teaching and learning. That is, it is not just sufficient to provide a copy of either a textbook or lecture overhead transparencies translated onto the Web and expect that the learning outcomes will be achieved. In addition we have presumed that the same teaching resources will be available to both on- and off-campus students. We do accept that on- campus students will have access to additional tutorial sessions and that off-campus students will have to rely more on personal email communications to provide supplementary learning resources. Course Content The development of our Web-based courses is proceeding as fast the available resources will allow, and at the moment we have most of the core SE units up and running. These include (except as noted): At year 1: - Engineering Computing I (Introduction to programming and problem solving using Java) - Engineering Computing II (Java programming) At year 2: - Engineering Computing III (Introduction to Unix, C++ programming and Data Structures) - Engineering Computing IV (Unix and C++ programming) - Requirements Engineering (An O-O approach) - Databases (not yet online) - Data Communications (not yet online) At year 3: - Software Engineering I (an overview of SE with an emphasis on the software process) - Software Engineering II (software management and certification for quality) - User Interface Design (requirements, design implementation and evaluation) - Advanced Software Design I (architectural design and formalisms) - Software Engineering Project (not online) At year 4: - Software Engineering III (metrics and quality assurance) - Software Engineering IV (SE tools, organizational and professional issues) - Advanced Software Design II (detailed design) - Software Engineering Thesis (not online, industry based) Each of these courses constitute 3 to 4 semester-hours of work for the student, or in our own measure about 8 to 10 hours of work time (including in and out of class time) each week, over a 13 week semester, with four normal courses taken each semester. The 4th year thesis is three times the size of a normal course. The remainder of the curriculum includes a range of Mathematics, Applied Science and Management units to constitute a complete engineering study program. Design Principles Since setting out on this enterprise we have learned a lot about Web- based delivery -- we are still learning as we see the results of our approach through the feedback from our students, their performance and expressed interest. We already know there are some golden rules. Here are some of them: 1. For the student, a session with a browser must result in the acquisition of new knowledge. While the student is expected to read and understand the content provided, a simple read-the-screen paradigm will only hold their attention for a few minutes. 2. The learning activities should involve some interaction with the Web page, i.e. the Web page should contain, or refer to, activities to be done. This might be achieved though interactive elements embedded in the Web page, pointers to other Web pages which offer a different perspective on the subject matter of the topic in question, or even activities that must be completed away from the Web environment (exercises, projects and the like). 3. Where interactive tools are provided within the Web page itself, they should encourage the student to explore the concepts being delivered. Learning by experience and experimentation should not be under rated. 4. For students in their first (and perhaps second year of the course) considerable help must be provided to assist them in planning and monitoring their study program. For senior students with more developed study habits, greater flexibility can be provided in allowing the students to complete elements of a course at their own pace, and perhaps even with some degree of choice as to the order in which topics are studied. Delivering Core SE Courses on the Web While we have developed a range of Web-based courses in the BE (SE) program, we will focus our attention here on a sequence which goes by the title "Software Engineering" These courses cover most of the classical SE content which relates to software processes, software project management, measurement and testing. They correspond to the courses Software Engineering I, II, III and IV as outlined above. These are offered in four sequential semesters in years 3 and 4 of our program. They encompass a body of knowledge, and require a maturing approach to these elements of SE. As such it was not clear to us, at the outset, which particular topics should be delivered when, but we did know that knowledge was required at the end of the sequence. We therefore set out to design a Web-based environment along the following lines: 1. The Body of Knowledge was classified into a small number of sections using the analogy of a software factory. Each Section being likened to a "department" within the factory where special interests, or capabilities, are provided. The chosen sections are: - Software Process - Basic Techniques - Project Management - Quality Assurance - Process Improvement Reliability and Risk - Human Factors - Strategic Management Within each section we then proceeded to define sets of Topics, each representing a body of work that could be undertaken in a "session" (perhaps 2 to 3 hours work). 2. These Topics exist at varying levels of detail and complexity with the intention that some are to be completed early in the study program, while others will depend on these and require a more sophisticated approach that might be better appreciated by a more senior student. 3. For each semester course of study, we can then select a package of Topics, and define any required sequencing, by a "production line". This is represented by graphical "map" showing which topics should be done when (in relation to each other). This "production line" facility also has the capability of recording and displaying a student's progress as each Topic is attempted and completed. Each Topic is accompanied by a short video presentation (about 1 to 2 minutes) which is recorded by one of our staff. This provides a "personal" introduction to the Topic, and is aimed at softening what might otherwise be seen as rather impersonal teaching environment. The videos are available in low resolution for off-campus students (about 2.M bytes of mpeg) and in medium resolution (about 15 Mbytes) for on-campus students. The key to this approach relies on the design of the Topics. Each must be self-contained, and in our case, conform to a standard design. We provide templates for the key Web pages, along with a set of standard graphic icons to each person developing the Topic. This ensures a measure of consistency, both in terms of the stylistic approach as well as the content structure, across various staff working on the curricula, which allows a very flexible approach to course packaging. That is, we can reliably design "production lines" on the basis of the stated content of Topics without being too concerned about how it is presented. One of the very nice features of this approach is that it is possible to package, or re-package, complete courses with minimal effort. It is just necessary to define a new "production line" using the underlying common pool of Topics as required. It is also possible to package easily short courses based on special subsets of Topics and make these available on the Web. Challenges Obviously this approach to teaching/learning provides us with some challenges: 1. Ensuring off-campus students are included in a collaborative learning environment without face-to-face contact. 2. Ensuring students are not swamped with information -- that objectives and outcomes for each course can be discerned without face- to-face cues from academic staff. 3. Shortcomings in the evaluation of student learning from online courses -- student feedback provides us with some information. We are working towards addressing these issues. Access to Web Site A demonstration of some of the teaching tools can be found from http://eng.murdoch.edu.au FASE readers are invited to email Geoff Roy (geoff@eng.murdoch.edu.au) for a user id/password to access the Web site where the Units are located. ###################################################################### Distance Education Program at Central Queensland University Dave Oliver Senior Lecturer in Computing School of Computing and Information Systems Central Queensland University Rockhampton Queensland 4702 Australia Phone +61 7 49 30 94 25 Fax +61 7 49 30 97 29 Mail: d.oliver@cqu.edu.au Central Queensland University (CQU) has been providing distance education programs in applied computing since the 70's, back in the days when punch cards were used for input. The turnaround time for a compile would have been a couple of weeks -- a state of affairs difficult for those more recently arrived on the IT scene to imagine (even professional programmers often had to wait 24 hours). Realistically the only way distance students could complete practical assignments was by attending residential schools. Now everybody has a PC and residential schools are a thing of the past. Currently we have around 1000 IT students enrolled in each of the campus based and distance education modes of attendance. About one third of these students follow a software engineering stream. At CQU distance education courses and campus-based courses continue to have identical assessment tasks. This practice was adopted to counter perceptions of inferiority with respect to the distance course. Now it has become well established, distance education tends to be the prime consideration in course design. This is because it is generally easier to replicate on campus teaching strategies designed for a distance, rather than the other way round. To this extent campus students benefit from relatively well prepared course materials produced for distance students. Various quality checks are in place to eliminate errors and inconsistencies in course materials, which is important for distance delivery. These materials are usually paper- based but can extend to video; CD-ROM or Web-located materials. Modern communication technologies, particularly e-mail, have a great impact in the current teaching environment. Lecturers are not always easily accessible to students even at a campus and distance students can find communicating with their lecturer even more difficult. E-mail enables a distance student to communicate conveniently with the lecturer and fellow students wherever they may be. It also makes it relatively easy for the lecturer to keep in touch with a large class of hundreds of students. CQU does not yet have a comprehensive system for on-line assignment submission. This may seem a glaring omission in the present climate but there are a number of difficult issues. These include authenticity (print-based assignments require a signature of authorship), viruses, and the cost of printing the assignment unless it can easily be assessed on line. However, I believe other Australian Universities involved in distance education have systems in place for electronic assignment submission. Project subjects seem to suit distance education quite well. As the distance student is usually engaged in some form of employment this often opens up project opportunities. The usual practice is to have both a workplace and an academic supervisor. Students studying by distance education generally study part-time, which means two subjects per term instead of four. This may make the overall time to complete a degree fairly long. One factor that will alleviate this is the new policy of CQU to introduce an additional term. Generally the work required by a lecturer to prepare and teach a subject for both modes of delivery is well in excess of that required for a campus-based class. This is due to the need to prepare materials well in advance, the need for more extensive quality checking, the increased class size and the additional communication requirements. ###################################################################### Is Internet-Based Software Engineering Education and Training Cost-Effective? Ahmed Seffah Computer Research Institute of Montreal 550 Sherbrooke St. W, Montreal, Canada H3A 2N4 Tel: (514) 840-1234 - Fax: (514) 840-1244 E-mail: aseffah@crim.ca - http://www.crim.ca/~aseffah According to several studies [Capell-95, Canada-96] and experiments [Alvarez-96 and Malay-97], Internet tools can provide a less costly and more efficient environment compared to classical continuing education approaches, particularly classrooms. Internet-based learning is also expected to shorten the time required for newly hired employees to become fully productive. Furthermore, Internet technology is considered an ideal medium to help software developers perform their jobs and at the same time: (1) assess their knowledge and skills, (2) collectively share and exchange their individual expertise and pertinent learning resources. At its most basic level, the Internet-based distance education environment can be used to distribute learning resources and to support communication between learners and educators. Given these two services, it is possible to develop cost-effective online tutorials. This kinds of tutorial allows students to browse freely through learning resources that are available in two delivery modes: synchronous (real-time) and asynchronous (download). However, current Internet technologies such as plug-ins and Java database connectivity, facilitate the development of advanced training environments. From a technical perspective, these settings are characterized in part by highly interactive and portable Java-based interfaces and a gateway-enabling Web browsers to access external databases and tools. This technical integration can now lead us to promising learning outcomes supported by a wide range of pedagogical strategies and cognitive tools. As an example, the following prototypes we developed are examples of such advanced training environments. These environments allow software developers and students when accomplishing their tasks to collaboratively learn and share their individual expertise and pertinent learning resources. - Learning how to develop using software libraries. Many standardized software libraries and components are available to increase developer productivity and improve software quality. In most cases, however, these libraries are neither correctly used nor effectively reused. One of the major reasons is that learning how to use correctly such libraries properly is a long and difficult task, even for experienced software programmers. In this experiment, we outlined and developed an Internet-based training system that can increase software library learnability by providing continuous on-the-job advice and examples. The system facilitates best-practices sharing between experts and beginners. It runs independently of any software development environment or API. - Empowering object-oriented technology. Our second experiment addressed the training problems facing corporations in their effort to migrate to new software development methods and environments. The main goal of the experiment was to offer an environment in which concepts and skills can be self-assessed and self-learned in order to facilitate an effective and efficient transition towards object- oriented technology and its practice. The Internet-based environment we developed displays course contents in a hierarchical browser that presents the course structure in an easy-to-internalize format. In addition to presenting the course contents, the system provides the user with a list of learning resources. For a course item, such as "How to Write an Applet," this list includes links to relevant URLs available through the Internet/intranet, a list of selected examples, tutorials and more. The system also provides learners with opportunities to evaluate their knowledge of the course. This diagnosis is presented in a variety of ways so that both an overall and a detailed view of the student's progress learning is made clear. - Supporting the training associated within software engineering process-oriented standards and models (ISO-9001, CMM(SM), and IEEE). (Note: (SM)CMM is a service mark of Carnegie Mellon University.) Such standards and models are presented as a solution that improves software developers' performance, and increases both quality and customer satisfaction. However, the frustrating reality is that the learning period for a quality system is long and arduous, partly because software developers little time to devote to mastering such standards. Our Visual 3P (Visual Panel for Performance in Process) allows users to browse freely within the documentation associated with the standard. It allows information and resources to be displayed from several views such groups that includes specific procedures and forms targeted to specific group and what news. The system also assists users wishing to improve their skills by providing several resources, tutorials, books, journals, URLs, and e-mail addresses of an expert who may be contacted for further information). The following experiments made by others colleagues highlighted also others directions in which Internet technology is a cost-effective solution for dissemination and sharing learning resources and skills between professors, and/or students, and/or industry educators and/or practitioners: - Web sites that disseminate complementary resources about software engineering books. The reader is invited to read in this issue the paper prepared by Roger Chapman or visit http://www.aw.com/dtui. I think that the many professors who used the Pressman book in their software engineering introductory course can develop the same experience. - The pedagogical patterns project: successes in teaching object technology (PROTO-PATTERNS). While many good pedagogical ideas are presented at OO conferences and published in proceedings and journals each year, very little has been done to collate the effective practices of many OO educators into one publication. The purpose of the pedagogical patterns project is do just that over a Web site. The Web site aims to create a publication, which is similar to what Susan Lilly (in 1/96 Object Magazine) refers to as "reusable pedagogical design patterns". See the following URL for further information about the project see http://www lifia.info.unlp.edu.ar/ppp/ - Oracle Learning Architecture (OLA), proposed by Oracle, allows educators and software engineers to access and customize training courses via an intuitive Web-based user interface. OLA courses are available in two delivery modes: synchronous (real-time) and asynchronous (download) courses. Over 300 courses are available including such topics as Novell networking, Lotus Notes Internet/intranet, HTML, and Java. We believe that OLA is the most advanced Internet-based training environment developed and used at large by a software development organization. Further information about Oracle Learning Architecture is available at http://ola.us.oracle.com. - LearnShare is a new concept in business education - a consortium of major non-competing corporations joining forces to better utilize learning resources. Member companies share existing training courses and facilities, jointly fund the purchase of additional training programs, and collaborate to develop new training content. The concept introduced by LearnShare can be thought of as a virtual broker of education. Universities or the software industry could develop the same concept for software engineering education. Regarding the prototypes that we presented, the following are the main factors that makes the Internet infrastructure better suited or more appropriate than the current training solutions supported by text book and classroom presentations. - Consistency: All learning resources and information are accessible through the same user-friendly interface -- generally a Web browser- based interface. - Portability: The Internet infrastructure is independent of hardware and operating systems. - Extensibility: Starting with a simple resource, the environment can evolve with successive extensions without compromising the existing resources. - Complementarity: Establishing an Internet-based training environment does not mean replacing existing training tools, computer-based or otherwise. It also does not imply rethinking the complete training process. - Scalability: The Internet-based environment answers the corporate training needs of any large international group, as well as those of a small business. The cost, especially the initial capital investment of equipment and installation, is very affordable for SME when compared to other classical continuing education approaches. However, several questions, which require a clear and coherent response, must be addressed before implementing an Internet-based training environment: - What are the training needs and objectives that justify the implementation of an Internet platform? - What are the required training resources and how will they be designed and/or integrated? - What is the cost of production and delivery of the identified learning resources and information? - Which technological architecture is best suited to implementing an Internet infrastructure, given the budget and restrictions? - Does the organization's personnel possess the qualifications and aptitudes needed to master the new training environment? - Which strategies will facilitate the migration of the existing training setting to an Internet technology-based environment and favor the 'buy in' of its employees? - What kind of organizational changes will the corporation undergo? - Will the existing equipment and network support the Internet solution? - Which hardware and software will be needed to ensure security and confidentiality within the intranet/extranet environment? - How can the Intranet be successfully integrated within the existing corporate training system? - What are the important legal aspects to consider (intellectual property, access to information and learning resources)? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ November 1999 Topic: Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (Update): The Relationship Between Software Engineering and Other Disciplines Guest Editors: Robert Dupuis Pierre Bourque Universite du Quebec a Montreal The guest editors have offered themselves as co-editors of the November issue on the topic of the relationship of between software engineering and other disciplines. This is of course an important issue for the Guide to the SWEBOK project and one on which they have worked on in the past and on which the 10 "knowledge area specialists" of the SWEBOK project (see FASE, March 1999) are currently pursuing. If you wish to contribute to this issue, please contact the guest editors at the addresses above. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ December 1999 Topic: Top Ten Events of the Century Guest Panelists: TOP SECRET Every other magazine is doing it - why not FASE? To celebrate the end of both the century and the millennium, the December 1999 issue will have a panel of top people in the software engineering education, training, and professional (SEET&P) issue communities who would name the top ten events of the century in the area of SEET&P. As for your opinions, see the February 2000 topic! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ January 2000 Topic: Coping with the Faculty Shortage Topic Editor: Don Bagert, Texas Tech University Don.Bagert@ttu.edu As work of the IEEE-CS/ACM Software Engineering Coordinating Committee (SWECC) and its related groups progress, attention is increasingly shifting to implementation. A major roadblock to the implementation of software engineering degree programs is the lack of qualified full-time faculty. This issue will focus on the problem, and suggest solutions. If you are interested in participating, please contact Don Bagert via Don.Bagert@ttu.edu. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ February 2000 Topic: Top Ten Events - The Readers' Picks Topic Editor: Don Bagert, Texas Tech University Don.Bagert@ttu.edu In December 1999, some of the experts will give their opinions - now it's time for the most important people - our readers - to give us their views on what are the top ten events of the century in the area of software engineering education, training, and professional (SEET&P) issues. Details on how the (unscientific) poll will be conducted will appear in the December issue...but that doesn't mean that you can't start preparing your list now! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ By: Don Bagert (Academic/Misc Editor) Call for Guest Editors and Topic Suggestions If you are interested in being a guest editor, or have any suggestions for future topics, please contact me at Don.Bagert@ttu.edu. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ News Items ###################################################################### Licensing Update ###################################################################### From: Dennis Frailey via Pierre Bourque Canadian Lawsuit Discontinued ___ Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada Council of Professional Engineers Communique Software Engineering Lawsuit Discontinued OTTAWA (September 24,1999) -- The Canadian Council of Professional Engineers has discontinued its lawsuit regarding the use of the term "software engineering" against Memorial University of Newfoundland, as a result of an agreement with the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and Memorial. Under the terms of the agreement, an independent panel will be established to make non-binding recommendations on the appropriate use of the term "software engineering" by Canadian universities. Once the panel delivers its report, AUCC and CCPE have pledged to use their best efforts to arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution. CCPE will now cease all litigation against Memorial University of Newfoundland over its use of the term "software engineering" and has agreed not to commence litigation against any AUCC member university, in respect of its official marks engineer, engineering, ingenieur, ingenierie or genie for a period of five years after the tabling of the panel's report. Memorial University will abandon the official mark on the term "software engineering" which it obtained in 1997. For its part, AUCC will recommend to its member universities that they take immediate steps to ensure that students are not confused by the use of the term "software engineering" to describe undergraduate level programs or specializations offered outside of an engineering faculty. The four-member panel to be established under the agreement will consist of representatives of science academia, engineering academia, the engineering profession and the information processing profession. In addition, an impartial chair with extensive involvement in university affairs will be appointed jointly by CCPE and AUCC. The panel will deliver a consensus-based report within one year. Comments from CEOs: "Our key concern was the potential for public confusion regarding the term 'software engineering'. The agreement addresses this concern and establishes a process that is far more likely than a federal court litigation to achieve a resolution to the issue of how the term software engineering should be used in the undergraduate university community," said CCPE President and CEO Dan Levert, P.Eng. "For AUCC, it was essential that an agreement to end the court case respect the principles of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. This agreement does so," stated Robert J. Giroux, AUCC President and CEO. "At the same time, we're hopeful that the panel process set out in the agreement will lead to constructive and positive dialogue on university campuses about software engineering programs." ____ CCPE is the national organization of the 12 provincial and territorial associations/ordre that regulate the practice of engineering in Canada and license the country's 152,000 professional engineers. AUCC represents Canada's 89 universities and degree-granting colleges at home and abroad. Its mandate is to foster and promote the interests of higher education. Sources: Jeanne Thibault Chief, Media and Public Relations Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada 600-350 Albert Ottawa, Ontario K1R 1B1 Tel (613) 563-3961, ext. 236 Terence Davis Manager, Communications Council of Professional Engineers 401-116 Albert> Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5G3 Tel (613) 232-2474, ext. 238 ###################################################################### From: Don Bagert via Jamie Andrews Software Engineering Accreditation Approved in Ontario From a September 7, 1999 Media Release: "Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO), the regulatory body for engineering in Ontario, announced today it will license as professional engineers, software practitioners who meet specific criteria." For more information, see http://peo.on.ca/Communications/Software_release.htm ###################################################################### Engineering Times Articles Engineering Times, a publication of the U.S.-based National Society of Professional Engineers, continues to spotlight software engineering. The October 1999 issue's lead article is entitled "Software Engineering Faces Growing Pains". It focused mainly on the Texas Board of Professional Engineers 1998 recognition of software engineering as an engineering discipline, and the subsequent licensing of Professional Engineers in that discipline. There also were sidebar articles on both FASE Co-Editor Don Bagert and Dr. Ben A. Calloni of Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth, who have both been licensed as PEs in software engineering. ###################################################################### Response to DeMarco's Comments Published The July 1999 FASE contained an article ("DeMarco Denounces SE Licensing and Certification Efforts") quoting a letter from Tom DeMarco which critized an previous article written by FASE Academic Editor Don Bagert for Communications of the ACM (CACM). The October issue of CACM contains (on page 14) some comments by William Adams of Springfield, Virginia (USA) which are critical DeMarco's remarks. Adams writes: "State licensing of professionals has a sound basis, extending it to software engineers forces vendors to provide better and more reliable products..." ###################################################################### Accreditation Update ###################################################################### From: Doris Lidtke Doris Lidtke Named Abet Adjunct Accreditation Director for Computing September 22, 1999 (Baltimore, MD) -- The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. (ABET) announces the appointment of Doris K. Lidtke, Ph.D., as Adjunct Accreditation Director for Computing, effective September 1, 1999. As a first step toward integration, the Computing Sciences Accreditation Board (CSB) has contracted with ABET to provide staff support for the Computer Science Accreditation Commission (CSAC) on behalf of CSAB. According to Dr. Lidtke, a past CSAB President, her primary focus will be "to integrate the cultures", providing a bridge between the ABET and CSAB/CSAC accreditation communities during the transition period. Among her responsibilities, Dr. Lidtke will provide guidance during the transition to those institutions with programs seeking initial accreditation or continuing accreditation with CSAC. She will assist in the development of the new ABET Computing Accreditation Commission (CAC) and will coordinate implementation of the new CSAC criteria for evaluating computing programs, such as training, pilot visits, and institution orientation. She will provide the ABET staff with assistance and background information on CSAC, CSAB, and the computing community and will represent ABET to the CSAB and CSAC communities. Lidtke is Professor of Computer & Information Sciences at Towson University, Towson, MD. she has served on the CSAB as President from 1995-97 and as a Representative Director for the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) from 1991-97. Lidtke received the ACM Distinguished Service Award in 1995 and is a Golden Core Member of the IEEE Computer Society, receiving that designation in 1996. She has been a Program Director in the Division of Undergraduate Education at the National Science Foundation and has published many technical and educational papers focused on computing science. ABET has also created a full-time administrative assistant position supporting computer science accreditation activities. Rebecca Hancock currently fills this position. In parallel with the addition of staff, ABET has undertaken initial planning to create a new commission which will assume responsibility for accrediation in computing-related disciplines. As part of the process CSAB has applied to become a Participating Body of ABET. These steps reflect the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Presidents of ABET and CSAB on October 31, 1998. Additional ABET/CSAC integration activities include an exchange of observers at the ABET and CSAC commission meetings this summer and campus visits this fall. Representatives from each organization are familiarizing themselves with the other's accreditation processes. All inquiries regarding the Computing Science Accreditation Commission should be addressed to CSAC, 111 Market Place, Suite 1050, Baltimore, MD 21202-4012, Tel: 410/347-7701, Fax: 410/625-2238, or E-mail: csac@abet.org #### Dr. Doris K. Lidtke Tel. 410 830-2981 Computer & Information Sciences Fax 410 830-3868 Towson University E-mail lidtke@towson.edu 8000 York Road lidtke@acm.org Baltimore, MD 21252-0001 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Calls for Participation ###################################################################### Call for Contributions Software Engineering Education & Training (SEAT) Track The 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering 4-11 June 2000, Limerick, Ireland SEAT: http://www.ul.ie/~icse2000/softeng.html ICSE-2000: http://www.ul.ie/~icse2000 Please consider making a contribution to SEAT in one or more of these areas: 1. Technical Papers Describing novel research in software engineering education and training. Submission deadline: 11th November 1999 2. Teaching Demos Demonstrations of innovative approaches supporting new forms of software engineering teaching and learning. Submission deadline: 25th February 2000 3. Doctoral Workshop Presentations of research-in-progress by doctoral students to a panel of experts. Submission deadline: 25th February 2000 4. Education Panels Panels to discuss current open issues in software engineering education & training. Submission deadline: 11th November 1999 For more information and submission guidelines, please see conference website or contact: Bashar Nuseibeh Chair, ICSE-2000 SEAT Department of Computing Imperial College London SW7 2BZ, UK Email: ban@doc.ic.ac.uk ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Position Openings ###################################################################### From: Daniel E. Cooke Texas Tech University Computer Science Department The Department of Computer Science at Texas Tech University is committed to being a nationally recognized program in the computing field. We invite applications for several positions at all levels to begin employment in the Fall 2000. We will begin reviewing applications on January 15, 2000. Priority will be given to applicants whose areas of interest include databases, distributed and high performance computing, and software engineering. Our plans are to hire one person in each of these areas. Applicants at the assistant professor level must have the requirements for the Ph.D. in Computer Science or related field completed before employment, and should demonstrate clear potential for effective teaching and research. Applicants at other ranks should also have a proven record of scholarly accomplishments, including a strong record of publications, and funded research commensurate with rank. The Department of Computer Science is within the College of Engineering, and offers BS, MS, and Ph.D. degrees in Computer Science and a new MS degree in Software Engineering. The department participates in both an EE/CS dual degree program and a Computer Engineering program in conjunction with the Department of Electrical Engineering, as well as dual degrees with both Chemical Engineering and Mathematics. At present, there are over 500 undergraduate and fifty graduate students in computer science degree programs. The graduate program offers specialties in computer engineering, software engineering, and intelligent systems. Faculty perform scholarly and funded research in many areas, including: distributed computing and modeling, graphics and haptics, high performance computing, multimedia systems, neural networks, knowledge representation, real-time systems, software methodologies, computer languages, logic programming, robotics, image processing, and software metrics. Applicants should send a letter expressing interest in the position, a detailed resume, and the names and addresses of three professional references to: Daniel E. Cooke, Chairperson, Department of Computer Science, PO Box 43104, Texas Tech University, Lubbock TX 79409-3104. For additional information, see our website: http://www.cs.ttu.edu/FacSearch/. All questions should be directed to dcooke@coe.ttu.edu. Applications will be reviewed as they are received, until the positions are filled. Applicants must be able to lawfully accept employment in the United States. Texas Tech University is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Contact and General Information about FASE The Forum for Advancing Software engineering Education (FASE) is published on the 15th of each month by the FASE editorial board. Send newsletter articles to one of the editors, preferably by category: Articles pertinent to corporate and government training to Kathy Beckman ; Academic education, and all other categories to Don Bagert . If the article for a FASE topic where there is a guest editor, the submission should instead be to that person. Items must be submitted by the 8th of the month in order to be considered for inclusion in that month's issue. Also, please see the submission guidelines immediately below. FASE submission format guidelines: All submissions must be in ASCII format, and contain no more than 70 characters per line (71 including the new line character). This 70-character/line format must be viewable in a text editor such as Microsoft Notepad WITHOUT using a "word wrap" facility. All characters (outside of the newline) should in the ASCII code range from 32 to 126 (i.e. "printable" in DOS text mode). [NEW SUBSCRIBE/UNSCRIBE INFORMATION - September 15, 1998] Everyone that is receiving this is on the FASE mailing list. If you wish to leave this list, write to and, in the text of your message (not the subject line), write: unsubscribe fase To rejoin (or have someone else join) the FASE mailing list, write to subscribe fase For instance, if your name is Jane Smith, write: subscribe fase Jane Smith But what if you have something that you want to share with everyone else, before the next issue? For more real-time discussion, there is the FASE-TALK discussion list. It is our hope that it will be to FASE readers what the SIGCSE.members listserv is to that group. (For those of you that don't know, SIGCSE is the ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education.) To subscribe to the FASE-TALK list, write to and, in the text of your message (not the subject line), write: subscribe fase-talk For instance, if your name is Jane Smith, write: subscribe fase-talk Jane Smith Please try to limit FASE-TALK to discussion items related to software engineering education and training; CFPs and other such items can still be submitted to the editor for inclusion into FASE. Anyone that belongs to the FASE-TALK mailing list can post to it. FASE-TALK is also used by the editors for "breaking stories" i.e. news that we feel that you would want to hear about before the next issue of FASE comes out. (We do this sparingly, though.) As always, there is no cost for subscribing to either FASE or FASE-TALK! Back issues (dating from the very first issue) can be found on the web (with each Table of Contents) at in chronological order, in reverse order, or through ftp at . The FASE Staff: Don Bagert, P.E. -- Academic/Misc Editor, ListMaster, and Archivist Dept. of Computer Science 8th and Boston Texas Tech University Lubbock TX 79409-3104 USA Phone: 806-742-1189 Fax: 806-742-3519 Email: Don.Bagert@ttu.edu URL: http://www.cs.ttu.edu/faculty/bagert.html Kathy Beckman -- Corporate/Government Editor Computer Data Systems One Curie Ct. Rockville MD 20850 USA Phone: 301-921-7027 Fax: 301-921-1004 Email: kbeckman1@erols.com Laurie Werth -- Advisory Committee Taylor Hall 2.124 University of Texas at Austin Austin TX 78712 USA Phone: 512-471-9535 Fax: 512-471-8885 Email: lwerth@cs.utexas.edu Nancy Mead -- Advisory Committee Software Engineering Institute 5000 Forbes Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA Phone: 412-268-5756 Fax: 412-268-5758 Email: nrm@sei.cmu.edu