在需求工程中,学生参与的受控实验有多普遍?研究生与本科生在需求工程实验中使用与报告的系统映射研究

Marian Daun, Jennifer Brings, Carolin Hübscher
{"title":"在需求工程中,学生参与的受控实验有多普遍?研究生与本科生在需求工程实验中使用与报告的系统映射研究","authors":"Marian Daun, Jennifer Brings, Carolin Hübscher","doi":"10.1109/REW.2017.31","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"[Context] In requirements engineering research, emphasis is given to sound evaluations of new approaches. While industry surveys or industrial case studies are preferred to evaluate industrial applicability, controlled experiments with student participants are commonly used to determine measurements such as effectiveness and efficiency of a proposed approach. [Objectives] In this paper, we elaborate on the current state of the art of controlled experiments using student participants. As threats regarding the generalizability are quite obvious, we want to determine how widespread controlled experiments with student participants are and in which settings they are used. [Methods] This paper reports on a systematic mapping study using requirements engineering specific conferences and a journal as data sources. We scanned requirements engineering papers published in the years 2010-2015 and investigated all papers reporting student experiments in detail. [Results] From 444 papers under investigation 31 report results from controlled experiments. Regarding threats to validity it can be observed that most papers report on threats to validity and commonly different categories of threats to validity are thoroughly discussed. However, many experiments lack information regarding the students' recruitment and other important factors. [Conclusions] Student participation in requirements engineering experiments can be seen as a common evaluation approach and common threats to validity are appropriately discussed. In contrast, student specific threats to validity in experiments with student participants, such as the recruitment strategy and the bonuses given, are commonly not reported.","PeriodicalId":382958,"journal":{"name":"2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW)","volume":"70 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Common are Controlled Experiments with Student Participants in Requirements Engineering?: A Systematic Mapping Study on the Use and Reporting of Graduate and Undergraduate Students in Requirements Engineering Experiments\",\"authors\":\"Marian Daun, Jennifer Brings, Carolin Hübscher\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/REW.2017.31\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"[Context] In requirements engineering research, emphasis is given to sound evaluations of new approaches. While industry surveys or industrial case studies are preferred to evaluate industrial applicability, controlled experiments with student participants are commonly used to determine measurements such as effectiveness and efficiency of a proposed approach. [Objectives] In this paper, we elaborate on the current state of the art of controlled experiments using student participants. As threats regarding the generalizability are quite obvious, we want to determine how widespread controlled experiments with student participants are and in which settings they are used. [Methods] This paper reports on a systematic mapping study using requirements engineering specific conferences and a journal as data sources. We scanned requirements engineering papers published in the years 2010-2015 and investigated all papers reporting student experiments in detail. [Results] From 444 papers under investigation 31 report results from controlled experiments. Regarding threats to validity it can be observed that most papers report on threats to validity and commonly different categories of threats to validity are thoroughly discussed. However, many experiments lack information regarding the students' recruitment and other important factors. [Conclusions] Student participation in requirements engineering experiments can be seen as a common evaluation approach and common threats to validity are appropriately discussed. In contrast, student specific threats to validity in experiments with student participants, such as the recruitment strategy and the bonuses given, are commonly not reported.\",\"PeriodicalId\":382958,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW)\",\"volume\":\"70 4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/REW.2017.31\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/REW.2017.31","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

【背景】在需求工程研究中,重点是对新方法的合理评估。虽然行业调查或工业案例研究更倾向于评估工业适用性,但与学生参与者的对照实验通常用于确定所提议方法的有效性和效率等测量。[目的]在本文中,我们详细阐述了使用学生参与者进行对照实验的现状。由于关于普遍性的威胁是相当明显的,我们想要确定有学生参与者的控制实验有多普遍,以及在哪些环境中使用它们。[方法]本文报告了一项系统的映射研究,使用需求工程特定会议和期刊作为数据源。我们扫描了2010-2015年发表的需求工程论文,并详细调查了所有报告学生实验的论文。[结果]在调查的444篇论文中,31篇报告了对照实验的结果。关于效度威胁,可以观察到大多数论文都报道了效度威胁,并且通常对不同类别的效度威胁进行了深入的讨论。然而,许多实验缺乏关于学生招募和其他重要因素的信息。[结论]学生参与需求工程实验可以被视为一种常见的评估方法,并适当地讨论了对有效性的常见威胁。相比之下,在学生参与的实验中,学生对有效性的特定威胁,如招聘策略和给予的奖金,通常没有报道。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Common are Controlled Experiments with Student Participants in Requirements Engineering?: A Systematic Mapping Study on the Use and Reporting of Graduate and Undergraduate Students in Requirements Engineering Experiments
[Context] In requirements engineering research, emphasis is given to sound evaluations of new approaches. While industry surveys or industrial case studies are preferred to evaluate industrial applicability, controlled experiments with student participants are commonly used to determine measurements such as effectiveness and efficiency of a proposed approach. [Objectives] In this paper, we elaborate on the current state of the art of controlled experiments using student participants. As threats regarding the generalizability are quite obvious, we want to determine how widespread controlled experiments with student participants are and in which settings they are used. [Methods] This paper reports on a systematic mapping study using requirements engineering specific conferences and a journal as data sources. We scanned requirements engineering papers published in the years 2010-2015 and investigated all papers reporting student experiments in detail. [Results] From 444 papers under investigation 31 report results from controlled experiments. Regarding threats to validity it can be observed that most papers report on threats to validity and commonly different categories of threats to validity are thoroughly discussed. However, many experiments lack information regarding the students' recruitment and other important factors. [Conclusions] Student participation in requirements engineering experiments can be seen as a common evaluation approach and common threats to validity are appropriately discussed. In contrast, student specific threats to validity in experiments with student participants, such as the recruitment strategy and the bonuses given, are commonly not reported.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信