Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies

2020 Edition
| Editors: Arthur Tatnall

Software Development Processes Designed for First Year Computing Undergraduates

  • Catherine HigginsEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10576-1_180



The increasing use of computing and mobile technologies over the past 15 years has had a dramatic impact on both personal and professional lives. This rapid growth in technologies has also increased the demand for skilled software developers, and this demand is increasing on a global scale. A report from the United States Department of Labor (2015) states that employment in the computing industry is expected to grow by 12% from 2014 to 2024 which is a higher statistic than the average for other industries.

Despite this demand for computing graduates, it is recognized that a significant barrier for increasing the numbers of computing graduates lies in the inherent difficulty of learning how to develop quality software. This difficulty has resulted in significant failure rates globally in computer science programs (in comparison to other disciplines) over the past decade and which speak...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Ackerman A, Simmons K (2016) Write on: digital graphic organizers impact on developing writing skills. In: EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC, USA. pp 7–12Google Scholar
  2. Bandura A (1994) Self-efficacy. In: Ramachaudran VS (ed) Encyclopedia of human behavior, vol 4. Academic, New York, pp 71–81Google Scholar
  3. Boehm B (2006) A view of 20th and 21st century software engineering. In: Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Software engineering. ACM, New York, NY, USA. pp 12–29Google Scholar
  4. Bustard D, Wilkie G, Greer D (2013) The maturation of agile software development principles and practice: observations on successive industrial studies in 2010 and 2012. In: Proceedings of the 20th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on the Engineering of Computer Based Systems (ECBS). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA. pp 139–146Google Scholar
  5. Caspersen ME, Kolling M (2009) STREAM: a first programming process. Trans Comput Educ 9(1):1–29.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1513593.1513597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coffey JW (2015) Relationship between design and programming skills in an advanced computer programming class. J Comput Sci Coll 30(5):39–45Google Scholar
  7. De Raadt M, Watson R, Toleman M (2009) Teaching and assessing programming strategies explicitly. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh Australasian Conference on Computing Education, vol 95. Australian Computer Society, Inc. Darlinghurst, Australia. pp 45–54Google Scholar
  8. Hu M, Winikoff M, Cranefield S (2013) A process for novice programming using goals and plans. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference, vol 136. Australian Computer Society, Inc. Darlinghurst, Australia. pp 3–12Google Scholar
  9. Huang T-C, Shu Y, Chen C-C, Chen M-Y (2013) The development of an innovative programming teaching framework for modifying students’ maladaptive learning pattern. Int J Inf Educ Technol 3(6):591Google Scholar
  10. Kokotovich V (2008) Problem analysis and thinking tools: an empirical study of non-hierarchical mind mapping. Des Stud 29(1):49–69.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.09.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Land R, Cousin G, Meyer JHF, Davies P (2005) Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (3): implications for course design and evaluation. In: Improving student learning diversity and inclusivity. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford, UK. pp 53–64Google Scholar
  12. Li CL, Yang LP, Wang W (2015) Application of mind mapping to improve the teaching effect of Java program design course. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Second International Conference on Computer, Intelligent and Education Technology. Taylor and Francis Group, London, UK. pp 451–454Google Scholar
  13. Loftus C, Thomas L, Zander C (2011) Can graduating students design: revisited. In: Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. ACM, New York, NY, USA. pp 105–110Google Scholar
  14. Maslow AH, Frager R, Fadiman J, McReynolds C, Cox R (1970) Motivation and personality, vol 2. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Morgado C, Barbosa F (2012) A structured approach to problem solving in CS1. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education. ACM, New York, NY, USA. pp 399–399.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2325296.2325415
  16. Neto VL, Coelho R, Leite L, Guerrero DS, Mendon AP (2013) POPT: a problem-oriented programming and testing approach for novice students. In: Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA. pp 1099–1108Google Scholar
  17. Pathak K, Saha A (2013) Review of agile software development methodologies. Int J Adv Res Comput Sci Softw Eng 3(2):270–276Google Scholar
  18. Petersen A, Craig M, Campbell J, Tafliovich A (2016) Revisiting why students drop CS1. In: Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. ACM, New York, NY, USA. pp 71–80  https://doi.org/10.1145/2999541.2999552
  19. Polya G (1957) How to solve it, 2nd edn. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  20. Sanders K, McCartney R (2016) Threshold concepts in computing: past, present, and future. In: Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. ACM, New York, NY, USA. pp 91–100.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2999541.2999546
  21. Sheard J, Carbone A, D’Souza D, Hamilton M (2013) Assessment of programming: pedagogical foundations of exams. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education. ACM, New York, NY, USA. pp 141–146Google Scholar
  22. United States Department of Labor (2015) Computer and information technology occupations. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/home.htm. Accessed 3 Jan 2018
  23. Watson C, Li FWB (2014) Failure rates in introductory programming revisited. In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Innovation & technology in computer science education. ACM, New York, NY, USA. pp 39–44Google Scholar
  24. Wing JM (2006) Computational thinking. Commun ACM 49(3):33–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wright DR (2012) Inoculating novice software designers with expert design strategies. American Society for Engineering Education, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technological University DublinDublinIreland

Section editors and affiliations

  • Bill Davey
    • 1
  1. 1.Business Information TechnologyMelbourneAustralia