Navigation auf uzh.ch
Navigation auf uzh.ch
For this course we will use Perusall and the weekly readings will be uploaded to the Perusall course specified in OLAT. The objective for using the Perusall application is to have students actively read, annotate, and discuss the readings online and before class. Perusall is an interactive application that allows you to share thoughts and questions with each other and to respond to other comments/annotations.
The reading of the papers will be graded based on: reading the paper, annotating where you have questions and comments, and the interactions with others. Therefor, make sure to read the papers within perusall and interactively annotated it.
In addition to reading the papers, there is also another deliverable, such as a short write up of a research question or a way to study one. The deliverables below provide more details on these.
Throughout the semester, there will also be several times when we will discuss the research ideas & projects, and there will be project milestones, such as for the proposals, the write up, the peer reviews, and the presentations.
| Date | Topic & Material | Deliverable |
| 18.9 |
Introduction
|
Intro Slides |
| 27.9 | (Empirical) Research in Software Engineering
3 Readings (on Perusall): (1) What makes good research in software engineering? Shaw, International Journal on Software Tools for Technology, 2002. (Paper) (2) Experimental models for validating technology, Zelkowitz et al., IEEE Computer, 1998. (Paper) (3) The ABC of Software Engineering Research, Stol et al., ACM TSE, 2018. (Paper)
|
READ and ANNOTATE all 3 papers on Perusall, the latest by midnight before class (interactively annotate each paper with comments and questions you have)
IDENTIFY ONE research question/problem and a way to address/study it in a course project and CREATE a max 2min presentation (max 2 slides in PDF) due on Sunday 24.9 at 8pm (CET) (hand in by email, name the presentation LASTNAME_FIRSTNAME_RQ_01.pdf) present to class 25.9 and take part in the discussion of papers
Some questions that developers or data scientists ask about developers (as ideas for projects):
Optional reading (not required!): Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering, Kitchenham et al., IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2002. |
| 02.10 |
Productivity (Pr1) The Work Life of Developers: Activities, Switches and Perceived Productivity. Andre N. Meyer, Laura E. Barton, Gail C. Murphy, Thomas Zimmermann, and Thomas Fritz. IEEE TSE 2017. (Paper) (Pr2) How Gamification Affects Software Developers: Cautionary Evidence from a Quasi-Experiment on GitHub. Lukas Moldon, Markus Strohmaier, Johannes Wachs. ICSE 2021. (Paper) (Pr3) TimeAware: Leveraging Framing Effects to Enhance Personal Productivity/ Young-Ho Kim, Jae Ho Jeon, Eun Kyoung Choe, Bongshin Lee, KwonHyun Kim, and Jinwook Seo. CHI 2016. (Paper) |
READ and ANNOTATE all 3 papers on Perusall, the latest by midnight before class (interactively annotate each paper with comments and questions you have)
Task: Assume you are a researcher, and after you read the 3 papers, you are asked to come up with a novel approach to provide a developer feedback on their productivity during their workday. |
| 09.10 |
Focus & Flow
(FF1) Using Logs Data to Identify When Software Engineers Experience Flow or Focused Work/ Adam Brown, Sarah D'Angelo, Ben Holtz, Ciera Jaspan, and Collin Green. CHI 2023. (Paper) (FF2) Workgraph: personal focus vs interruption for engineers at meta. Yifen Chen, Peter C. Rigby, Yulin Chen, Kun Jiang, Nader Dehghani, Qianying Huang, Peter Cottle, Clayton Andrews, Noah Lee, and Nachiappan Nagappan. ESEC/FSE 2022. (Paper) (FF3) Focused Time Saves Nine: Evaluating Computer–Assisted Protected Time for Hybrid Information Work. Vedant Das Swain, Javier Hernandez, Brian Houck, Koustuv Saha, Jina Suh, Ahad Chaudhry, Tenny Cho, Wendy Guo, Shamsi Iqbal, and Mary P Czerwinski. CHI 2023. (Paper)
|
READ and ANNOTATE all 3 papers on Perusall, the latest by midnight before class (interactively annotate each paper with comments and questions you have)
Task: Based on the papers you read, you heard a lot about focus and interruptions and how one might measure or improve focus in a field experiment. Your task is to come up with ONE research question that you consider interesting in the area of focus & interruptions and that one can study using a laboratory / controlled experiment.
|
| 16.10 |
Coding and LLMs (CL1) In-IDE Generation-based Information Support with a Large Language Model. Nam, Daye & Macvean, Andrew & Hellendoorn, Vincent & Vasilescu, Bogdan & Myers, Brad. (2023). (Paper) (CL2) Who answers it better? An in-depth analysis of ChatGPT and Stack Overflow Answers to SE Questions. S. Kabir, D. N. Udo-Imeh, B. Kou, T. Zhang. 2023. (Paper) (CL3) Code to comment "translation": data, metrics, baselining & evaluation. David Gros, Hariharan Sezhiyan, Prem Devanbu, and Zhou Yu. ASE 2021. (Paper) |
READ and ANNOTATE all 3 papers on Perusall, the latest by midnight before class (interactively annotate each paper with comments and questions you have)
Task: You are asked to investigate the benefits and drawbacks of ChatGPT for novice developers in a small controlled lab study, with a time frame of only 3 months (for designing and studying it). State what your research question would be (it has to be more specific than just the benefits/drawbacks of ChatGPT) and describe (in full sentences) how you would study/analyze it. Try to think about which measures / data you could collect during the experiment to analyze it. (Maximum of 200 words) Note: it is important to be concise in your write-up since 200 words are very few; however, this should not subtract from the content or quality. Text constraints are a harsh reality of scientific writing, which we increasingly encounter as we advance in research (think of the 100-word abstracts most conferences require). It is harder and usually takes more time to write more concisely and shorter. |
| 18.10 | Project Proposal Draft Due |
Project Proposal 21/22.10: proposal discussions |
| 23.10 | Presenting proposals in class | Proposal presentation due on 22.10 at 8pm (CET) |
| 23 and 24.10 | Proposal discussions | Project Proposal Discussions (30mins each) |
| 27.10 | Final Proposal Due | Project Proposal |
| 30.10 |
Code Comprehension and Review (CR2) Quality evaluation of modern code reviews through intelligent biometric program comprehension. H. Hijazi et al., TSE 2023. (Paper) (CR3) Helping developers help themselves: automatic decomposition of code review changesets. Mike Barnett, Christian Bird, João Brunet, Shuvendu K. Lahiri. ICSE 2015. (Paper)
|
READ and ANNOTATE all 3 papers on Perusall, the latest by midnight before class (interactively annotate each paper with comments and questions you have)
Task: tba
|
| 06.11 |
Scrum + weekly meetings |
short update report |
| 13.11 |
Progress Presentation & Discussion
|
Study Sessions |
| 22.11 | Controlled experiment (potentially + scrum + weekly meeting) |
Study Sessions |
| 27.11 |
Controlled experiment (potentially + scrum + weekly meeting)
rough draft due 03.12 (not graded!) |
Study Sessions |
| 04.12 | Scrum + Weekly meeting | |
|
08.12 8pm |
Project report is due & you will receive two reports for reviewing |
Project report (max 5 pages excluding references and optional Appendix) |
|
15.12 12pm noon |
Peer reviews are due & you will receive two peer-reviews for your project report for possible feedback before the presentation |
peer-reviews of two other reports |
| 18.12 | Presenting project to class | 5-min presentation |
