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]: