Validating an Evaluation Framework for Requirements Engineering Tools
|
|
- Christiana Townsend
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Validating an Evaluation Framework for Engineering Tools Raimundas Matulevicius Dept. of Computer and Information Science, Norwegian Univ. of Science and Technology Sem Sælands vei 7-9, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway Abstract. Automated support for the requirements engineering (RE) process is a recognized research area. However the mainstream practice still relies on word processors and drawing tools rather than the requirements engineering tools (RETs). The aim of this paper is to validate an evaluation framework for RETs. The validation process concerns a RET acquisition process for concrete organizational needs. An observation of maintaining requirements specification shows the important organizational and environmental characteristics for a proper automated support of RE process. The contribution of this work is twofold: first, the validation of the evaluation framework for RETs according to environmental needs in a specific environment, and second the identification of environmental needs, which emerge from requirements specification maintenance process. 1. INTRODUCTION engineering (RE) is the part of software engineering that concerns real world goals, functions, and constraints of software systems. RE is also a relationship between these factors and a precise specification of software behavior [33]. engineering tools (RETs) affect - 1) the process quality because the tools support a large part of the software engineering, in particular RE, and 2) the product quality because output of the RE is a requirements specification, which itself should be of high quality for subsequent software engineering stages. Although the need of automated support for the software development processes is recognized in the literature [9, 11, 14, 25], the mainstream of RE practice still relies on word processors, drawing and modeling tools rather than targeted tools provided by various researchers and practitioners. Current COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) for RE provide capabilities for documenting requirements and facilitating requirements management. The tools are well suited for managing large amounts of requirements written in natural language, but not for engineering the requirements [11, 12]. Many RETs are described as CASE (Computer Aided System Engineering) tools. In the early 1980s RE seemed to be a relatively simple task and existing CASE tools were expected to provide task related support for software developers. But soon weaknesses of CASE tools were discovered [13] and product and process quality improvement by using CASE tools was questionable. One plausible reason for this is the lack of maturity [11] to adopt tools. Another is the apparent cost of adopting, using and maintaining a tool. The third is the inadequate technological sophistication of the CASE tools [13]. Fitting the RETs to meet customer requirements remains problematic because companies employ different methods. Further more, RETs vary in their level of support for RE activities [10]. Thus, evaluation for selection purposes has to be performed before buying anything. A company cannot base evaluation on its own long-term tool use. Instead, it can only rely on tool surveys, commercial reports, which are unreliable and becomes quickly out of date. Evaluation of RETs differs depending on the environment, needs and purposes for tool usage. There are two core questions during the evaluation of available software tools [1]. First, how are the tools of a given domain described in order to make their comparison feasible? Second, how may the features of the tool be reconciled with respect to requirements on tools? The evaluation and comparison would be more complete and structured, if an evaluation framework, which targets such questions, is applied. For vendors of RET the evaluation framework might help to pinpoint aspects, where their tools are weak and should be improved. For a 1
2 RET buyer, the evaluation framework might provide a systematic evaluation and help during the decision making process. Such an evaluation framework is presented in [22]. The framework is based on analytical arguments, but not on empirical investigation. The purpose of the current work is twofold. First, we show how the framework is applied for organizational needs in a particular environment and provide results of the RETs evaluation. Second, the analysis of the requirements specification and maintenance shows requirements for an automated requirements specification support. The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 analyses the related work. Section 3 presents the evaluation framework [22] and its coverage by using a semiotic quality framework. Next, section 4 considers the process of framework validation in three steps. First, section 4.1 describes the environment and the problem, for which the evaluation framework is considered. Next section 4.2 presents the preparation phase, which consists of acquisition of finding the most important organizational requirements for the RETs acquisition and the survey of the RETs candidates. Finally, section 4.3 analyses the maintenance process of the requirements specification. Concluding remarks show important issues for the evaluation framework validity. Section 5 provides a discussion about the conclusions, and future work. 2. RELATED WORK management in the literature [7, 10, 11, 14] is described as the part of RE process and manages changes of system requirements. We use the terms requirements engineering tools (RET) instead of requirements management tools as vendors usually call these tools. The functionality of those tools covers requirements engineering activities, such as elicitation, analysis, negotiation and validation, not only management of project changes. Study of [1] emphasizes to use taxonomies for the problem domain description. INCOSE [11] suggests a taxonomy (figure 1) for RETs, based on functional characteristics. The taxonomy separates among requirements generation tools, requirement traceability tools, requirement classification tools, requirements capture tools, requirement identification tools and requirements elicitation tools. INCOSE [11] also provides a framework for evaluation of RETs and a RET survey. However, the survey is based on vendor information and in such a way is not verified for the purpose. RETs surveys at certain time intervals are provided in [18, 31]. But static tool surveys have little long-term value, as new tools are being created and features of existing ones are being continuously improved. engineering tools management tools generation tools classification tools capture & identification tools traceability tools Textual requirements capture tools Tools for elicitation of requirements Figure 1 SE Tools Taxonomy - Engineering Tools 2
3 A framework for comparison of modeling tools is described in [24]. Interestingly, [24] uses experts to validate the approach and to find out important requirements for an evaluation during modeling tool acquisition. But usability and adaptability of both frameworks [11, 24] is questionable, since there is no coordination or descriptions for applying the evaluation frameworks for particular needs. A methodology for describing the quality factors of software packages using ISO/IEC quality standard as a framework is introduced in [8]. Authors show that selection of packages can be ameliorated by transforming user quality requirements into requirements expressed in terms of quality model attributes. Lang and Duggan [19] suggest a list of functional requirements for requirements management, communication and cooperative work systems. But the requirements are not systematically organized and they are not complete for the RETs evaluation. Pohl s framework [26] provides the structure of the RE process. A semiotic quality framework [16, 20] identifies the main quality types of conceptual modeling. However, both Pohl s [26] and the semiotic quality frameworks [16, 20] are abstract and do not detail the requirements for the evaluation of RETs. This paper considers the framework for evaluation of RETs [22], which is constructed according to an analytical literature study. The purpose of this work is the empirical investigation and validation of the framework. The paper shows characteristics for an automated support of the RE processes. The section 3 describes the evaluation framework in detail. 3. EVALUATION FRAMEWORK FOR REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING TOOLS A framework for RETs is described in [22] and presented in figure 2. It is based on Pohl s three-al orthogonal framework [26] and Land/Duggan requirements [19]. The framework features are requirement categories, which should be analyzed during the RET evaluation and acquisition. Each category of requirements is followed with a list of activities (table 1.), which should be tested during RET evaluation process. Framework for Evaluation of Functional for RET FEF1. Representation FEF2. Agreement FEF3. Specification FEF1.1. Specify uniquely identifiable description using informal language. FEF1.2. Specify requirements using semi- formal language(s). FEF1.3. Specify requirements using formal language(s). FEF1.4. Define traceable associations between requirements and the different elements of requirements specification. FEF1.5. Connect seamlessly with other tools and systems, by supporting FEF2.1. Maintain an audit trail of changes, archive baseline versions; and engage a mechanism to authenticate and approve change requests. FEF2.2. Classify requirements into logical user- defined groupings. FEF2.3. Support secure, concurrent cooperative work between members of a multidisciplinary team, which may be geographically distributed. FEF2.4. Maintain a comprehensive data Figure 2 Framework for Evaluation of Functional for RET FEF3.1. Collect and store common system s and product family s domain requirements. FEF3.2. Generate predefined and ad hoc reports, documents that comply with standard industrial templates, with support for presentation-quality output and in-built document quality controls. FEF3.3. Generate the complete specification, expressed using formal language (informal and semiformal languages might also be 3
4 RETs evaluation framework is covered by semiotic quality framework of conceptual modeling [16, 20]. There are two basic quality means on the physical level: externalization and internalizeability. A RET should support basic database functionality using a repository solution for the internal representation of the requirements model. It should deal with functionality such as version control and configuration management and advance concurrency control mechanism. Representation Agreement Specification Feature s FEF1.1 FEF1.2 FEF 1.3 FEF 1.4 FEF 1.5 FEF 2.1 FEF 2.2 FEF 2.3 FEF 2.4 FEF 3.1 FEF 3.2 FEF 3.3 Activities How does the RET FEF provide natural language description. FEF allow specifying unique identification (ID) for each separate requirement. FEF allow importing of requirements and their description from textual document. FEF provide tools for semiformal language description (f.e. ER-diagrams, UML diagrams, DFD, OMT). FEF provide forward/ backward traceability between informal, semiformal, formal descriptions. FEF provide tools for formal language description (f.e. Z-schemas, algebraic specifications, action semantics). FEF provide forward/ backward traceability between informal, semiformal, formal descriptions. FEF provide functions for testing traceability between informal, semiformal and formal requirement description. FEF create parent-child traceable relations between requirements. FEF maintain peer-to-peer traceable relations between requirements. FEF 1.4.4maintain traceable relation between different related information. FEF maintain forward/ backward traceability between source of requirements, requirements and design. FEF allow importing/exporting requirements description from/to textual documents. FEF allow importing/exporting requirements description from/to graphical documents. FEF maintain user authentication to the system (f.e. user name, password). FEF allow grouping users into different groups. FEF allow creating different views (according to documents, requirements, attributes) for different groups of stakeholders. FEF register agreement/ rationale/ discussion/ negotiation/ changes/ history of requirements and by how it was achieved. FEF call the earlier requirement description/ versions and register them into history context. FEF allow specifying attributes/ properties of the requirement. FEF provide sorting according to different attributes/ properties. FEF provide filtering according to different attributes/ properties. FEF provide www-based interface for geographically distributed users. FEF allow making copy for modification of already approved version of requirements description in different abstract levels (document, requirement). FEF provide change approval cycle for multiple change negotiation and approval before posting into common repository. FEF provide the single repository or data dictionary. FEF provide separate data dictionaries for non-technical users and technical users. FEF provide the help system to the users. FEF enable selection and extraction of common domain requirements. FEF incorporate common requirements to concrete project. FEF adapt/ spread changes in domain requirements to concrete projects within domain. FEF provide comparison of domain requirements feasibility. FEF provide wizards for report generation. FEF provide possibility to print report according views and sorting. FEF provide possibility to print results of rationale, brainstorm and etc. FEF provide techniques for error checking. FEF correspond to standards of software documentation. FEF support formal languages for complete, commonly agreed requirements specification. Table 1 Activities of evaluation framework for RETs Empirical quality deals with error frequencies when a model is read or written by different users, also applies to the coding and ergonomics of computer-human interaction for modeling tools. 4
5 Syntactic quality has the goal of syntactic correctness. descriptions should be completed according to the syntax and vocabulary of the language. A RET should provide the means for error prevention and error detection, which may help to prevent syntactic invalidity and incompleteness errors. Semantic quality is the correspondence between the model and the domain. A RET should provide the means to reach semantic goals - feasible validity and completeness. Some of them could be consistency checking, the use of driving questions or baselines to improve completeness of the requirements specification. Perceived semantic quality is the similar correspondence between the participant s interpretation of a model and participant s current explicit knowledge. To achieve the goals of perceived validity and completeness a RET should provide the means for participant training, discussions, statement insertion and deletion. Pragmatic quality is the correspondence between the model and audience s interpretation of it. In order to achieve the goal of feasible comprehension, a RET should provide the means for requirements inspection, visualization, filtering, explanation, execution, simulation, and prototyping. Social quality deals with participant knowledge including social and technical audience interpretation. Main activities for achieving feasible agreement goal are model integration and conflict resolution: like pre-integration, viewpoint comparison and conforming, merging and restructuring. The semiotic quality framework for the RETs evaluation framework is summarized in table 2. The requirements specification should be of high quality for further software development stages. Davis et al [5] summarizes the work on quality attributes for a software requirements specification, giving the most comprehensive list of the properties. Thus [15] shows the relationships between the semiotic quality framework and the specific quality attributes, described in [5]. Quality Framework RET evaluation framework Representation Agreement Specification Physical quality Empirical quality Ext. Int. Min. err. Freq. Syntactic quality Semantic quality Correct. Valid. Comp. Perceived semantic quality Perc. valid. Perc. compl. Pragmati c quality Compr. Social qualit y Agr. FEF 1.1 FEF 1.2 FEF 1.3 FEF 1.4 FEF 1.5 FEF 2.1 FEF 2.2 FEF 2.3 FEF 2.4 FEF 3.1 FEF 3.2 FEF 3.3 Table 2 Coverage of RET evaluation framework by semiotic quality framework Ext. externalization, Int. internalizability, Min. err. freq. minimal error frequency, Correct. - syntactic correctness, Valid. validity, Comp. completeness, Perc. valid. - perceived validity, Perc. compl. - perceived completeness, Compr. comprehension, Agr agreement. 4. EMPIRICAL VALIDATION OF EVALUATION FRAMEWORK FOR RETS 5
6 Empirical validation of the evaluation framework falls into two parts. First, the evaluation framework is applied to organizational needs. Second, an observation of preparation requirements specification shows requirements for the automated support of the RE processes Environment and Problem Definition The purpose of the study was to prepare the requirements specification for an information system which is used for teaching purposes. The system registers two types of users: students and student assistants (studassist). Students are users, who submit their solutions to the system. StudAssist evaluate the solutions and form reviewer groups. The reviewer groups consist of 3 to 5 students, whose solutions are accepted by studassist. The next step is the review process. The reviews are done according to semiotic quality framework [20]. If the review results are essentially different, the studassist rejects the review, and the reviewer groups should evaluate the work again. Otherwise, the review is accepted and the results are sent to the author. The case included 216 graduate students and 6 undergraduate students as studassist, who were students at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Preparation of requirements specification for the system includes participants, who at different system development stages carry different roles. The process included the following stakeholder groups: organizing actors, like teachers and supervisors; leading actors, like teaching assistants; developing actors, like undergraduate students, who are responsible for the system developing and testing. In order to discover the environmental characteristics quantitative analysis was carried. Fifteen researchers were asked to fill in a questionnaire to discover the need of environment. The major research interest of participants includes information systems, workflow analysis, semantic web, implementations of decision support systems and intelligent agents. Next the investigation of the RETs candidates was performed by two evaluators Preparation phase The objective of preparation phase is to find the appropriate RET for maintenance of requirements specification. The evaluation framework [22] was applied in order to discover the most important aspects of the environment. Next we evaluated the set of RETs candidates Discovering environment needs The quantitative analysis includes questionnaire, which evaluates the importance of the evaluation framework [22] features. The participants were asked to evaluate the importance in the scale of (0 - feature is not important at all; 10 - very important and useful feature). The feature importance is evaluated as a mean measure: n 1 M j = e ij n i= 1 here i is a participant index, j is a feature index, e ij is an evaluation of i participant for j feature, n a number of participants. The agreement about a singular feature is evaluated as the variance measure: n 1 2 V j = ( eij M j ) n 1 i= 1 If the variance is relatively low, it means strong agreement about the singular feature. And if the variance is relatively large, it indicates, that participants disagree about a feature. The agreement ranges from 1,4 to 8,8. In order to determine the agreed features the threshold t=5 is set. Threshold removes the features about which respondents do not agree (table 3). Participant were also asked to suggest the features to the framework, which they feel are needed to evaluate. 6
7 Evaluation of RETs The list of RETs candidates for evaluation is selected from commercial requirements engineering tools and this includes: Caliber-RM Web v.4.0. [2], Core 3.1 Trial [3], Cradle-4 [4], DOORS 5.2. [6], RequisitePro [27], RDT Version 3.0 [28], Vital Link [30], XTie-RT 3.1. [32]. Trial, demonstration and evaluation versions are evaluated according to manuals and documentation. RETs are also tried out on small examples. The survey of the evaluation is presented in [22], where RETs features are evaluated as: High=3 (very good), Medium=2 (average), Low=1 (poor). The overall evaluation E j of the RET j could be calculated as the sum of multiplications between two values: feature coverage C ij, (where i is a number of the feature) and feature importance M i, discovered during the quantitative analysis: E j = CijMi i The overall evaluation of the RETs is shown in table 3. Fe ature Agreeme Importance RETs s nt RET1 RET2 RET3 RET4 RET5 RET6 RET7 RET8 FEF FEF FEF1.2 1,4 8, FEF2.3 1,9 8, FEF3.2 1,9 8, FEF2.1 2,6 8, FEF1.1 2,8 8, FEF1.5 3,0 7, FEF3.3 3,4 7, FEF2.4 3,6 7, FEF1.4 3,6 7, FEF2.2 4,3 7, FEF3.1 4,6 7, FEF1.3 8,8 6, Overall evaluation: 196, ,4 233,7 187,7 186, ,3 Table 3 Overall evaluation of RETs according to organizational needs in particular environment FEF1.6 Define and maintain requirements constraints. FEF1.7 Allow requirements definition in the abstract level. FEF1.6 and FEF1.7 are features, suggested by participant during the quantitative analysis. FEF1.3. falls beyond the threshold Evaluation results The results of the quantitative analysis and the RETs evaluation showed how to adapt the framework [22] to the environment. First, the quantitative analysis allocates weights to evaluate the functionality of RETs. Second, it validates the RETs evaluation framework features. Third, the quantitative analysis discovers features, which are important in an environment, but not mentioned in the framework. Finally, the quantitative analysis shows the usability issues of the evaluation framework. Questioning was performed in a relatively short space of time (13 minutes in average). The framework is easily applicable to the environment. The evaluation results suggest some RETs as possible candidates (RET4, RET8, RET7, RET2). However, the evaluation showed the limitations of the RETs to solve RE problems [14]: Lack of stakeholder involvement. None of the available RETs are ideally suited for a use by a multidisciplinary, distributed team where the stakeholders have diverse skills and needs. Stakeholder communication problems - Most of RETs are standalone applications and do not provide any (or provide weak) possibilities for collaboration work and communication between stakeholders. 7
8 Business needs are not considered - The RE process is seen as a technical rather than a business process and it is dominated by the technical concerns. Lack of defined responsibilities - RETs should provide possibilities to define scenarios of activities for each individual participant of the RE process and let people to understand the individual responsibilities. Lack of requirements management - If the RE process does not include effective techniques or methods, it may be introduced in ad hoc way. But RETs, like CASE tools, they operate according to the method, which is defined as a set of rules, which guides the usage of a RET. RETs usually deal only with informal (in some cases semi-formal) representations of RE processes and software requirements. Automated RE support is not sufficient both to separate activities of RE and to the management of the RE processes. Because of these limitations, none of the evaluated RETs were chosen Execution phase The objective of execution phase is to prepare and maintain the requirements specification for an information system, used during the teaching course to evaluate students practical exercises. This requirements specification was maintained by using standard office tools, modeling tools and graphical packages. The maintenance of requirements specification shows the list of shortcomings, needed for an automated support of the RE processes, and which are covered by the evaluation framework [22]. The observed shortcomings are: Lack of automatic generation of standard requirements specification (validates the feature FEF3.3). Such requirements specification should correspond to standards (e.g.: IEEE ), which should be maintained by a RET. Need for separation between requirements analysis and requirements specification (validates the feature FEF3.2). analysis should be followed with different reports, agreement, negotiation, and documentation. specification is the activity of documenting a software requirements specification. The FEF3.2 is one of the most important features, as the quantitative analysis has showed. Need for requirements grouping (validates the feature FEF2.2). The project has to describe requirements for time constraints, functionality, usability, reliability, information storage, source code. The FEF2.2 is quite well supported by the RETs candidates (RET2, RET4, RET5, RET6, RET7) but the tools have many shortcoming concerning different modeling perspectives and participant viewpoints. Need to specify using different representation techniques, including informal, semiformal, formal specifications. (validates the features FEF1.1, FEF1.2, FEF1.3). The requirements model includes one logical unit, while the variety of project participants demands for different representation techniques for various requirements groups during all the RE process. In the project, two techniques were used for informal requirements representation natural language and use case templates [17]. Semiformal representation included state transition diagrams and reference modeling language [29]. In order to represent dynamic relationships between requirements, requirements model was extended by formal set theory description. Lack of support for multiple, distributed users (validates the feature FEF2.3). The RET should include multidisciplinary team work, which could be geographically distributed. The FEF2.3 is not supported by the RETs candidates or it is supported quite weak. Need to provide means for communication, maintenance of rationale (validates the feature FEF2.1). It is important to be able to recreate the rationale behind some requirements specification items [21]. It was quite a challenging task in the project. First, because of the different communication tools ( , MSN and ICQ messenger programs) it is difficult to support and argue appropriately the different issues of requirements. Second, the rationale needs be related to each element of requirements specification. Need for maintaining traceability relationship among different requirement elements (validates the feature FEF1.4). Traceability is needed to relate requirements, their rationale, source, requirements representation and requirements specification versions. Some of the RETs candidates (RET1, RET7, RET8) provide adequate support for the FEF1.4. 8
9 Repository needs for storing data about requirements specification (validates the feature FEF3.1). A RET should support storage of requirements in a requirements repository instead of a paper document. The requirements repository stores requirements related information such as: individual requirements, requirements metadata, different requirements representations, and requirements models. It would benefit to set traceable relations between various elements of the requirements specification. The repository should provide version control and reuse of already agreed common domain requirements. Support different data formats according to modeling techniques and tools used (validates the feature FEF1.5). A tool should allow export and import of requirements models. This would benefit the means to specify requirements using different paradigms and various modeling techniques. Support for flexible requirements management. The study [23] shows that RE process should not be characterized by a smooth and incremental evolution, but by occasional crisis points where the requirements models are reconceptualised and simplified. A RET needs to promotes design creativity and support reconceptualization of the requirement model for restructuring the requirements specification. The maintenance of requirements specification shows the important RE aspects, which are missing while using editing, drawing and modeling tools. The executions phase demonstrates validation issues for evaluation framework [22]. We can easily notice that the framework covers the shortcomings, which are needed during the requirements specification maintenance. 5. CONCLUSIONS The paper analyses the evaluation framework [22] for RETs. The adaptability and usability tests help to find out the important characteristics of an environment and the needs for a RET acquisition. The observation of the maintenance requirements specification using editing, drawing and modeling tools highlights the requirements for the proper automatic support of the RE process. The results of both analysis the quantitative analysis and observation contribute towards validation of the evaluation framework for RETs Discussion The usability and adaptability of the evaluation framework [22] is one of the key issues during the evaluation of RETs. The important needs of stakeholders, who are going to work with a RET, are explained. Further, the adaptability and usability studies show the validity. The majority of the participants include researchers, with different computer science backgrounds and experiences. First, the participants describe the organizational reality from their own perspectives. Second, the different educational background is the potential threat that could affect the interpretation and understandability of the questions and reliability of the answer. In order to maintain the unique interpretation of the questions, the discussion about the project was held, where the project objectives were presented. Participants experience and knowledge could produce a big variance of agreement for framework features during the quantitative analysis. The problem solution could be the setting of flexible threshold in order to remove the most non-agreed features but still leaving a sufficient list of features. After the evaluation framework highlights the most important environmental needs, it becomes possible to describe RETs and to express the quality requirements and needs of an environment. It is important to recognize that the evaluation of the RETs candidates relies on subjective opinions of evaluators. But the proposed techniques for the framework acquisition contribute towards the objective evaluation method, because different organizational representatives are involved during the framework acquisition and the RETs candidate evaluation. The collected information should be reused for the other RETs evaluation phases, where tool candidates could be tested with practical engineering examples. The quantitative analysis provided a useful knowledge for maintenance of requirements specification, using editing, drawing and modeling tools. It showed the critical requirements, needed for the automated support of 9
10 RE processes. The results of the observation during execution phase contribute to validation of the evaluation framework [22] in high degree Future Work The evaluation framework [22] concentrates on functional requirements for RETs. In practice, most tool selections are not only effected by the functional attributes, but also by non-functional ones. The framework should be expanded with additional features and s for example non-functional enabling evaluation and validation of such activities as purchase and training costs, support, vendor reliability, reliability, usability, robustness, and stability. Adaptation of the framework to organizational needs depends on organizational profile, executives experience and organizational practice. We have applied the framework in an academic environment. It would be beneficial to explore the framework in industrial environment. Thus analysis and observation concerning RE practitioners should be carried out in order to investigate the framework [22] features from the industrial point of view. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author would like to thank to Sari Hakkarainen and Guttorm Sindre for discussions and feedback concerning drafts of this paper. REFERENCES [1] Botella, P.; Burgués, X.; Carvallo, J.P.; Franch, X.; Quer, C., Using Quality Models for Assessing COTS Selection, Workshop on Engineering, WER 2002, València [2] Caliber-RM: URL: [3] CORE: A Guided Tour. Release , URL: [4] Cradle: Cradle User Guide & Tutorial, URL: [5] Davis A.M, Overmeyer S., Jordan K., Caruso., Dandashi F., Dinh A., Kincaid A., Ledeboer G., Reynolds G., Sitaram P., Ta P., Theofanos A., Identifying and measuring quality in a software requirements specification. In proceedings of the First International Software Metrics Symposium pages, [6] DOORS: Using DOORS, , URL: [7] Ferdinandi, P., L., A Pattern. Succeeding in the Internet Economy, Addison-Wesley, 2002 [8] Franch X., Carvallo I., A Quality-Model-Based Approach for Describing and Evaluating Software Packages, in proceedings of IEEE Joint International Conference on Engineering (RE 02), Essen, Germany, [9] Harrison W., Ossher H., Tarr P.: Software engineering tools and environments: a roadmap, The Future of Software Engineering, Anthony Finkelstein (Ed.), ACM Press [10] INCOSE: Tools Survey: Management (RM) Tools by International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) URL: [11] Kaindl H., Brinkkemper S., Bubenko Jr. J., Farbey B., Greenspan S. J., Heitmeyer C. L., do Prado Leite J. C. S., Mead N. R., Mylopoulos J., Siddiqi, Engineering and Technology Transfer: Obstacles, Incentives, and Improvement Agenda, Engineering (2000), 7: [12] Karlsson L. Dahlstedt A.G., Natt och Dag J., Regnell B., Persson A., Challenges in Market-Driven Engineering - an Industrial Interview Study in: proceedings of REFSQ'2002. Essen, German( 2002) [13] Kelly S., Lyytinen K., Rossi M., MetaEdit+ A Fully Configurable Multi-User and Multi-Tool CASE and CAME Environment, Proc CaiSE 96, Heraklion, Hellas, May 1996 [14] Kotonya G., Sommerville I., Engineering: Process and Techniques, Wiley, 1998 [15] Krogstie J., A Semiotic approach to Quality in Specifications, in proceedings IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on Onganizational Semiotics, Montreal, Canada, [16] Krogstie J.: Integrating the understanding of Quality in requirements Specification and Conceptual Modeling. Software Engineering Notes 23 (1), (1998) [17] Kulak D., Guiney E., Use Cases: in Context, Addison-Weslay. 10
11 [18] LaBudde Ed. V.: Finding the Right Off-the-Shelf Management Tool, (MDDI, Oct 1997, p. 48). URL: (checked: ) [19] Lang M., Duggan J.: A Tool to Support Collaborative Software Management, Requirement Engineering 6 (2001) [20] Lindland O.I., Sindre G., Sølvberg A.: Understanding Quality in Conceptual Modelling, IEEE Software 11, 2 (1994) [21] Loucopoulos P., Karakostas V., System Engineering, McGraw-Hill, [22] Matulevicius R., Strašunskas D., Evaluation Framework of Engineering Tools for Verification and Validation, in proceedings of the International Workshop on Conceptual Modeling Quality (IWCMQ 02), Tampere, Finland, 2002 [23] Nguyen L., Swatman P. A.: Managing the Engineering Process, in proceedings of REFSQ'2001. Interlaken, Switzerland (2001) [24] Nikiforova O., Sukovskis U. Framework for comparison of System Modelling Tool, in proceedings of Fifth IEEE International Baltic Workshop On DB And IS BalticDB&IS'2002, Tallinn, Estonia, 2002 [25] Nuseibeh B., Easterbrook S.: Engineering: A Roadmap, The Future of Software Engineering, Anthony Finkelstein (Ed.), ACM Press 2000 [26] Pohl K.: The three s of requirements engineering: a framework and its applications, Information systems Vol. 19, No 3 (1994) [27] RequisitePro: Rational RequisitePro v2002. Evaluators Guide with a Management Overview. URL: [28] RDT: Product Overview, URL: [29] Sølvberg A., Introduction to Concept Modeling for Information Systems, Department of Computer and information sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, IDI - NTNU. January [30] VitalLink: Vital Link Tutorial & Help, URL: [31] Wiegers K. E.: Automating Management. URL: (checked: ) [32] XTie-RT: Cross Tie, Version Tutorial, URL: [33] Zave P., Classification of research efforts in requirements engineering, ACM Computing Surveys, December
Implementing a tool to Support KAOS-Beta Process Model Using EPF
Implementing a tool to Support KAOS-Beta Process Model Using EPF Malihe Tabatabaie Malihe.Tabatabaie@cs.york.ac.uk Department of Computer Science The University of York United Kingdom Eclipse Process Framework
More informationDeploying Agile Practices in Organizations: A Case Study
Copyright: EuroSPI 2005, Will be presented at 9-11 November, Budapest, Hungary Deploying Agile Practices in Organizations: A Case Study Minna Pikkarainen 1, Outi Salo 1, and Jari Still 2 1 VTT Technical
More informationSoftware Maintenance
1 What is Software Maintenance? Software Maintenance is a very broad activity that includes error corrections, enhancements of capabilities, deletion of obsolete capabilities, and optimization. 2 Categories
More informationSpecification of the Verity Learning Companion and Self-Assessment Tool
Specification of the Verity Learning Companion and Self-Assessment Tool Sergiu Dascalu* Daniela Saru** Ryan Simpson* Justin Bradley* Eva Sarwar* Joohoon Oh* * Department of Computer Science ** Dept. of
More informationAn Approach for Creating Sentence Patterns for Quality Requirements
An Approach for Creating Sentence Patterns for Quality Requirements Jonas Eckhardt Technische Universität München Garching b. München, Germany eckharjo@in.tum.de Andreas Vogelsang DCAITI Technische Universität
More informationM55205-Mastering Microsoft Project 2016
M55205-Mastering Microsoft Project 2016 Course Number: M55205 Category: Desktop Applications Duration: 3 days Certification: Exam 70-343 Overview This three-day, instructor-led course is intended for individuals
More informationDifferent Requirements Gathering Techniques and Issues. Javaria Mushtaq
835 Different Requirements Gathering Techniques and Issues Javaria Mushtaq Abstract- Project management is now becoming a very important part of our software industries. To handle projects with success
More informationAQUA: An Ontology-Driven Question Answering System
AQUA: An Ontology-Driven Question Answering System Maria Vargas-Vera, Enrico Motta and John Domingue Knowledge Media Institute (KMI) The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom.
More informationOn Human Computer Interaction, HCI. Dr. Saif al Zahir Electrical and Computer Engineering Department UBC
On Human Computer Interaction, HCI Dr. Saif al Zahir Electrical and Computer Engineering Department UBC Human Computer Interaction HCI HCI is the study of people, computer technology, and the ways these
More informationUnit 7 Data analysis and design
2016 Suite Cambridge TECHNICALS LEVEL 3 IT Unit 7 Data analysis and design A/507/5007 Guided learning hours: 60 Version 2 - revised May 2016 *changes indicated by black vertical line ocr.org.uk/it LEVEL
More informationSuccess Factors for Creativity Workshops in RE
Success Factors for Creativity s in RE Sebastian Adam, Marcus Trapp Fraunhofer IESE Fraunhofer-Platz 1, 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany {sebastian.adam, marcus.trapp}@iese.fraunhofer.de Abstract. In today
More informationA GENERIC SPLIT PROCESS MODEL FOR ASSET MANAGEMENT DECISION-MAKING
A GENERIC SPLIT PROCESS MODEL FOR ASSET MANAGEMENT DECISION-MAKING Yong Sun, a * Colin Fidge b and Lin Ma a a CRC for Integrated Engineering Asset Management, School of Engineering Systems, Queensland
More informationDocument number: 2013/ Programs Committee 6/2014 (July) Agenda Item 42.0 Bachelor of Engineering with Honours in Software Engineering
Document number: 2013/0006139 Programs Committee 6/2014 (July) Agenda Item 42.0 Bachelor of Engineering with Honours in Software Engineering Program Learning Outcomes Threshold Learning Outcomes for Engineering
More informationSpecification and Evaluation of Machine Translation Toy Systems - Criteria for laboratory assignments
Specification and Evaluation of Machine Translation Toy Systems - Criteria for laboratory assignments Cristina Vertan, Walther v. Hahn University of Hamburg, Natural Language Systems Division Hamburg,
More informationTowards a Collaboration Framework for Selection of ICT Tools
Towards a Collaboration Framework for Selection of ICT Tools Deepak Sahni, Jan Van den Bergh, and Karin Coninx Hasselt University - transnationale Universiteit Limburg Expertise Centre for Digital Media
More informationOn the Combined Behavior of Autonomous Resource Management Agents
On the Combined Behavior of Autonomous Resource Management Agents Siri Fagernes 1 and Alva L. Couch 2 1 Faculty of Engineering Oslo University College Oslo, Norway siri.fagernes@iu.hio.no 2 Computer Science
More informationA Case Study: News Classification Based on Term Frequency
A Case Study: News Classification Based on Term Frequency Petr Kroha Faculty of Computer Science University of Technology 09107 Chemnitz Germany kroha@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de Ricardo Baeza-Yates Center
More informationEvaluating the Effectiveness of Mindmapping in Generating Domain Ontologies using OntoREM: The MASCOT Case Study
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Mindmapping in Generating Domain Ontologies using OntoREM: The MASCOT Case Study Kelly Antonini University of the West of England, UK kelani3@virgilio.it Dr. Mario Kossmann
More informationRequirements-Gathering Collaborative Networks in Distributed Software Projects
Requirements-Gathering Collaborative Networks in Distributed Software Projects Paula Laurent and Jane Cleland-Huang Systems and Requirements Engineering Center DePaul University {plaurent, jhuang}@cs.depaul.edu
More informationA Model to Detect Problems on Scrum-based Software Development Projects
A Model to Detect Problems on Scrum-based Software Development Projects ABSTRACT There is a high rate of software development projects that fails. Whenever problems can be detected ahead of time, software
More informationAn Open Framework for Integrated Qualification Management Portals
An Open Framework for Integrated Qualification Management Portals Michael Fuchs, Claudio Muscogiuri, Claudia Niederée, Matthias Hemmje FhG IPSI D-64293 Darmstadt, Germany {fuchs,musco,niederee,hemmje}@ipsi.fhg.de
More informatione-portfolios in Australian education and training 2008 National Symposium Report
e-portfolios in Australian education and training 2008 National Symposium Report Contents Understanding e-portfolios: Education.au National Symposium 2 Summary of key issues 2 e-portfolios 2 e-portfolio
More informationOn-Line Data Analytics
International Journal of Computer Applications in Engineering Sciences [VOL I, ISSUE III, SEPTEMBER 2011] [ISSN: 2231-4946] On-Line Data Analytics Yugandhar Vemulapalli #, Devarapalli Raghu *, Raja Jacob
More informationTHEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR MODEL IN ELECTRONIC LEARNING: A PILOT STUDY
THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR MODEL IN ELECTRONIC LEARNING: A PILOT STUDY William Barnett, University of Louisiana Monroe, barnett@ulm.edu Adrien Presley, Truman State University, apresley@truman.edu ABSTRACT
More informationSoftware Development Plan
Version 2.0e Software Development Plan Tom Welch, CPC Copyright 1997-2001, Tom Welch, CPC Page 1 COVER Date Project Name Project Manager Contact Info Document # Revision Level Label Business Confidential
More informationActivities, Exercises, Assignments Copyright 2009 Cem Kaner 1
Patterns of activities, iti exercises and assignments Workshop on Teaching Software Testing January 31, 2009 Cem Kaner, J.D., Ph.D. kaner@kaner.com Professor of Software Engineering Florida Institute of
More informationIBM Software Group. Mastering Requirements Management with Use Cases Module 6: Define the System
IBM Software Group Mastering Requirements Management with Use Cases Module 6: Define the System 1 Objectives Define a product feature. Refine the Vision document. Write product position statement. Identify
More informationThe IDN Variant Issues Project: A Study of Issues Related to the Delegation of IDN Variant TLDs. 20 April 2011
The IDN Variant Issues Project: A Study of Issues Related to the Delegation of IDN Variant TLDs 20 April 2011 Project Proposal updated based on comments received during the Public Comment period held from
More informationModeling user preferences and norms in context-aware systems
Modeling user preferences and norms in context-aware systems Jonas Nilsson, Cecilia Lindmark Jonas Nilsson, Cecilia Lindmark VT 2016 Bachelor's thesis for Computer Science, 15 hp Supervisor: Juan Carlos
More informationECE-492 SENIOR ADVANCED DESIGN PROJECT
ECE-492 SENIOR ADVANCED DESIGN PROJECT Meeting #3 1 ECE-492 Meeting#3 Q1: Who is not on a team? Q2: Which students/teams still did not select a topic? 2 ENGINEERING DESIGN You have studied a great deal
More informationVisual CP Representation of Knowledge
Visual CP Representation of Knowledge Heather D. Pfeiffer and Roger T. Hartley Department of Computer Science New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001, USA email: hdp@cs.nmsu.edu and rth@cs.nmsu.edu
More informationOntologies vs. classification systems
Ontologies vs. classification systems Bodil Nistrup Madsen Copenhagen Business School Copenhagen, Denmark bnm.isv@cbs.dk Hanne Erdman Thomsen Copenhagen Business School Copenhagen, Denmark het.isv@cbs.dk
More informationProcedures for Academic Program Review. Office of Institutional Effectiveness, Academic Planning and Review
Procedures for Academic Program Review Office of Institutional Effectiveness, Academic Planning and Review Last Revision: August 2013 1 Table of Contents Background and BOG Requirements... 2 Rationale
More informationAUTHORING E-LEARNING CONTENT TRENDS AND SOLUTIONS
AUTHORING E-LEARNING CONTENT TRENDS AND SOLUTIONS Danail Dochev 1, Radoslav Pavlov 2 1 Institute of Information Technologies Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Bulgaria, Sofia 1113, Acad. Bonchev str., Bl.
More informationPractice Examination IREB
IREB Examination Requirements Engineering Advanced Level Elicitation and Consolidation Practice Examination Questionnaire: Set_EN_2013_Public_1.2 Syllabus: Version 1.0 Passed Failed Total number of points
More informationPROCESS USE CASES: USE CASES IDENTIFICATION
International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, ICEIS 2007, Volume EIS June 12-16, 2007, Funchal, Portugal. PROCESS USE CASES: USE CASES IDENTIFICATION Pedro Valente, Paulo N. M. Sampaio Distributed
More informationOnline Marking of Essay-type Assignments
Online Marking of Essay-type Assignments Eva Heinrich, Yuanzhi Wang Institute of Information Sciences and Technology Massey University Palmerston North, New Zealand E.Heinrich@massey.ac.nz, yuanzhi_wang@yahoo.com
More informationInquiry Learning Methodologies and the Disposition to Energy Systems Problem Solving
Inquiry Learning Methodologies and the Disposition to Energy Systems Problem Solving Minha R. Ha York University minhareo@yorku.ca Shinya Nagasaki McMaster University nagasas@mcmaster.ca Justin Riddoch
More informationKnowledge-Based - Systems
Knowledge-Based - Systems ; Rajendra Arvind Akerkar Chairman, Technomathematics Research Foundation and Senior Researcher, Western Norway Research institute Priti Srinivas Sajja Sardar Patel University
More informationProbabilistic Latent Semantic Analysis
Probabilistic Latent Semantic Analysis Thomas Hofmann Presentation by Ioannis Pavlopoulos & Andreas Damianou for the course of Data Mining & Exploration 1 Outline Latent Semantic Analysis o Need o Overview
More information1 Use complex features of a word processing application to a given brief. 2 Create a complex document. 3 Collaborate on a complex document.
National Unit specification General information Unit code: HA6M 46 Superclass: CD Publication date: May 2016 Source: Scottish Qualifications Authority Version: 02 Unit purpose This Unit is designed to
More informationCWIS 23,3. Nikolaos Avouris Human Computer Interaction Group, University of Patras, Patras, Greece
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at wwwemeraldinsightcom/1065-0741htm CWIS 138 Synchronous support and monitoring in web-based educational systems Christos Fidas, Vasilios
More informationAutomating the E-learning Personalization
Automating the E-learning Personalization Fathi Essalmi 1, Leila Jemni Ben Ayed 1, Mohamed Jemni 1, Kinshuk 2, and Sabine Graf 2 1 The Research Laboratory of Technologies of Information and Communication
More informationFunctional requirements, non-functional requirements, and architecture should not be separated A position paper
Functional requirements, non-functional requirements, and architecture should not be separated A position paper Barbara Paech,* Allen H. Dutoit,** Daniel Kerkow,* Antje von Knethen* *Fraunhofer IESE {paech,kerkow,vknethen}@iese.fhg.de
More informationMeasurement & Analysis in the Real World
Measurement & Analysis in the Real World Tools for Cleaning Messy Data Will Hayes SEI Robert Stoddard SEI Rhonda Brown SEI Software Solutions Conference 2015 November 16 18, 2015 Copyright 2015 Carnegie
More informationSystematic reviews in theory and practice for library and information studies
Systematic reviews in theory and practice for library and information studies Sue F. Phelps, Nicole Campbell Abstract This article is about the use of systematic reviews as a research methodology in library
More informationChamilo 2.0: A Second Generation Open Source E-learning and Collaboration Platform
Chamilo 2.0: A Second Generation Open Source E-learning and Collaboration Platform doi:10.3991/ijac.v3i3.1364 Jean-Marie Maes University College Ghent, Ghent, Belgium Abstract Dokeos used to be one of
More informationCREATING SHARABLE LEARNING OBJECTS FROM EXISTING DIGITAL COURSE CONTENT
CREATING SHARABLE LEARNING OBJECTS FROM EXISTING DIGITAL COURSE CONTENT Rajendra G. Singh Margaret Bernard Ross Gardler rajsingh@tstt.net.tt mbernard@fsa.uwi.tt rgardler@saafe.org Department of Mathematics
More informationMSW POLICY, PLANNING & ADMINISTRATION (PP&A) CONCENTRATION
MSW POLICY, PLANNING & ADMINISTRATION (PP&A) CONCENTRATION Overview of the Policy, Planning, and Administration Concentration Policy, Planning, and Administration Concentration Goals and Objectives Policy,
More informationFirms and Markets Saturdays Summer I 2014
PRELIMINARY DRAFT VERSION. SUBJECT TO CHANGE. Firms and Markets Saturdays Summer I 2014 Professor Thomas Pugel Office: Room 11-53 KMC E-mail: tpugel@stern.nyu.edu Tel: 212-998-0918 Fax: 212-995-4212 This
More informationA Pipelined Approach for Iterative Software Process Model
A Pipelined Approach for Iterative Software Process Model Ms.Prasanthi E R, Ms.Aparna Rathi, Ms.Vardhani J P, Mr.Vivek Krishna Electronics and Radar Development Establishment C V Raman Nagar, Bangalore-560093,
More informationA Context-Driven Use Case Creation Process for Specifying Automotive Driver Assistance Systems
A Context-Driven Use Case Creation Process for Specifying Automotive Driver Assistance Systems Hannes Omasreiter, Eduard Metzker DaimlerChrysler AG Research Information and Communication Postfach 23 60
More informationRunning Head: STUDENT CENTRIC INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY
SCIT Model 1 Running Head: STUDENT CENTRIC INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY Instructional Design Based on Student Centric Integrated Technology Model Robert Newbury, MS December, 2008 SCIT Model 2 Abstract The ADDIE
More informationEmpirical Software Evolvability Code Smells and Human Evaluations
Empirical Software Evolvability Code Smells and Human Evaluations Mika V. Mäntylä SoberIT, Department of Computer Science School of Science and Technology, Aalto University P.O. Box 19210, FI-00760 Aalto,
More informationUCEAS: User-centred Evaluations of Adaptive Systems
UCEAS: User-centred Evaluations of Adaptive Systems Catherine Mulwa, Séamus Lawless, Mary Sharp, Vincent Wade Knowledge and Data Engineering Group School of Computer Science and Statistics Trinity College,
More informationCustomised Software Tools for Quality Measurement Application of Open Source Software in Education
Customised Software Tools for Quality Measurement Application of Open Source Software in Education Stefan Waßmuth Martin Dambon, Gerhard Linß Technische Universität Ilmenau (Germany) Faculty of Mechanical
More informationKnowledge Elicitation Tool Classification. Janet E. Burge. Artificial Intelligence Research Group. Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Page 1 of 28 Knowledge Elicitation Tool Classification Janet E. Burge Artificial Intelligence Research Group Worcester Polytechnic Institute Knowledge Elicitation Methods * KE Methods by Interaction Type
More informationCLASSIFICATION OF PROGRAM Critical Elements Analysis 1. High Priority Items Phonemic Awareness Instruction
CLASSIFICATION OF PROGRAM Critical Elements Analysis 1 Program Name: Macmillan/McGraw Hill Reading 2003 Date of Publication: 2003 Publisher: Macmillan/McGraw Hill Reviewer Code: 1. X The program meets
More informationPragmatic Use Case Writing
Pragmatic Use Case Writing Presented by: reducing risk. eliminating uncertainty. 13 Stonebriar Road Columbia, SC 29212 (803) 781-7628 www.evanetics.com Copyright 2006-2008 2000-2009 Evanetics, Inc. All
More informationWhat is a Mental Model?
Mental Models for Program Understanding Dr. Jonathan I. Maletic Computer Science Department Kent State University What is a Mental Model? Internal (mental) representation of a real system s behavior,
More informationUtilizing Soft System Methodology to Increase Productivity of Shell Fabrication Sushant Sudheer Takekar 1 Dr. D.N. Raut 2
IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific Research & Development Vol. 2, Issue 04, 2014 ISSN (online): 2321-0613 Utilizing Soft System Methodology to Increase Productivity of Shell Fabrication Sushant
More informationPreferences...3 Basic Calculator...5 Math/Graphing Tools...5 Help...6 Run System Check...6 Sign Out...8
CONTENTS GETTING STARTED.................................... 1 SYSTEM SETUP FOR CENGAGENOW....................... 2 USING THE HEADER LINKS.............................. 2 Preferences....................................................3
More informationEnglish for Specific Purposes World ISSN Issue 34, Volume 12, 2012 TITLE:
TITLE: The English Language Needs of Computer Science Undergraduate Students at Putra University, Author: 1 Affiliation: Faculty Member Department of Languages College of Arts and Sciences International
More informationMotivation to e-learn within organizational settings: What is it and how could it be measured?
Motivation to e-learn within organizational settings: What is it and how could it be measured? Maria Alexandra Rentroia-Bonito and Joaquim Armando Pires Jorge Departamento de Engenharia Informática Instituto
More informationA 3D SIMULATION GAME TO PRESENT CURTAIN WALL SYSTEMS IN ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION
A 3D SIMULATION GAME TO PRESENT CURTAIN WALL SYSTEMS IN ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION Eray ŞAHBAZ* & Fuat FİDAN** *Eray ŞAHBAZ, PhD, Department of Architecture, Karabuk University, Karabuk, Turkey, E-Mail: eraysahbaz@karabuk.edu.tr
More informationUniversity Library Collection Development and Management Policy
University Library Collection Development and Management Policy 2017-18 1 Executive Summary Anglia Ruskin University Library supports our University's strategic objectives by ensuring that students and
More informationP. Belsis, C. Sgouropoulou, K. Sfikas, G. Pantziou, C. Skourlas, J. Varnas
Exploiting Distance Learning Methods and Multimediaenhanced instructional content to support IT Curricula in Greek Technological Educational Institutes P. Belsis, C. Sgouropoulou, K. Sfikas, G. Pantziou,
More informationTU-E2090 Research Assignment in Operations Management and Services
Aalto University School of Science Operations and Service Management TU-E2090 Research Assignment in Operations Management and Services Version 2016-08-29 COURSE INSTRUCTOR: OFFICE HOURS: CONTACT: Saara
More informationTun your everyday simulation activity into research
Tun your everyday simulation activity into research Chaoyan Dong, PhD, Sengkang Health, SingHealth Md Khairulamin Sungkai, UBD Pre-conference workshop presented at the inaugual conference Pan Asia Simulation
More informationNonfunctional Requirements: From Elicitation to Conceptual Models
328 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, VOL. 30, NO. 5, MAY 2004 Nonfunctional Requirements: From Elicitation to Conceptual Models Luiz Marcio Cysneiros, Member, IEEE Computer Society, and Julio
More informationTIMSS ADVANCED 2015 USER GUIDE FOR THE INTERNATIONAL DATABASE. Pierre Foy
TIMSS ADVANCED 2015 USER GUIDE FOR THE INTERNATIONAL DATABASE Pierre Foy TIMSS Advanced 2015 orks User Guide for the International Database Pierre Foy Contributors: Victoria A.S. Centurino, Kerry E. Cotter,
More informationHigher education is becoming a major driver of economic competitiveness
Executive Summary Higher education is becoming a major driver of economic competitiveness in an increasingly knowledge-driven global economy. The imperative for countries to improve employment skills calls
More informationDesigning a Rubric to Assess the Modelling Phase of Student Design Projects in Upper Year Engineering Courses
Designing a Rubric to Assess the Modelling Phase of Student Design Projects in Upper Year Engineering Courses Thomas F.C. Woodhall Masters Candidate in Civil Engineering Queen s University at Kingston,
More informationADDIE MODEL THROUGH THE TASK LEARNING APPROACH IN TEXTILE KNOWLEDGE COURSE IN DRESS-MAKING EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM OF STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
International Journal of GEOMATE, Feb., 217, Vol. 12, Issue, pp. 19-114 International Journal of GEOMATE, Feb., 217, Vol.12 Issue, pp. 19-114 Special Issue on Science, Engineering & Environment, ISSN:2186-299,
More informationDSTO WTOIBUT10N STATEMENT A
(^DEPARTMENT OF DEFENcT DEFENCE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION DSTO An Approach for Identifying and Characterising Problems in the Iterative Development of C3I Capability Gina Kingston, Derek Henderson
More informationIntroduction to Simulation
Introduction to Simulation Spring 2010 Dr. Louis Luangkesorn University of Pittsburgh January 19, 2010 Dr. Louis Luangkesorn ( University of Pittsburgh ) Introduction to Simulation January 19, 2010 1 /
More informationAn Industrial Technologist s Core Knowledge: Web-based Strategy for Defining Our Discipline
Volume 17, Number 2 - February 2001 to April 2001 An Industrial Technologist s Core Knowledge: Web-based Strategy for Defining Our Discipline By Dr. John Sinn & Mr. Darren Olson KEYWORD SEARCH Curriculum
More informationPh.D. in Behavior Analysis Ph.d. i atferdsanalyse
Program Description Ph.D. in Behavior Analysis Ph.d. i atferdsanalyse 180 ECTS credits Approval Approved by the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT) on the 23rd April 2010 Approved
More informationDOES OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM ENHANCE CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION AMONG GIFTED STUDENTS?
DOES OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM ENHANCE CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION AMONG GIFTED STUDENTS? M. Aichouni 1*, R. Al-Hamali, A. Al-Ghamdi, A. Al-Ghonamy, E. Al-Badawi, M. Touahmia, and N. Ait-Messaoudene 1 University
More informationA Study of Metacognitive Awareness of Non-English Majors in L2 Listening
ISSN 1798-4769 Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 504-510, May 2013 Manufactured in Finland. doi:10.4304/jltr.4.3.504-510 A Study of Metacognitive Awareness of Non-English Majors
More informationLearning Microsoft Publisher , (Weixel et al)
Prentice Hall Learning Microsoft Publisher 2007 2008, (Weixel et al) C O R R E L A T E D T O Mississippi Curriculum Framework for Business and Computer Technology I and II BUSINESS AND COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY
More informationNearing Completion of Prototype 1: Discovery
The Fit-Gap Report The Fit-Gap Report documents how where the PeopleSoft software fits our needs and where LACCD needs to change functionality or business processes to reach the desired outcome. The report
More informationCEFR Overall Illustrative English Proficiency Scales
CEFR Overall Illustrative English Proficiency s CEFR CEFR OVERALL ORAL PRODUCTION Has a good command of idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms with awareness of connotative levels of meaning. Can convey
More informationEvaluation of Usage Patterns for Web-based Educational Systems using Web Mining
Evaluation of Usage Patterns for Web-based Educational Systems using Web Mining Dave Donnellan, School of Computer Applications Dublin City University Dublin 9 Ireland daviddonnellan@eircom.net Claus Pahl
More informationEvaluation of Usage Patterns for Web-based Educational Systems using Web Mining
Evaluation of Usage Patterns for Web-based Educational Systems using Web Mining Dave Donnellan, School of Computer Applications Dublin City University Dublin 9 Ireland daviddonnellan@eircom.net Claus Pahl
More informationGACE Computer Science Assessment Test at a Glance
GACE Computer Science Assessment Test at a Glance Updated May 2017 See the GACE Computer Science Assessment Study Companion for practice questions and preparation resources. Assessment Name Computer Science
More informationRule discovery in Web-based educational systems using Grammar-Based Genetic Programming
Data Mining VI 205 Rule discovery in Web-based educational systems using Grammar-Based Genetic Programming C. Romero, S. Ventura, C. Hervás & P. González Universidad de Córdoba, Campus Universitario de
More informationCollege Pricing. Ben Johnson. April 30, Abstract. Colleges in the United States price discriminate based on student characteristics
College Pricing Ben Johnson April 30, 2012 Abstract Colleges in the United States price discriminate based on student characteristics such as ability and income. This paper develops a model of college
More informationExperiences Using Defect Checklists in Software Engineering Education
Experiences Using Defect Checklists in Software Engineering Education Kendra Cooper 1, Sheila Liddle 1, Sergiu Dascalu 2 1 Department of Computer Science The University of Texas at Dallas Richardson, TX,
More informationAn NFR Pattern Approach to Dealing with Non-Functional Requirements
An NFR Pattern Approach to Dealing with Non-Functional Requirements Presenter: Sam Supakkul Outline Motivation The Approach NFR Patterns Pattern Organization Pattern Reuse Tool Support Case Study Conclusion
More informationCONCEPT MAPS AS A DEVICE FOR LEARNING DATABASE CONCEPTS
CONCEPT MAPS AS A DEVICE FOR LEARNING DATABASE CONCEPTS Pirjo Moen Department of Computer Science P.O. Box 68 FI-00014 University of Helsinki pirjo.moen@cs.helsinki.fi http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/pirjo.moen
More informationUML MODELLING OF DIGITAL FORENSIC PROCESS MODELS (DFPMs)
UML MODELLING OF DIGITAL FORENSIC PROCESS MODELS (DFPMs) Michael Köhn 1, J.H.P. Eloff 2, MS Olivier 3 1,2,3 Information and Computer Security Architectures (ICSA) Research Group Department of Computer
More informationStatistical Analysis of Climate Change, Renewable Energies, and Sustainability An Independent Investigation for Introduction to Statistics
5/22/2012 Statistical Analysis of Climate Change, Renewable Energies, and Sustainability An Independent Investigation for Introduction to Statistics College of Menominee Nation & University of Wisconsin
More informationThe open source development model has unique characteristics that make it in some
Is the Development Model Right for Your Organization? A roadmap to open source adoption by Ibrahim Haddad The open source development model has unique characteristics that make it in some instances a superior
More informationLearning Methods for Fuzzy Systems
Learning Methods for Fuzzy Systems Rudolf Kruse and Andreas Nürnberger Department of Computer Science, University of Magdeburg Universitätsplatz, D-396 Magdeburg, Germany Phone : +49.39.67.876, Fax : +49.39.67.8
More informationEvolutive Neural Net Fuzzy Filtering: Basic Description
Journal of Intelligent Learning Systems and Applications, 2010, 2: 12-18 doi:10.4236/jilsa.2010.21002 Published Online February 2010 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/jilsa) Evolutive Neural Net Fuzzy Filtering:
More informationWord Segmentation of Off-line Handwritten Documents
Word Segmentation of Off-line Handwritten Documents Chen Huang and Sargur N. Srihari {chuang5, srihari}@cedar.buffalo.edu Center of Excellence for Document Analysis and Recognition (CEDAR), Department
More informationYouth Sector 5-YEAR ACTION PLAN ᒫᒨ ᒣᔅᑲᓈᐦᒉᑖ ᐤ. Office of the Deputy Director General
Youth Sector 5-YEAR ACTION PLAN ᒫᒨ ᒣᔅᑲᓈᐦᒉᑖ ᐤ Office of the Deputy Director General Produced by the Pedagogical Management Team Joe MacNeil, Ida Gilpin, Kim Quinn with the assisstance of John Weideman and
More informationBUILD-IT: Intuitive plant layout mediated by natural interaction
BUILD-IT: Intuitive plant layout mediated by natural interaction By Morten Fjeld, Martin Bichsel and Matthias Rauterberg Morten Fjeld holds a MSc in Applied Mathematics from Norwegian University of Science
More information