Software Design and Modeling Practices in an Online Software

Engineering Course: The Learners’ Perspective

Mahum Adil

, Ilenia Fronza

and Claus Pahl

Free University of Bozen/Bolzano, Italy

Keywords:

Global Software Engineering (GSE), GSE Education, Scrum, Software Modeling, Software Design.

Abstract:

Background. Global Software Engineering (GSE) education is an established practice in academia. Several

methods and tools support communication and programming activities, but earlier development stages, such

as software design and modeling practices, are less explored.

Aim. The goal of this work is to analyze the learners’ perspective during an online Software Engineering

course. In particular, we focus on planning/organization activities and socio-technical challenges during the

software design and modeling process.

Method. We used a mixed-method approach to collect data from 30 undergraduate students enrolled in an on-

line Software Engineering course. We combined questionnaires and interviews to analyze four GSE elements

(i.e., communication practices, team collaboration, task allocation and distribution, and usage of collaboration

tools). Moreover, we analyzed the socio-technical challenges faced by the teams.

Results. Brainstorming is the most common practice used for planning software design and modeling activ-

ities. According to students, the usage of variant design notation is among the technical challenges. Despite

the challenges, students would prefer to continue working in distributed teams.

Conclusions. The result shares the lessons learned that can be helpful to build best practices for managing

software design and modeling activities in GSE project-based courses. It includes the need to deﬁne standard

architectural terminologies, standard list of collaboration tools, early identiﬁcation of architectural artifact

dependencies, frequent design reviews, and face-to-face kick-off meetings.

1 INTRODUCTION

In the past two decades, software development has

evolved from small co-located development teams to

large geographically distributed teams (

Smite et al.,

2010). In today’s global economy, many software

companies operate in a distributed environment to

counter the concerns related to the cost of project

development, acquire high-skilled resources, and in-

crease global production to satisfy the foreign mar-

ket (Ebert et al., 2016). This paradigm shift in the

software development process is widespread after the

COVID-19 pandemic (Sako, 2021), and Global Soft-

ware Engineering (GSE) is a common practice to or-

ganize software engineering activities in geograph-

ically distributed development teams (Shaﬁq et al.,

2020). In academia, many researchers promoted

GSE education through practical projects to provide

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6452-6085

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0224-2452

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9049-212X

the knowledge and real-time experience of working

in distributed environments (Fortaleza et al., 2012;

Fronza et al., 2022). Consequently, GSE education

provides software engineering students with knowl-

edge, skills, and understanding of working in collab-

orative settings (Bass et al., 2015) and is continuously

evolving to prepare future software engineers to work

in distributed environments. This widespread adop-

tion in academia and the software industry led to sev-

eral research works to support distributed software de-

velopment (Dikert et al., 2016). Most courses pre-

sented in the literature focus on the code-centric de-

velopment activities (Bosni

c and

Cavrak, 2019) and

address various communication (language and cul-

ture difference) and coordination (time-zone differ-

ence) challenges in the GSE environment (Saleem

et al., 2019). However, it is unclear within academic

and software industry how collaboration technologies

are used for software design and modeling practices

(Capilla et al., 2016).

The goal of this work is to analyze the learn-

ers’ perspective during an online Software Engi-

Adil, M., Fronza, I. and Pahl, C.

Software Design and Modeling Practices in an Online Software Engineering Course: The Learners’ Perspective.

DOI: 10.5220/0010978000003182

In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2022) - Volume 2, pages 667-674

ISBN: 978-989-758-562-3; ISSN: 2184-5026

667

neering course. In particular, we focus on plan-

ning/organization activities and socio-technical chal-

lenges during the software design and modeling pro-

cess. We used a mixed-method approach, combining

interviews and questionnaires to collect data on four

GSE elements (i.e., communication practices, team

collaboration, task allocation and distribution, and us-

age of collaboration tools). The results show that

students appreciated working in a distributed envi-

ronment, whereas conﬁrmed common socio-technical

challenges while working in a distributed environ-

ment. We share the lessons learned from this experi-

ence to enhance the planning and organization of soft-

ware design and modeling process in GSE education.

The paper is structured as follows. In Section

2, we provide background information on distributed

software development and software design in GSE

settings. In Section 3, we deﬁne our research ob-

jective, and in Section 4, we describe the research

methodology. In Section 5, we discuss in detail the re-

search ﬁnding, then in Section 6, we share the lessons

learned from this study. In Section 7, we discuss the

limitations. Section 8 concludes the paper and sug-

gests possible directions for future work.

2 RELATED WORK

Researchers and practitioners have been studying

GSE well over the decade. Beecham et al. (Beecham

et al., 2013) identiﬁed various socio-cultural chal-

lenges related to communication, coordination, and

management in a geographically distributed environ-

ment. These challenges focus most on the human as-

pect of distributed software development, such as di-

versity and inclusion, communication, team building,

and social relation (Hoda et al., 2017). Various stud-

ies discussed the importance of GSE to manage the

software development process, remote communica-

tion, and associated effects on collaboration between

distributed teams (Colomo-Palacios et al., 2014). Var-

ious agile frameworks are used in the education and

industry sectors to manage the software development

process in a distributed environment. Distributed ag-

ile development has emerged in academia to man-

age the collaboration of geographically distant teams

working on a project (Jalali and Wohlin, 2012).

There are three main approaches for GSE educa-

tion in academia, starting from a project-based collab-

oration between multiple universities, to open source

projects with industrial clients or serious-game based

simulation (Vizca

ıno et al., 2019) to give students

hands-on practice of GSE scenarios (Beecham et al.,

2017). Geographically distributed project-oriented

Software Engineering (SE) courses provide opportu-

nity for undergraduate students to work on a project

in teams and learn resilience to tackle socio-technical

challenges. Cavrak et al. (

Cavrak et al., 2019) stud-

ied team resilience in agile teams, by analyzing the

product and process quality of student teams working

in distributed environments. A set of practices were

suggested to mitigate stress within a team, including

cautious team organization to balance contributing

and non-contributing members, continuous aware-

ness, and the introduction of possible challenges (e.g.,

changing requirements). Kropp et al. (Kropp et al.,

2016) discussed agile collaboration and coordina-

tion practices in software engineering courses. The

authors emphasized the importance of collaboration

tools to enhance SE education in a collaborative envi-

ronment. Teaching software engineering courses in

a distributed environment comes with several chal-

lenges (Hoda et al., 2017). To address these chal-

lenges, many researchers and practitioners proposed

strategies and recommendations on how to counter di-

versity and inclusion (Olayinka and Stannett, 2020),

communication (Vallon et al., 2018), team building

(Iftikhar et al., 2017), and social relation (Clear and

Beecham, 2019). Thus, research in the GSE educa-

tion ﬁeld focused on team coordination and manage-

ment; however, software design and modeling activ-

ities in a distributed environment have not been dis-

cussed in depth.

Software Design in GSE Education. Software de-

sign is a continuous discovery process and requires

a software architect to discover requirements, con-

text, design decisions, and project element concerns

(Capilla et al., 2016). This information helps to de-

sign model formation by progressing through a small

design coalition to a consensus team model (Jolak

et al., 2020). In GSE settings, software design and

modeling require a careful selection of practices to

support knowledge sharing and architectural plans

across all teams. There are limited proposed collabo-

ration tools to manage software architecture activities

in a GSE setting. Portillo et al. (Portillo-Rodr

ıguez

et al., 2012) conducted a systematic mapping study to

get an overview of the available collaboration tools

and their features in various phases of GSE-based

projects: most of the extracted tools for software

modeling were solution proposals that support Aware-

ness (i.e., visual and session awareness) design fea-

ture. Jain and Suman (Jain and Suman, 2015) pre-

sented a systematic literature review to discuss the

technical and non-technical challenges for GSE-based

projects. The authors shared the best practices to ad-

dress the challenges; moreover, they highlighted the

need for collaboration tools for software modeling

CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

668

and design, to support conﬂict resolution and con-

currency in distributed teams. Capilla et al. (Capilla

et al., 2016) presented a 10 year review of research on

software architecture knowledge management. The

results found no systematic architectural knowledge

management approach used with the available tools to

capture stable design decisions. Another systematic

literature review (Sievi-Korte et al., 2019) found lim-

ited research available on how software development

and management is done during the design phase in

distributed environments.

3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The goal of this work is to analyze the learners’

perspective during an online Software Engineering

course. In particular, we explore four GSE ele-

ments, i.e., communication practices, team collabo-

ration, task allocation and distribution, and usage of

collaboration tools for software design and modeling.

The scope of the research is divided into the following

research questions:

RQ1 - Planning and Organisation. How are soft-

ware design and modeling activities planned and

organised in an online course by distributed

teams?

RQ2 - Operational Support. What are the technical

challenges faced in modeling, team coordination,

and communication support that affect the design

process in distributed teams?

RQ3 - Project Management. How are the chal-

lenges addressed in an online course to improve

the distributed team management for software de-

sign and modeling process?

4 RESEARCH METHOD

Course Design. The context of this study is a on-

line Software Engineering course offered in a fourth

semester bachelor degree in Computer Science and

Engineering at the Free University of Bozen/Bolzano,

Italy. Students were grouped in 9 distributed teams of

3-4 members. Each team was asked to provide a soft-

ware design speciﬁcation report for two projects, i.e.,

two different case studies: web-based applications

for car rental systems and university project manage-

ment systems. A set of guidelines was given in each

project regarding the different types of Uniﬁed Mod-

eling Language (UML) diagrams. The ﬁrst project

lasted four weeks, while the second project was six

weeks long. The estimated development effort was

10-12 person-months.

The course instructor acted as customer and soft-

ware architect to provide guidance and administer the

progress of the projects. A Scrum-based process was

implemented to monitor progress weekly, and to fos-

ter discussion on issues relating to project backlog,

in-progress, completed, and arising problems. The

instructor organized weekly sprint meetings in 9 sep-

arate video-conference rooms for project discussion.

The ﬁnal evaluation of the course projects was based

on the expert assessment by the course instructor. Ta-

ble 1 shows adopted Scrum and GSE practices in the

online course to investigate planning and organiza-

tion, operational support, and project management of

software design and modeling process in a distributed

environment.

Table 1: Scrum and GSE practices in the online course.

Scrum Practices GSE Practices

Frequent synchronous

communication (sprint

planning meeting, weekly

Scrum meeting)

Distributed software

design

Synchronous/asynchronous

communication practices,

weekly meeting with

software architect (course

instructor)

List of tools for

synchronous /

asynchronous com-

munication

Frequent integration of

design diagrams, backlog

management

List of tools for com-

munication and soft-

ware design

Continuous communi-

cation, weekly Scrum

meeting, frequent delivery

of design diagrams

Distributed software

design

Participants. A total of 30 undergraduate students

(27 male, 3 female) were enrolled in the course. All

the students had a similar background: they were all

second-year bachelor students who majored in Com-

puter Science and Engineering and, by regulation of

the University, all of them passed the courses of math

and introduction to programming, mandatory to be

admitted to the second-year study programme. Even

though all students reside in the same country, there

were certain language and cultural differences which

were out of the deﬁned scope in our study.

Data Collection. Figure 1 shows the mixed-method

approach we used for data collection and analy-

sis. Table 2 shows the mapping between question-

naires/interviews and the three RQs.

In our two-stage data collection process, we com-

bined a quantitative and qualitative method at the

Software Design and Modeling Practices in an Online Software Engineering Course: The Learners’ Perspective

669

Figure 1: Mixed-method approach for data collection and analysis.

Table 2: Quantitative and qualitative data collection mapped to RQs.

RQ Quantitative Analysis Qualitative Analysis

Group Questionnaire Individual Questionnaire Group Interview

RQ1 Did your team agree on a sequence

of steps to take design decisions? If

yes, deﬁne them and If no, why?

[Text]

What method your team

used to do brainstorming

for requirement analysis

while designing diagrams?

How much time (in hours) your

team spent to understand and

discuss the project speciﬁcation?

[Text]

How much time (in hours) your

team spent on design diagrams?

[Text]

RQ2 What communication tool(s) or

other tools did you use for

discussion and management in

your team? [Text]

Do you think that your team faced

any informal communication chal-

lenges during project? [Likert

Scale]

What software design tool(s)

did you use in your project?

[Text]

Do you think that your team faced

any technical challenges while de-

signing diagrams? [Likert Scale]

RQ3 What were the challenge(s) in

your team while designing dia-

grams and managing the project

work given in the list? (you

can choose more than one): -

availability of tools - handling

of tools - technical constraints

- team coordination - other?

which? [please comment, if ap-

plicable]

How frequent did your team dis-

agree on the design decisions?

[Likert Scale]

Were you always aware or were in-

formed of changes in the design

diagrams? (e.g., if changes were

made by somebody else) [Likert

Scale]

What were the key

strategies used for ad-

dressing the observed

and/or reported chal-

lenges/problems?

group level, which was then augmented with a quan-

titative analysis at the individual level to analyze the

students’ perspective of working in a distributed envi-

ronment. At the group level, ﬁrst, we shared a ques-

tionnaire with the 9 teams to collect information on

the collaboration tools used and possible related chal-

lenges. Then, we conducted semi-structured inter-

views with the 9 teams to clarify the results collected

from the initial questionnaire.

The duration of each interview was 10 minutes, in

which we asked ﬁve main open-ended questions. At

the individual level, we shared a questionnaire (us-

ing an online form) with the 30 students to collect

their feedback on working in a distributed environ-

ment. We received 20 responses on team commu-

nication and coordination practices, possible socio-

technical challenges, and their effect in the distributed

environment. During data collection, we considered

the following four main GSE elements: communica-

tion practices, team collaboration, task allocation and

distribution, and usage of collaboration tools.

Data Analysis. We transcribed and analyzed all the

interviews using thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke,

2012) for qualitative coding. We executed the six

steps suggested by Braun and Clarke (Braun and

Clarke, 2012), i.e., we transcribed the group inter-

CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

670

views into a written document, extracted initial codes,

ﬁnalized codes and grouped them into themes, and

provided analysis concerning themes and research

questions. Three main categories of themes emerged

from the analysis: 1) technology dependence - screen

sharing, 2) scaling Scrum practices - dividing into

sub-teams, 3) importance of expert opinion - weekly

feedback from expert.

5 RESULTS

In this section, we describe our results against the re-

search questions of the study.

RQ1: How Are Software Design and Modeling

Activities Planned and Organized in an Online

Course by Distributed Teams? In group interviews,

ﬁve teams mentioned technology dependence, i.e.,

they used the screen sharing feature to plan and design

diagrams collectively. Four teams used scaling Scrum

practice, i.e., they divided tasks among sub-teams to

enhance coordination and communication. Through

the individual questionnaire, we identiﬁed the prac-

tices used by the teams to plan and support the soft-

ware design process (Table 3): brainstorming is the

most common practice reported by students: At the

start of each project our team ﬁrst did a brainstorm-

ing session to elicit functional and non-functional re-

quirements, and then after deﬁning all the require-

ments, we started designing the UML diagrams.

Table 3: Common design modeling practices.

Design Modeling Practices %

Initial brainstorming 65%

Task allocation 25%

Division of team into sub-team 10%

The results show that 55% of the students spent

4-5 hours per week for team collaboration and un-

derstanding project speciﬁcations so that the design

diagrams remain consistent throughout the project.

Moreover, 60% of students spent more than 10 hours

per week deﬁning the UML diagrams.

RQ2: What Are the Technical Challenges Faced

in Modeling, Team Coordination and Communi-

cation Support That Affect the Design Process in

Distributed Teams? As shown in Table 4, 68%

of students reported communication challenges while

working in the distributed team: Scheduling meetings

in time slots available for everyone was challenging.

Also, to work without tools like pen and paper to

sketch ideas resulted in a communication gap.

To collaborate within teams, students used various

collaboration tools (Table 5) for project management

Table 4: Team communication and technical challenges.

Communication challenges %

Unable to share idea 30%

Arranging team meeting 30%

Audio distortion 8%

Technical challenges %

Variant design notation 30%

Live editing not supported 20%

Internet connectivity 20%

Limited access as free user 15%

and development. According to the students, the efﬁ-

cient user interface was the main reason for choosing

the tools. However, while using collaboration tools

85% of the students faced technical challenges (Table

4) that were mainly related to limited support of com-

mercial collaboration tool as a free user or internet

connectivity issue causing voice distortion. The tech-

nical challenges we faced were mainly related to the

automated tool used for design diagrams. Although

the tool we used was efﬁcient but it lacked some ﬂexi-

bility regarding the graphical adjustments.

Table 5: Common team collaboration tools.

Goal Tool names

Communication WhatsApp, Telegram, Mi-

crosoft Teams

Software Design LucidChart, Draw.io

RQ3: How Are the Challenges Addressed in an

Online Course to Improve the Distributed Team

Management for Software Design and Modeling

Process? During the group interviews, ﬁve teams

shared the importance of expert opinion to address

any issue/challenge in the design process. Based on

collective results, 65% of students faced disagree-

ment within the team while developing UML dia-

grams, whereas 35% students rarely disagreed on the

design decisions. The results show that the most com-

mon challenges were the different understanding of

the course guidelines for building UML diagrams or

different interpretations of the requirements, which

led to communication challenges within the teams:

We had disagreements because of different interpre-

tations of the case studies. Sometimes there were am-

biguities in the statement of the problem which could

lead us to have different interpretations which there-

fore lead us to disagreement in the design phase.

6 DISCUSSION

Based on the results, we identiﬁed design and model-

ing activities as relevant factors for the success of the

Software Design and Modeling Practices in an Online Software Engineering Course: The Learners’ Perspective

671

distributed teams. Students prefer working in the dis-

tributed environment; however, they suggested a bal-

anced approach in which initial face-to-face meetings

serve to gain a better understanding of the project and

explore the expertise of each member for efﬁcient and

well-structured task allocation and distribution.

We present the following Lessons Learned (LL) to

build best practices for managing software design and

modeling activities for online course projects.

LL1. Deﬁne Standard Terminologies for the

Project. During the interview, some teams observed

that sometimes they used variant terms for the same

subject in design diagrams, which caused inconsis-

tency in the software architecture diagrams and com-

munication gaps within teams. The lack of consen-

sus on the standard terms to be used in the project

is indeed a well-known issue in GSE (Peixoto et al.,

2018). Therefore, educators and researchers need to

use standard terminologies to manifest a clear un-

derstanding for students to articulate terms related to

software modeling and design artifacts.

LL2. Deﬁne the Standard List of Collabora-

tion Tools to Use. The instructor provided a list of

possible collaboration tools for project management,

team communication, and design diagram. Thus,

each group chose a different set of collaboration

tools. However, many studies reported that standard

tools provide better support and interaction in a dis-

tributed environment (Sarma and Hoek, 2002; Lanu-

bile, 2003). Based on the collected interview data, Ta-

ble 6 suggests a list of collaboration tools for software

design and modeling in a distributed environment.

LL3. Early Identiﬁcation of Architectural Arti-

fact Dependencies. During our interviews, some

teams mentioned that they worked in sub-teams; this

affected their entire architectural plan because the

modules were tightly coupled, and communication

with other sub-teams was needed. While working

in a distributed environment, it is crucial to plan

subsystem and architectural dependencies to deﬁne

clear responsibilities for the team: Bosch and Bosch-

Sijtsema (Bosch and Bosch Sijtsema, 2010) discussed

an architecture-centric framework to reduce architec-

tural artifact dependencies within teams. This shows

the importance of letting students identify dependen-

cies early in the project to increase cohesion and efﬁ-

ciency in software design and modeling.

LL4. Frequent Design Reviews. In a distributed

environment, it is crucial to keep the team synchro-

nized and aware of all the design change decisions

(Cusumano, 2008). In this study, students reported

being aware of the changes done within the project

whereas, there was variance in the diagrams in respect

to the initial discussion. This shows the importance

of communication and frequent design reviews within

the team to facilitate coherent design diagrams.

LL5. Introduce Face-to-Face Kick-off Meetings.

Based on the results, many students prefer working

in a distributed environment; however, they reported

challenges in eliciting project speciﬁcation and pri-

oritization as they could not transfer ideas in video-

conference meetings. Students suggested having a

kick-off meeting in the start of the project so that

all members can meet, do brainstorming to explore

project speciﬁcations, and allocate the initial tasks

based on each member’s expertise. This will be then

followed up with weekly progress online meetings to

discuss project backlog. In a recent study by Smite et

al. (Smite et al., 2021) on working in a distributed

environment, many practitioners also supported the

idea to reinforce face-to-face team meetings to in-

crease team cohesion, problem-solving, and knowl-

edge sharing process. Moreover, it will be helpful to

achieve lesson learned LL3 to capture emerging as-

pects at early stage of software design process.

7 LIMITATION AND VALIDITY

We acknowledge that the number of participants (i.e.,

30 students) might represent a possible limitation to

the validity of the results of this study. Furthermore,

the individual questionnaire received 20 responses,

which again might affect the results. Moreover, we

used thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2012) to

evaluate qualitative results, which could suffer from

issues related to data transparency. To limit this prob-

lem, while extracting results, we validated all the an-

swers against each question to build consistency be-

tween the research questions and reported answers.

Using a mixed-method approach to collect data

helped us to increase validity. To avoid any potential

bias, the third author (i.e., the course instructor) was

not involved in the interviews. Furthermore, we fol-

lowed the validity analysis and threat guidelines pro-

vided by Wohlin et al. (Wohlin et al., 2012) to miti-

gate research bias. Possible threats to construct valid-

ity is related to how empirical evidence was used to

report research ﬁndings. To mitigate threats to con-

struct validity, we created an anonymous question-

naire to ensure data conﬁdentiality and avoid evalu-

ation apprehension. To increase external validity, the

materials of the research study can be used by other

researchers within the Software Engineering ﬁeld in-

volved in software modeling and design practices to

have a broader perspective for distributed environ-

ment in academia.

CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

672

Table 6: Suggested tools for software design and modeling in GSE projects.

Type Name Features Drawbacks

Project man-

agement

Jira Features for agile teams, such as Scrum board, Kan-

ban board, roadmaps, agile reports, project tracking and

management. Mobile application supported

Free access up to 10

users

Software de-

sign diagram

Draw.io Web-based application to create ﬂowcharts, network di-

agrams, UML diagrams, ER models, etc.

The web application

lags if worked for

long hours

Team com-

munication

Microsoft

Teams

Integration with the Ofﬁce 360 suite, teams and channel

creation, chat function, document storage, screen shar-

ing, group video and audio call, support desktop/mobile

application

No uniﬁed search bar

for available prod-

ucts

8 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE

WORK

GSE project-based courses teach development prac-

tices in a distributed environment. In this work, we

analyzed planning and organization activities of soft-

ware design and modeling process in an online Soft-

ware Engineering course. We addressed the socio-

technical challenges students faced in modeling soft-

ware design diagrams within distributed teams.

We used a mixed-method approach to assess four

GSE elements – communication practices, team col-

laboration, task allocation and distribution, and us-

age of collaboration tools. The results indicate that

most teams used initial brainstorming as design mod-

eling practice although most teams reported that they

faced difﬁculty to share idea in distributed environ-

ment. Furthermore, most teams shared that the vari-

ant design notations in each design tools caused dif-

ﬁculty in project management and design develop-

ment. However, there was no major effect reported

by teams, in fact most teams supported the idea of

working in distributed environment.

Instructors can beneﬁt from the presented empiri-

cal evidence to explore emerging aspects of software

design and modeling activities that could be of value

in GSE project-based courses and apply our lessons

learned to their contexts. In the future, we plan to

study planning and organization practices used for

software design and modeling in the industrial sector.

This will provide a comparative analysis of both sec-

tors to propose solutions to enhance software design

practices for the distributed environment.

REFERENCES

Cavrak, I., Bosni

c, I., Ciccozzi, F., and Mirandola, R.

(2019). Resilience of distributed student teams to

stress factors: A longitudinal case-study. Information

and Software Technology, 114:258–274.

Bass, J. M., McDermott, R., and Lalchandani, J. (2015).

Virtual teams and employability in global software en-

gineering education. In 2015 IEEE 10th International

Conference on Global Software Engineering, pages

115–124.

Beecham, S., Clear, T., Damian, D., Barr, J., Noll, J., and

Scacchi, W. (2017). How best to teach global soft-

ware engineering? educators are divided. IEEE Softw.,

34(1):16–19.

Beecham, S., OLeary, P., Richardson, I., Baker, S., and

Noll, J. (2013). Who are we doing global software

engineering research for? In 2013 IEEE 8th Inter-

national Conference on Global Software Engineering,

pages 41–50.

Bosch, J. and Bosch Sijtsema, P. (2010). Coordination be-

tween global agile teams: From process to architec-

ture. In Agility Across Time and Space, pages 217–

233. Springer.

Bosni

c, I. and

Cavrak, I. (2019). Project work division in

agile distributed student teams - who develops what?

In 2019 ACM/IEEE 14th Int. Conference on Global

Software Engineering (ICGSE), pages 162–171.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. APA

handbook of research methods in psychology. Re-

search designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsy-

chological, and biological, 2:57–71.

Capilla, R., Jansen, A., Tang, A., Avgeriou, P., and Babar,

M. A. (2016). 10 years of software architecture

knowledge management: Practice and future. Jour-

nal of Systems and Software, 116:191–205.

Clear, T. and Beecham, S. (2019). Global software engi-

neering education practice continuum special issue of

the acm transactions on computing education. ACM

Tr. Comput. Educ., 19(2).

Colomo-Palacios, R., Casado-Lumbreras, C., Soto-Acosta,

P., Garc

ıa-Pe

nalvo, F. J., and Tovar, E. (2014). Project

managers in global software development teams: a

study of the effects on productivity and performance.

Software Quality Journal, 22(1):3–19.

Cusumano, M. A. (2008). Managing software development

in globally distributed teams. Communications of the

ACM, 51(2):15–17.

Software Design and Modeling Practices in an Online Software Engineering Course: The Learners’ Perspective

673

Dikert, K., Paasivaara, M., and Lassenius, C. (2016). Chal-

lenges and success factors for large-scale agile trans-

formations: A systematic literature review. Journal of

Systems and Software, 119:87–108.

Ebert, C., Kuhrmann, M., and Prikladnicki, R. (2016).

Global software engineering: Evolution and trends. In

2016 IEEE 11th International Conference on Global

Software Engineering (ICGSE), pages 144–153.

Fortaleza, L. L., Conte, T., Marczak, S., and Prikladnicki, R.

(2012). Towards a gse international teaching network:

Mapping global software engineering courses. In Pro-

ceedings of the Second International Workshop on

Collaborative Teaching of Globally Distributed Soft-

ware Development, CTGDSD ’12, page 1–5.

Fronza, I., Corral, L., Wang, X., and Pahl, C. (2022).

Keeping fun alive: an experience report on running

online coding camps. In Proceedings of the 44nd

International Conference on Software Engineering:

Software Engineering Education and Training (ICSE-

SEET ’22), New York, NY, USA. ACM.

Hoda, R., Babar, M. A., Shastri, Y., and Yaqoob, H.

(2017). Socio-cultural challenges in global software

engineering education. IEEE Transactions on Educa-

tion, 60(3):173–182.

Iftikhar, A., Alam, M., Musa, S., and Su’ud, M. M.

(2017). Trust development in virtual teams to im-

plement global software development (gsd): A struc-

tured approach to overcome communication barriers.

In 2017 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Engi-

neering Technologies and Social Sciences (ICETSS),

pages 1–5.

Jain, R. and Suman, U. (2015). A systematic literature re-

view on global software development life cycle. SIG-

SOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, 40(2):1–14.

Jalali, S. and Wohlin, C. (2012). Global software engineer-

ing and agile practices: a systematic review. Journal

of software: Evolution and Process, 24(6):643–659.

Jolak, R., Savary-Leblanc, M., Dalibor, M., Wortmann,

A., Hebig, R., Vincur, J., Polasek, I., Le Pallec,

X., G

erard, S., and Chaudron, M. R. (2020). Soft-

ware engineering whispers: The effect of textual vs.

graphical software design descriptions on software de-

sign communication. Empirical Software Engineer-

ing, 25(6):4427–4471.

Kropp, M., Meier, A., and Biddle, R. (2016). Teaching ag-

ile collaboration skills in the classroom. In 2016 IEEE

29th International Conference on Software Engineer-

ing Education and Training (CSEET), pages 118–127.

Lanubile, F. (2003). A p2p toolset for distributed require-

ments elicitation. In Proc. of the International Work-

shop on Global Software Development (GSD 2003),

Portland, Oregon, USA.

Olayinka, O. and Stannett, M. (2020). Experienc-

ing the shefﬁeld team software project: A project-

based learning approach to teaching agile. In

2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Confer-

ence (EDUCON), pages 1299–1305.

Peixoto, A., Gonz

alez, C. S. G., Strachan, R., Plaza, P.,

de los Angeles Martinez, M., Blazquez, M., and Cas-

tro, M. (2018). Diversity and inclusion in engineer-

ing education: Looking through the gender question.

In 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Confer-

ence (EDUCON), pages 2071–2075.

Portillo-Rodr

ıguez, J., Vizca

ıno, A., Piattini, M., and

Beecham, S. (2012). Tools used in global software

engineering: A systematic mapping review. Informa-

tion and Software Technology, 54(7):663–685.

Sako, M. (2021). From remote work to working from any-

where. Commun. ACM, 64(4):20–22.

Saleem, N., Mathrani, S., and Taskin, N. (2019). Under-

standing the different levels of challenges in global

software development. In 2019 ACM/IEEE 14th Inter-

national Conference on Global Software Engineering

(ICGSE), pages 76–77.

Sarma, A. and Hoek, A. (2002). Palantir: Increasing aware-

ness in distributed software development. In Interna-

tional Workshop in Global Software Development at

ICSE.

Shaﬁq, M., Zhang, Q., Akbar, M. A., Kamal, T., Mehmood,

F., and Riaz, M. T. (2020). Towards successful global

software development. In Proceedings of the Evalu-

ation and Assessment in Software Engineering, page

445–450. Association for Computing Machinery.

Sievi-Korte, O., Beecham, S., and Richardson, I. (2019).

Challenges and recommended practices for software

architecting in global software development. Infor-

mation and Software Technology, 106:234–253.

Smite, D., Moe, N. B., Klotins, E., and Gonzalez-Huerta, J.

(2021). From forced working-from-home to working-

from-anywhere: Two revolutions in telework.

Smite, D., Wohlin, C., Gorschek, T., and Feldt, R. (2010).

Empirical evidence in global software engineering: a

systematic review. Empirical software engineering,

15(1):91–118.

Vallon, R., Spiesberger, P., Zofﬁ, M., Zrelski, C., Dr

ager,

C., and Grechenig, T. (2018). Teaching global soft-

ware engineering in a remote customer environment.

In 2018 IEEE 10th International Conference on Engi-

neering Education (ICEED), pages 63–68.

Vizca

ıno, A., Garc

ıa, F., Garc

ıa, I., Guzm

an, R. D., and

Angeles Moraga, M. (2019). Evaluating gsd-aware:

A serious game for discovering global software devel-

opment challenges. ACM Tr. Comput. Educ., 19(2).

Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., H

ost, M., Ohlsson, M. C., Reg-

nell, B., and Wessl

en, A. (2012). Experimentation in

software engineering. Springer Science & Business

Media.

CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

674