Design of Interventions for Instructional Reform in Software Development Education for Competency Enhancement
Table A23.1: Alumni reflections on the effect of mentoring on mentors’ competencies
S.No Competency Votes comparing the effectiveness of
mentoring with other academic
experiences
A. Least effective (-2) Avg.
B. Less effective (-1) rating
C. Comparable (0) (-2 to 2)
D. More effective (1)
E. Most effective (2)
A (-2) B (-1) C (0) D (1) E (2)
1 Intrinsic motivation to create, improve things and 1 5 8 14 9 0.7
open-mindedness.
2 Systems-level perspective, inclination for reuse 0 6 9 18 4 0.5
and synthesis by integration, ability to understand
and also build upon other’s work.
3 Accountability and responsibility, strength of 0 1 9 15 12 1
conviction, and self-regulation, ability to see
the self as bound to all humans with ties of
recognition and concern, sensitivity towards
global, societal, environmental, moral, ethical
and professional issues, and sustainability
4 Curiosity with humility, self-learning, ability 0 4 6 19 8 0.8
to develop good understanding of domains’
vocabulary, semantics, and thinking processes,
faith in reason, and review.
5 Ability to accommodate self to others, ability 0 3 8 15 11 0.9
to work such that others can easily understand
and build upon.
6 Problem solving, ability to convert ill-defined 0 3 13 8 13 0.8
problematic situations into software solvable
problem, project scoping , estimation
7 Attention to details. 0 1 11 18 7 0.8
8 Abstraction, transition between levels of 0 5 14 12 5 0.5
abstraction.
9 Algorithmic and structured thinking, 0 2 18 12 5 0.5
10 Critical and reflective thinking, 0 3 11 11 12 0.9
11 Creativity and innovation, 0 3 12 12 10 0.8
12 Technical, domain competence. 0 3 9 19 5 0.7
13 Communication skills. 0 1 7 21 7 1
14 Analytical, design, debugging skills. 0 3 11 12 11 0.8
15 Decision making skills. 0 0 10 23 4 0.8
16 Project planning, management. 1 1 8 20 7 0.8
Total 2 44 164 239 130
Average 0.1 2.8 10.3 14.9 8.1 0.8
In terms of recalling the significant advantages of mentoring, in the context of their later
academic/professional activities, some comments of these 37, and other 9 alumni respondents,
are given in Table A23.2.
363
Table A23.2: Advantages of mentoring as identified by alumni
1. Properly defining problem
2. … best thing I learnt was to look at the other side of the coin …
3. …ability to move from macro to micro details and vice versa, patience and openness to critically analyze
alternative approaches…
4. … working with unknown person or a team …
5. … Working in such large team and coordinating with multiple project …
6. Things which I thought I understood were actually understood while I was making someone else understand.
… It helps the mentor grow in almost every dimension … subject matter is strengthened and he gains clarity
… one gets to hear his own thoughts … It’s one of the best ways to discover ourselves and our creativity.
7. Makes you feel like a bigger person. Makes you believe in yourself more when others believe in you …
8. … instilled a sense of an extra added responsibility…
9. … I had to explain them in a simple manner…
10. … improved my ability to present the same topic from different angles …
11. … my confidence increased as I matured with classes, my tolerating power increased … my ability to think
out of the box and also trying to think more than students and also commenting on their performance
increased my critical analysis ability...
12. Having to explain one's thinking to someone else seems to help get it straight in one's own mind …
13. … one is able to find out gaps in knowledge and determine understanding of the subject …
14. … I realized that every problem could be solved through different techniques … Mentoring helps thinking
out of the box … the joy you get when they come out with flying colors is incomparable
15. You tend to bring out the best in you
16. Questions thrown up by the mentee sometimes made me look deeper for some concepts to which I had never
paid much attention earlier …
17. I was able to better revise my subjects …
18. … communicate effectively, use and upgrade his own skills
19. … I also noticed a change in the way I started explaining things to other people …
20. … It gave me the chance to continuously improve myself …
21. Mentoring provide inner satisfaction. … makes you a better person …you have to critically analyze the
drawbacks and tradeoffs and justify your advisee, which makes things clearer to you … you learn how to
read and understand someone else's code … more responsible, more disciplined … It motivates you to
become better at your own work
22. It helped me shape my personality and enhanced my leadership and interpersonal skills. … my tolerating
power and patience had surely increased … I was able to communicate much better to different people and
could express my ideas in a more effective manner.
23. …Self-confidence level increased … got to know varied and completely out of the box concepts … patience
level increased. I had to give a logical explanation as to why this idea will/will not work… understood that
teaching is not an easy job…
24. The decision making and project management skills that got polished during the mentoring really helped me
in long term
364
Appendix A24: Advantages of Mentoring as Identified by Final Year Students
Involved in Cross-level Mentoring of Juniors, 2009
1. good revision of all fundamentals and some good genuine doubts solutions
2. … deal with my subordinates
3. … unique addition to my ability
4. give my hundred percent knowledge and also act like a team leader
5. … into every problems in different ways and helps us to find various solutions.
6. Patience and listening
7. Enhancing my teaching skills
8. … think more and think in line with the people working with me and in my surroundings
9. helpful to me for some higher examinations
10. deeper understanding
11. I am gaining on mentoring skills and ways to communicate a problem to different people. Also it is helping
me understand the mind of different coders.
12. … now that we are going to sit for placements, it’s very important
13. Communication skill in explaining ourselves to others
14. I am much more expressive now and can explain and present things better
15. boosts my confidence and helps me in the process of self-learning
16. understand the responsibilities and duties of being a supervisor
17. Building rapport with different kinds of students, understanding others; code, Taking responsibility
18. I have found a teacher inside me.
19. would definitely aid me in applying for Teaching Assistantship
20. built my leadership quality a lot
21. I want to become a lecturer so it’s helping me understand the student mind
22. Improved leadership skills, multiple perspectives
23. I can now understand the problems which a new comer faces
24. Keeps me update
25. I am strengthening my concepts of programming
26. be more receptive to the problems of others
27. quality of working as a team leader and resolving the problems faced by the people
28. inculcating qualities of a project manager
29. will definitely help me in campus selection
30. I have clarified my concepts on requirement engineering which has helped me in my final year project
report
31. software quality and testing concepts along with designing
32. how to approach towards a given problem
33. learning some new technologies
34. It helps me to understand how a problem is perceived differently by different people and hence helps me to
understand the common error which a coder can do and in future I’ll try to remove those technical snags
which usually don't come to mind
35. Broadened our mental skills
365
Annexure AN1: Important Theories about Human Learning, Intelligence, and
Thinking
During the course of this study, we have studied a large number of theories of education,
‘learning’, intelligence, human development, curriculum design, and thinking. Tables A’1.1a and
A’1.1b list some of these important theories and modes.
Table AN1.1a: A chronological list of some important theories about human learning, intelligence, and thinking
(pre 1990)
1. Connectionism (Thorndike, 1913)
2. Genetic epistemology (Piaget, 1915)
3. Theory of Curriculum (Bobbit, 1918)
4. Social development theory (Vygotsky, 1920s)
5. Gestalt theory (Wertheimer, 1924).
6. Theory of cognitive development (Piaget, 1930s
onwards)
7. Contiguity theory (Guthrie, 1938)
8. Fluid and crystallized intelligence (Cattell, 1941)
9. A theory of human motivation (Maslow, 1943)
10. Theory of inventive problem solving
(TRIZ/TIPS) (Altshuller, 1946)
11. Phenomenology (Rogers, 1951),
12. Information processing theory (Miller, 1956)
13. Taxonomy of educational objectives (Bloom,
1956)
14. Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957)
15. Motivation to work (Herzber, 1959)
16. Two cultures (Snow, 1959)
17. Originality (Maltzman, 1960)
18. Conditions of learning (Gagne, 1962)
19. Systems thinking (Emery and Trist, 1965)
20. Constructivist theory (Bruner, 1966)
21. Structure of intellect (Guilford, 1967)
22. Lateral thinking (Edward de Bono, 1967)
23. Experiential learning (Rogers, 1960s)
24. Sub-sumption theory (Ausubel, 1960s)
25. The stage theory (Atkinson and Shiffrin 1968)
26. ERG theory (Alderfer, 1969)
27. Intellectual and ethical development (Perry,
1970)
28. Androgogy (Knowles, 1970)
29. Levels of processing (Craik and Lockart, 1970s)
30. Framework of reflective activities (Borton,
1970)
31. Conscious competence theory (Gordon Institute,
early 1970s)
32. Classification of disciplines (Biglan, 1973)
33. Attribution theory (Weiner, 1974)
34. Conversation theory (Pask, 1976)
35. Double loop learning (Chris Argyris, 1976)
36. Approaches to learning (Marton and Saljo, 1976)
37. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977)
38. Theory of tri-archic intelligence (Sternberg, 1977)
39. Script theory (Schank, 1970s and 80s)
40. Modes of learning (Norman and Rumelhart, 1978)
41. Logical categories of learning (Bateson, 1979)
42. Flow theory of motivation (Csikszentmihalyi 1979)
43. Four quadrant model of the brain (Herrmann’s 1979)
44. Repair theory (Brown and VanLehn, 1980)
45. Self determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 1980
onwards)
46. Adult learning theory (Cross, 1981)
47. Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes
(SOLO) Taxonomy (Biggs and Collis, 1982)
48. Multiple intelligence theory (Gardner, 1983)
49. Component display theory (Merrill, 1983)
50. Tri-archaic theory of intelligence (Sternberg, 1970s
and 80s)
51. Learning style and experiential learning theory
(Kolb, 1984)
52. Concept mapping and Vee mapping (Novak and
Gowin, 1984)
53. Nature of moral stages (Kohlberg, 1984)
54. Mathematical problem solving (Schoenfeld, 1985)
55. Intellectual functioning in three levels (Costa, 1985)
56. Levels of professional expertise (Dreyfus brothers,
1985)
57. Women’s 5 ways of knowing (Belenky et al, 1986)
58. Cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1988)
59. Cognitive apprenticeship (Collins et al, 1987)
60. Four perspectives on professional expertise
(Kennedy, 1987)
61. Knowing in action (Schön, 1987)
62. 3P model (Biggs, 1987-99)
63. Dimensions of learning (Marzano, 1988)
64. Mental self-government learning theory (Sternberg,
1988)
65. Style of learning and teaching (Entwistle, 1988)
66. Framework for reflection (Gibbs, 1988)
67. Cognitive load theory (J. Sweller, 1988)
68. Framework for reflection on action (Smyth, 1989)
366
Table AN1.1b: A chronological list of some important theories about human learning, intelligence, and thinking
(1990 onwards)
69. Minimalism (Carrol, 1990)
70. Situated learning (Lave and Wenger, 1991)
71. Investment theory of creativity (Sternberg, 1991)
72. Curriculum integration (Fogarty, 1991)
73. Cognitive flexibility theory (Spiro et al, 1992)
74. Capability (Stephenson, 1992)
75. Model of critical thinking (APA, 1992-2006)
76. Epistemological reflection model (Baxter-Magolda,
1992)
77. Value inventory (Schwartz, 1992)
78. Learner managed learning (Graves, 1993)
79. Reflective judgment model (King and Kitchener,
1994)
80. Learning by design (Kolodner et al, 1995-2004)
81. Model of critical thinking (Paul, 1996)
82. Work-based learning (Gattegno, 1996; Hase, 1998).
83. CHC theory (McGrew 1997, Flanagan 1998)
84. Intelligence as developing expertise (Sternberg,
1997)
85. Framework of learning style (Vermunt, 1998)
86. Socialisation, Externalisation, Combination, and
Internatisation (SECI) (Noanaka &Takeuchi, 1998)
87. Action learning (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1998)
88. Propulsion theory of creativity (Sternberg, 1999)
89. Ergonagy (Tanaka and Evers, 1999)
90. Constructivist alignment (Biggs, 1999)
91. Phases in critical reflective inquiry (Kim,1999)
92. Collaborative learning (Dillenbourg, 1999)
93. Heutagogy (Hase and Kenyon, 2000)
94. Taxonomy of learning (Marzano, 2000)
95. Framework of critical thinking (Minger, 2000)
96. Taxonomy of Curriculum Integration (Harden 2000)
97. Learning Style (Entwistle, 2001)
98. Bloom’s revised taxonomy (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001)
99. Story centered curriculum (Schank, 2002)
100.Models of interplay between emotions and learning
(Kort, 2001)
101.Balance theory of wisdom (Sternberg, 2003)
102.Community of practice ellipse (Medeni, 2004)
103.Spiral of experience based action learning (SEAL)
(Medeni, 2004)
104.Taxonomy of knowledge Types (Carson, 2004)
105.Theory of successful intelligence, (Sternberg, 2005)
106.Framework for information and information
processing of learning systems (Rauterberg, 2005)
107.Six factors of psychological well-being (Ryff &
Singer, 2006)
108.Teaching for wisdom, intelligence, creativity, and
success (Sternberg et al, 2009)
367
Annexure AN2: Competency Recommendations by Accreditation Boards of
Some Countries
The EC2000 criteria defined by Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), United States [90],
recommends that engineering graduates must attain:
a. An ability to apply knowledge of math, science, and engineering,
b. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as analyze and interpret data,
c. An ability to design a system, component or process to meet desired needs,
d. An ability to function in multi-disciplinary team,
e. An ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems,
f. An understanding professional and ethical responsibilities,
g. An ability to communicate effectively,
h. An understanding the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context,
i. A recognition of need and ability to engage in life-long learning,
j. A knowledge of contemporary issues, and
k. An ability to use the techniques, skills and modern engineering tools necessary for
engineering practice.
The Technology Accreditation Commission (TAC) of ABET prescribes the following abilities
for the graduates of an engineering technology program [91]:
a. An appropriate mastery of the knowledge, techniques, skills and modern tools of their
disciplines,
b. An ability to apply current knowledge and adapt to emerging applications of mathematics,
science, engineering and technology,
c. An ability to conduct, analyze and interpret experiments and apply experimental results to
improve processes,
d. An ability to apply creativity in the design of systems, components or processes appropriate
to program objectives,
e. An ability to function effectively on teams,
f. An ability to identify, analyze and solve technical problems,
g. An ability to communicate effectively,
h. A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in lifelong learning,
i. An ability to understand professional, ethical, and social responsibilities,
j. A respect for diversity and a knowledge of contemporary professional, societal and global
issues, and
k. A commitment to quality, timeliness, and continuous improvement.
The Computing Accreditation Commission (CAC) of ABET [92] has proposed that the
program outcomes for information technology and similarly named computing programs
should minimally include the following abilities:
a. Use and apply current technical concepts and practices in the core information technologies;
b. The ability to analyze, identify and define the requirements that must be satisfied to address
problems or opportunities faced by organizations or individuals,
c. Design effective and usable it-based solutions and integrate them into the user environment,
d. Assist in the creation of an effective project plan,
368
e. Identify and evaluate current and emerging technologies and assess their applicability to
address the users’ needs,
f. Analyze the impact of technology on individuals, organizations and society, including
ethical, legal, security, and global policy issues,
g. Demonstrate an understanding of best practices and standards and their application,
h. Demonstrate independent critical thinking and problem solving skills,
i. Collaborate in teams to accomplish a common goal by integrating personal initiative and
group cooperation,
j. Communicate effectively and efficiently with clients, users and peers, both verbally and in
writing, using appropriate terminology, and
k. Recognize the need for continued learning throughout their career.
The United Kingdom Standards for Professional Engineering Competence (UK-SPEC) [93]
has prescribed that an Incorporated Engineer must be able to:
a. Use a combination of general and specialist engineering knowledge and understanding to
apply existing and emerging technology,
b. Apply appropriate theoretical and practical methods to design, develop, manufacture,
construct, commission, operate and maintain engineering products, processes, systems, and
services,
c. Provide technical and commercial management,
d. Demonstrate effective interpersonal skills, and
e. Demonstrate a personal commitment to professional standards, recognizing obligations to
society, the profession and the environment.
The UK-SPEC further refines the first two of these competencies for Chartered Engineers.
A Chartered Engineer must be able to:
a. Use a combination of general and specialist engineering knowledge and understanding to
optimize the application of existing and emerging technology, and
b. Apply appropriate theoretical and practical methods to the analysis and solution of
engineering problems.
The Institution of Engineers, Singapore (IES) [94] defines the following competencies as part
of its accreditation criteria of engineering programs:
a. Apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering,
b. Design and conduct experiments, analyze, interpret data and synthesize valid conclusions,
c. Design a system, component, or process, and synthesize solutions to achieve desired needs,
d. Identify, formulate, research through relevant literature review, and solve engineering
problems reaching substantiated conclusions,
e. Use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice,
with appropriate considerations for public health and safety, cultural, societal, and
environmental constraints,
f. Communicate effectively,
g. Recognize the need for, and have the ability to engage in life-long learning,
h. Understand the impact of engineering solutions in a societal context and to be able to respond
effectively to the needs for sustainable development,
369
i. Function effectively within multi-disciplinary teams and understand the fundamental
precepts of effective project management, and
j. Understand professional, ethical and moral responsibility.
The Engineers Australia Accreditation Board [95] has identified similar generic attributes that
are as follows:
a. Ability to apply knowledge of basic science and engineering fundamentals,
b. Ability to communicate effectively, not only with engineers but also with the community at
large,
c. In depth technical competence in at least one engineering discipline,
d. Ability to undertake problem identification, formulation, and solution,
e. Ability to utilize a systems approach to design and operational performance,
f. Ability to function effectively as an individual and in multi-disciplinary and multi-cultural
teams, with the capacity to be a leader or manager as well as an effective team member,
g. Understanding of social, cultural, global and environmental responsibilities of the
professional engineers and the need of sustainable development,
h. Understanding of the principles of sustainable design and development,
i. Understanding of professional and ethical responsibilities and commitment to them, and
j. Expectation of the need to undertake lifelong learning, and capacity to do so.
The Japan Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (JABEE) [96] emphasizes the
following competency set:
a. The ability and intellectual foundation for considering issues from a global and multi-lateral
viewpoint,
b. Understanding of the effects and impact of technology on society and nature, and of
engineers’ social responsibilities (engineering ethics),
c. Knowledge of mathematics, natural sciences and information technology, and the ability to
apply such knowledge,
d. Specialized engineering knowledge in each applicable field, and the ability to apply such
knowledge to provide solutions to actual problems,
e. Design abilities to organize comprehensive solutions to societal needs by exploiting various
disciplines of science, engineering and information,
f. Japanese-language communications skills including methodical writing, verbal presentation
and debate abilities, as well as basic skills for international communications,
g. The ability to carry on learning on an independent and sustainable basis, and
h. The ability to implement and organize works systematically under given constraints.
370
Accreditation criteria defined by NBA, India
Table AN1.1: Accreditation Criteria and Weights defined by NBA, India
for Diploma (Dip.), Undergraduate (UG), and Postgraduate (PG) Engineering Programs
No Parameters Max. Marks
Dip. UG PG
1 Organization and governance 30 80 50
Planning and Monitoring, Recruitment Procedure & its
Effectiveness, Promotional Policies/Procedure, Leadership,
Motivational Initiatives, Transparency, Decentralization and
Delegation & participation of faculty, and Constitution of General
council and bodies.
2 Financial resources, allocation, and utilization 70 70 50
Budget allocated to the Institution and Utilization.
Budget allocated to the Department and Utilization.
3 Physical resources (central facilities) 50 50 50
Students’ Hostel, Power back up, Reprographic facilities, Bank, Post
Office, Counseling and Guidance, Language Lab., Medical Facility,
Internet Facility, Canteen, and Transport.
4 Human resources: faculty and staff 200 200 200
Faculty
Numbers, Student Faculty Ratio, Cadre ratio, Average experience,
faculty retention, Turnover, Qualifications, Participation of faculty
in Institutional development/Departmental development/Academic
matters/Students, Development/Self growth, Implementation and
Impact of Faculty Development initiatives, Analysis and Follow-up
of Performance appraisal, Service rules, pay package, and
incentives.
Support Staff (Technical/Administrative)
Numbers, Qualification/skills, and Skill up-gradation.
5 Human resources: students 100 100 100
Student admissions, Academic results, Performance in competitive
examinations, and Placement.
6 Teaching-learning processes 450 350 250
Delivery of syllabus, contents, Contents beyond the syllabus,
Academic calendar, Continuous evaluation procedure, Utilization of
Laboratories, Information access facilities, Student-centric learning
initiatives, Students feedback.
7 Supplementary processes 50 50 50
Extra & co-curricular activities, Personality Development initiatives,
Professional society activities, Entrepreneurship Development,
Alumni Interaction, Ethics, and Students Publications/Awards.
8 Research & development and interaction effort
Budget for in-house R&D activities and its utilization,
Academic/Sponsored/Industrial research and development,
Publications and Patents, Industry participation in developmental
and student related activities, Continuing Education, Consultancy
and Testing, Students’ Project Work.
50 100 250
371
Annexure AN3: Some Models for Classification of Competencies
Bloom
In 1956, Benjamin Bloom [133] arranged the educational objectives into six major levels in a
hierarchical order. Beginning with the simplest level and increasing in complexity, these levels
are: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation.
Anderson and Krathwohl
Anderson and Krathwohl modified Bloom’s taxonomy by adding another dimension of
knowledge types: Factual, Conceptual, Procedural, and Meta-cognitive. They renamed the
levels of earlier dimension from nouns to verbs [134]. They also interchanged the positions of
the uppermost two levels.
Costa’s model of intellectual functioning
In 1985, based on this taxonomy, Costa [135] proposed his model of intellectual functioning with
the following three levels:
ii. Recalling information
b. Remember: repeat, match, …
c. Show understanding: paraphrase, give example, locate, summarize, …
iii. Making sense of gathered information
d. Use understanding: operate, apply, demonstrate, infer, relate, …
e. Examine: compare, diagram, categorize, point out, question, outline, …
f. Create: compose, design, prepare, modify, formulate, plan, compile, …
iv. Applying or evaluating information
g. Decide: judge, predict, estimate, select, conclude, rate, evaluate, …
h. Supportive evidence: prove/support your answer, why or why not? ...
Kennedy’s perspectives on professional expertise
Kennedy [136] proposed four alternative perspectives on professional expertise: technical skills,
application of theory or general principles, critical analysis, and deliberate action. If we view
these perspectives as manifestations of different types of emphasized competencies, these can
372