Using systematic reviews and evidence-based software engineering with masters students

Authors:
Briony J Oates;Graham Capper
Affiliations:
School of Computing, University of Teesside, Middlesbrough, UK;School of Computing, University of Teesside, Middlesbrough, UK
Venue:
EASE'09 Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering
Year:
2009

Citing 2
Cited 2

Overlooked Aspects of COTS-Based Development

IEEE Software
What Do We Know about Defect Detection Methods?

IEEE Software

The educational value of mapping studies of software engineering literature

Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering - Volume 1
Experiences conducting systematic reviews from novices' perspective

EASE'10 Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Context: The problem of teaching research skills to masters students. In particular, improving their literature reviews, assessing them and providing good feedback. Objectives: To introduce systematic reviews and evidence-based software engineering (EBSE) guidance into our teaching, provide an experience report and empirical data, and investigate the results. Methods: A systematic review requirement was introduced into the students' assessed work. The format of the assessment brief (also provided in this paper) was influenced by previous research on EBSE work with students. Qualitative and quantitative data was generated, and statistical analysis investigated the students' performance across the different elements of the systematic review. Results: Most students could do a systematic review and more useful feedback could be given. The assessment brief deviated from the normal EBSE guidelines in order to address previous difficulties. This modification was successful. Differences were found in student marks for different elements of the systematic reviews, with a large effect size for differing scores between 'search' and 'criteria', and 'search' and 'evaluation'. Conclusions: Introducing systematic reviews and EBSE guidance can improve students' literature handing skills and support improved feedback. The EBSE guidance should be modified for students and novice researchers to incorporate the process of developing a well-defined research question. Further work should investigate the differing performance across different elements of the systematic review.